• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did religious beliefs trigger the Neolithic Revolution and the birth of civilization?

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I've been reading about Gobekli Tepe - a 12,000 year old cult complex, the oldest example of monolithic architecture yet discovered - for a number of years now. It should be far more well known since it is a game-changing site for understanding the origins of civilization. Read from the archaeologist's blog:

The Tepe Telegrams

A few kilometres northeast of modern Şanlıurfa in south-eastern Turkey, the tell of Göbekli Tepe is situated on the highest point of the otherwise barren Germuş mountain range. Rising 15 metres and with an area of about 9 hectares, the completely man-made mound covers the earliest known monumental cult architecture in the ancient Near East. Constructed by hunter-gatherers right after the end of the last Ice Age, they also intentionally buried it about 10,000 years ago.

No typical domestic structures have yet been found, leading to the interpretation of Göbekli Tepe as a ritual centre for gathering and feasting. The people creating these megalithic monuments were still highly mobile hunter-foragers and the site’s material culture corroborates this.

In the centre two colossal pillars, measuring about 5.5 m, are founded in shallow pedestals carved out of the carefully smoothed bedrock. This central pair of pillars is surrounded by a circle formed of similar, but slightly smaller pillars which are connected by stone walls and benches.
Traditional thought went something like this:


Hunter gatherers---> farming ------> Settlements, civilization, organised religion (made possible from farming surplus)

But at Göbekli Tepe it seems to have gone:


Hunter Gatherers-----> organised religion/cult/spiritual beliefs -----> farming, full settled life and civilization


....with the religion bringing more people together on a more permanent basis in one place, such that they needed farming to feed them and indicates a significant shift in worldview from the earlier “cave art” beliefs. In these, Paleolithic people appear to have seen themselves as simply “part” of their natural world, on a similar level to the animals depicted – I suppose a sort of “animistic” religious outlook, if it isn’t anachronistic to say that.

But with Gobekli Tepe, stylized human figures take centre stage for veneration and ritual focus, towering above the animals that lie beneath and the surrounding landscape. This suggests a shift to a more “anthropocentric” worldview in which humans are believed to be ‘above’ the rest of nature and perhaps able to exert a kind of ‘mastery’ over the wild forces of nature represented by the fearsome beasts, which apparently gave these ancient Neolithic people the impetus to start experimenting for the first time in human history with agriculture.

It used to be taken for granted by anthropologists in the early 20th century that climactic change at the end of the last Ice Age (the Younger Dryas) led to the invention of agriculture and spurred humans to abandon hunter-gatherer society and embrace full sedentary living, which enabled settlements, civilisation, art and religion to ultimately develop. There were already problems with this theory before GT was discovered in the 1990s, not least that earlier warming periods in human history had not resulted in any great quantum leap for our species out of the Stone Age, indicating that more was at play here.

Gobekli Tepe pivots this assumption on its head.

According to Gobekli, it was the urge to worship and exchange knowledge that originally brought human beings together to construct elaborate monolithic structures for ritual use before the invention of agriculture or fully settled life as we know it. Basically, the process of constructing the cultic site of Gobekli made it necessary to find a more consistent found source which probably led to the first domestication of wheat to feed those working on the construction.

Those researching and excavating the site are of the opinion that it had a cultic, ritual use rooted in the belief system of hunter-gatherers. They aren't saying this without good reason.

We have no idea if these people had any conception of gods but the architecture in question had a cultic significance for the people who built it and was constructed for ritualized feasting etc. rooted in a belief system/shared religious understanding. If I might quote the researchers again:


https://www.researchgate.net/public...of_Upper_Mesopotamia_A_View_from_Gobekli_Tepe


"...Vast evidence for feasting at the site seems to hint at work feasts to accomplish the common, religiously motivated task of constructing these enclosures. Given the significant amount of time, labor, and skilled craftsmanship invested, and as elements of Göbekli Tepe’s material culture can be found around it in a radius of roughly 200 km all over Upper Mesopotamia , it is likely that the site was the cultic center of transegalitarian groups..."

And again:

https://tepetelegrams.wordpress.com


"...While these surrounding pillars often are decorated with depictions of animals like foxes, aurochs, birds, snakes, and spiders, the central pair in particular illustrates the anthropomorphic character of the T-pillars. They clearly display arms depicted in relief on the pillars’ shafts, with hands brought together above the abdomen, pointing to the middle of the waist. Belts and loincloths underline this impression and emphasize the human-like appearance of these pillars.

Their larger-than-life and highly abstracted representation is intentionally chosen and not owed to deficient craftsmanship, as other finds like the much more naturalistic animal and human sculptures clearly demonstrate. This suggests that whatever the larger-than-life T-pillars are meant to depict and embody is on a different level than the life-sized sculptures in the iconography of Göbekli Tepe and the Neolithic in Upper Mesopotamia.

Furthermore, these objects are not restricted to Göbekli Tepe and the few other sites with T-shaped pillars in its closer vicinity, but are known from places up to 200 km around the site. A spiritual concept seems to have linked these sites to each other, suggesting a larger cultic community among PPN mobile groups in Upper Mesopotamia, tied in a network of communication and exchange.

In this scenario, the early appearance of monumental religious architecture motivating work feasts to draw as many hands as possible for the execution of complex, collective tasks is changing our understanding of one of the key moments in human history: the emergence of agriculture and animal husbandry – and the onset of food production and the Neolithic way of live..."


(Continued....)
First, thanks for such an excellent series of posts.

The one thing I would say is that when one compares the religions of hunter gatherers (American Indians, San people, Australian aboriginals) one sees that their religion and mythology is no less rich and vivacious as compared with sedentary farming cultures. So if one is going to say that religious beliefs created the conditions that led to farming revolution etc. one would have to point to what is unique among the religions of those cultures that developed farming as opposed to those people who never developed farming or settled lifestyle. And one has to tie that unique feature with the incentive to settle and farm.

I believe what Gobleki Tepi shows is that this region was exceptionally ecologically rich, so that hunter gatherers could generate enough surplus to develop extensive and elaborate material culture including large scale elaboration of their cultic beliefs through cult centers and religious architecture. This very same ecological richness made it possible for these groups to develop settlements without developing farming. And this settling in created the conditions that spurred domestication of crops and eventually livestock.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Gobekli Tepe is very interesting. I've seen several shows and articles about it.

I think they could be jumping to conclusions with the "religious" complex.

Several archaeologists have noted that this could be a place for meet-ups, several times a year , for trade, mate swaps, etc.

It could also be related to Shamanism which doesn't have to be God related.

*
 

LukeS

Active Member
I read this book, OP a bit long and vague at present

Inside the Neolithic Mind - Wikipedia

I personally think agriculture maybe originated from scattered grain offerings. Book argues it was an accident stemming from seeds spilt at mass gatherings around sacred sites.

IMO fixed locaiton sacred images, with wild plants growing around them, could have focused the mind to ask "why?"- the answer being, they want grain offerings to eat! The more grain, the more food. Simple.

The saced statue opened an avenue into a "theory of mind" (see here Book review: The God Instinct by Jesse Bering ) perspective in ethnobotany (the idol is perceived an agent, as a power with intentions and desires) and so caused a basic type of causal analysis to take place.
 
Last edited:

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I read this book

Inside the Neolithic Mind - Wikipedia

I personally think agriculture maybe originated from scattered grain offerings. Book argues it was an accident stemming from seeds spilt at mass gatherings around sacred sites.

IMO Sacred images, with wild plants growing around them, could have focused the mind to ask "why?"- the answer being, they want grain offerings to eat! The more grain, the more food. Simple.

The saced statue opened an avenue into a "theory of mind" (see here Book review: The God Instinct by Jesse Bering ) perspective (the idol is perceived an agent, as a power with intentions and desires) and so caused a basic type of causal analysis to take place.

So - people didn't gather and trade seeds, etc., anywhere but around Sacred sites? That doesn't make sense.

People were moving with the seasons, animals, etc. They would have run into other groups and traded with them. Eventually these sites become established meet-up sites. Spilt seed could have sprouted there, with animal and human poop fertilizing it. Eventually structures.

Also the idea of a God is not needed in these very early groups. They saw the flora dying and coming back each season, - thus the idea that people might do so also, add flowers, grave goods for their use on the return, etc. The idea of Gods not needed.

Needing food, and doing a ritual to help it be plentiful, - also needs no Gods. It's amazing what shrooms can do.

Obviously we eventually get this God addition, - but in my opinion, the idea that religion started culture is ridiculous.

*
 
Last edited:

LukeS

Active Member
So - people didn't gather and trade seeds, etc., anywhere but around Sacred sites? That doesn't make sense.

People were moving with the seasons, animals, etc. They would have run into other groups and traded with them. Eventually these sites become established meet-up sites. Spilt seed could have sprouted there, with animal and human poop fertilizing it. Eventually structures.
True enough, but what caused the insight "sowing causes harvest". If the seeds were spilt, there is no insight. There would have been no reason to sow, it would have just stayed in accident mode.

Also the idea of a God is not needed in these very early groups. They saw the flora dying and coming back each season, - thus the idea that people might do so also, add flowers, grave goods for their use on the return, etc. The idea of Gods not needed.

Needing food, and doing a ritual to help it be plentiful, - also needs no Gods. It's amazing what shrooms can do.

Obviously we eventually get this God addition, - but in my opinion, the idea that religion started culture is ridiculous.

*
Theres a recent study showing apes have a similar to religious idea.

Scientists may have found evidence that chimps believe in god

I'm not saying God is a must, tho. In the book on the God instinct, its not a theist but an atheist making the arguments. God is a result of "theory of mind" directed at nature. Because we as social creatures have this (except in autism) theres an avenue for religious feeling eg "numinosity"; whatever faiths ultimate truth. But naturalism, I am not sure if its a 'first - toss o the dice' philosophy, or a later development like science. (pace charvakas)

Maybe agriculture was a fusion of atheist (analytic minded) and theist (causal agent minded) thinking. Atheists spotted a correlation. The religious came up with the original causal hypothesis (offering causes harvest) and the atheist then naturalised it (sowing causes harvest, God is not needed):

"The religious tend to be far less analytical in their behaviour but, if you look at previous studies this comes at a cost in terms of intelligence.

On the flip side, atheists ‘push aside’ a more social outlook but and instead display the self-centred, impulsive behaviour, typical of psychopaths."



Read more: Religious people stupid and atheists psychopaths, claims Ohio university study | Metro News
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
I've been reading about Gobekli Tepe - a 12,000 year old cult complex, the oldest example of monolithic architecture yet discovered - for a number of years now. It should be far more well known since it is a game-changing site for understanding the origins of civilization. Read from the archaeologist's blog:
<...>
Traditional thought went something like this:


Hunter gatherers---> farming ------> Settlements, civilization, organised religion (made possible from farming surplus)

But at Göbekli Tepe it seems to have gone:


Hunter Gatherers-----> organised religion/cult/spiritual beliefs -----> farming, full settled life and civilization


....with the religion bringing more people together on a more permanent basis in one place, such that they needed farming to feed them and indicates a significant shift in worldview from the earlier “cave art” beliefs. In these, Paleolithic people appear to have seen themselves as simply “part” of their natural world, on a similar level to the animals depicted – I suppose a sort of “animistic” religious outlook, if it isn’t anachronistic to say that.
This is not the full story--it leaves out the nomadic herdsmen.

But with Gobekli Tepe, stylized human figures take centre stage for veneration and ritual focus, towering above the animals that lie beneath and the surrounding landscape. This suggests a shift to a more “anthropocentric” worldview in which humans are believed to be ‘above’ the rest of nature and perhaps able to exert a kind of ‘mastery’ over the wild forces of nature represented by the fearsome beasts, which apparently gave these ancient Neolithic people the impetus to start experimenting for the first time in human history with agriculture.
Actually, I would say that "humans asserting mastery over the beasts" would be more indicative of nomadic herdsmen than just hunter-gatherers, which the article didn't even consider. Herdsmen would have a keen understanding of the collective nature of herds, which would just naturally translate into applying the collective herding onto humans, and hence, collectivist religion whereby "god" is collective herding spirit, and the clergy serve as the herdsman/shepherd--"the voice of god." Even today, we still see a cultural imprint of former cultural herdsmen who try to manipulate other people into doing their work for them, who exhibit exaggerated emotions (associated with "herding") where slavery is still being viewed as acceptable. **{cough}** ;)

The nomadic herdsmen started raiding the agricultural settlements, as agricultural settlements could accumulate wealth, since they didn't have to carry it around, which accounts for the huge increase in violence during this period. Protection from raiders spurned invention of ways by which to protect themselves, which in turn lead to technological breakthroughs such as the development of metal weapons and tools.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
So I ask: did religious beliefs actually bring humanity out of the Stone Age and lead to our greatest ever scientific innovation, leading in turn to civilization itself?
Religions tend to reflect the culture they evolve in, which is not to go so far as to say that they don't have an effect on the culture itself. We know that even the Neanderthals had religion, probably polytheistic, and they were pre-neolithic.

In my basic anthropology course, I covered the changes that went from hunting & gathering societies to the neolithic agricultural communities and beyond. This change was quite drastic in the long run since the emphasis on what the people needed and how they could get it became quite different. Eventually, with the emergence of empires, it because quite different again, especially in its complexity and structure.

Good OP, btw.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
An informative figure on the chronology of important Near Eastern sites

fg2.jpeg
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
True enough, but what caused the insight "sowing causes harvest". If the seeds were spilt, there is no insight. There would have been no reason to sow, it would have just stayed in accident mode.

And what exactly makes the difference in being spilt where they stop year after year, or a SO-CALLED religious site? They would realize something was going on with the grain either way. No God needed.


Theres a recent study showing apes have a similar to religious idea.

Scientists may have found evidence that chimps believe in god

I'm not saying God is a must, tho. In the book on the God instinct, its not a theist but an atheist making the arguments. God is a result of "theory of mind" directed at nature. Because we as social creatures have this (except in autism) theres an avenue for religious feeling eg "numinosity"; whatever faiths ultimate truth. But naturalism, I am not sure if its a 'first - toss o the dice' philosophy, or a later development like science. (pace charvakas)

Maybe agriculture was a fusion of atheist (analytic minded) and theist (causal agent minded) thinking. Atheists spotted a correlation. The religious came up with the original causal hypothesis (offering causes harvest) and the atheist then naturalised it (sowing causes harvest, God is not needed):

Ritualized behaviors do not automatically correspond to Gods. Chimps acting strange and thumping certain trees can mean anything, - but not likely God and spiritualized ritual space. Same thing when elephants pack bones to certain spots, or put flowers on their dead, etc. These show only familial care and sorrow. God is a jump.

*
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
@Vouthon

Chronology of Gobleki Tepe

To properly understand whether Gobleki Tepe was a catalyst or a consequence of the development of sedentary living and crop domestication in the Near East we need to get a finer grasp of the chronology. Archaeologists divide this period as follows

Pre-pottery Neolithic A 11,800 BP - 10,500 BP (before present)

Pre-pottery Neolithic B 10,500 BP - 8000 BP which is divided into
early PPNB 10,500-10,000 BP
middle PPNB 10,000-9,200 BP
Late PPNB 9,200-8000 BP

Note: subtract 2000 to get from BP to BC. Thus 11,000 BP = 9000 BC.



The date of the Gobleki Tepe massive architectures date from the Pre-pottery Neolithic A period. From the "Tepe telegram" link in the opening post,

It is currently possible to distinguish two different phases at Göbekli Tepe although this will undoubtedly change with continued research. The site is characterised by an older layer dating to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) A period (ca. 9,600-8,800 calBC) which produced monumental circular huge T-shaped pillars arranged in circle-like enclosures around two even taller central pillars and a younger layer, early and middle PPN B (c. 8,800-7,000 calBC) in date. It consists of smaller rectangular buildings containing often only two small central pillars or even none at all. These may be reduced variations (or later adaptations) of the older and considerably larger monuments, of which four were excavated in the main excavation area in the mound’s southern depression. Notably these structures, labelled Enclosures A, B, C, and D, were apparently backfilled intentionally at the end of their use-lives. Enclosure D, the best preserved of the circular buildings, serves to give an impression of the general layout and set-up of these enclosures.


A more detailed analysis can be found here

How old is it? Dating Göbekli Tepe.

fig-2.jpg


fig-4.jpg


The grey peaks on the X axis provides the 95% confidence interval of the sample dates. The larger structures date from 9,700-9,400 BC while the smaller structure date from 9000-8000 BC. The site is abandoned after 8000 BC.


In the next post, I will look at the chronology of crop domestication.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
@Vouthon


The information regarding the chronology of farming and crop domestication is based on the paper below

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/659307

1) The basic idea is that beginning of settlement and farming practices began several centuries earlier than when evidence of genetic modification of crops show up in archaelogy.


There is, in fact, increasing evidence that humans were actively modifying local ecosystems and manipulating biotic communities to increase the availability of certain economically important plant resources for hundreds of years before the manifestation of morphological indicators of plant domestication (Weiss, Kislev, and Hartmann 2006; Willcox, Buxó, and Herveux 2009; Willcox, Fornite, and Herveux 2008).

First, the presence of distinctive complexes of weedy species characteristic of fields under human cultivation suggests that humans were actively tilling and tending wild stands of einkorn and rye at both Abu Hureyra and nearby Mureybit during the Late Epipaleolithic (ca. 13,000–12,000 cal BP; Colledge 1998, 2002; Hillman 2000:378). Increases in this weed complex at Qaramel (ca. 11,500 cal BP) and Jerf el Ahmar (ca. 11,000 cal BP) signals an intensification of plant cultivation in the Middle Euphrates during the ensuing PPNA period (Willcox, Fornite, and Herveux 2008).

Willcox, Fornite, and Herveux (2008; also Willcox, Buxó, and Herveux 2009) also interpret the increase in the quantity of wild einkorn in Early Holocene assemblages from the Middle Euphrates sites as additional evidence of human management of this plant. Wild einkorn T. monococcum ssp. baeoticum is not well adapted to the chalky soils of the Middle Euphrates, and it would not have responded well to the rising temperatures of the Early Holocene. Today the region is too hot and arid for wild einkorn, which can be found only on basalt lava flows 100 km north of Jerf el Ahmar. The dramatic increase in the representation of wild einkorn in Middle Euphrates assemblages over the course of the PPNA to Early PPNB could happen, these authors argue, only if people were actively tending plants transplanted from preferred habitats, altering local microhabitats, removing competition, and artificially diverting water to tended plants (Willcox, Fornite, and Herveux 2008:321)

In addition to the quantities of lentils recovered from PPNA sites such as Netiv Hagdud and Gigal, the large number of morphologically wild barley and wild oats (Avena sterilis) recovered from these sites (e.g., 260,000 grains of wild barley and 120,000 of wild oats from a single granary at Gigal) suggests that people in the southern Levant were also cultivating plants of economic interest.

2)Despite this evidence of deliberate farming, the crops begin to Genetically alter only later, and then too quite slowly.

Nesbitt’s comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for the appearance of domesticated cereals in the Near East concludes that the evidence for morphologically altered cereal domesticates before about 10,500 cal BP is either too poorly documented or too poorly dated to be accepted as marking the initial threshold of cereal domestication (Nesbitt 2002). The earliest securely identified and dated domestic emmer (Triticum turgidum ssp. dicoccum) and einkorn (T. monococcumssp. monococcum) grains and chaff, according to Nesbitt, come from sites in the Upper Euphrates valley (Nevali Çori, Cafer Höyük, and possibly Çayönü) that date to the Early PPNB, at about 10,500–10,200 cal BP. Nesbitt contends that securely identified and dated domestic barley is not seen until the Middle PPNB, when it is found throughout the Fertile Crescent and Anatolian Plateau.
Domestic morphotypes constitute only 10% of the single-grained einkorn recovered from Nevali Çori (ca. 10,200 cal BP), barely meeting the threshold for demonstrating the presence of domestic cereals. Only 35% of the barley recovered from somewhat later levels at Aswad (10,200–9500 cal BP) and a little over 50% of the barley recovered from Ramad (9500–8500 cal BP) are nonshattering varieties. Even as late as 7500 cal BP, domestic morphotypes constitute only around 60% of the two-grained einkorn recovered from Kosak Shamali, a variety that Willcox postulates represents a second domestication of diploid wheats.

3) This time lag between the beginning of farming and emergence of domesticated varieties is thought to cone from the fact that in the early centuries there will still wild grasses around and framers were still collecting and planting farms with wild varieties from the countryside instead of solely relying on preserved seeds of earlier seasons crops.


The delayed expression of domestication-induced morphological changes in managed plants (at 10,500–10,000 cal BP in cereals and later still in pulses) may be attributable to the frequent importation of new wild plants when cultivated crops failed (Tanno and Willcox 2006a). It is also possible that early harvesting practices may not have encouraged the morphological changes to cereal dispersal mechanisms once thought to be a first-line marker of cereal domestication. Beating ripened grain heads into baskets, for example, or harvesting cereals before they were fully ripe or even gleaning shattered heads of grain from the ground might have led to the retention of the brittle rachis in cultivated cereals (Hartmann, Kislev, and Weiss 2006; Lev-Yadun, Gopher, and Abbo 2006; Tanno and Willcox 2006a; Willcox and Tanno 2006). The appearance of morphological change in these founder crops is, then, most likely an artifact of a change in management or harvesting practices of cultivated crops and not a leading-edge indicator of plants being brought under human control.

4) So what is the upshot? Recent research concludes that farming and animal husbandry was already well established and in the Near East at least by 11,500 BP (or 9500 BC). Thus farming and animal management practices were already being practiced when Gobleki Tepe was being built. Given this, I would tentatively conclude that Gobleki Tepe was the first manifestation of surplus induced increased social elaboration and complexity of material and religious culture in the Near East. It was the consequence and not the cause of the Neolithic revolution.

The emerging picture of plant and animal domestication and agricultural origins in the Near East is dramatically different from that drawn 16 years ago in the landmark Bar-Yosef and Meadow (1995) article. In 1995, there appeared to have been at least a 1,500-year gap between initial crop domestication (ca. 11,400 cal BP) and livestock domestication (ca. 10,000 cal BP). It now seems that plant and animal domestication occurred at roughly the same time, with signs of initial management of morphologically wild future plant and animal domesticates reaching back to at least 11,500 cal BP, if not earlier.

At the time this influential article was published, it appeared that the southern Levant was the core area for initial domestication, and a case could be made that all subsequent crop and livestock domestication in other parts of the Fertile Crescent followed on the precedent of the crops, domestic technology, and the Neolithic way of life introduced from this core region. Since then, the spotlight has shifted to the central Fertile Crescent, especially the upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which appears to be the homeland of the initial domestication of a number of founder crops (einkorn, emmer, pulses) and three, if not four, livestock species (sheep, pigs, cattle, and possibly goats). By the late 1990s, a compelling case could be made that this region was a “cradle of agriculture” in a true Vavlovian sense (Lev-Yadun, Gopher, and Abbo 2000). Genetic and archaeobiological evidence generated since then paints a much less focused, more diffuse picture of agricultural origins. The emergence of agriculture in the Near East now seems to have been a pluralistic process with initial domestication of various crops and livestock occurring, sometimes multiple times in the same species, across the entire region.

We now know that morphological change may have occurred quite late in the domestication process and can no longer be considered a leading-edge indicator of domestication. In cereals, the transition from brittle to tough rachises may actually have been the result of changes in harvest timing and technology that took place well after people began sowing harvested seed stock. In pulses, seed-size change lagged behind changes in seed dormancy and plant yield that cannot be detected in the archaeological record. In animals, the impact of human management on body size is now known to have been restricted to a decrease in the degree of sexual dimorphism; alterations in skull morphology may have resulted from a developing commensal relationship rather than a two-way domestic partnership; and changes in horn size and form may, like changes in rachis morphology, have reflected a change in management practice rather than the initiation of animal management. In fact, in both plants and animals, archaeologically detectable morphological indicators of domestication may have occurred only once managed plants and animals were isolated from free-living populations and the opportunity for introgression or restocking managed populations with wild ones was eliminated. While some may prefer not to call a plant or an animal a domesticate until this separation has occurred, concentrating solely on this late stage of the process will not help us understand how it began.



 
Top