How important is agriculture from a historical perspective? There is more to this topic than growing food. Farming is a science, a practical activity and a cultural phenomenon. The science and practices of agriculture can be fascinating, particularly when you look at how humans of the past made great scientific advances before science was even invented, but this is history; our focus is on the culture of farming. Without doubt, it is one of the most important developments in human history.
Briefly, we should look at what came before farming. This is commonly called the hunter-gatherer lifestyle in which people relied on wild plants and animals for food by, predictably, hunting and gathering them (and fishing). The important part of this equation is not the hunting or gathering (or fishing), it is the fact that these food species were wild. Humans did not control food production; it was entirely subject to natural forces governing abundance.
Globalisation is “the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale”. You’re probably familiar with the term due to its widespread use. You could also rattle off a few examples of its impact and the arguments for why it’s a good or bad thing for humanity. Children in Africa wearing Liverpool football shirts and drinking Coca Cola is one example of its effects. Its main benefits are international trade and understanding, and the resulting reduction in international conflict. But it also has the effect of diluting local culture and the potential to spread pandemic disease (when the next big one shows up).
It’s also likely that you view globalisation as something new. The process involves airplanes, massive cargo ships, Western consumerism, unequal trade with developing countries and the period of relative peace enjoyed since the Second World War. These are all features of modern international trade, but there’s nothing new about globalisation; it is in fact one of the oldest trends in history.
10,000 years from today, the age we live in will be known as the Internet Age. We will be remembered as the first humans to get online and establish a worldwide information network; this is the internet.
The above statement could be used to argue that the internet will outlast us. If our civilisations suffer a catastrophic event, the internet will survive because it is intangible. We expect our social media profiles to last longer than our physical bodies. We can test this argument. Is our understanding of the internet correct?
I’m currently editing my fiction work-in-progress. It’s taking up much of my blogging time, so here’s a non-fiction extract to (hopefully) make up for it. I’m eager to hear what you think!
ARCHAEOLOGISTS HAVE YET to find physical evidence for the wars of Abraham and Jacob, or the murder of Abel by his brother Cain. To find evidence for other Abels, victims of early inter-human violence, we must look at skeletal remains from prehistory. Here, we are brought up short by archaeology’s paradox. Genesis provides the story but not the evidence to support it (relying instead on the reader’s faith), while archaeology provides evidence and no story. To tell the story of a how a human became a skeleton, we have to follow a reverse chronology, reading the evidence backwards.
We will investigate an event which occurred near the town of Nördlingen in Bavaria, Germany. The town sits in a large circular depression in the landscape. This crater was formed when a meteor impacted the Earth over 14 million years ago. Today, the crater holds agricultural land divided into fields, which would have been forest or open grassland when our story took place 8,500 years ago. It is surrounded by low hills thrust up by the meteor’s impact and dense forest and transected by a small river. Red deer were abundant in the Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) plains and forest, while the river also had an abundance of at least three species of edible freshwater snail and one species of sea snail. The Mesolithic inhabitants of the area used red deer teeth and river-dwelling snail shells to make jewellery and may have taken shelter in the caves which formed on the outer side of the crater’s elevated rim. It is on one of these caves which we will be focusing.
Like every writer does at some point during a project, I am procrastinating. My method of choice at the moment for avoiding the novel is writing non-fiction. Here is a short extract from a multi-disciplinary exploration of human conflict, which otherwise might never see the light of day.
Chimps in two camps
This introduces the second barrier to understanding conflict, the question of origins. There are two strongly opposing sides to this debate. One side argues that lethal violence is an innate aspect of human behaviour, while the other criticises this conclusion and asserts that warfare arises from external pressures. A key piece of evidence used in this debate is the chimpanzee.
Chimps have been observed to conduct warfare in a remarkably similar way to humans. There are documented instances of one society of chimpanzees seeking out isolated males from another group, killing them in brutal attacks and engaging in cannibalistic behaviour. Is this proof that conflict is an intrinsic part of chimp behaviour and, by relation, human behaviour?