[cfg83]

IamIan -

Originally Posted by IamIan

...

As for you theory about about a system that forces or enslaves people to labor in fields being needed for large scale agriculture ... I don't see sufficient evidence to support that conclusion.

After all ... not every farmer in the history of the world was forced or enslaved to be that farmer ... not every society in history used slave labor in the fields.

Yes some did ... but the conclusion / theory you make about it that ... it wouldn't have happened ... I think that goes way beyond the evidence that I see ... and if anything I see evidence to show that the enslavement and forced labor in the fields is not needed ... and that societies are capable of growing without enslaving others or using forced labor in the fields.

...

This is an interesting article :

Hunter-gatherers: Noble or savage? | The Economist

...
Why change? In the late 1970s Mark Cohen, an archaeologist, first suggested that agriculture was born of desperation, rather than inspiration. Evidence from the Fertile Crescent seems to support him. Rising human population density, combined perhaps with a cooling, drying climate, left the Natufian hunter-gatherers of the region short of acorns, gazelles and wild grass seeds. Somebody started trying to preserve and enhance a field of chickpeas or wheat-grass and soon planting, weeding, reaping and threshing were born.
...
Constant warfare [among hunter gatherers] was necessary to keep population density down to one person per square mile. Farmers can live at 100 times that density. Hunter-gatherers may have been so lithe and healthy because the weak were dead. The invention of agriculture and the advent of settled society merely swapped high mortality for high morbidity, allowing people some relief from chronic warfare so they could at least grind out an existence, rather than being ground out of existence altogether.
...

CarloSW2