For the amount of deer the Mayans were consuming, they were probably penned as much as they were hunted, and that practice seems to be a late development, much later than the semi-domestication of reindeer which probably began some time between the Bronze and Iron Ages.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World, Lynn V. Foster p.312
http://432thedrop.com/NewDrop/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Lynn20V.20Foster20Handbook20to20Life20in20the20Ancient20Maya20World2028Facts20on20File20Libr.pdf
In regard to the semi-domestication of reindeer, Wikipedia’s information, which asserts a timeline between the Bronze and Iron Ages, seems suspect upon further research, with phys.org quoting a study of artifacts indicating that reindeer domestication is at least 2,000 years old, pushing back assumptions that it dates to the 11th century.
Reindeer are pretty irrelevant. Totally different animal. The book says they “may have been kept in pens”, or fed to attract them to certain areas (behaviors modern deer hunters do). That’s far from conclusive, and very hard from “domesticated”.
Also, the point being made is that different societies have done different things, rather than follow an inevitable pattern. The domestication and/or penning of reindeer doesn’t mean that white tail deer on the other side of the planet must have been domesticated and/or penned. And even if they were in both those places, they certainly weren’t in the northeast now-USA, even though a lot of them were eaten here. Selective forest burning was used to increase their population and that of berries. But the deer, and the berries, remained wild.
p.311 states “Animal husbandry clearly involved only the dog”.
p312 does continue to state “There is some evidence that the Maya also fed deer to keep them within house range. Bishop Landa apparently saw a woman breast-feeding a deer. In some instances deer may have been penned and fed”. But clearly the author doesn’t think any of that came close to animal husbandry.
Perhaps you could put nine reindeer in front of a sled and see if anything comes to light ?
Surely there’s some basic unavoidable maths here. When you say the agricultural revolution “allowed larger population” that has to mean “less chance of you or your children starving to death” to your average Hunter gatherer or agrarian, there is no other mechanism that could cause that.
Whatever other side effects that has to be a win.
Sapiens argues a larger population is not necessarily a happier population. I’m not sure ancient bomb calorimeters were accurate enough to calculate calories per man(woman) hour.
I’ll take my chances on actually being born as opposed to never living at all.
No. It states they were not the primary supply but that they were a substantial part. “Substantial” and “primary” are not synonyms, and the “with the exception of” is your own “muddled” gloss.
Yeah but they were clever enough to know how many of their children had starved to death in the last month or so.
I mean how many people in this board would take a three day working week, great benefits, excellent work-life balance, but a 5% chance their family might starve to death in any given year?
The book also states "Animal husbandry clearly involved only the dog, which was domesticated by 3000 B.C.E. ", as thorny_locust pointed out.
But doesn’t cite any of this evidence.
And when you turn to a paper that does discuss the evidence, it very clearly states " In ancient Mesoamerica, deer, unlike dog, were not domesticated, and thus husbanded or managed individuals would exhibit no diagnostic morpho-logical differences from wild individuals."
Driving animals into pens before slaughtering them, even fattening them up in those pens, is not domestication or an inevitable step to the same. Or else we domesticated fish as soon as we started making fish traps.
The paper then goes on to say " We infer that an exceptionally high proportion of older subadult white-
tailed deer (rather than full adults), at Mayapa´n would suggest that deer were raised and probably bred in captivity. Alternatively, a sophisticated form of forest game management was in place."
I have no idea why they think the first possibility is more likely than the second. We know forest management techniques were practiced by American natives anyway. But there’s no actual physical evidence of these deer pens or raising in captivity, just circumstantial evidence.
Sounds more like a “The Yearling”-type situation than domestication.
Where do you get that idea from? Cite?
In fact hunter-gathering, or mixed hunter-gathering and agriculture, were often far more secure sources of food than agriculture alone. That’s why it took thousands of years for people to switch predominantly to agriculture. You were far more likely to starve to death if you relied only on agriculture and had a bad season or two.
Not true. Women are more fertile when they have more body fat. (and people have probably practiced some forms of birth control forever) So the other mechanism is that hunter gatherers had fewer children.
You can have more total calories, and have a larger population that is subject to “boom or bust” and has periodic famines where a bunch of people die. “Starving to death” has more to do with fluctuations in available calories than in average available calories.
Farmers are also more subject to diarrheal diseases because they drink their sewage. That’s another good way to lose some kids.
Side pedantry unrelated to the main discussion 
. But although that notion was once propagated to argue for the rise of the armored knight in Europe it turned out to be a bit of a “just so” story itself. Stirrups did spread quickly because they were an useful advance, but the old notion that they were revolutionary has mostly been dropped. Folks were using shock cavalry like lancers centuries before the stirrup arrived on the scene in Europe circa ~7th century AD. Instead other methods of stabilizing the rider like saddles with high cantles and grounding straps were utilized. Stirrups were more of just another incremental improvement.
The OP. Right there in the first paragraph it says the agricultural revolution supported larger populations. That’s abstract academic language but the simple fact is “supporting larger populations” means “less chance you or your children will starve to death”. There is no other way that changing your means of food production brings about larger population.
I was not suggesting it was 5%, that was just an arbitrary number to illustrate the point, but clearly it’s some percentage. And you don’t need a bomb carolimeter to detect that, people tend to be super sensitive to the number of their kids who survive.
Yes, but most of this thread has been about discrediting Harari’s book.
The idea that hunter-gatherers lived only in small bands or only had simple social structures has been debunked by modern discoveries and research.
Just one example, the Ukrainian ‘mega-sites’ - essentially early cities that flourished from about 7,500 years ago to about 4,500 years ago.
From The Dawn of Everything:
Just as surprising as their scale is the distribution of these massive settlements, which are all quite close to each other, at most six to nine miles apart. Their total population – estimated in the many thousands per mega-site, and probably well over 10,000 in some cases – would therefore have had to draw resources from a common hinterland. Yet their ecological footprint appears to have been surprisingly light. …
We should also consider if the inhabitants of the mega-sites consciously managed their ecosystem to avoid large-scale deforestation. This is consistent with archaeological studies of their economy, which suggest a pattern of small-scale gardening, often taking place within the bounds of the settlement, combined with the keeping of livestock, cultivation of orchards, and a wide spectrum of hunting and foraging activities.
The diversity is actually remarkable, as is its sustainability. As well as wheat, barley and pulses, the citizens’ plant diet included apples, pears, cherries, sloes, acorns, hazelnuts and apricots. Mega-site dwellers were hunters of red deer, roe deer and wild boar as well as farmers and foresters. It was ‘play farming’ on a grand scale: an urban populus supporting itself through small-scale cultivation and herding, combined with an extraordinary array of wild foods.
This way of life was by no means ‘simple’. As well as managing orchards, gardens, livestock and woodlands, the inhabitants of these cities imported salt in bulk from springs in the eastern Carpathians and the Black Sea littoral. Flint extraction by the ton took place in the Dniestr valley, furnishing material for tools. A household potting industry flourished, its products considered among the finest ceramics of the prehistoric world; and regular supplies of copper flowed in from the Balkans. There is no firm consensus among archaeologists about what sort of social arrangements all this required, but most would agree the logistical challenges were daunting. A surplus was definitely produced.
Which were absolutely agrarian society, not a hunter gatherer one (there’s debate over how permanent they were and the size of them, but they were definitely agrarian)
That might be the case, but that doesn’t change the fact that ultimately agrarian societies can support larger populations than hunter gatherer ones. And that means less chance of dying of hunger.