> > I have a number of fruit trees, berry bushes, and other "permanent"
food
> > plants on my property <snip>

> that is typical neolithic thinking ,

If you say so, then so be it.

> 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 "own" the land because that's how that particular resource is allocated
in the U.S. in the 21st century. I make no judgements about whether it is
right or wrong, only that it is so. I do not fear or "untrust" the wild.
You read way too much intent and philosophy into simple statements of fact.

> i have been working in establishing edible  ecosytems by integrating them
> in the wild

I am doing the same thing in the "not"-wild. So, what's your point?

> but they did it to favorised a whole ecosytem  of  wild foods and
maintain a certain density of
> the population of this wild food .

>  way more holistic than the neolithic view of seeing
> individual plants and animals in isolation  without understanding of
> relationships between them .

I have my doubts about this romanticized "pristine" way of thinking by
primatives. Quite far-fetched to imagine them intellectualizing their role
in the environement.

> > 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

And your evidence - other than your personal experience and observations -
of this is...? There is much evidence to the contrary among the American
natives. During their migrations they would plant seeds at various points
along their routes, knowing full well they would have easy pickings when
returning. Quite fascinating, actually. Corn + pole beans + squashes
planted together correctly have a symbiotic relationship. The corn stalks
provide the support for the beans, and the squash plants shade the ground
and discourage weeds.

> 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 .)

Problem is, if they planted fruit/nut trees, they have to wait a few or
many seasons until the first harvest. If they planted grains, they would
have a harvest the same year. And, they would have not been reasoning -
"Hey, I've been existing of a diet with 40-60% fat. I better plant a
long-term crop with that in mind". Again, it's silly to ascribe "scientific
thinking" to someone who has little science.

> > 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 )

No argument there. In fact, I would venture that the success with raising
animals paved the way to experimenting with raising plants.

> 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)

Which came first, the grain or the city? Did cities (and slavery) crop up
because it was "easier" to tend grains that way? Or were grains introduced
into a culture that was already heading in that direction, and found to be
utilitarian? I cannot say for sure. Neither can you.