Hello, I have a PhD in marine biology. My specialty is the domestication of kelp ( the big brown seaweeds), and this path has brought me to research what crop domestication actually is, what agriculture is, and the alternative paths that might be possible in ways that I could not predict 12 years ago.
As far as I know Seaweed is the only net-positive crop in the world, meaning that the cultivation of kelp actually improves local biodiversity instead of degrading it. I was always wondering why this could not be the case for landbased agriculture. Bringing me to the conversation of Graham and Flint last week.
I was just listening to this fascinating talk between Graham and Flint Dibble. The two are clearly on opposite sides of the archeological spectrum, but I could not leave the sensation that both people sounded right. One argues that ice age civilizations cannot exist because there is no proof of agriculture, the other claims that the megalithic sites clearly indicate that there is proof of civilizations during those times.
How can they both sound right while also be so opposite to each other?
Here comes the eco-shepperd hypothesis into play (still have to think of a more fancy name), that could close the gap of the ice age civilizations and that of the post-ice age agricultural civilization. Allowing for both Flint and Graham to be right.
I believe that the definition of hunter/gatherers might be a false definition. It implies a passive interaction with its environment, with hunting what is available while gathering what can be found. I believe that we had a much more intricate relationship with nature in those days. Understanding which levers to pull to actively make nature more productive than it naturally inclined to be.
We were not hunter gatheres, we were herding or shepperding nature, steering nature in ways that made nature hyper productive for us humans and the surrounding biodiversity. We were netto-positive key stone species, like with kelp. Nature became more productive for us, while simultaneously allowing nature to thrive! So productive even that large groups of so called "hunter-gathers" could and should have worked together and co-create civilizations. Co-create central points of religion, co-create deep thougths of being alive, co-create the knowledge of the stars.
It also explains the need for agriculture after the ice-age, since rapid climate change forced human kind to increase their control on nature. Evolving from a key-stone species that herded nature, into more of a dictator role in which humans dictated what would and could be grown on each hectare. Increased control of your crop was necessary to combat the negative effects of a volatile climate.
To come back to the central point. This hypothesis allows the possibility of finding no evidence of agricultural civilizations, while also allowing the possibility of finding pre-12.000 year old megalithic structures as central points to their ways of life.
To make the case of herding nature, of being a key-stone species of our environment, I include the thesis of Lyla June Johnston. She is a remarkable woman that analyzed pre-agricultural civilizations, "hunter gatherer communities", all over the world. She found again and again the same pattern, all over the world. "Hunter-gatherers" that were primarely shepperding nature to make it more productive, and then secondly, and only then came the hunting and gathering from their "garden".
[www.lylajune.com]
In short:
The hypothesis is eco-shepperds were actively making their environment more productive than nature itself coudl produce. Possible allowing civilizations to thrive without the need of agriculture.
Hope this hypothesis and her thesis finds you well and if you want a talk, please do not hesitate to reply. I can elaborate further with examples from so called "hunter gatherer" groups shepperding nature.
greetings,
Alexander
As far as I know Seaweed is the only net-positive crop in the world, meaning that the cultivation of kelp actually improves local biodiversity instead of degrading it. I was always wondering why this could not be the case for landbased agriculture. Bringing me to the conversation of Graham and Flint last week.
I was just listening to this fascinating talk between Graham and Flint Dibble. The two are clearly on opposite sides of the archeological spectrum, but I could not leave the sensation that both people sounded right. One argues that ice age civilizations cannot exist because there is no proof of agriculture, the other claims that the megalithic sites clearly indicate that there is proof of civilizations during those times.
How can they both sound right while also be so opposite to each other?
Here comes the eco-shepperd hypothesis into play (still have to think of a more fancy name), that could close the gap of the ice age civilizations and that of the post-ice age agricultural civilization. Allowing for both Flint and Graham to be right.
I believe that the definition of hunter/gatherers might be a false definition. It implies a passive interaction with its environment, with hunting what is available while gathering what can be found. I believe that we had a much more intricate relationship with nature in those days. Understanding which levers to pull to actively make nature more productive than it naturally inclined to be.
We were not hunter gatheres, we were herding or shepperding nature, steering nature in ways that made nature hyper productive for us humans and the surrounding biodiversity. We were netto-positive key stone species, like with kelp. Nature became more productive for us, while simultaneously allowing nature to thrive! So productive even that large groups of so called "hunter-gathers" could and should have worked together and co-create civilizations. Co-create central points of religion, co-create deep thougths of being alive, co-create the knowledge of the stars.
It also explains the need for agriculture after the ice-age, since rapid climate change forced human kind to increase their control on nature. Evolving from a key-stone species that herded nature, into more of a dictator role in which humans dictated what would and could be grown on each hectare. Increased control of your crop was necessary to combat the negative effects of a volatile climate.
To come back to the central point. This hypothesis allows the possibility of finding no evidence of agricultural civilizations, while also allowing the possibility of finding pre-12.000 year old megalithic structures as central points to their ways of life.
To make the case of herding nature, of being a key-stone species of our environment, I include the thesis of Lyla June Johnston. She is a remarkable woman that analyzed pre-agricultural civilizations, "hunter gatherer communities", all over the world. She found again and again the same pattern, all over the world. "Hunter-gatherers" that were primarely shepperding nature to make it more productive, and then secondly, and only then came the hunting and gathering from their "garden".
[www.lylajune.com]
In short:
The hypothesis is eco-shepperds were actively making their environment more productive than nature itself coudl produce. Possible allowing civilizations to thrive without the need of agriculture.
Hope this hypothesis and her thesis finds you well and if you want a talk, please do not hesitate to reply. I can elaborate further with examples from so called "hunter gatherer" groups shepperding nature.
greetings,
Alexander