posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:49 PM
reply to post by Parta
I would say that finding cultivation tools and evidence of large numbers of people living in one place for an extended period of time would be
evidence for agriculture.
For a small group of people, it would probably have been easier to gather wild food rather than cultivate it. Therefore, for small nomadic tribes,
there was probably no real necessity to grow food.
I don't see how agriculture would have been an advantage to small groups of nomadic people.
It would not have been until large groups began to live in permanent settlements that would bring about the necessity to have larger amounts of food
-- and necessity is the mother of invention. One can almost assume that agriculture MUST have been present in places where large groups lived. In
that case, SETTLEMENTS are the evidence of agriculture -- albeit indirect evidence.
In general, it seems that agriculture and permanent human settlements both started about 10,000 years ago. The question is: Did agriculture come
first, allowing humans to create permanent settlements -- or did settlements come first, requiring humans to create agriculture out of the need to
feed these settlements?
As I said, I think necessity is the mother of invention, so I personally think that large permanent settlements came first, which created the need for
agriculture -- which in turn allowed those settlements to become even larger.
[edit on 6/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]