The birth of farming was driven by people, not the planet

The rise of farming ranks among the most significant shifts in human history. For thousands of years, people lived by hunting, gathering, and moving with the seasons.

Then, around 12,000 years ago, they began to settle, plant crops, and raise animals. This change transformed how societies lived, organized space, and related to the land.

For decades, scholars pointed to the environment as the prime mover behind this transformation. Climate change, richer soils, and predictable rainfall were seen as the main reasons humans started farming.

A new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences offers a different view. It says human interaction, not the natural world, played the biggest role in the shift from foraging to farming.

Farming as a human-driven process

The research, led by a team from the University of Bath, Max Planck Institute, University of Cambridge, and UCL, introduces a fresh approach. Rather than focusing on rainfall or rivers, the team studied people – looking specifically at how groups interacted during this key moment in human history.

They used a mathematical model originally created to study predator-prey dynamics in ecosystems. In this case, early farmers and hunter-gatherers took the place of wolves and deer. The researchers treated them as two populations sharing space and resources but with competing interests.

The model showed that the farming transition was not something that happened to humans. It was something they did to each other. Migration, cultural exchange, and even conflict between groups played a critical role in shaping early agricultural societies.

“Our study provides a new perspective on prehistoric societies,“ noted Dr. Javier Rivas, from the Department of Economics at the University of Bath.

“By statistically fitting our theoretical predator-prey model to observed population dynamics inferred from radiocarbon dates, we explored how population growth shaped history and uncovered interesting patterns – such as how the spread of farming, whether by land or sea, influenced interactions between different groups.”

Population dynamics and interaction

At the heart of the study lies a six-parameter model. These parameters include growth rates for both groups, mortality linked to conflict, migration of farmers, and cultural assimilation – the rate at which foragers adopted farming. The model shows that no single factor explains the shift. Rather, it is the combination of these factors that shaped outcomes.

The researchers tested their model on three regions: eastern Iberia, Denmark, and Kyushu in Japan. Each region showed a unique pattern of interaction. These case studies helped the team test how robust the model was and how well it could explain real-world archaeological data.

The model revealed that interactions could result in coexistence, rapid replacement, or gradual transitions. The team paid special attention to the point at which farming populations exceeded forager numbers, and when hunter-gatherer populations disappeared entirely.

These events were influenced by the balance between growth, competition, and assimilation.

Human-driven farming replaced foragers

In eastern Iberia, farming took over quickly. Farmers surpassed foragers in about 175 years, and the hunter-gatherer population declined sharply within 340 years. The data suggest that early farmers may have entered largely uninhabited areas or replaced the local population rapidly.

This region supports what’s called the “Dual Model.” It includes two scenarios: one where farmers mixed with foragers and another where they settled nearly empty land. Evidence points to both processes happening in different locations, but the model shows that full replacement happened fast in most cases.

For Iberia, cultural mixing was modest. The dominant trend was population replacement. Archaeological findings also suggest maritime migrations brought farmers along the coastlines, possibly reducing direct land-based interaction with foragers.

A different pattern in Denmark

In Denmark, the pattern looked very different. Farmers exceeded foragers in population after about 450 years. But many foragers still remained even 700 years after farming began.

This suggests a long period of coexistence. Genetic studies and archaeological records support this. The two groups likely interacted for centuries before farming became the dominant lifestyle.

The model shows that, in over half the simulated scenarios, foragers still had a visible presence at the end of the time window.

The spread of agriculture in Denmark likely involved a mix of demic diffusion (migration of people) and cultural transmission. Unlike Iberia, where rapid dominance happened, Danish foragers appear to have influenced and slowed the spread of farming.

Kyushu: A slower maritime transition

On the island of Kyushu in Japan, the pattern was more complex. Farming spread from the Korean peninsula, and the process spanned 800 years. Farmers often moved by sea, and early contact with foragers was slow and uneven.

Farmers in Kyushu had a lower growth rate compared to the European cases. Still, the forager population declined over time. The model suggests this was due more to the decline of the forager population than the rapid rise of farmers.

Assimilation in Japan was lower, meaning few foragers adopted farming. Despite slower growth, farmers eventually replaced the foragers, though only at the very end of the study window.

Why the model matters

The research team believes their model can be used well beyond these three regions. It applies to any case where two populations share land and compete.

Whether it’s early farmers and foragers, or even modern societies in transition, the framework holds.

“We hope the methods we’ve developed will eventually become a standard tool for understanding how populations interacted in the past, offering fresh insight into other key moments in history, not just the shift to farming,” said Dr. Rivas.

This approach highlights the power of demographic processes. Instead of assuming outside forces drove human history, the model lets researchers test how people shaped their own future. It gives weight to population size, group interaction, and human decisions.

Beyond farming: A tool for human history

The model’s creators suggest it could be applied to other turning points in human history.

This includes the spread of Homo sapiens, Neanderthal extinction, and later migrations during the Bronze Age. Anywhere two groups meet and compete, the model has potential.

By focusing on human behavior and interaction, the study reminds us that history often comes down to people – how they live, where they go, and who they meet.

Farming didn’t just happen because the earth got warmer. It happened because people made choices, formed communities, and changed the world around them.

The study is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–