It probably has a lot more to do with farming supporting more people, which results in being able to support non-farmers who are either “nobility” of some kind, and/or warriors who will defend the farming territory and/or fight for better farming territory. In addition, I get the impression that once farming becomes possible, the “nobility” / “warrior” types stop forbidding hunting and gathering because hunter-gatherers are nomadic and they can’t easily be controlled and taxed. Some hunter-gatherers still exist on the fringes of society, but it’s normally not an option for most people. And, when the hunter-gatherers have one of those periods where they’re not able to successfully hunt or gather, in desperation I would bet that they often become raiders, raiding the farmers. So, it’s not like individual people are choosing between being hunter-gatherers or farmers. It’s that there’s a breakthrough in the ability to farm, and everybody nearby is converted into farmers.
Nobility forbidding hunting and gathering is really more of a medieval phenomenon, and has much more to do with the nobility themselves becoming a large population and enjoying the hunt (and the meat that comes from it). If they didn’t forbid it, it would be overhunted, and then those filthy poors would be enjoying the meat that rightly belongs to the bluebloods!
There’s often, in early farming societies, a great deal of ‘fluidity’ between subsistence farming, raiding, and hunting-gathering. Subsistence farming dominates because of the aforementioned advantages, but a tribe engaging in subsistence farming might up and burn all their houses down and go on the warpath, or leave the fields unsown for a few years while ranging the local woods. The early Germanic tribes are a great example of this, both in the variation from tribe-to-tribe, and in the way they could swiftly change from one mode of life to the other. The demarcation is not all that ‘strict’ compared to later ‘civilized’ societies which are, themselves, mostly surrounded by other subsistence farmers (or pastoralists).
While farmer vs. hunter-gatherer has much more to do with the community choice than the individual choice, even in the most settled sedentary premodern villages hunters and gatherers both remain as viable - and often specialized - ways of life.
But yes, generally the success of the sedentary farmers is not so much conversion (though there is that) as out-competing the hunter-gatherers.
I wonder how much of them shift had to do with weather patterns and rain/drought.
Or it even could have been to let fields recover, while foraging was good/easy.
Both of those are definite contributors - even ancient peoples understood that leaving land ‘fallow’ for a year or two led to better yields than plowing and planting every year.
It’s speculated by some, even, that climate change drove the entire ‘migration period’ which led Germanic tribes to overrun the Late Roman Empire, as their own lands became colder and less hospitable.
It probably has a lot more to do with farming supporting more people, which results in being able to support non-farmers who are either “nobility” of some kind, and/or warriors who will defend the farming territory and/or fight for better farming territory. In addition, I get the impression that once farming becomes possible, the “nobility” / “warrior” types stop forbidding hunting and gathering because hunter-gatherers are nomadic and they can’t easily be controlled and taxed. Some hunter-gatherers still exist on the fringes of society, but it’s normally not an option for most people. And, when the hunter-gatherers have one of those periods where they’re not able to successfully hunt or gather, in desperation I would bet that they often become raiders, raiding the farmers. So, it’s not like individual people are choosing between being hunter-gatherers or farmers. It’s that there’s a breakthrough in the ability to farm, and everybody nearby is converted into farmers.
Nobility forbidding hunting and gathering is really more of a medieval phenomenon, and has much more to do with the nobility themselves becoming a large population and enjoying the hunt (and the meat that comes from it). If they didn’t forbid it, it would be overhunted, and then those filthy poors would be enjoying the meat that rightly belongs to the bluebloods!
There’s often, in early farming societies, a great deal of ‘fluidity’ between subsistence farming, raiding, and hunting-gathering. Subsistence farming dominates because of the aforementioned advantages, but a tribe engaging in subsistence farming might up and burn all their houses down and go on the warpath, or leave the fields unsown for a few years while ranging the local woods. The early Germanic tribes are a great example of this, both in the variation from tribe-to-tribe, and in the way they could swiftly change from one mode of life to the other. The demarcation is not all that ‘strict’ compared to later ‘civilized’ societies which are, themselves, mostly surrounded by other subsistence farmers (or pastoralists).
While farmer vs. hunter-gatherer has much more to do with the community choice than the individual choice, even in the most settled sedentary premodern villages hunters and gatherers both remain as viable - and often specialized - ways of life.
But yes, generally the success of the sedentary farmers is not so much conversion (though there is that) as out-competing the hunter-gatherers.
I wonder how much of them shift had to do with weather patterns and rain/drought.
Or it even could have been to let fields recover, while foraging was good/easy.
Or just early ADHD?
Both of those are definite contributors - even ancient peoples understood that leaving land ‘fallow’ for a year or two led to better yields than plowing and planting every year.
It’s speculated by some, even, that climate change drove the entire ‘migration period’ which led Germanic tribes to overrun the Late Roman Empire, as their own lands became colder and less hospitable.