Capt’n Jack and Scott.
Let me put down ten of my top thoughts on the subject and see if you agree.
The cradle of civilization is Israel and Jordan according to archaeologists of the 1950’s.
If you are not willing to accept that as fact today, then there is a flaw in archaeology or archaeology is a study that accepts new theories.
George Willcox, an archaeologist at the CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research) in France, commenting on the Zagros Mountain 12,000 year old wheat find in this July’s science journals says there is the possibility that agriculture emerged from one region further back in time and that crop cultivation is even older than these ancient human settlements suggest. The thing that’s most astounding is that it extends the Fertile Crescent much farther east for the early agricultural sites, which are dated to 11,500 to 11,000 years ago.
Now let’s stop here. Mr. Willcox is a top person in this field. What he is saying is that they don’t yet have all the answers and they are still looking for pieces of the puzzle?
And it is a real possibility that domestication of agriculture emerged from one region. And that one region has not been found yet. And that region is much older than any of the sites they have today and the search is pointing east.
Today there are four areas, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, and Yellow River. Note most thinking today is that India is much older than the Yellow River but a lot of science work needs be to done to confirm.
Our knowledge base stared with Egypt then moved to Israel and Jordan, then Mesopotamia and is just now scratching the surface in India and not really stared in the Yellow River area at this time.
What are the most important common factors to me about the cradle of civilization?
1. A method to obtain protein.
2. Methods to store protein.
3. A method to track and distribute protein.
The teeth and bones will show us if the cradles had good protein intake. Egypt did not always have enough protein. Bones leading up to plagues show a lack in protein and afterwards the bones show an increased protein. This indicates a limit on the amount of protein the cradle is able to raise.
Now just about every garden and orchard food can be DNA traced back to India. Every specialty dogs along with cows and horses also can be traced back to India. Sugar cane and cotton, the list goes on and on. We could call it the cradle of domestication of animals and plants.
You could ask, why aren’t the scientists thinking this same way? The answer is a lot of them do.
I just finished reading a white paper on the potato. The question was did the European potato come from India and not South America. That was because India also had potatoes. After the DNA testing, it surprised them to find the India potato was from South America. But now it brings up the question of how the potato got to India. The chicken from India got as far as Easter Island.
I had read another white paper about the Yams from South America traveling to South Asian Islands. Once at the island for some time the Yams developed enough differences that they could be tested and identified to one island and then they could follow the migration of the Yams.
Where’s the footprint?
Domestication should leave a foot print like the foot prints of the domestication of corn in Mexico or potatoes in South America.
Those foot prints are not in Egypt or Mesopotamia. This is no different than the evolution of man leaving a footprint of evolving.
Point being - in using the same concepts that has been used in the archaeology of Mesopotamia. I have grass in my lawn, science shows that grass is related to wild grass in the hills close to me. So that proves that I domesticated my lawn grass from the wild grasses growing close to me. Or there is another new theory out, that I may have imported the seeds from the supply store in town. So how would you go about proving which theory is true?
Could India be the Cradle of Domestication?
For the theory to work would mean after the population bottleneck in 71K BC there was an island of people in India who over tens of thousands of years developed farming skills to a level that has not been reach until modern times.
Is that possible? Are there any other examples?
Now I would like to jump to Holland where they were very good at growing new varieties of tulips. At times one tulip bulb would sell for the price of a new house. More valuable by weight than gold. The tulip bulbs sold all over Europe and you could find tulips all over Europe but the skill for growing new varieties was only in Holland and not the rest of Europe.
The best example in modern times would be the metal working skills of Germany. For many generations the metal working of Ruhr Valley was past down from father to son. At the turn of the twenty century Germany was the world leader in metal working. The industrial machines that were manufactured in Germany could not be matched anywhere else in the world. Anyone who knows anything about factories back then would have wanted to be connected to Germany just like Henry Ford.
It was decided after WWII that the only way to stop Germany from being a power again was to strip the Ruhr Valley of all the machinery. The equipment was fought over by all the allies. German machinery is still prized in American factories today.
Germany’s lathes, mills and boring machines have been copied by all industrial countries. The only country that had any success at even coming close to German quality was Switzerland with the small Jig Bore machines. Not even Germany today can manufacture the quality of the Ruhr machinery. Today the factories are using a different type of equipment that is computer operated. The old German machinery if properly maintained is looking like having a life span of one to three hundred years. American copies are the next best in the world. They get thirty to fifty year’s tops. Factories figure after ten years they have limit their use do to tolerance errors.
The Metal Tradesmen of Germany developed a skill that is now considered lost to mankind for ever as a working trade skill.
The watermelons, melons and cumbers were out of Asia. But their wild plants were out of Africa.
Same with cotton, cotton came out of Central Africa as a wild plant to India and was domesticated into a useful plant and then travel back to Africa (Egypt) to be used in production.
So what plants did Egypt domesticate?
What plants did Mesopotamia domesticate?
I know Mesopotamia is credited with grains. But if they had the skills for grains they would have had the skills for many other plants, yet we do not see that.
What I think most likely happened is Mesopotamia bought seeds from India.
I think it is real possible that for thousands of years farmers in India did breeding of plants and animals. They search the world for plants to work with.
It is known that the house mouse developed in India, there was more than enough food for the people.
The recipe for domestication must require long periods of stable farming, like in Egypt and India.
Egypt had rebalancing of the land ownership every 25 to 30 years. And all animals and field crops were valued by the tax system. A good horse had the same value as a bad horse; all horse had the same value, government controlled and the same with crops. We do the same thing today with milk and eggs, government controlled and the price is always stable.
I think Mesopotamia was to close to India and didn’t need to have domestication, just as farmers today do not develop their own seeds, they buy them.
Why then if India was that good didn’t they expand their empire?
We know they moved west and north out of India and their technology also move east.
Their religion was not one that endorsed conquering other lands.
If at one time they searched for plants and animals and did trade afar they may have had major set backs like in the Americas from diseases.