Neolithic Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neolithic This box: view • talk • edit
↑ Mesolithic
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Pottery Neolithic Levant Tell Halaf Ubaid period Europe Linear Pottery Vinča culture China South Asia Mehrgarh Americas Chalcolithic Uruk period Yamna culture Corded Ware Mesoamerica
farming, animal husbandry pottery, metallurgy, wheel circular ditches, henges, megaliths Neolithic religion
↓Bronze Age

The Neolithic Revolution was the first agricultural revolution—the transition from nomadic hunting and gathering communities and bands, to agriculture and settlement. It occurred in various independent prehistoric human societies 10–12 thousand years ago.

The term refers to both the general time period over which these initial developments took place and the subsequent changes to Neolithic human societies which either resulted from, or are associated with, the adoption of early farming techniques, crop cultivation, and the domestication of animals.^[1][2]

The Neolithic Revolution is notable primarily for developments in social organization and technology. The changes most often associated with the Neolithic Revolution include an increased tendency to live in permanent or semi-permanent settlements, a corresponding reduction in nomadic lifestyles, the concept of land ownership, modifications to the natural environment, the ability to sustain higher population densities, an increased reliance on vegetable and cereal foods in the total diet, a less egalitarian society, nascent "trading economies" using surplus production from increasing crop yields, and the development of new technologies. The relationship of these characteristics to the onset of agriculture, to each other, their sequence and even whether some of these changes are supported by the available evidence remains the subject of much academic debate, and seems to vary from place to place.

Contents 1 Agricultural transition 2 Domestication of plants 2.1 Agriculture in Asia 2.2 Agriculture in the Fertile Crescent 2.3 Agriculture in Africa 3 Domestication of animals 3.1 Domestication of animals in the Middle East 3.2 Domestication of animals in China's Yellow River valley 4 Causes of the Neolithic Revolution 5 Consequences of the Neolithic Revolution 5.1 Social change 5.2 Subsequent revolutions 5.3 Disease 5.4 Technology 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading

[edit] Agricultural transition

The term Neolithic Revolution was first coined in the 1920s by Vere Gordon Childe to describe the first in a series of agricultural revolutions to have occurred in Middle Eastern history. This period is described as a "revolution" to denote its importance, and the great significance and degree of change brought about to the communities in which these practices were gradually adopted and refined.

This involved a gradual transition from a hunter-gatherer mode of subsistence which was practiced by all earlier human societies, to one based more upon the nurturing and cultivation of crops for the purpose of food production. Evidence for the first beginnings of this process obtained from different regions dated from perhaps 10,000 years ago in Melanesia^[3][4] to 2,500 BC in Subsaharan Africa, with some considering the events of 9000-7000 BC in the Fertile Crescent to be the most important. This transition everywhere seems associated with a change from a largely nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a more settled, agrarian-based one, with the onset of the domestication of plants and of a number of animals.

There are several competing theories as to what drove populations to take up agriculture. These are

• The Oasis Theory which was original proposed by Raphael Pumpelly in 1908, but popularized by Vere Gordon Childe in 1928 and summarised in Childe's book Man Makes Himself.^[5] This theory maintains that as the climate got drier, communities contracted to oases where they were forced into close association with animals which were then domesticated together with planting of seeds. It has little support now as the climate data for the time does not support the theory.
• The Hilly Flanks hypothesis. Proposed by Robert Braidwood in 1948, it suggests that agriculture began in the hilly flanks of the Taurus and Zagros mountains, and that it developed from intensive focused grain gathering in the region.
• The Feasting model by Brian Hayden^[6] suggests that agriculture was driven by ostentatious displays of power, such as throwing feasts to exert dominance. This required assembling large quantities of food which drove agricultural technology.
• The Demographic theories proposed by Carl Sauer^[7] and adapted by Lewis Binford^[8] and Kent Flannery. This leads from an increasingly sedentary population, expanding up to the carrying capacity of the local environment, and requiring more food than can be gathered. Various social and economic factors help drive the need for food.
• The evolutionary/intentionality theory. As proposed by those such as David Rindos^[9] the idea that agriculture is an evolutionary adaptation of plants and humans. Starting with domestication by protection of wild plants, followed specialisation of location and then domestication.

Unlike the Paleolithic, in which more than one human species existed, only one human species (Homo sapiens) reached the Neolithic.

[edit] Domestication of plants

Once agriculture started gaining momentum, cereal grasses (beginning with emmer, einkorn and barley), and not simply those that would favour greater caloric returns through larger seeds, were selectively bred. Plants that possessed traits such as small seeds or bitter taste would have been seen as undesirable. Plants that rapidly shed their seeds on maturity tended not to be gathered at harvest, thus not stored and not seeded the following season; years of harvesting selected for strains that retained their edible seeds longer. Several plant species, the "pioneer crops" or Neolithic founder crops, were the earliest plants successfully manipulated by humans. Some of these pioneering attempts failed at first and crops were abandoned, sometimes to be taken up again and successfully domesticated thousands of years later: rye, tried and abandoned in Neolithic Anatolia, made its way to Europe as weed seeds and was successfully domesticated in Europe, thousands of years after the earliest agriculture.^[10] Wild lentils present a different challenge that needed to be overcome: most of the wild seeds do not germinate in the first year; the first evidence of lentil domestication, breaking dormancy in their first year, was found in the early Neolithic at Jerf el-Ahmar, (in modern Syria), and quickly spread south to the Netiv Hagdud site in the Jordan Valley.^[10] This process of domestication allowed the founder crops to adapt and eventually become larger, more easily harvested, more dependable in storage and more useful to the human population.

Barley and, most likely, oats were cultivated in the Jordan Valley, represented by the early Neolithic site of Gilgal, where in 2006 archaeologists found caches of seeds of each in quantities too large to be accounted for even by intensive gathering, at strata dateable c. 11,000 years ago. Some of the plants tried and then abandoned during the Neolithic period in the Ancient Near East, at sites like Gilgal, were later successfully domesticated in other parts of the world.

Once early farmers perfected their agricultural techniques, their crops would yield surpluses which needed storage. Most hunter gatherers could not easily store food for long due to their migratory lifestyle, whereas those with a sedentary dwelling could store their surplus grain. Eventually granaries were developed that allowed villages to store their seeds for longer periods of time. So with more food, the population expanded and communities developed specialized workers and more advanced tools.

The process was not as linear as was once thought, but a more complicated effort, which was undertaken by different human populations in different regions in many different ways.

[edit] Agriculture in Asia

The Neolithic Revolution is believed to have become widespread in southwest Asia around 8000 BC–7000 BC, though earlier individual sites have been identified. Although archaeological evidence provides scant evidence as to which of the genders performed what task in Neolithic cultures, by comparison with historical and contemporary hunter-gatherer communities it is generally supposed that hunting was typically performed by the men, whereas women had a more significant role in the gathering. By extension, it may be theorised that women were largely responsible for the observations and initial activities which began the Neolithic Revolution, insofar as the gradual selection and refinement of edible plant species was concerned.

The precise nature of these initial observations and (later) purposeful activities which would give rise to the changes in subsistence methods brought about by the Neolithic Revolution are not known; specific evidence is lacking. However, several reasonable speculations have been put forward; for example, it might be expected that the common practice of discarding food refuse in middens would result in the regrowth of plants from the discarded seeds in the (fertilizer-enriched) soils. In all likelihood, there were a number of factors which contributed to the early onset of agriculture in Neolithic human societies.

[edit] Agriculture in the Fertile Crescent

Generalised agriculture apparently first arose in the Fertile Crescent because of many factors. The Mediterranean climate has a long dry season with a short period of rain, which made it suitable for small plants with large seeds, like wheat and barley. These were the most suitable for domestication because of the ease of harvest and storage and the wide availability. In addition, the domesticated plants had especially high protein content. The Fertile Crescent had a large area of varied geographical settings and altitudes. The variety given made agriculture more profitable for former hunter-gatherers. Other areas with a similar climate were less suitable for agriculture because of the lack of geographic variation within the region and the lack of availability of plants for domestication.

[edit] Agriculture in Africa

The Revolution developed independently^{[citation needed]} in different parts of the world, not just in the Fertile Crescent. On the African continent, three areas have been identified as independently developing agriculture: the Ethiopian highlands, the Nile River Valley and West Africa. In East Africa it is known that there was a lot of water to complete the neolithic life.

Prof. Fred Wendorf and Dr. Romuald Schild, of the Department of Anthropology at Southern Methodist University, have evidence of early agriculture in Upper Paleolithic times at Wadi Kubbaniya, on the Kom Ombos plateau, of Egypt, including a mortar and pestle, grinding stones, several harvesting implements and charred wheat and barley grains — which may have been introduced from outside the region. Carbon-14 dates range from 15,000 to 16,300 BC, showing that this early grain harvesting preceded that of the Middle East by about 5,000 years.

The archaeologists state that "These are not the only Late Paleolithic sites which have been discovered in Egypt along the Nile, nor are they alone in containing stone artifact assemblages which seem to indicate the harvesting of grain. Among others are several sites at Wadi Tushka, near Abu Simbel, at Kom Ombo, north of Aswan, and a third group (a whole series of sites) near Esna. All these are in the Nile Valley." The Egyptian Esna culture shows "extensive use of cereals," date from 13,000 to 14,500 years ago.^{[citation needed]}

They continue: "While the flaked stone industries from them are different from those found at Kubbaniya, the Tushka site yielded several pieces of stone with lustrous edges, indicating that they were used as sickles in harvesting grain."

Many such grinding stones are found with the early Egyptian Sebilian and Mechian cultures dating 10,000-13,000 BC. Smith^{[citation needed]} writes: "With the benefit of hindsight we can now see that many Late Paleolithic peoples in the Old World were poised on the brink of plant cultivation and animal husbandry as an alternative to the hunter-gatherer's way of life". Unlike the Middle East, this evidence appears as a "false dawn" to agriculture, as the sites were later abandoned, and permanent farming then was delayed until 4,500 BC with the Tasian and Badarian cultures and the arrival of crops and animals from the Near East.

[edit] Domestication of animals

When hunter-gathering began to be replaced by sedentary food production it became more profitable to keep animals close at hand. Therefore, it became necessary to bring animals permanently to their settlements, although in many cases there was a distinction between relatively sedentary farmers and nomadic herders. The animals' size, temperament, diet, mating patterns, and life span were factors in the desire and success in domesticating animals. Animals that provided milk, such as cows and goats, offered a source of protein that was renewable and therefore quite valuable. The animal’s ability as a worker (for example ploughing or towing), as well as a food source, also had to be taken into account. Besides being a direct source of food, certain animals could provide leather, wool, hides, and fertilizer. Some of the earliest domesticated animals included sheep, goats, cows, and pigs. Out of the thousands of species of animals only fourteen eventually became domesticated for agricultural purposes.

[edit] Domestication of animals in the Middle East

The Middle East served as the source for many domesticable animals, such as goats and pigs. This area was also the first region to domesticate the Dromedary Camel. The presence of these animals gave the region a large advantage in cultural and economic development. As the climate in the Middle East changed, and became drier, many of the farmers were forced to leave, taking their domesticated animals with them. It was this massive emigration from the Middle East that would later help distribute these animals to the rest of Afroeurasia. This emigration was mainly on an east-west axis of similar climates, as crops usually have a narrow optimal climatic range outside of which they cannot grow for reasons of light or rain changes. For instance, wheat does not normally grow in tropical climates, just like tropical crops such as bananas do not grow in colder climates (until modern technology allowed heated greenhouses). Some authors like Jared Diamond postulated that this East-West axis is the main reason why plant and animal domestication spread so quickly from the Fertile Crescent to the rest of Eurasia and North Africa, while it did not reach through the North-South axis of Africa to reach the mediterranean climates of South Africa, where temperate crops were successfully imported by ships in the last 500 years. The African Zebu is a separate breed of cattle that was better suited to the hotter climates of central Africa than the fertile-crescent domesticated bovines. North and South America where similarly separated by the narrow tropical Isthmus of Panama, that prevented the andes llama to be exported to the Mexican plateau.

[edit] Domestication of animals in China's Yellow River valley

The agricultural revolution was inspired, in part, by the spreading of domesticated plants and animals and the growth of complex societies. The first occurrences of plant and animal domestication are apparently independent in China’s Yellow River Valley (pig, horse) and the fertile crescent (cattle, domestic goat), before it spread to the rest of Eurasia. Along the same latitudes it was easy for agricultural methods to be adopted by neighbouring communities, because plants would grow well in similar climates. Either the neighbouring hunter-gathers adopted these new methods or they were displaced. The change to the agrarian way of life lead to more developed technology, organized society, and increased populations which required sedentary lifestyles to spread. Therefore the indigenous hunter-gatherers either adapted to this new way of life or were gradually displaced, sometimes remaining as nomad cultures such as the mongols.

[edit] Causes of the Neolithic Revolution

Harlan, examining the causes for the Neolithic Revolution, suggests 6 principal reasons which can be summarised to 3 principal categories:

1. Domestication for religious reasons
2. Domestication by crowding and as a consequence of stress
3. Domestication resulting from discovery, based upon the perceptions of food gatherers

With regard to the first explanation, Ian Hodder, who directs the excavations at Çatalhöyük, has said that the earliest settled communities, and the Neolithic revolution they represent, actually preceded the development of agriculture. He has been developing the ideas first expressed by Jacques Cauvin, the excavator of the Natufian settlement at Mureybet in northern Syria. Hodder believes that the Neolithic revolution was the result of a revolutionary change in the human psychology, a "revolution of symbols" which led to new beliefs about the world and shared community rituals embodied in corpulent female figurines and the methodical assembly of aurochs horns.

An alternative explanation for the origin of agriculture is propounded by Mark Nathan Cohen. Cohen believes that following the widespread extinctions of large mammals in the late Palaeolithic, the human population had expanded to the limits of the available territory and a population explosion led to a food crisis. Agriculture was the only way in which it was possible to support the increasing population on the available area of land. This view has come under criticism due to the obvious problem of how a population explosion would occur without already having a surplus of food. The people doing the reproducing would need food, at the very least, from birth to reproduction age.

Food gatherers (not the hunters) caring for children, keeping the fires alive, and foraging near the base camp, led the way in developing language and culture, in knowledge of plants, and increasingly semi-domesticated animals who travelled with the nomads from camp to camp.

[edit] Consequences of the Neolithic Revolution

[edit] Social change

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article with relevant internal links. (June 2008)

It is often argued that agriculture gave humans more control over their food supply, but this has been disputed by the finding that nutritional standards of Neolithic populations were generally inferior to that of hunter gatherers, and life expectancy may in fact have been shorter, in part due to diseases. In actual fact, by reducing the necessity for the carrying of children, Neolithic societies had a major impact upon the spacing of children (carrying more than one child at a time is impossible for hunter-gatherers, which leads to children being spaced four or more years apart). This increase in the birth rate was required to offset increases in death rates and required settled occupation of territory and encouraged larger social groups. These sedentary groups were able to reproduce at a faster rate due to the possibilities of sharing the raising of children in such societies. The children accounted for a denser population, and encouraged the introduction of specialization by providing diverse forms of new labor. The development of larger societies seemed to have led to the development of different means of decision making and to governmental organization. Food surpluses made possible the development of a social elite who were not otherwise engaged in agriculture, industry or commerce, but dominated their communities by other means and monopolized decision-making.

The Neolithic Revolution had many results socially and economically. Socially people could have more children and social classes emerged. Economically a surplus of food meant that people could also specialize in different things. The Neolithic Revolution was clearly the start of our society as we know it today. About twelve thousand to six thousand years ago humans started to notice changes of season and when and how to grow food. The slow process of learning how to use the land brought about many changes in the world socially. The ability to know where food was, how to grow it and when you could eat it gave humans enough security to start settling and replace their nomadic hunter gatherer ways with agriculture and villages. As humans grew better and better at farming, there became a surplus of food. This resulted in an explosion of population as demonstrated in this chart:

Year	Human Population
3000 B.C.	14 million
2000 B.C.	27 million
1000 B.C.	50 million
500 B.C.	100 million

• Traditions and Encounters textbook, page 24

The population nearly doubles every millennium as humans get better with agriculture and then from 1000 B.C. to 500 B.C. (only 500 years as compared to the 1000 years of the previous set) the population doubles in half the time. Agriculture also changed economics entirely. When humans were still nomadic hunter gatherers they had no time during the day to teach their children things other than how to hunt and gather. Finally, when the people could settle in villages and have a steady source of food do they really have time to take up special labor, “The concentration of large numbers of people in villages encouraged specialization of labor” (Traditions and Encounters textbook, p. 24). The best known Neolithic settlement that demonstrates this is Çatal Hüyük. At this Neolithic village archeologists have found “pots, baskets, textiles, leather, stone and metal, wood carvings, carpets, beads, and jewelry…” (Traditions and Encounters textbook, p. 24). Pottery, metallurgy, and textile production were the main three industries that started at that time. After people started to settle and specialize and have more children the egalitarian society of the hunter gatherers also changed. Social classes emerged as familial wealth gets passed from one generation to the next. At Çatal Hüyük archeologists have found differences in interior decoration of one house to another, which clearly shows one family’s wealth as compared to another’s. The Neolithic Revolution has even shaped our society into what it is today. If humans before us had not learned to farm humans today would probably be extinct or there would be just as few humans today as there were twelve thousand years ago.

[edit] Subsequent revolutions

Andrew Sherratt has argued that following upon the Neolithic Revolution was a second phase of discovery that he refers to as the secondary products revolution. Animals, it appears were first domesticated purely as a source of meat. The Secondary Products Revolution occurred when it was recognised that animals also provided a number of other useful products. These included:

• hides and skins (from no domesticated animals)
• manure for soil conditioning (from all domesticated animals)
• wool (from mammoths, llama, alpaca and Angora goats)
• milk (from goats, cattle, yaks, sheep, horses and camels)
• traction (from oxen, buffalo, onagers, donkeys, horses and camels)

Sherratt argues that this phase in agricultural development enabled humans to make use of the energy possibilities of their animals in new ways, and permitted permanent intensive subsistence farming and crop production, and the opening up heavier soils for farming. It also made possible nomadic pastoralism in semi arid areas, along the margins of deserts, and eventually led to the domestication of both the dromedary and bactrian camel. Overgrazing of these areas, particularly by herds of goats, greatly extended the areal extent of deserts. Living in one spot would have more easily permitted the accrual of personal possessions and an attachment to certain areas of land. From such a position, it is argued, prehistoric people were able to stockpile food to survive lean times and trade unwanted surpluses with others. Once trade and a secure food supply were established, populations could grow, and society would have diversified into food producers and artisans, who could afford to develop their trade by virtue of the free time they enjoyed because of a surplus of food. The artisans, in turn, were able to develop technology such as metal weapons. Such relative complexity would have required some form of social organisation to work efficiently and so it is likely that populations which had such organisation, perhaps such as that provided by religion were better prepared and more successful. In addition, the denser populations could form and support legions of professional soldiers. Also, during this time property ownership became increasingly important to all people. Ultimately, Childe argued that this growing social complexity, all rooted in the original decision to settle, led to a second Urban Revolution in which the first cities were built.

[edit] Disease

Throughout the development of sedentary societies, disease spread more rapidly than it had during the time in which hunter-gatherer societies existed. Inadequate sanitary practices and the domestication of animals may explain the rise in deaths and sickness during the Neolithic Revolution from disease, as diseases jumped from the animal to the human population. Some examples of diseases spread from animals to humans are influenza, smallpox, and measles. In concordance with a process of natural selection, the humans who first domesticated the big mammals quickly built up immunities to the diseases as within each generation the individuals with better immunities had better chances of survival. In their approximately 10,000 years of shared proximity with animals, Eurasians and Africans became more resistant to those diseases compared with the indigenous populations encountered outside Eurasia and Africa. For instance, the population of most Caribbean and several Pacific Islands have been completely wiped out by diseases. According to the Population history of American indigenous peoples, 90% of the population of certain regions of North and South America were wiped out long before any European set foot within sight of entire civilisations like the Mississippi river cultures. Some cultures like the Inca Empire did have one big mammal domesticated, the Llama, but the Inca did not drink its milk or live in a closed space with their herds, hence limiting the risk of contagion.

The causal link between the type or lack of agricultural development, disease and colonisation is not supported by colonization in other parts of the world. Disease increased after the establishment of British Colonial rule in Africa and India despite the areas having diseases that Europeans had no natural immunity to. In India agriculture developed during the Neolithic period with a wide range of animals domesticed. During colonial rule an estimated 23 million people died from cholera between 1865 and 1949, and millions more died from plague, malaria, influenza and tuberculosis. In Africa European colonisation was accompanied by great epidemics, including malaria and sleeping sickness and despite parts of colonised Africa having little or no agriculture Europeans were more susceptable than these Africans. The increase of disease has been attributed to increased mobility of people, increased population density, urbanisation, environmental deterioration and irrigation schemes that helped to spread malaria rather than the development of agriculture.^[11]

In recent years, proximity with different domesticated animals in certain parts of south-east Asia and China is also a highly potent source of diseases like the common flu, SARS or the possible transmission to humans of the avian influenza. The source of many other recent diseases has been traced to wild animals for example non-human primates in the case of ebola and HIV/AIDS.

[edit] Technology

In his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond argues that Europeans and East Asians benefited from an advantageous geographical location which afforded them a head start in the Neolithic Revolution. Both shared the temperate climate ideal for the first agricultural settings, both were near a number of easily domesticable plant and animal species, and both were safer from attacks of other people than civilizations in the middle part of the Eurasian continent. Being among the first to adopt agriculture and sedentary lifestyles, and neighboring other early agricultural societies with whom they could compete and trade, both Europeans and East Asians were also among the first to benefit from technologies such as firearms and steel swords. In addition, they developed resistances to infectious disease, such as smallpox, due to their close relationship with domesticated animals. Groups of people who had not lived in proximity with other large mammals, such as the Australian Aborigines and American indigenous peoples were more vulnerable to infection and largely wiped out by diseases.

During and after the Age of Discovery, European explorers, such as the Spanish conquistadors, encountered other groups of people which had never or only recently adopted agriculture, such as in the Pacific Islands, or lacked domesticated big mammals such as the highlands people of Papua New Guinea. Due in part to their head start in the Neolithic Revolution, the Europeans were able to use their technology and endemic diseases, to which indigenous populations had never been exposed, to colonize most of the globe.

[edit] See also

• Çatalhöyük, a Neolithic site in southern Anatolia
• Natufians, a settled culture preceding agriculture
• Original affluent society
• Haplogroup G (Y-DNA)
• Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA)
• Haplogroup J (mtDNA)
• Agricultural Revolution

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• Bailey, Douglass. (2000). Balkan Prehistory: Exclusions, Incorporation and Identity. Routledge Publishers. ISBN 0-415-21598-6.
• Bailey, Douglass. (2005). Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic. Routledge Publishers. ISBN 0-415-33152-8.
• Balter, Michael (2005). The Goddess and the Bull: Catalhoyuk, An Archaeological Journey to the Dawn of Civilization. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-7432-4360-9.
• Bellwood, Peter. (2004). First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 0-631-20566-7
• Cohen, Mark Nathan (1977)The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-02016-3.
• Diamond, Jared (1999). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: Norton Press. ISBN 0-393-31755-2.
• Diamond, Jared (2002) Evolution, Consequences and Future of Plant and Animal Domestication. Nature Magazine, Vol 418.
• Grinin, L. 2007. Periodization of History: A theoretic-mathematical analysis. In: History & Mathematics. Moscow: KomKniga/URSS. P.10-38. ISBN 9785484010011.
• Harlan, Jack R. (1992) Crops & Man: Views on Agricultural Origins ASA, CSA, Madison, WI. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture03/r_3-1.html
• Wright, Gary A. (1971) "Origins of Food Production in Southwestern Asia: A Survey of Ideas" Current Anthropology, Vol. 12,

No. 4/5 (Oct - Dec., 1971) , pp. 447-477

• Bartmen, Jeff M. (2008) Disease.