>
> I have a number of fruit trees, berry bushes, and other "permanent" food
> plants on my property. I had to plant them *once, and they have provided
> lots of fruit and berries over the years - without my having to do much of
> anything. I suspect that's somewhat easier than having to go out and
gather
> the same in the wild. If a primitive discovered he could plant, either by
> seed or by cloning (cuttings), a foodcrop right outside his "cave", I
> suspect he would so so in a second. Advantages would include not having to
> go out into the wild to get it (safety), as well as keeping competitors
> from eating his food.

that is typical neolithic thinking , based on individual ownership of the
land , untrust toward the wild , competitive perspective and control.
tribal hunter gatherers don't think that way . the wild is not unsafe,  it
is home , roaming the land for foods is just fun .
sharing the lands with all their relative is caring for themselves .

i have been working in establishing edible  ecosytems by integrating them
in the wild  and i observe that for the wild ecosytem to accept new
plants you have to makes room for them and maintaining that room for them .

human made ecosystems are more easy to establish once you disturbed and
desertified the land enough .On a lawn any trees will be glad to establish
themselves . there is no evidence hunter gatherers did this kind of
disturbance with fire to plant specific plants   but they did it to
favorised a whole ecosytem  of  wild foods and maintain a certain density of
the population of this wild food .

here they were not planting camas but were favorising their spreading by the
way they were harvesting them and using   fire from time to time to
eliminate bushes and fir and keep the gary oak , while they did that they
were favorising a whole ecosystem that was providing many different foods
from deer , grouse etc.. to many different bulbs herbs and onions . very
different approach,  way more holistic than the neolithic view of seeing
individual plants and animals in isolation  without understanding of
relationships between them .


>
> You mention wild greens. I have found lettuces all over my property. I did
> not plant them there - they are obvious volunteers, helped along by little
> critters and perhaps the wind. With greens a little seed goes a long, long
> way. Primitives would have observed this as well.

not worth the trouble for hunter gatherer , for starch yes they worked on it
.
>
> > figs  dates , olives , nuts can be stored so easelly that your
reasonning
> > doesn't hold water .
>
> Obviously, we have to consider degrees here. First, I doubt enough figs,
> dates, olives, and nuts can be grown in a given area to support a large
> population base. Grains can. Second, grains (seeds) can be stored for
> *years* and used during times of famine/shortage without losing much of
> their (admittedly lacking) nutitional value. I have my doubts about your
> list other than the nuts.

dry fruits also stored for years , nuts store for a year,  after they get
oxydized , nuts compare in yield to grains .
much effort have been done on wheat yield ( doubled since the 50's ) and yet
produce one ton an acre , filberts for ex is between 1 to 2 pounds an acre
.macadamias can produce 3 to 4 ton an acre . even when you remove the shell
because of their high calory , fats and protein content , they compare
favorably with grains . consider that wheat grown few thousands years ago
will have very low yield while wild fliberts are very productive close to
modern  domesticated forms .
for a species with protein and fats based diet it will have made sense to
plant  nuts to replace scarcity of games ( if it is the case ) . to switch
to grains there is an other reason than yields .It is also making sense for
gatherer cultures ( you plant once and harvest for decades .)
>
> > it is possible that grains have been domesticated first
> > to attract wild games around the village or to domesticate animals
>
> That sounds reasonable. Interesting theory.

especially when it is considered that domestication of animals is twice as
old than plants.( 18 000 - 20 000 years old )

> I don't dispute the addictive nature of grains (although I can't say it
> applies to me - I've never "craved" bread or other grains). My contention
> is that that's not "the reason" grains came to dominate agriculture. I
> beleive their utility was.

3 staples grains only have been at the core of the city culture , every
other stapples starch in the world ( from banana to roots and starchy nuts )
never led to authoritarian , hierarchical  city cultures only egalitarian
villages culture .there is something in those  3 grains that makes peoples
hormonally disturbed ( to say the least)

jean-claude