Cities created agriculture?
April 11, 2019 3:14 PM Subscribe
In The Economy of Cities, Jane Jacobs argues that "city economies invent the things that are to become city imports from the rural world, and then they reinvent the rural world so it can supply those imports." She hypothesizes that this applied even to the inventions of agriculture and domestication: Hunter-gatherer-traders created permanent trading settlements, and agriculture and domestication came about as offshoots of other activities that we being done in those settlements. In other words, cities came before agriculture. In the 50 years since she wrote that, has archeology confirmed, denied, or left open her hypothesis?
As a side note, another idea from this book entered mainstream economics (pdf) in the late 1980s as Jacobs externalities.
As a side note, another idea from this book entered mainstream economics (pdf) in the late 1980s as Jacobs externalities.
Best answer: Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu would speak against this notion from an Australian Aboriginal perspective. In order to 'care for country' (a combo of life and culture sustaining practical and spiritual processes), Australian Aboriginal people would move seasonally through their own particular 'nation'. (There were thought to be about 500 nations on the continent before the colonial invasion.)
These seasonally travelling people conducted agriculture and farming on a very large scale - using burning to create cleared landscapes for a variety of agricultural and hunting purposes, seed spreading and harvesting over hundreds and hundreds of acres, fish trapping, and mammal trapping. In other words, they developed agriculture without having cities, towns or permanent all-year villages. Dark Emu uses primary sources by early colonial invaders and explorers who recount the farming and fishing evidence even if, due to their ignorance and bias, they could not relate the miles and miles of stooks they encountered along well worn tracks through cleared valleys, with Aboriginal agricultural agency.
posted by Thella at 4:51 PM on April 11, 2019 [9 favorites]
These seasonally travelling people conducted agriculture and farming on a very large scale - using burning to create cleared landscapes for a variety of agricultural and hunting purposes, seed spreading and harvesting over hundreds and hundreds of acres, fish trapping, and mammal trapping. In other words, they developed agriculture without having cities, towns or permanent all-year villages. Dark Emu uses primary sources by early colonial invaders and explorers who recount the farming and fishing evidence even if, due to their ignorance and bias, they could not relate the miles and miles of stooks they encountered along well worn tracks through cleared valleys, with Aboriginal agricultural agency.
posted by Thella at 4:51 PM on April 11, 2019 [9 favorites]
Best answer: This Smithsonian article talks about the hypothesis put forward by Klaus Schmidt, a German archaeologist working on Gobekli Tepe:
Scholars have long believed that only after people learned to farm and live in settled communities did they have the time, organization and resources to construct temples and support complicated social structures. But Schmidt argues it was the other way around: the extensive, coordinated effort to build the monoliths literally laid the groundwork for the development of complex societies.
You can find a wealth of info by searching for 'Gobekli Tepe' and 'agriculture' on Google scholar. Maybe add 'religion' and/ or 'feasting'.
For an interesting introduction to the notion of gradual transition towards farming and full domestication, see this excerpt from a chapter in The Role of Food, Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries in Human Nutrition.
You can request access to this article about the Multiple Origins of Agriculture in Eurasia and Africa..
posted by doggod at 6:31 PM on April 11, 2019 [5 favorites]
Scholars have long believed that only after people learned to farm and live in settled communities did they have the time, organization and resources to construct temples and support complicated social structures. But Schmidt argues it was the other way around: the extensive, coordinated effort to build the monoliths literally laid the groundwork for the development of complex societies.
You can find a wealth of info by searching for 'Gobekli Tepe' and 'agriculture' on Google scholar. Maybe add 'religion' and/ or 'feasting'.
For an interesting introduction to the notion of gradual transition towards farming and full domestication, see this excerpt from a chapter in The Role of Food, Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries in Human Nutrition.
You can request access to this article about the Multiple Origins of Agriculture in Eurasia and Africa..
posted by doggod at 6:31 PM on April 11, 2019 [5 favorites]
Best answer: I think it might be one of those questions like, "When were dogs domesticated?"
In Australia there is no evidence at this time that did not have a social system of the coming-together of the different nations, with a gathering spot. Some other hunter gatherer people apparently did. It's possible that in some cases cities caused agriculture and in other cases agriculture caused cities.
The research on this question still seems to be at the stage where reputations and careers are being made on taking different views of the question. The simple version of history says that agriculture began when grain was farmed in the area around Turkey. But agriculture began in many different areas with many different crops as the start. It's perfectly possible that grain loaned itself to the creation of cities, where the domestication of the sweet potato did not. It's also perfectly possible that cities made possible the domestication of grain but did not make it possible to domestic sweet potatoes.
Another question to ask is if the spots where people came together before agriculture actually cities? They were permanent settlements, but they may not have had the permanent government and hierarchy that cities typically have.
Let's say there is a spot where their are lavish shellfish beds, and different nomadic hunter gathering people meet there and gather shellfish there. Sometimes as many as three or more groups will be there, but it is no one groups territory. Which group will be at that spot at what time is unpredictable.Trading occurs between the groups when they are there, and diplomatic negotiations. However no one group lives or stays there very long. A few people do stay there, primarily people who are no longer able to live a nomadic life due to their physical condition, or sometimes someone stays there while they wait for another group to come there so that they can see a family member who has married into the other tribe, but then after however many years it takes, they go rejoin their original tribe and continue being nomadic. There are also times over the centuries when there is no one living at the location. Is this location a city?
The question is a really complex and fascinating one. My best guess is that there were many different variations of cities and many different times and ways that agriculture and domestication sprang up and the answer will be different for each instance. The domestication of dogs occurred in many different places and at several different times and for some million years it lasted for awhile and died out without spreading universally. Eventually it did spread universally. But baboons domesticate dogs so you also have to question where that fits and it forces you to redefine what you mean by domestication of dogs. The question might be what first domesticated dogs as it could predate the human species by several million years.
One theory about the beginning of grain domestication is that the wild grain grew so profusely that it was possible for the nomadic people to settle down in one place, and they did so because although having a limited diet based on grain was not good, it was better than risking the violence of tribal conflict that they encountered while nomadic. But it is just a theory. We know that paleolithic people frequently died from violence and there are good reasons to suggest that it was inter tribal violence, but it might also have been domestic violence. We don't actually know who was doing the killing and what their relationship was to the people they killed. Supposing they believed in witches and evil-eye and were constantly watching each other for evidence that members of their own tribe had turned to the evil god?
Many of our theories spring from the assumption that people in the past were simpler than we are, and fit the myths we have about ourselves. For years and years the experts explained that man became upright because Man the Mighty Hunter needed his hands free to hold his weapons, before someone suggested that it mattered a whole lot less to your tribes survival if you dropped your spear or your rock than if you dropped the baby. Standing upright might have been the result of our altricial offspring.
It is cheerfully stated as proof that there was trade in ancient paleolithic days when certain types of stone tools are found far away from where they would have been quarried. But it's also possible that determined bands of rock gatherers made great and dangerous expeditions. I can envisage a scenario where young men could only get a mate if they went out and traveled one hundred and eighty miles to The Cliff of Stone and returned with a pack of suitable stone, and this was tribal custom for many tribes that led to only two-thirds of their men surviving to reproduce. Trade is a nicer conjecture but there is no more evidence of that than there is my off-the-cuff alternative suggestion.
What's especially interesting is seeing how the theories change and what is accepted as definitely a fact about prehistory, from one decade to the next. The timing keeps getting pushed further and further back. The way we described our ancestors has gone from being almost a caricature of racism and traveled in new directions, but it still says more about us creating ancestor myths more than it has hard evidence about the when and why of the social structures in those times.
posted by Jane the Brown at 7:15 PM on April 11, 2019 [8 favorites]
In Australia there is no evidence at this time that did not have a social system of the coming-together of the different nations, with a gathering spot. Some other hunter gatherer people apparently did. It's possible that in some cases cities caused agriculture and in other cases agriculture caused cities.
The research on this question still seems to be at the stage where reputations and careers are being made on taking different views of the question. The simple version of history says that agriculture began when grain was farmed in the area around Turkey. But agriculture began in many different areas with many different crops as the start. It's perfectly possible that grain loaned itself to the creation of cities, where the domestication of the sweet potato did not. It's also perfectly possible that cities made possible the domestication of grain but did not make it possible to domestic sweet potatoes.
Another question to ask is if the spots where people came together before agriculture actually cities? They were permanent settlements, but they may not have had the permanent government and hierarchy that cities typically have.
Let's say there is a spot where their are lavish shellfish beds, and different nomadic hunter gathering people meet there and gather shellfish there. Sometimes as many as three or more groups will be there, but it is no one groups territory. Which group will be at that spot at what time is unpredictable.Trading occurs between the groups when they are there, and diplomatic negotiations. However no one group lives or stays there very long. A few people do stay there, primarily people who are no longer able to live a nomadic life due to their physical condition, or sometimes someone stays there while they wait for another group to come there so that they can see a family member who has married into the other tribe, but then after however many years it takes, they go rejoin their original tribe and continue being nomadic. There are also times over the centuries when there is no one living at the location. Is this location a city?
The question is a really complex and fascinating one. My best guess is that there were many different variations of cities and many different times and ways that agriculture and domestication sprang up and the answer will be different for each instance. The domestication of dogs occurred in many different places and at several different times and for some million years it lasted for awhile and died out without spreading universally. Eventually it did spread universally. But baboons domesticate dogs so you also have to question where that fits and it forces you to redefine what you mean by domestication of dogs. The question might be what first domesticated dogs as it could predate the human species by several million years.
One theory about the beginning of grain domestication is that the wild grain grew so profusely that it was possible for the nomadic people to settle down in one place, and they did so because although having a limited diet based on grain was not good, it was better than risking the violence of tribal conflict that they encountered while nomadic. But it is just a theory. We know that paleolithic people frequently died from violence and there are good reasons to suggest that it was inter tribal violence, but it might also have been domestic violence. We don't actually know who was doing the killing and what their relationship was to the people they killed. Supposing they believed in witches and evil-eye and were constantly watching each other for evidence that members of their own tribe had turned to the evil god?
Many of our theories spring from the assumption that people in the past were simpler than we are, and fit the myths we have about ourselves. For years and years the experts explained that man became upright because Man the Mighty Hunter needed his hands free to hold his weapons, before someone suggested that it mattered a whole lot less to your tribes survival if you dropped your spear or your rock than if you dropped the baby. Standing upright might have been the result of our altricial offspring.
It is cheerfully stated as proof that there was trade in ancient paleolithic days when certain types of stone tools are found far away from where they would have been quarried. But it's also possible that determined bands of rock gatherers made great and dangerous expeditions. I can envisage a scenario where young men could only get a mate if they went out and traveled one hundred and eighty miles to The Cliff of Stone and returned with a pack of suitable stone, and this was tribal custom for many tribes that led to only two-thirds of their men surviving to reproduce. Trade is a nicer conjecture but there is no more evidence of that than there is my off-the-cuff alternative suggestion.
What's especially interesting is seeing how the theories change and what is accepted as definitely a fact about prehistory, from one decade to the next. The timing keeps getting pushed further and further back. The way we described our ancestors has gone from being almost a caricature of racism and traveled in new directions, but it still says more about us creating ancestor myths more than it has hard evidence about the when and why of the social structures in those times.
posted by Jane the Brown at 7:15 PM on April 11, 2019 [8 favorites]
IANAA* but in The leopards tale about catalhoyuk in Turkey, there are passages which suggest the 'city' to have been a farmer-commuter settlement, rather than a society of townfolk and farmers - which makes it look like parts of modern New Zealand.
btw this book has an amazing bibliography with many references on agriculture and horticulture.
*Archaeologist
posted by unearthed at 10:51 PM on April 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
btw this book has an amazing bibliography with many references on agriculture and horticulture.
*Archaeologist
posted by unearthed at 10:51 PM on April 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
Yuval Harari discusses the city vs Agriculture in Sapiens, mostly about quality of life but also re question how cities and agriculture go together.
posted by 15L06 at 9:07 AM on April 12, 2019
posted by 15L06 at 9:07 AM on April 12, 2019
Jane the Brown, can you explain what you mean by this sentence in your first paragraph?
In Australia there is no evidence at this time that did not have a social system of the coming-together of the different nations, with a gathering spot.
posted by Thella at 11:58 PM on April 12, 2019
In Australia there is no evidence at this time that did not have a social system of the coming-together of the different nations, with a gathering spot.
posted by Thella at 11:58 PM on April 12, 2019
Response by poster: Thanks for the detailed answers. Sounds like we're at "sometimes cities didn't come before agriculture; in other cases we still don't know for sure."
posted by clawsoon at 10:25 AM on April 14, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 10:25 AM on April 14, 2019
Jane the Brown, can you explain what you mean by this sentence in your first paragraph?
In Australia there is no evidence at this time that did not have a social system of the coming-together of the different nations, with a gathering spot.
posted by Thella at 11:58 PM on April 12
There is good evidence that places like Stonehenge were gathering places where large numbers of people would meet seasonally, some of them coming from very far away. During the time of the year would Stonehenge have counted as a city? Was it the beginning of the city that became Salisbury? These are relevent questions. You mentioned above that apparently they didn't do that in Australia so I was referring to your answer. They may not have done this gathering in Australia, but there is good evidence that they did it in England. I'd have to read up before I could say if they did it in other places in Europe.
posted by Jane the Brown at 2:33 PM on April 18, 2019
In Australia there is no evidence at this time that did not have a social system of the coming-together of the different nations, with a gathering spot.
posted by Thella at 11:58 PM on April 12
There is good evidence that places like Stonehenge were gathering places where large numbers of people would meet seasonally, some of them coming from very far away. During the time of the year would Stonehenge have counted as a city? Was it the beginning of the city that became Salisbury? These are relevent questions. You mentioned above that apparently they didn't do that in Australia so I was referring to your answer. They may not have done this gathering in Australia, but there is good evidence that they did it in England. I'd have to read up before I could say if they did it in other places in Europe.
posted by Jane the Brown at 2:33 PM on April 18, 2019
« Older wechat doesn't love me any more (... or at all... | How do I tell if this is Kahm yeast or something... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by The Toad at 4:17 PM on April 11, 2019 [4 favorites]