Since I actually addressed this issue when I was an adjunct professor in anthropology a couple of times and worked in archaeology at various times from 1968 to 2002, let me weigh in on the transition to agriculture. Many fellow anthropologists will disagree of course. The key for me was evolutionary predisposition plus human agency. Most of the foods we eat are polyploids and wheat made the mutation to a chromosomal number of 14 (diploid number 2 x 7) before humans started domesticating it. Wild einkorn predated domestic einkorn and it is likely there continued to be wild einkorn intermixed with the domestic einkorn for some time. [This is an early landrace method, by the way. Let the seeds of the crops on the fringes line breed back to the main crop.] We can also look at the interdependence of wheat, corn, rice and other staple crops as co-evolution of plant and humans. As Wilkinson and Gunnar both noted, the human stock went down in vitality with agriculture. This is well documented in human skeletons before and after the Neolithic. Or as one of my anthropology professors used to say, "Whatever happened to those old wild humans who hunted the mammoth to extinction?"
Emmer (durum) wheat is a tetraploid with 4 x 7 = 28 and modern bread wheat is a hexaploid, with 6 x 7 = 42. Emmer was another wild mutation selected on by humans, as was modern hexaploid wheat, or what we call bread wheat. The varying levels of protein and gluten are the reason for using diploids, tetraploid and hexaploid wheat for different food products. However, I ran across an article from 2018 that mentions an interesting factor for a changing climate. "Our study demonstrated that modern hexaploid wheat has acquired a greater proportion of tolerance rather than avoidance strategy in response to high temperature and weak radiation stress." The avoidance strategy is less leaf area, while the greater tolerance to heat stress is greater leaf area, higher relative leaf water content, and higher proline and soluble sugar contents. [This may be an aftereffect of Borlaug's work, by the way, so we may find a difference in heritage wheat varieties. As they say in science, "More work needs to be done."]
A point about transposons. Both corn and rice have transposons, or "jumping genes." This is well known about corn and not so much about rice. This enables faster mutations and is beneficial in a changing climate. [One of the reasons I work with corn every year.]
Years ago, I measured the EROI (energy return on investment) of my homegrown wheat, using a tiller for soil prep, hand sowing, a sickle for harvesting, an electric chipper/shredder for threshing, and an electric fan for winnowing. My EROI was 25:1 (25 kilocalories of food value for 1 kilocalorie of machine and human labor input). Based on some experiments done by archaeologists in the 1960s (in Iraq I believe), I calculated the EROI for wild wheat harvested, threshed and winnowed by hand at 50:1. Most of this gain was because no soil prep or sowing was required.
I am a modern subsistence farmer, and recently have many new visitors interested in our farm. Most earn fabulous wages but all complain that they spend more than they earn and have no savings. I question the value of my organic farming as it supplies us with our and animals food and provides some money to keep going with the sale of our oils and flour but relies on our pension to avoid having to sell the farm. Being old there is certainly a question of how to keep the farm going when those interested in the farm have no practical skills which embarrasses them as they are highly educate professionals.
I would add that it is hard to explain the emergence of the industrial revolution in England with resource constraints. This would imply that England was MORE constrained in resources and more overpopulated than (any) other place in the world. In my view, it was rather the opposite.
Since I actually addressed this issue when I was an adjunct professor in anthropology a couple of times and worked in archaeology at various times from 1968 to 2002, let me weigh in on the transition to agriculture. Many fellow anthropologists will disagree of course. The key for me was evolutionary predisposition plus human agency. Most of the foods we eat are polyploids and wheat made the mutation to a chromosomal number of 14 (diploid number 2 x 7) before humans started domesticating it. Wild einkorn predated domestic einkorn and it is likely there continued to be wild einkorn intermixed with the domestic einkorn for some time. [This is an early landrace method, by the way. Let the seeds of the crops on the fringes line breed back to the main crop.] We can also look at the interdependence of wheat, corn, rice and other staple crops as co-evolution of plant and humans. As Wilkinson and Gunnar both noted, the human stock went down in vitality with agriculture. This is well documented in human skeletons before and after the Neolithic. Or as one of my anthropology professors used to say, "Whatever happened to those old wild humans who hunted the mammoth to extinction?"
Emmer (durum) wheat is a tetraploid with 4 x 7 = 28 and modern bread wheat is a hexaploid, with 6 x 7 = 42. Emmer was another wild mutation selected on by humans, as was modern hexaploid wheat, or what we call bread wheat. The varying levels of protein and gluten are the reason for using diploids, tetraploid and hexaploid wheat for different food products. However, I ran across an article from 2018 that mentions an interesting factor for a changing climate. "Our study demonstrated that modern hexaploid wheat has acquired a greater proportion of tolerance rather than avoidance strategy in response to high temperature and weak radiation stress." The avoidance strategy is less leaf area, while the greater tolerance to heat stress is greater leaf area, higher relative leaf water content, and higher proline and soluble sugar contents. [This may be an aftereffect of Borlaug's work, by the way, so we may find a difference in heritage wheat varieties. As they say in science, "More work needs to be done."]
https://bioone.org/journals/crop-and-pasture-science/volume-69/issue-3/CP17224/Modern-hexaploid-wheat-differs-from-diploid-and-tetraploid-ancestors-in/10.1071/CP17224.full
A point about transposons. Both corn and rice have transposons, or "jumping genes." This is well known about corn and not so much about rice. This enables faster mutations and is beneficial in a changing climate. [One of the reasons I work with corn every year.]
Years ago, I measured the EROI (energy return on investment) of my homegrown wheat, using a tiller for soil prep, hand sowing, a sickle for harvesting, an electric chipper/shredder for threshing, and an electric fan for winnowing. My EROI was 25:1 (25 kilocalories of food value for 1 kilocalorie of machine and human labor input). Based on some experiments done by archaeologists in the 1960s (in Iraq I believe), I calculated the EROI for wild wheat harvested, threshed and winnowed by hand at 50:1. Most of this gain was because no soil prep or sowing was required.
I am a modern subsistence farmer, and recently have many new visitors interested in our farm. Most earn fabulous wages but all complain that they spend more than they earn and have no savings. I question the value of my organic farming as it supplies us with our and animals food and provides some money to keep going with the sale of our oils and flour but relies on our pension to avoid having to sell the farm. Being old there is certainly a question of how to keep the farm going when those interested in the farm have no practical skills which embarrasses them as they are highly educate professionals.
I would add that it is hard to explain the emergence of the industrial revolution in England with resource constraints. This would imply that England was MORE constrained in resources and more overpopulated than (any) other place in the world. In my view, it was rather the opposite.