Does anyone use Agriculture to Relive Ancestry?

[squirell nutkin]

http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11098

I do, in my spare time.

Ancient origins
Further information: Neolithic Revolution
The Fertile Crescent of Western Asia, Egypt, and India were sites of the earliest planned sowing and harvesting of plants that had previously been gathered in the wild. Independent development of agriculture occurred in northern and southern China, Africa's Sahel, New Guinea and several regions of the Americas. The eight so-called Neolithic founder crops of agriculture appear: first emmer wheat and einkorn wheat, then hulled barley, peas, lentils, bitter vetch, chick peas and flax.
By 7000 BC, small-scale agriculture reached Egypt. From at least 7000 BC the Indian subcontinent saw farming of wheat and barley, as attested by archaeological excavation at Mehrgarh in Balochistan. By 6000 BC, mid-scale farming was entrenched on the banks of the Nile. About this time, agriculture was developed independently in the Far East, with rice, rather than wheat, as the primary crop. Chinese and Indonesian farmers went on to domesticate taro and beans including mung, soy and azuki. To complement these new sources of carbohydrates, highly organized net fishing of rivers, lakes and ocean shores in these areas brought in great volumes of essential protein. Collectively, these new methods of farming and fishing inaugurated a human population boom that dwarfed all previous expansions and continues today.
By 5000 BC, the Sumerians had developed core agricultural techniques including large-scale intensive cultivation of land, monocropping, organized irrigation, and the use of a specialized labor force, particularly along the waterway now known as the Shatt al-Arab, from its Persian Gulf delta to the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates. Domestication of wild aurochs and mouflon into cattle and sheep, respectively, ushered in the large-scale use of animals for food/fiber and as beasts of burden. The shepherd joined the farmer as an essential provider for sedentary and seminomadic societies. Maize, manioc, and arrowroot were first domesticated in the Americas as far back as 5200 BC.[25] The potato, tomato, pepper, squash, several varieties of bean, tobacco, and several other plants were also developed in the New World, as was extensive terracing of steep hillsides in much of Andean South America. The Greeks and Romans built on techniques pioneered by the Sumerians, but made few fundamentally new advances. Southern Greeks struggled with very poor soils, yet managed to become a dominant society for years. The Romans were noted for an emphasis on the cultivation of crops for trade.


The Harvesters. Pieter Bruegel. 1565.
In the Americas, a parallel agricultural revolution occurred, resulting in some of the most important crops grown today. In Mesoamerica wild teosinte was transformed through human selection into the ancestor of modern maize, more than 6000 years ago. It gradually spread across North America and was the major crop of Native Americans at the time of European exploration.[26] Other Mesoamerican crops include hundreds of varieties of squash and beans. Cocoa was also a major crop in domesticated Mexico and Central America. The turkey, one of the most important meat birds, was probably domesticated in Mexico or the U.S. Southwest. In the Andes region of South America the major domesticated crop was potatoes, domesticated perhaps 5000 years ago. Large varieties of beans were domesticated, in South America, as well as animals, including llamas, alpacas, and guinea pigs. Coca, still a major crop, was also domesticated in the Andes. A minor center of domestication, the indigenous people of the Eastern U.S. appear to have domesticated numerous crops. Sunflowers, tobacco,[27] varieties of squash and Chenopodium, as well as crops no longer grown, including marshelder and little barley were domesticated.[28][29] Other wild foods may have undergone some selective cultivation, including wild rice and maple sugar. The most common varieties of strawberry were domesticated from Eastern North America.[30]

[jinx]

The Fertile Crescent of Western Asia, Egypt, and India were sites of the earliest planned sowing and harvesting of plants that had previously been gathered in the wild.

Anatolia. Perhaps before anywhere else.

Schmidt's thesis is simple and bold: it was the urge to worship that brought mankind together in the very first urban conglomerations. The need to build and maintain this temple, he says, drove the builders to seek stable food sources, like grains and animals that could be domesticated, and then to settle down to guard their new way of life. The temple begat the city.
This theory reverses a standard chronology of human origins, in which primitive man went through a "Neolithic revolution" 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. In the old model, shepherds and farmers appeared first, and then created pottery, villages, cities, specialized labor, kings, writing, art, and—somewhere on the way to the airplane—organized religion. As far back as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, thinkers have argued that the social compact of cities came first, and only then the "high" religions with their great temples, a paradigm still taught in American high schools.
Religion now appears so early in civilized life—earlier than civilized life, if Schmidt is correct—that some think it may be less a product of culture than a cause of it, less a revelation than a genetic inheritance. The archeologist Jacques Cauvin once posited that "the beginning of the gods was the beginning of agriculture," and Göbekli may prove his case.

[lumberjim]

History of Science and Technology in Islam

| | | | | | | | | |

TRANSFER OF ISLAMIC TECHNOLOGY TO THE WEST[1]

PART II

TRANSMISSION OF ISLAMIC ENGINEERING

Medieval Islam was a prosperous and dynamic civilization, and much of its prosperity was due to an engineering technology that assisted in increasing the production of raw materials and finished products. In addition, the demand for scientific instruments, and the need to cater for the amusements and aesthetic pleasures of the leisured classes, was reflected in a tradition of fine technology based upon delicate and sensitive control mechanisms. This is a very wide subject indeed, and the Islamic contribution to the development of modern engineering will be indicated by means of citing individual cases of technology transfer.

Civil Engineering
Irrigation and Water Supply


With the spread of the Islamic Empire westward, agricultural and irrigation methods and techniques were introduced into the western regions of Islam. The rulers of al-Andalus and many of their followers were of Syrian origin, and the climate, terrain and hydraulic conditions in parts of southern Spain resemble those of Syria. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the irrigation methods - technical and administrative - in Valencia closely resemble the methods applied in the Ghuta of Damascus.[2]

There is a unanimous opinion among historians that the present Spanish irrigation systems of Valencia and Andalusia are of Muslim origin. In 1960 a celebration was held in Valencia commemorating the ‘Millennium of the Waters’. It expressed public recognition of the establishment of the irrigation system, and specifically of the Tribunal of Waters during the reign of 'Abd al-Rahman III'.

The irrigation system that had been instituted in the days of the caliphs in Valencia was perpetuated and confirmed under the succeeding dynasties, until, when the Christian conquerors appeared in the thirteenth century, it recommended itself for adoption, backed by the experienced benefits of several centuries. The Arabic names used in the irrigation systems give distinct proofs of the Moorish origin of the irrigation systems in eastern Spain.

There is some difference between eastern Spain (Valencia and Murcia) and the kingdom of Granada. The chief object of the Granada water supply system was not the irrigation of crops only but the distribution of water to the fountains and baths of the capital. In Granada the system is still "to an exceptional degree" the same as it was in the time of the Arabs, and we find undisturbed the institutions practiced by the Arabs themselves.


An acequia flowing toward Granada from the spring in the village of Alfucar in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, was first built in the 13th century and is still flowing today


The Arabic systems in irrigations were diffused from al-Andalus to Christian Spain. This accounts for the Aragonese traditions of irrigation.

These systems of irrigation had migrated from Spain to America where we find them still practiced in San Antonio in Texas. The story begins properly in the Canary Islands where in the late fifteenth century; settlers from Spain introduced Islamic institutions of water distribution. They brought with them to the American southwest both the technology and institutional framework for irrigation and the distribution of water.

The Qanat


The qanat system was an efficient method for irrigation and water supply. It originated in pre-Islamic Iran. The qanat technology spread westward to North Africa, Spain, and Sicily. The Andalusi agronomical writers provide practical advice on well-digging and qanat construction.

From Spain the qanat technology was transferred to the New World and qanats have been found in Mexico, Peru, and Chile. In the 1970s a qanat system 2.3 kilometers long was located in the La Venta area, just 10 km northwest of Guadalajara, Mexico.

In Palermo, Italy, a qanat system from the Arab days was used to bring fresh water to the city and to irrigate its beautiful gardens. There are current plans to revive and reconstruct the Arabic qanat and utilize it to solve the acute needs of the modern city of Palermo for potable water. The project in hand is of great historical, archaeological, geological and hydro-geological importance. It is already of great interest for tourists.


Dams

There are many Muslim dams in Spain, a large number of which were built during the tenth century AD, the golden age of Umayyad power in the peninsula. In this period, for example, many small dams, or azuds, were built on the 150-mile-long River Turia, which flows into the Mediterranean at Valencia. (In passing it is important to note the Spanish word azud, from Arabic al-sadd, one of many modern irrigation terms taken directly from Arabic and certain proof of Muslim influence on Spanish technology.) Eight of these dams are spread over six miles of river in Valencia, and serve the local irrigation system. Some of the canals carry water much further, particularly to the Valencian rice fields. These, of course, were established by the Muslims, and continue to be one of the most important rice-producing centres in Europe. Because of their safe design and method of construction, and because they were provided with deep and very firm foundations, the Turia dams have been able to survive the dangerous flood conditions for 1000 years.[3]
Mechanical Engineering

Water-Raising Machines


The saqiya was widely used in the Muslim world from the earliest days onwards. It was introduced to the Iberian Peninsula by the Muslims, where it was massively exploited. Its Maximum expansion in the Valencian Country took place throughout the eighteenth century. In 1921 their number amounted to 6000 installed in the Orchards of Valencia, which supplied water to 17866 hectares. Throughout the twentieth century they have been replaced by hydraulic pumps.

[squirell nutkin]

I'm not sure I buy Schmidt's thesis. I expect that people have always had some form of religion, and as hunter gatherers settled down in one place they brought their religion with them.

Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" posits that bureaucracy and cities grew from agriculture because people were in one place and had time to develop skills other than hunting and gathering. Then there were the people who figured out that they could be the "managers" (i.e. lazy lumps) in exchange for some of the food, and before long people decided that they would, in exchange for food, create some kind of mojo that would protect you from the scary things. Then they invented a soul and all manner of boogeymen to protect you from in exchange for more food and power.

OK, I diverged a bit from Diamond's thesis there.

But Why would we need a city in order to worship?

[jinx]

Not to worship, but to gather to worship. Worshipping is much more funner when other people can see you doing it so awesomely.

[squirell nutkin]

Originally Posted by jinx

Not to worship, but to gather to worship. Worshipping is much more funner when other people can see you doing it so awesomely.

Yes!!! Watch me now, I'm praying!

Here's some wiki
Synopsis

[edit]Prologue
The prologue to the book opens with an account of Diamond's conversation with Yali, a New Guinean politician. The conversation turned to the obvious differences in power and technology between Yali's people and the Europeans who dominated the land for 200 years, differences that neither of them considered due to any genetic superiority of Europeans. Yali asked, using the local term "cargo" for inventions and manufactured goods, "Why do white people have so much cargo, but we New Guineans have so little?"(p. 14)
Diamond realized the same question seemed to apply elsewhere: "People of Eurasian origin... dominate the world in wealth and power." Other peoples, after having thrown off colonial domination, still lag in wealth and power. Still others, he says, "have been decimated, subjugated, and in some cases even exterminated by European colonialists." (p. 15) Unable to find a satisfactory explanation from the best-known accounts of history, he decided to make his own investigation to seek the root causes of Eurasian dominance.
[edit]The theory outlined
Before stating his main argument, Diamond considers three possible criticisms of his investigation.
Diamond argues that Eurasian civilization is not so much a product of ingenuity, but of opportunity and necessity. That is, civilization is not created out of sheer will or intelligence, but is the result of a chain of developments, each made possible by certain preconditions.
In our earliest societies, humans lived as hunter-gatherers. The first step towards civilization is the move from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, with the domestication and farming of wild crops and animals. Agricultural production leads to food surpluses, which supports sedentary societies, specialization of craft, rapid population growth, and specialization of labor. Large societies tend to develop ruling classes and supporting bureaucracies, which leads in turn to the organization of empires.[2]
Although agriculture arose in several parts of the world, Eurasia gained an early advantage due to the availability of suitable plant and animal species for domestication. In particular, the Middle East had by far the best collection of plants and animals suitable for domestication – barley, two varieties of wheat and three protein-rich pulses for food; flax for textiles; goats, sheep and cattle provided meat, leather, glue (by boiling the hooves and bones) and, in the case of sheep, wool. As early Middle Eastern civilizations began to trade, they found additional useful animals in adjacent territories, most notably horses and donkeys for use in transport.
In contrast, Native American farmers had to struggle to develop maize as a useful food from its probable wild ancestor, teosinte. Eurasia as a whole domesticated 13 species of large animals (over 100lb / 44 kg); South America just one (counting the llama and alpaca as breeds within the same species); the rest of the world none at all. Diamond describes the small number of domesticated species (14 out of 148 "candidates") as an instance of the Anna Karenina principle: many promising species have just one of several significant difficulties that prevent domestication. For example, horses are easily domesticated, but their biological relatives zebras and onagers are untameable; and although Asian elephants are tameable, it is very difficult to breed them in captivity.[2][3]
Eurasia's large landmass and long east-west distance increased these advantages. Its large area provided it with more plant and animal species suitable for domestication, and allowed its people to exchange both innovations and diseases. Its East-West orientation allowed breeds domesticated in one part of the continent to be used elsewhere through similarities in climate and the cycle of seasons. In contrast, Australia suffered from a lack of useful animals due to extinction, probably by human hunting, shortly after the end of the Pleistocene. The Americas had difficulty adapting crops domesticated at one latitude for use at other latitudes (and, in North America, adapting crops from one side of the Rocky Mountains to the other). Africa was fragmented by its extreme variations in climate from North to South: plants and animals that flourished in one area never reached other areas where they could have flourished, because they could not survive the intervening environment. Europe was the ultimate beneficiary of Eurasia's East-West orientation: in the first millennium BC, the Mediterranean areas of Europe adopted the Middle East's animals, plants, and agricultural techniques; in the first millennium AD, the rest of Europe followed suit.[2][3]
The plentiful supply of food and the dense populations that it supported made division of labor possible. The rise of non-farming specialists such as craftsmen and scribes accelerated economic growth and technological progress. These economic and technological advantages eventually enabled Europeans to conquer the peoples of the other continents in recent centuries by using the "Guns" and "Steel" of the book's title.
Eurasia's dense populations, high levels of trade, and living in close proximity to livestock resulted in widespread transmission of diseases, including from animals to humans. Natural selection forced Eurasians to develop immunity to a wide range of pathogens. When Europeans made contact with America, European diseases (to which they had no immunity) ravaged the indigenous American population, rather than the other way around (the "trade" in diseases was a little more balanced in Africa and southern Asia: endemic malaria and yellow fever made these regions notorious as the "white man's grave";[4] and syphilis may have spread in the opposite direction[5]). The European diseases – the "Germs" of the book's title – decimated indigenous populations so that relatively small numbers of Europeans could maintain their dominance.[2][3]
Guns, Germs, and Steel also offers a very brief explanation of why western European societies, rather than other powers such as China, have been the dominant colonizers.[2]
Other advanced cultures developed in areas whose geography was conducive to large, monolithic, isolated empires. In these conditions policies of technological and social stagnation could persist – until Europeans arrived. China was a very notable example; in 1432, a new Emperor outlawed the building of ocean-going ships, in which China was the world leader at the time.
Europe's geography favored balkanization into smaller, closer, nation-states, as its many natural barriers (mountains, rivers) provide defensible borders. As a result, governments that suppressed economic and technological progress soon corrected their mistakes or were out-competed relatively quickly. As an example of this national Darwinism, Diamond offers the disappearance of the counter-progressive Polish regime. He argues that geographical factors created the conditions for more rapid internal superpower change (Spain succeeded by France and then by England) than was possible elsewhere in Eurasia.
Diamond examined European dominance in more detail with further examples in a later article.[6]

[jinx]

Yes!!! Watch me now, I'm praying!

Exactly.
On the other hand, you've got people deciding to put a hell of a lot of effort into growing something they could just wander around collecting, with 'overgrazing' being an excellent reason NOT to gather. I lean towards deciding to gather first, then figuring out how to keep the gathered people fed.

I'll read your wiki when I get back in a bit though...
Iron working demos going on at Hopewell...

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by squirell nutkin

before long people decided that they would, in exchange for food, create some kind of mojo that would protect you from the scary things. Then they invented a soul and all manner of boogeymen to protect you from in exchange for more food and power.

I think it's only in relatively modern times that the religious leaders have outlived their original practicality. They didn't start out making up boogeymen. They each started out serving a very real purpose, but they couldn't happen to explain the scientific basis for it at the time.

Shamans were the closest thing a tribe had to a medical doctor, and their knowledge of herbs produced some tangible results--but no one knew why, so the effect was ascribed to spirits and rituals. Still, they were healing people.

The original kosher laws were based around what was genuinely a healthier way to eat, and what foods spoiled most quickly and would make you sick: so the rabbis (or pre-rabbis) had figured out these basic medical causes-and-effects, but couldn't explain why it worked the way it did, so someone ascribed it to "God's law" that they should eat this way.

Or some Native American dude noticed that when you overfish, soon there's not enough to eat, but when you only take some of the fish, there are still plenty next year--but not knowing anything about breeding patterns, all he could say was that it was the lake god's will that they not take too many of His fish.

I think the earliest religious leaders all had real skills to offer, in the form of pattern recognition and experimentation with results. It was only later that their (not biological, but institutional) descendents needed to find ways to keep the gig going, after things started getting explained away underneath them.

[squirell nutkin]

There's an excellent TED lecture that describes the thing you speak exact.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_she...deception.html

[Cloud]

every time I drink a beer.