> Which is why hunter-gatherers tried hard not to rely on a single source of food.

Neither did early agriculturists.

> early attempts at agricultural states (often in these same locations) seem much more fragile

That's because there are no hunter-gatherer states. Hunter-gatherer cultures are much too fragile to support the societal structures needed for even primitive states.

Of course. Although I'd say it differently: pre-state people probably practiced some amount of farming, and niche-creation. But what we call a primitive state is precisely the superstructure needed to gather lots of them and make them farm for your benefit.

And to make sure it worked to your benefit (as the king) it was important that they farmed a limited number of things which were easy to keep track of, and easy to transport, and hence easy to tax. Like wheat or barley or rice, which you can inspect any time, and which ripens on a predictable date, on which your soldiers can show up to collect the rent. (And unlike potatoes.)

You appear to be alluding to James Scott’s "Against The Grain". I do not agree with the hypothesis of that book, for reasons I'm too lazy to write down here. Sorry :-(

If you have links to well-informed disagreements with that, I'd be interested to read them.

All I can offer you is the comments section of Scott Alexander's book review:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/14/book-review-against-th...

The comments there are generally of high quality, and you'll find some good counterpoints to the book's claims.