close
more_vert

Reading this at the moment, very interesting indeed. Only a little way through at the moment but the ideas in it seem well thought out and quite convincing. The idea that farming was a side-effect of the need to feed and cloth workers to build large temples is very intruiging and am looking forward to reading about how it would apply to the Irish sites especially Carrowmore since the (admittedly controversial) carbon dates put the first monuments there earlier than the 'introduction' of farming.

That theory is the reverse of the one put forward in TMA, which was that people had time to build monuments <i>because</i> they were farming.

Carrowmore does make you think though ...

I cannot comment on the date of the introduction of farming to Ireland, but I would resist the notion that farming arose just as a means of feeding temple construction workers. Sure, they would need feeding and on a massive scale, but does that justify the assumption that it is the sole raison d'etre?

It seems more likely that gathering fruits, nuts and roots led to seed sowing and harvesting. Similarly, animal pursuit led to animal husbandry and corralling. The managed herds would need to be moved on to fresh grazing under a nomadic lifestyle. This would evolve into hay and grain food storage and the cultivation of animal as well as human food crops which leads to a more settled lifestyle. Settlement then allows for permanent feature to be built - then you can build your temples.