New Research In
Physical Sciences
Social Sciences
Featured Portals
Articles by Topic
Biological Sciences
Featured Portals
Articles by Topic
- Agricultural Sciences
- Anthropology
- Applied Biological Sciences
- Biochemistry
- Biophysics and Computational Biology
- Cell Biology
- Developmental Biology
- Ecology
- Environmental Sciences
- Evolution
- Genetics
- Immunology and Inflammation
- Medical Sciences
- Microbiology
- Neuroscience
- Pharmacology
- Physiology
- Plant Biology
- Population Biology
- Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
- Sustainability Science
- Systems Biology
Cultivation of cereals by the first farmers was not more productive than foraging
Edited* by Henry T. Wright, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, and approved February 2, 2011 (received for review July 26, 2010)

Abstract
Did foragers become farmers because cultivation of crops was simply a better way to make a living? If so, what is arguably the greatest ever revolution in human livelihoods is readily explained. To answer the question, I estimate the caloric returns per hour of labor devoted to foraging wild species and cultivating the cereals exploited by the first farmers, using data on foragers and land-abundant hand-tool farmers in the ethnographic and historical record, as well as archaeological evidence. A convincing answer must account not only for the work of foraging and cultivation but also for storage, processing, and other indirect labor, and for the costs associated with the delayed nature of agricultural production and the greater exposure to risk of those whose livelihoods depended on a few cultivars rather than a larger number of wild species. Notwithstanding the considerable uncertainty to which these estimates inevitably are subject, the evidence is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the productivity of the first farmers exceeded that of early Holocene foragers. Social and demographic aspects of farming, rather than its productivity, may have been essential to its emergence and spread. Prominent among these aspects may have been the contribution of farming to population growth and to military prowess, both promoting the spread of farming as a livelihood.
Footnotes
Author contributions: S.B. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
↵*This Direct Submission article had a prearranged editor.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1010733108/-/DCSupplemental.
Citation Manager Formats
More Articles of This Classification
Social Sciences
Related Content
- No related articles found.
Cited by...
- Agriculture, population growth, and statistical analysis of the radiocarbon record
- Transition to farming more likely for small, conservative groups with property rights, but increased productivity is not essential
- Toward a theory of punctuated subsistence change
- An evolutionary model explaining the Neolithic transition from egalitarianism to leadership and despotism
- Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene














