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