In article ,
lid says...

It was primitive women who did the grinding. The men were out all day hunting
and gathering.

So who was sowing and harvesting those grain crops?

Janet

In article ,
lid says...

On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 23:52:22 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
says...

It was primitive women who did the grinding. The men were out all day hunting
and gathering.

So who was sowing and harvesting those grain crops?

The women? :-)

Who cleared land of stones and trees and cultivated the soil fine
enough to sow the grain in?


In parts of the third world nothing has changed.

In this country, hunter-gathering (found food) preceded agriculture
(the clearing of forest to create grazing, breeding/tending livestock,
cultivating soil to grow crops).

Janet.

In article ,
Janet wrote:
In article ,
says...

It was primitive women who did the grinding. The men were out all day hunting
and gathering.

So who was sowing and harvesting those grain crops?

The women? :-)

Who cleared land of stones and trees and cultivated the soil fine
enough to sow the grain in?

In Britain, that's a damn good question - see Rackham and others.
My personal speculation is that it was normally done by neither
sex, but by ring-barking and intensive grazing. In most areas,
that will convert woodland to grassland in under a century, and
grassland is easy to convert to cultivation.

In parts of the third world nothing has changed.

In this country, hunter-gathering (found food) preceded agriculture
(the clearing of forest to create grazing, breeding/tending livestock,
cultivating soil to grow crops).

Yup. By a LONG way. Homo sapiens is one of two current land mammals
that has been here longest (tens of thousands of years). Clearing
the woodland didn't start until c. 3,000 BC.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote
Janet wrote:
says...

It was primitive women who did the grinding. The men were out all day
hunting
and gathering.

So who was sowing and harvesting those grain crops?

The women? :-)

Who cleared land of stones and trees and cultivated the soil fine
enough to sow the grain in?

In Britain, that's a damn good question - see Rackham and others.
My personal speculation is that it was normally done by neither
sex, but by ring-barking and intensive grazing. In most areas,
that will convert woodland to grassland in under a century, and
grassland is easy to convert to cultivation.

In parts of the third world nothing has changed.

In this country, hunter-gathering (found food) preceded agriculture
(the clearing of forest to create grazing, breeding/tending livestock,
cultivating soil to grow crops).

Yup. By a LONG way. Homo sapiens is one of two current land mammals
that has been here longest (tens of thousands of years). Clearing
the woodland didn't start until c. 3,000 BC.

This site explains the timeline......
http://www.ukagriculture.com/country...de_history.cfm


--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

On 30/06/2014 13:13, Janet wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 23:52:22 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

It was primitive women who did the grinding. The men were out all day hunting
and gathering.

So who was sowing and harvesting those grain crops?

The women? :-)

Who cleared land of stones and trees and cultivated the soil fine
enough to sow the grain in?


In parts of the third world nothing has changed.

In this country, hunter-gathering (found food) preceded agriculture
(the clearing of forest to create grazing, breeding/tending livestock,
cultivating soil to grow crops).

Janet.


What country are you talking about?
Slash and burn was not a common practice in Europe as it is a method
used mainly by nomadic people who move on every 2 or 3 years.
In the UK forests were not cleared for agriculture, it was the need for
Oak for sailing ships from the 16th century onwards.
Forests were about the only source of fuel that people had.
for thousands of years people just gathered the seeds of wild grass,
then some started to make holes on the ground and to drop a few grass
seeds in so that they didn't have to search so far to find the seeds
they needed.
The plough came much later, see
http://www.ploughmen.co.uk/ploughhistory.htm
In The US of A primitive stick ploughs were uses in places well into the
19th century.
Tending of livestock was mostly a shared job, where the animals needed
defending from wild animals or marauding neighbours then it was the men
that did it, especially as the keeping of livestock reduced the need of
hunting to feed the people so men had more time to devote to developing
husbandry skills and other agricultural practices.
I do think that some time spent reading up on agricultural history would
be a good idea

In article ,
David Hill wrote:
On 30/06/2014 13:13, Janet wrote:

In this country, hunter-gathering (found food) preceded agriculture
(the clearing of forest to create grazing, breeding/tending livestock,
cultivating soil to grow crops).

What country are you talking about?
Slash and burn was not a common practice in Europe as it is a method
used mainly by nomadic people who move on every 2 or 3 years.

She didn't mention that.

In the UK forests were not cleared for agriculture, it was the need for
Oak for sailing ships from the 16th century onwards.

That is erroneous - see Rackham and many others. Most were cleared
by the neolithic farmers, when agriculture was introduced. Until
c. 3,000 BC, only a VERY few areas of the UK weren't forested, and
most of those were and are unsuitable for agriculture.

Forests were about the only source of fuel that people had.

Er, no. Shrubs, reeds etc. all make good fuel. As do reasonably
dry peat and herbivore dung.

for thousands of years people just gathered the seeds of wild grass,
then some started to make holes on the ground and to drop a few grass
seeds in so that they didn't have to search so far to find the seeds
they needed.

There is no evidence for that, and it is VERY dubious (for grasses,
anyway). They do not establish well like that, and a few plants
aren't any use. It is possible that is how farming started, but
it won't have been grasses.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
David Hill wrote:
On 30/06/2014 13:13, Janet wrote:

In this country, hunter-gathering (found food) preceded agriculture
(the clearing of forest to create grazing, breeding/tending livestock,
cultivating soil to grow crops).

What country are you talking about?

Britain; this is a UK group.

See Nick's replies.

Slash and burn was not a common practice in Europe as it is a method
used mainly by nomadic people who move on every 2 or 3 years.

She didn't mention that.

In the UK forests were not cleared for agriculture, it was the need for
Oak for sailing ships from the 16th century onwards.

That is erroneous - see Rackham and many others. Most were cleared
by the neolithic farmers, when agriculture was introduced. Until
c. 3,000 BC, only a VERY few areas of the UK weren't forested, and
most of those were and are unsuitable for agriculture.

Forests were about the only source of fuel that people had.

Er, no. Shrubs, reeds etc. all make good fuel. As do reasonably
dry peat and herbivore dung.

for thousands of years people just gathered the seeds of wild grass,
then some started to make holes on the ground and to drop a few grass
seeds in so that they didn't have to search so far to find the seeds
they needed.

There is no evidence for that, and it is VERY dubious (for grasses,
anyway). They do not establish well like that, and a few plants
aren't any use. It is possible that is how farming started, but
it won't have been grasses.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:13:09 +0100, Janet wrote:

Who cleared land of stones and trees and cultivated the soil fine
enough to sow the grain in?

Slash and burners?

Not in the UK. Except in the most extreme summers, and the pine
domain (which was small, and mainly in the north), the woodland
will not burn. See Rackham again, though he exaggerates.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Martin wrote:

Who cleared land of stones and trees and cultivated the soil fine
enough to sow the grain in?

Slash and burners?

Not in the UK. Except in the most extreme summers, and the pine
domain (which was small, and mainly in the north), the woodland
will not burn. See Rackham again, though he exaggerates.

Assuming that there was never a dry warm spell in prehistoric times.

Don't be ridiculous - I said "the most extreme summers", and I do
not regard mere dry warm spells as that. On the few occasions that
the woods would have burnt, they would have regenerated before the
next extreme event. At MOST, a tiny patch could have been converted
to farmland.

Did they fell the trees with their little bronze hatches?

Flint - it cuts better than steel, anyway. But I don't think that
they DID fell them - my guess is that they ring-barked them, and
then grazed the area intensively. That will turn woodland into
grassland in under a century, and that is easy to cultivate.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Martin wrote:

Who cleared land of stones and trees and cultivated the soil fine
enough to sow the grain in?

Slash and burners?

Not in the UK. Except in the most extreme summers, and the pine
domain (which was small, and mainly in the north), the woodland
will not burn. See Rackham again, though he exaggerates.

Assuming that there was never a dry warm spell in prehistoric times.

Don't be ridiculous - I said "the most extreme summers", and I do
not regard mere dry warm spells as that.

There were long dry periods in prehistoric times. Periods being decades not the
occasional hot summer.

What is it about the term "most extreme" that you don't understand?

In the 36 years I have lived in this garden, it has got dry enough
that the soil was bone dry 4" down and chemically waterless on the
surface - i.e. not enough free water to allow even hydrophilic
reactions. And that was nothing like dry enough to make the woods
burn. In my memory (and I have lived in the UK since 1957), there
TWO years when SMALL areas of the UK got dry enough for native
woodlands to burn, and I don't believe that even those ended up
killing most of the (native) trees.

On the few occasions that
the woods would have burnt, they would have regenerated before the
next extreme event. At MOST, a tiny patch could have been converted
to farmland.

I suggest that you think about this paragraph.

Did they fell the trees with their little bronze hatches?

Flint - it cuts better than steel, anyway. But I don't think that
they DID fell them - my guess is that they ring-barked them, and
then grazed the area intensively. That will turn woodland into
grassland in under a century, and that is easy to cultivate.

A century was 3 or 4 lifetimes. Did ancient Britains plan that far ahead?

You are being silly again. They didn't need to - the ring barking
produced the grazing, which would have been their objective. The
eventual conversion to grassland was a side-effect.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.