Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
But we have quite a bit of evidence now suggesting that it wasn't that the idea of farming spread, but that *farmers* spread, likely using their much higher population density to displace smaller numbers of non-farmers from resource-rich zones. 3/6
That process would obviously have been violent. I am quite sure that people do not voluntarily leave resource rich zones to go starve and struggle in the hill country or semi-arid zones without at least trying to resist. But they'd lose because the farmers had numbers. 4/6
Something which in turn answers a question the video poses but talks about (because it can't answer it): why shift to farming, when it is less healthy overall? The answer is "you shift to farming to get big enough group-size to defend your territory and resources." 5/6
Warfare provides the pressure that forced otherwise maladaptive strategies. This is something we actually have growing evidence for: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228438092_Beating_Ploughshares_Back_into_Swords_Warfare_in_the_Linearbandkeramik … https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030410 … https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536 … Good quick summary of what we know in Lee, Waging War, ch1, too. end/6
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
