European upper class was obsessed with lawns first. Like other forms of decorative gardens, it was primarily a status symbol. The intended message was something like "Look how we can afford this land we don't actually need! And look how we can afford to pay others to make it aesthetically pleasing!"

But once there were public lawns in cities, people found practical uses for them. Many popular ball games are still played on surfaces that resemble a lawn.

That same distinction makes sense for private lawns. Do you have a decorative garden, because your lot is larger than what you actually need? Or is the lawn a practical surface for open spaces you occasionally use?

The above comment is a prime example of pseudo-paleo rubbish confirming anything and predicting nothing. Popper would have a field day.

Forgetting that part where the lawn was born in Europe.