Browse e-KNOWBASE

Question: Transition to Farming More Likely in a Land of Plenty

Answer: The transition from foraging to farming, or the origin of agriculture, is one of the most debated topics in the academic literature (Bellwood, 2005). Until the 1980s there was an early or traditional vision of this transition. For various reasons the academic research of these three last decades has contributed to the emergence of a recent or new vision of this transition (Price & Bar-Yosef, 2011; Svizzero & Tisdell, 2014).
The differences between the two visions are quite numerous. Until the 1980s all the traditional theories could be classified into two opposite groups usually called ‘push’ and ‘pull’ models. For each theory of these two groups, the origins of agriculture were explained by mono-causal factors such as resource depletion, population pressure, changes in social organization, and cognitive changes (Bender, 1978; Binford, 1968; Childe, 1936; Cohen, 1977). In contrast, recent approaches tend to favour explanations based on multi-causal factors (Bowles & Choi, 2013; Price & Bar-Yosef, 2011; Smith, 2015; Zeder, 2009). More precisely, it has become clear that the whole transition was not, as it was previously thought, a long and progressive or gradual process. Although it is still considered to have been very long, the process is now seen more as a case of punctuated equilibrium. Moreover, recent approaches point out that local histories heavily influence outcomes occurring in any given locale, such as the transition to farming. This new vision has had two consequences. On the one hand, foraging and farming are now considered only as polar cases of a long-term process. Thus, the focus has shifted from these polar cases to the vast middle ground in which foraging and farming were coexisting either side by side or even together. The former situation has led to studies related to contact and exchange between HG (Hunter-Gatherers) and farmers, or the so-called ‘neolithization process’. The latter situation, also called ‘mixed economies’ (Smith, 2001), has led to a shift of the main point of interest. Most research which were before about the origins of agriculture now focus on initial domestication of plants and animals (Smith, 2015; Zeder, 2015), one of the main features of agrarian societies. It is thus useful to refer, according to Price and Bar-Yosef (2011, p. s165), to the definitional distinctions between foraging (gathering wild resources), cultivation (planting morphologically wild plants), farming (planting genetically domesticated plants), and agriculture (where farming is the majority of the diet).
These changes from the traditional to the new vision are themselves the result of methodological changes. Although the literature is still dominated by archaeologists and anthropologists, a growing part of it is now taken by contributions from other disciplines (geneticist, economist, etc.). This change has contributed to the evolution of the various approaches about the origin of agriculture. 1 In addition, new techniques, such as genetic analysis based on DNA, have provided new data, even on already existing archaeological records. New methods, and hence new data have contributed to the emergence of new ideas and new results. The discovery of new archaeological sites has also contributed to this shift.
In this context, the main difference between the traditional and the new vision is about the scale level of each approach. The traditional vision was based on a global or macro approach. Its aim was to provide a ‘macro-narrative’ able to provide a convincing and – as much as possible – universal explanation of the origins of agriculture. While human behaviour – related to either foraging or farming – was present, it was implicit in most cases. The focus was more on macro-causes – such as climate change or population pressure – and on macro consequence, namely the introduction of farming. Thus, the main point of debate was to know whether such introduction was intentional or constrained, i.e. due to forced adaptation. The contributions of the new vision have emphasized on human behaviour, i.e. on a micro approach rather than on a macro approach. These contributions have been especially concerned with three main topics. The first is about human foraging behaviour, the second about human/environment interaction, and the third about social institutions in prehistoric societies. These micro-founded contributions have provided a more detailed and accurate understanding of the past. However, and this is the natural shortcoming of micro-founded approaches, each contribution only provides a partial explanation of the transition from foraging to farming. It is thus the aim of this chapter to provide a link between the traditional and the new vision of the origins of agriculture. Indeed, push and pull models have been supplanted by the new contributions. However, push or pull explanations are still relevant per se, especially if they are supported by the micro-founded contributions of the new vision. In other words, do the micro-founded contributions of the new vision may be used to provide a macro-narrative of the transition and in particular, when compared to the traditional vision, do they strengthen the conclusions of push or pull explanations?

(Source: , 30 Sep 2021)

Source Link: https://doi-org.onlinedatabase.librarynet.com.my/10.1108/S0190-128120170000037004