On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 08:50:06 +0100
Andrew Millard <[log in to unmask]> said
> Subject: grains vs tubers
>
> The rest of [the] argument seems sensible to me.  I would add that the
> edible crop and the seed crop are one and the same for grains, but not
> necessarily for tubers.  It may also be worth considering the location of
> the transition to agriculture.  For the Near Eastern case, it is thought
> that some sort of increasing pressure on resources, perhaps including
> climatic changes, led grass harvesting peoples to become grass planting
> ones in an environment where the choice of resources was limited by
> climate and neighbouring populations.  My impression is that tubers have
> been domesticated in environments which are not so marginal, and where
> there is a greater diversity of food resources available, so that they are
> not the initial crops to be domesticated.
>
> Andrew
>
> ==========================================================================
>  Dr. Andrew Millard                              [log in to unmask]
>  Department of Archaeology, University of Durham,   Tel: +44 191 374 4757
>  South Road, Durham. DH1 3LE. United Kingdom.       Fax: +44 191 374 3619
>                       http://www.dur.ac.uk/~drk0arm/
> ==========================================================================
>

However, if grains can be eaten as well as planted, they are different
in kind from tubers, since in extremis one can eat the potential crop
("eating the seed-corn") at the risk of future starvation if one is
wholly dependent on these crops.  Does this have implications for the
stability of grain-dependent cultures, which may collapse in such a
situation due to a rash decision?

Dick Bird
University of Northumbria
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8ST
UK