Broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) was domesticated in China, at least 1000 years before it became a substantial portion of the Middle Neolithic Yangshao diet.
Broomcorn Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Photo by Mark Nesbitt
Recent studies have shown that a long lag time between invention and dependence is also true for rice; also true for maize; and also true for wheat: domesticated crops from all over the world, not just Asia.
What this is telling us, is that hunter-gatherers took the initial steps towards farming many generations before their descendants became dependent on domestic crops. Interesting, don't you think? Clearly, we need to rethink our ideas of what a hunter-gatherer lifestyle was, and how much they understood about the plants and animals they used to sustain a mobile lifestyle.
- Broomcorn millet
- Plant Domestication Table)
- Rice
- Maize and at Xihuatoxtla rockshelter
- Wheat, and at Ohalo II
Comments
I’m cultivating an interest in the early process of domestication now. Thanks for those links.
I wonder if a similar approach from a genetic angle could be applied to reveal time frames in regards towards species that were at one time cultivated by Americans but have never been considered a domesticated crop, like chestnuts, paw paws or the varieties of fruit and nut producing trees in Amazonia, now that we are beginning to realize the degree to which intelligent selection by the indigenous folk were being made. Cheers.
The human cannot survive from meat exclusively, hence the gathering of vegetable material. Consider the domestication of the aurochs in Africa associated with gathering of grass seeds.
re: “domestication of…” – read the National Geographic April 2011 article on 60 year study on foxes in the attempt to know how we got dogs from wolfs… Also, it obliquely mentions that there was a process for humans becomng “domesticated”. I would think there are many over-lapping “lag-times” across the domestication of our species. The NG article says they are searching for a genetic connection for “domestication”.
interesting! What archaeologists typically mean when they talk about humans being domesticated, they refer to the fact that we need to change our own behaviors to fit the needs of the animals and plants that we have adapted to our own needs. So, we need to milk the cow every morning or plant the seeds in the spring, weed the plants through the summer and harvest in the fall. I suppose you could make the argument that those human behaviors may be selected for: that is to say people who adapt more readily towards a particular farming lifestyle might be more successful the long run than ones who chose hunter-gatherering. But, I would think that most of these decisions – whether to plant full time or part time, for example – would be too transitory to be changes at the genetic level.
My guess is, that the genetic component to human domestication has to be the ability to adapt, and to innovate when it becomes necessary. If scientists are searching for a genetic connection, it must be that adaptability they are searching for, not a specific gene determining whether a person chooses to farm or not. That’s because full-time farming is not always the best option and in fact it may be the best option this year but not next year – but I’m perfectly willing to believe that the ability to identify when full-time farming is the best option may have a genetic basis.