The advent of agriculture:

A critical reflection on pre-Buddhist Sri Lanka

By Dr. Sean Perera

Part 1

Over the ages, human societies have been subjected to numerous transformations. Among these, none has been more profound than when our hunter-gatherer ancestors turned farmers. I do not dispute the idea that transition from hunting to farming was not direct. Human societies would have transitioned through other methods of sourcing food, such as for example herding animals. However, the consequences of this transformation from hunter-gatherer to farmer; be it social, medical or otherwise, continue to be the topic of heated scholarly debate. This essay examines two such consequences: the diminished social status of women, and the physiological challenges posed by a grain-based diet for humans. I conclude by referring to the socio-historical context of Sri Lanka in that climate of change.

Diminished social status of women

It is documented that around ten thousand years ago humans began cultivating grains for food. Several reasons are suggested for the advent of grain-based agriculture; such as demands for food security, scarcity of naturally occurring food sources triggered by environment changes, and increasing human populations. Before turning farmers, it would be safe to say that all humans were members of hunter-gatherer societies.

I use the term “societies” purposefully to indicate that these early human communities shared knowledge-systems, values and beliefs that supported their practices of hunting animals and gathering forest produce. “Collective contribution”, historians and anthropologists admit, formed the cornerstone of early hunter-gatherer societies. This is corroborated by evidence from contemporary (and endangered) tribal groups in which hunter-gatherer practices still exist. Premised on the onus placed by hunter gatherers on sharing, recent authors have gone as far to argue that fidelity, between a single male-female mating pair, did not exists in early hunter gatherer societies.

Hence promiscuity, which is derogated in many modern social contexts, may have been accepted and practiced by our forefathers and foremothers. It is believed that the value-systems, of these early human groups may have, in fact, promoted multiple sexual partners.

From a genetic viewpoint, this would have been desirable as it enabled greater intermixing of genes to produce more resilient and viable human offspring in a single generation.

Moreover, the ability to contribute collectively by both male and females in hunter-gatherer societies offered an equivalent status for both women and men. Some scholars even argue that women in hunter-gatherer societies enjoyed a higher social status than men. They attribute this to the female menstrual cycle which corresponds in duration to the lunar cycle. This innate knowledge of women was valued by hunter-gatherer societies, especially since the “big-hunt” usually took place on the night of a full-moon. In fact, many ancient religions affiliated females with the lunar cycles by including “moon-goddesses” in their pantheon. For example, the pivotal role played by women in hunting is evidenced by Artemis (the Greek equivalent of the Roman goddess Diana), who was believed to be the goddess of hunting and the moon.

Crop cultivation relies, however, on the sun. Hence it was more important for human-societies to know about the solar calendar and the changing seasons. Consequently, the innate knowledge of women about the moon became redundant, as did their potential to contribute collectively. Women moved from being core-knowledge-keepers to agricultural auxiliaries. While some scholars may believe that women enjoyed an elevated status in hunter-gatherer societies, I argue that, at the dawn of agriculture women lost even their equivalent status to men. This is what, I believe, many prehistoric civilizations call the dawn of their respective “Solar Dynasties”: the advent of male-dominated, patriarchal social systems.

As women were forced to reinvent themselves into child-bearers in agricultural societies, their social role became secondary to men. This is evidenced by many historic and linguistic references (some even used contemporarily) to describe the “fertile mother-earth”. Men, conversely, increased in social status: they ploughed fields, grew and harvested crops, and protected grain from wild animals. More importantly, it was not necessary even for men in farming societies to contribute collectively, as was crucial previously in hunter-gatherer societies.

Crop cultivation was more individualistic. Depending on the season, farmers could cultivate crops of their choice in their “own” land. This phenomenon of ownership of the land was paradoxical to the hunter-gatherer model of food procurement. Instead, therefore, of hunter-gatherers contributing collectively to source food, farmers owned the crops and the land on which it was produced.

This concept of ownership extended to include other individuals who depended on the same land for sustenance. Social anthropologists believe that this point of history marks the origin of the family unit, where women, in particular, offered their childrearing capabilities in exchange for food which was produced on the land owned by men. Male-ownership of the land permitted the man to demand fidelity from of the woman, and many women in the case of polygynous relationships.

It is interesting to note, that in the few societies which had practiced polyandry, such as those in parts of Kerala (South India), the landowner is the woman. This observation is extrapolative of the relatively high social status that would have been enjoyed by the individual male landowners in early agricultural societies.

It is reasonable to postulate that ten thousand years, since the advent of agriculture, is a comparatively miniscule timeframe in terms of human evolution. Although as a species, “Man wise wise”; i.e. Homo sapien sapien, may have only evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago, recent archaeological evidence suggests that early human-like primate forms date back as far as seven million years. Moreover, given that the ancestors of the human species possessed biological characteristics horned over millennia of evolution, it would be correct to say that humans who took to farming ten thousand ago shared physiological attributes with their primate ancestors.

An important physiological function of any organism is nutrition. All animals have evolved specific biological mechanisms with which to derive nutrition from particular food sources in their environment. Humans are not an exception to this rule. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors continued in the dietary practices of previous human-like primates. As their name implies, therefore, the primary sources of nutrition would have been derived from hunted animals and forest produce; such as fruits and yams. It is highly likely that grains were also consumed as a part of their diet.

Based on physiological evidence of the human digestive tract, it is clear, however, that a predominantly grain-based diet was not intended for humans. For instance, humans lack the features of digestive tracts unique to ruminants and other herbivores, that have evolved to derive nutrition from plant-based sources including grains.

The comparatively shorter human digestive tract and complementing anatomical characteristics such as the presence of canines suggest that humans evolved primarily as carnivores. As mentioned previously, it is highly likely that the scarcity of naturally occurring food sources may have triggered a shift towards plant-based sources of nutrition. Even as omnivores, plants did not constitute a major proportion of the early human diet.

Moreover, it has been shown that a grain-based diet can have adverse effects on human health. Studies claim that grains contain substances known as lectins that can cause autoimmune disorders such as coeliac disease. Since grains are essentially propagative plant parts (i.e. seeds), lectins serve primarily as plant defence mechanisms.

Due to the presence of thick seed-coats, it is not always necessary for lectins to interact with the digestive tracts of animals; which is why the seeds of certain plants are dispersed along with animal droppings.

However, when grains are consumed in large quantities, especially in pulverised forms such as flour, lectins leach out of the seed and can interact with digestive tract tissue.

Wheat, in particular, has an adhesive substance called gluten which makes it possible for lectins to stick to the wall of the intestine, thus causing more pronounced autoimmune responses.

Medical evidence suggests, therefore, that although humans have been consuming grains for ten thousand years, our digestive physiology, which has evolved over a longer period of time, is not yet compatible with this new source of nutrition.

I ask, therefore, what radical social or environmental changes required humans to adopt a grain-based diet? How did humans go from being hunter-gatherers to framers, in order to sustain a grain-based source of nutrition? And why were early hunter-gatherer societies prepared to undergo lifestyle, social and political reform to reinvent themselves into agricultural societies? I have attempted a backdrop for these questions by offering some insights into the historical context of Sri Lanka during the mass social transformation from hunter-gatherers to rice-farmers.

The advent of agriculture in the Sri Lankan context

Arguably, the introduction of rice farming in Sri Lanka and the arrival of Buddhism to the Island are closely matched in time. I would like to argue that the latter reinforced the former. One source of evidence is the close relationship that exists between rice farming in Sri Lanka and the Island’s Buddhist traditions. For example, the concept of “wawai dagabai” prevails to this day in Sri Lankan agricultural society.

The dagaba, or Buddhist stupa-temple, since ancient times has been an important feature in the management of the environmental and social landscape of the Wawa, or tank-reservoir. Stupa-temples were often built near wooded areas on elevated ground above tank-reservoirs. Stupa-temples thus played a pivotal role in protecting the catchment-land from adverse social operations, such as deforestation.

(To be continued)