been reading a bit about ancient horticulture vs. agriculture & what's fascinating/scary to me is, well for one, how absolutely *zero* of this was in my schoolbooks on the origins of human societies
and it's not a case of merely "paleoanthropology is hard" b/c in may cases the indigenous ppl we invaded/colonized *were still doing it*, and we cut down their food-forests to make way for fields
(the distinction here is agriculture = farming in fields, rice paddies etc, not necessarily a monoculture but involving reshaping the land vs. horticulture = selectively promoting/removing plants that are / are not useful to humans, so you end up with groves of walnut trees & patches of vegetables that are far more productive than true wilderness)
finally found the first article I read hinting at this: https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5409/are-we-city-dwellers-or-hunter-gatherers (made the rounds on Mastodon, critical view here: http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/an-anarchist-view-of-human-social-evolution/ )
which is really more about the formation and origins of "society" than anything else
@Lioness I'm pretty sure the original study was *terrible* in terms of extrapolating wild speculation about wolves as a whole from a bunch of single males from different packs stuck together in a captive environment
So I'm not sure the science was 'victimized' so much as just
Kinda pants already?