On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> I think the difference between Harris and Diamond is that the former tried
> to link some positive cultural features, such as food taboo, to
> environmental influences, whereas the latter links the absence of certain
> features that developed elsewhere to negative environmental influences. I
> think Diamond goes beyond Harris' correlations and rationalizations of the
> sort "y turned out to have an advantage in the x environment, ergo x causes
> y" and carefully considers counterfactual evidence i.e. the presence and
> absence of suitable species, the presence and absence of geographical
> isolation. In a word he is more analytically empirical than harris, buit
> perhaps I misjudge Harris (I read his book quite a while ago).
If you get a chance, take a look at at Harris again. It'll only take a few minutes and I think you'll find his argument in Chapter 3, "The Origin of Agriculture," is exactly the same as Diamond's. The food taboo argument is elsewhere in the same book.
Personally I think the best argument for the rise of agriculture is population density -- it allows more, it fosters more, and that reinforces the need for more agriculture; and population density leads to other things that help at winning wars or assimilating conquerors. But I follow Sahlins in thinking there is no reason to think that the transition from hunter-gatherer to agriculturalist made everyday life any better, so that no explanation is needed as to why peoples that didn't need to didn't do it if they weren't forced to.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com