score:8
in the current historical view has the onset of agriculture stimulate permanent settlements, and food surplus and storage allow the onset of specialized "careers" (including priests)
This is incorrect. Permanent settlements and specialized societies require large food surpluses. This is generally produced by agriculture, but can also (in rare cases) be obtained by hunting-gathering.
For instance, Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel notes:
American Indians of the Pacific Northwest coast, such as the Kwakiutl, Nootka, and Tlingit Indians, lived under chiefs in villages without any agriculture or domestic animals, because the rivers and sea were so rich in salmon and halibut. The food surpluses generated by some people, relegated to the rank of commoners, went to feed the chiefs, their families, bureaucrats, and crafts specialists, who variously made canoes, adzes, or spittoons or worked as bird catchers or tattooers.
(Chapter 14, "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy", pp 274 in my edition.)
In short, this doesn't change the picture much.
Upvote:4
One of the theories of how agriculture was invented (the most popular today, at least among archaeologists) say that the people of natufian culture grew to too big numbers during a period of good climate (younger dryas; Anubhav already explained that it's possible to get such food surplus by hunting with plenty of game) and they needed to survive while the climate deteriorated. They theoretically knew the principle of agriculture, but they didn't need the hard work before. During the climate change, they moved to another region and brought first grains to be domesticated with them.
It's not explicitely stated on wikipedia, but as far as I remember from our lectures on neolithic (I have studied Archaeology), first phase of GΓΆbekli-tepe settlement is natufian. There should be some more sources on this on internet, but I don't have time and mood for thorough search now.