>>2903520Cereals generally. However, your simple egalitarian model isn't favored nowadays, I think. See the paper:
"Human social organization during the Late Pleistocene: Beyond the nomadic-egalitarian model."
It argues we have a mixed ancestral strategy of egalitarian bands living in resource scarce areas between so-called complex hunter-gatherers which sit on resource rich areas and exhibit many traits usually associated with early states (high population, hierarchy, slavery) and that we were managing and cultivating plants and animals way before 10k years ago.
<The nomadic-egalitarian model confronts puzzling inconsistencies. On the one hand, our ancestors are said to have spent an appreciable duration of prehistory—anywhere from the last 40,000 to several million years—living in small, egalitarian, mobile bands. Status competition was stifled, and domineering behavior invited censure, ostracism, or execution. This social environment was purportedly critical in shaping the biological foundations of our psychology: Many scholars argue that understanding the evolution of the human mind requires considering the egalitarian origins of our species, while others, especially evolutionary psychologists, posit that the cooperation humans exhibit in contemporary large-scale societies reflects adaptations for interacting in small groups of non- strangers.
<Yet, as we will show, many reliably developing human behaviors are difficult to explain if the primary or exclusive social environment shaping human psychology was the small-scale, mobile, egalitarian band. Rather, such behaviors become much easier to understand when considered as the products of an evolutionary history involving diverse social environments..
<Recent examples of sedentary foragers include the Chumash, New Guinean fisher-foragers, and the peoples of the Pacific Northwest. Such peoples tended to exhibit several common features: They tended to exploit coastal resources. They sustained very high population densities. Although not necessarily completely sedentary, they exhibited less mobility than classically “nomadic” foragers. They had much larger group sizes, with some villages exceeding 1,000 individuals. They permitted and often institutionalized hierarchy by ceremonially bestowing status upon individuals who accumulated and redistributed surplus. Some groups kept slaves.