It's actually not clear at all that this is the case in Western Europe. Agriculture came with sweeping genetic and archaeological changes. There's quite a bit o

It's actually not clear at all that this is the case in Western Europe. Agriculture came with sweeping genetic and archaeological changes. There's quite a bit of evidence for population replacement in large parts of Europe as agriculture moved in, rather than existing hunter gatherers adopting farming. If you look at the more recent history of the agricultural settlement of other parts of the world, it's not too different. North America the most recent, but parts of Africa as well. Hunter gatherers have low population densities over often very large territories, and are sensitive to disruptions in animal migrations; but when they're able to forage and hunt reliably their diets are actually often much better than agricultural populations and involve less overall labour. So they don't necessarily just give it up because somehow agriculture is better. ... and even the proto-Indo-European pastoralists of the steppe continued to forage wild grains and plants (rather than plant wheat like their neighbours to the west) for almost a millennia after domesticating horses and cattle. David Anthony gets into this in "Horse, Wheel, Language". And it wasn't because they didn't know how, they just preferred not to. Settling down to plant crops has trade-offs. (I say this as a person with a pile of pre-winter garden chores I'm procrastinating...)