I found the way Jared Diamond introduces the two paths of human history
to be an eye-opening reality for me. I have never thought of how there are
agricultural practices and hunter gatherer practices are differentiated. In
chapter 4 Jared Diamond speaks on how hunter gatherers tend to only have
children once every four years because they need their children to can run with
the tribe before rearing another young. He also points out that hunter
gatherers generally don’t have political systems or the same hierarchical
structure as with agricultural based societies. It is proposed that having these
resources being heavily available (an excess of available calories) allows for
individuals to differentiate themselves beyond the pressures of a “normal life”
such and hunting and gathering. This is when you see kingdoms, taxes, Priests,
armies etc. In chapter 4 on page 93 Jared Diamond begins to ask why crops and
agriculture developed in early years in places like Iraq and Mexico but not the
Eastern United states. He used many comparisons of geographic landscapes to
make his point however it made me feel somewhat left out of the conversation.
He used these examples to make a point regarding agricultural success in certain
areas compared to others, however for myself I don’t understand the difference in
agricultural capacities of Iraq versus California or eastern Europe versus
Eastern United states. I feel as though if he had said Why did agriculture develop
in the marshy wet pre-colonized Iraq versus the dry desolate California desert
I would have felt more of an impact from what he was saying. “we should not
suppose that the decision to adopt farming was made in a vacuum, as if the
people had previously had no means to feed themselves”, is a great point made
by Jared Diamond on page 109. We tend to think of agriculture as how we have
always fed ourselves. This however is not true, for most our species and descendant’s
history we were hunter gatherers, and the idea of cultivation and concentration
of resources would have seemed like a futile endeavor. On Page 138 Jared Diamond
begins describing five advantages that lead to the success of the fertile
crescent. The first is that it is “ world’s
largest zone of Mediterranean climate” allowing for more area for the
development of agriculture. The second was that “among Mediterranean zones,
Western Eurasia experiences the greatest climatic variation from season to
season and year to year” which allowed for natural selection to be a stronger
driving force. The third is that it “provides a wide range of altitudes and
topographies within a short distance” which allowed for diverse subsets of environments
within the fertile crescent bringing irrigation, and different climates for
diverse crop types.
The fourth was “its wealth in ancestors not only of valuable crops but
also domesticated big animals” which allowed the first “farmers” to utilize
them like tools for landscaping. The fifth reason was “it may have faced lower
less competition from the hunter gatherer lifestyle than that in some other areas”.
Jared Diamond (1997). Guns, Germs and Steel, The Fates
of Human Societies. New
York, New York: W.W. Norton.
This is a great response entry, Jared. It's a real pleasure to read. I think you focus on a really good point here when you quote Diamond as saying agriculture did not develop in a vacuum. As you said in your opening statement, it truly is eye-opening to consider how drastic of a change the shift from hunter-gatherer to agriculturalist must have been. Did you find that Diamond's writing style assisted you in your realization, or did it confirm something you already knew?
ReplyDelete