7 ms·

Graeber spends a lot of time arguing against exactly this assumption in The Dawn of Everything. I.e. that agriculture must come before civilization. Pretty pers

Graeber spends a lot of time arguing against exactly this assumption in The Dawn of Everything. I.e. that agriculture must come before civilization. Pretty persuasively, IMHO.

robonerd 4y ago
I haven't read that book [yet], but I'll say that 'civilization' is not the same thing as carving up tons of rock. That you can form a civilization without agriculture doesn't surprise me. That a civilization could support megalithic stone carving endeavors without agriculture beggars belief. Besides these sites in Turkey, are there any places in the world where huge amount of rock was carved supposedly without agriculture to fuel the workers? The Stonehenge builders had agriculture, as did those who made the Easter Island statues. Agriculture built Egypt.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  I did not get the impression that the carvings at this site were anywhere near as large as StoneHenge, Easter island, or Giza: they mention a life-sized man statue, large pensis, and friezes. And if the site was occupied for hundreds of years, they could have been carved over time, spreading out the caloric requirements.
- alophawen 4y ago
  You are clueless and should read that book instead of speaking out like this.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    I'll say what I like about anything I like. If the book is so great than those of you who've read it should be able to present the arguments from it. It sounds like it left all of you with an impression of having learned something, but unable to convey much of anything that you actually learned. Did you actually read that book?
- I-M-S 4y ago
  You really should read the book to make informed takes on this topic
qiskit 4y ago
What other way was there to feed a city full of people? Certainly, you could have culture within a hunter-gatherer society, but not civilization. How could hunter-gatherers provide enough food to sustain a city? Unless we redefine civilization by removing cities/urban centers from its definition.
- sdenton4 4y ago
  Go read the book! Even the idea of a hard binary between 'agricultural' and 'hunter gatherer' societies is put to the test, with evidence of civilizations that changed both locations and whole modes of culture and caloric intake seasonally.
- stubish 4y ago
  IIRC there is evidence that Gobekli Tepe was not fully occupied year round, so more of a festival site or wintering ground. Maybe in the later stages it did have a more permanent population, and if so they could have been some of the first people to invent actual farming. This is around the time and place we think Einkorn was first domesticated, and a bunch of people growing it near a festival site to brew booze to supply a bunch of nomads when they come around to party makes a good narrative on how we transitioned from hunters to farmers.
  - ComputerGuru 4y ago
    Read TFA. They’re finding the towns with permanent abodes less than 50km away.

Graeber spends a lot of time arguing against exactly this assumption in The Dawn of Everything. I.e. that agriculture must come before civilization. Pretty persuasively, IMHO.

robonerd 4y ago

I haven't read that book [yet], but I'll say that 'civilization' is not the same thing as carving up tons of rock. That you can form a civilization without agriculture doesn't surprise me. That a civilization could support megalithic stone carving endeavors without agriculture beggars belief. Besides these sites in Turkey, are there any places in the world where huge amount of rock was carved supposedly without agriculture to fuel the workers? The Stonehenge builders had agriculture, as did those who made the Easter Island statues. Agriculture built Egypt.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
I did not get the impression that the carvings at this site were anywhere near as large as StoneHenge, Easter island, or Giza: they mention a life-sized man statue, large pensis, and friezes. And if the site was occupied for hundreds of years, they could have been carved over time, spreading out the caloric requirements.
alophawen 4y ago
You are clueless and should read that book instead of speaking out like this.
- robonerd 4y ago
  I'll say what I like about anything I like. If the book is so great than those of you who've read it should be able to present the arguments from it. It sounds like it left all of you with an impression of having learned something, but unable to convey much of anything that you actually learned. Did you actually read that book?
I-M-S 4y ago
You really should read the book to make informed takes on this topic

qiskit 4y ago

What other way was there to feed a city full of people? Certainly, you could have culture within a hunter-gatherer society, but not civilization. How could hunter-gatherers provide enough food to sustain a city? Unless we redefine civilization by removing cities/urban centers from its definition.

sdenton4 4y ago
Go read the book! Even the idea of a hard binary between 'agricultural' and 'hunter gatherer' societies is put to the test, with evidence of civilizations that changed both locations and whole modes of culture and caloric intake seasonally.
stubish 4y ago
IIRC there is evidence that Gobekli Tepe was not fully occupied year round, so more of a festival site or wintering ground. Maybe in the later stages it did have a more permanent population, and if so they could have been some of the first people to invent actual farming. This is around the time and place we think Einkorn was first domesticated, and a bunch of people growing it near a festival site to brew booze to supply a bunch of nomads when they come around to party makes a good narrative on how we transitioned from hunters to farmers.
- ComputerGuru 4y ago
  Read TFA. They’re finding the towns with permanent abodes less than 50km away.