Talk:Neolithic Revolution

The Age of Discovery and NPOV

Why is this section very Eurocentric and East Asian-centric? The Neolithic Revolution occurred in India and the Middle East way before it did in Europe and East Asia... gunpowder and steel technology were also extensively used by the people of Middle East (Persia, Ottomans, Arabs, ect.) and India. India made superior sword and gun steel to the West for most of history and domesticated far more animals (like the elephant). It is foolish to say that people of hotter or tropical climates never developed civilization and this bias is very inaccurate. I thought Guns, Germs, and Steel was considered Eurasian centric, not euro/east Asian centric. No matter, this is inaccurate information regardless and needs to be changed. Zachorious 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This section seems to be informed by anti-European sentiment. The bias comes out in statements such as “Europeans were able to use their ... endemic diseases, to which indigenous populations had never been exposed, to colonize most of the globe”. This asserts, without references, that Europeans deliberately used germ warfare against indigenous populations during the age of discovery. I will remove this passage if references are not forthcoming. Qemist (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd need to check, but so far as I know, this old idea has been refuted. European diseases did indeed make colonisation in a lot of areas easier, but that's not the same as 'using' disease. Doug Weller (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Text from article moved here

Bellow is text added by 68.237.97.254 on Jan 31, 2008 [1] (the only contribution on WP). I moved it here since it is not integrated with the rest of the article, is contradicting with the rest of the text and is most likely copy-pasted from somewhere.

Neolithic culture appeared in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 8500 BC. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered wild cereal use, which then evolved into true farming. The Natufians can thus be called "proto-Neolithic" (11,000–8500 BC). As the Natufians had become dependent on wild cereals in their diet, and a sedentary way of life had begun among them, the climatic changes associated with the Younger Dryas forced people to develop farming. By 8500–8000 BC farming communities arose in the Levant and spread to Anatolia, North Africa and North Mesopotamia. Early Neolithic farming was limited to a narrow range of crops, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat, millet and spelt and the keeping of dogs, sheep and goats. By about 7000 BC it included domesticated cattle and pigs, the establishment of permanently or seasonally inhabited settlements, and the use of pottery.[2] Not all of these cultural elements characteristic of the Neolithic appeared everywhere in the same order: the earliest farming societies in the Near East did not use pottery, and, in Britain, it remains unclear to what extent plants were domesticated in the earliest Neolithic, or even whether permanently settled communities existed. In other parts of the world, such as Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, independent domestication events led to their own regionally-distinctive Neolithic cultures which arose completely independent of those in Europe and Southwest Asia. Early Japanese societies used pottery before developing agriculture, for example.

Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

10,000 BC/BCE or 10,000 BP

Casual reader who has read the work of Daniel Quinn:

In the article, the writers state 10,000 BC/BCE. But I think that this number has not been carefully checked. The paragraph above and other sources consider the Neolithic/Agricultural Revolution to have occurred about 10,000 years BP (before present), or about 8000 BC/BCE, as generally stated above. Could the writers go back to the data and see which 10,000 is being referenced? I would agree with 10,000 years BP (or 8,000 BC/BCE).

Further, while there were several independent neolithic Revolutions, the one that happened in Anatolia, and thence into the Fertile Crescent was the one that launched Western Civilization which has lead apparently to the present species die-off (other topic, but important). Other neolithic revolutions may (or may not have) been more balanced with the environment, but this one as certainly become more virulent in its need for dominance over the environment. Therefore, could the writer expand and develop the section on the effects of the Fertile Crescent Neolithic Revolution?

Not logged in, but a reader.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.165.130 (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Duplication

The list of theories under "agricultural transition" is copied from the History of Agriculture article. Lemccan (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I have (as an outsider to the work on this article) taken the liberty to change the introduction to a more definite form. Two examples of the kind of text I have tried to eliminate:

The term (i.e. Neolithic Revolution) 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."

• This seems to me to be so vague and general that it is hardly meaningful.

  "The Neolithic Revolution is notable primarily for developments in social organization and technology."

• This could be said of any major historical change. Why it is not "notable" e.g. for developments in art, religion or ideology is hard to understand.

My contribution may not make things much better, but at least it tries to be more informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.89.136 (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Technology" section The extensive debate on Diamond in Talk seems to have ended up with the two paragraphs in this section. Though I have not read Diamond, I find the section very problematic. Below, I have broken up the text into bits and appended my objections after each bit: blockquoteIn 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.blockquote

• Here an inexplicable jump is made from the Neolithic Revolution (pre-Sumerian) to firearms, which started playing a role in Europe in the late Middle Ages. Whatever benefits Europeans might have had during the Neolithic can certainly not be directly applicable to developments several thousand years later...
• What is meant by "Europeans"? The parts of "Europe" that benefited during the Neolithic Revolution were limited to the (Eastern) Mediterranean, and had little or no relevance for England, France, etc., which became the leading powers in the age of colonialism, when "Europe" started dominating the world...

It is also incomprehensible to me what is meant by Europe" having a "head start" as opposed e.g. to China, where the Neolithic Revolution started very early and the chaotic later history of Europe (the Roman Empire and its fall, the political fragmentation of the Middle Ages, the constant wars since then) was not replicated... blockquote 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.blockquote

• Though immunity to smallpox may be gained from association with large mammals, it is hardly correct to generalize this statement to all infectious diseases that the European colonials carried with them to the New World(s)...
• And while immunities certainly gave the European colonials a "head start" in relation to Native Americans and Australians, they offered no advantage in relation to more obvious competitors such as China or India... blockquote During and after the Age of Discovery, European explorers, such as the Spanish conquistadors, encountered other groups of people who 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.blockquote
• "Due IN PART to their head start..." This is vague and misleading. The point must be to say something about HOW important the Neolithic heritage was for European colonial success and in what CONCRETE WAYS, and I find it hard to see that the "part" it played was other than negligible. Disease resistance was probably caused by the fact that Europe was part of the Eurasian-African multicontinent, and as such had been constantly exposed to contact with and infections from all over this vast territory during the millennia following the Neolithic Revolution (e.g. the Black Death), while the e.g. Americas were an isolate that had been spared such contact.
• As any historian will confirm, the causes of European colonialism and colonial success must be seen on the background of more recent European history, starting with the fall of the Roman empire, the advent of European feudalism, the survival of independent trading cities and a semi-independent civil sector that promoted trade and science, the constant intra-European wars that provoked headlong development of military technologies and military organization, etc. etc.
• Finally, as other contributors to this discussion have noted, it is incorrect to say that the Europeans (whatever other sins they committed) actively "used" their "endemic diseases to colonize the world. This would imply a use of bacteriological warfare many years before the mechanisms of infection were at all understood. (Though it is evidently the case that infection is used as a strategy against troublesome indigenous groups e.g. in the Amazon today.
• Finally, and most essentially: I do not understand what the discussion of European colonialism has to do with the Neolithic Revolution. Too much water has flowed under too many bridges between these two historical events to permit any kind of meaningful line of causality to be drawn between them, other than on a level so general that it is meaningless. After all, the Neolithic Revolution might with equal justification be said to have given the Europeans a "head start" in the development of space technology, but no-one proposes to discuss this technology here... span style font-size: smaller class autosigned Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.89.136 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)span> Template:UnsignedIP Autosigned by SineBot

"Agricultural transition" section

I'm surprised the "cities first" theory of Jane Jacobs hasn't been included in the list. I think it should at least rate a mention, except if perhaps it has been comprehensively discredited? I don't know enough about the subject to be able to say. There is quite an extensive discussion of the theory in the 'City' article though, so it would seem it still has a following. SDavies (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's certainly innovative and makes at least as much sense as any other hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.85.146 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Less time as hunter-gatherers?

"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." Has the author ever lived as a hunter-gatherer? This claim should be backed up by a reference. Jared Diamond for example states that the average weekly time for acquiring food in hunter-gatherer communities is only about 10-15 hours.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.74.57 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole section was bad and needed more authoritative citations - I've removed most of it. I'd prefer to find a better source than Diamond if any of that goes back. dougweller (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what exactly makes Diamond per se a source that should be replaced by a "better source"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.74.57 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

He's more of a generalist, certainly not an archaeologist or anthropologist, and his work has (probably inevitably considering the breadth of it) errors. Why quote a generalist when it should be possible to find a specialist in this period? dougweller (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole article seems way to Diamond centric. While the net kiddies out there may think they are smart from reading a popular book with no footnotes, real encyplopedia writers and experts would expect more knowledge of primary sources on the Neolithic than Diamond (isn't he a bird expert in academia?)m TCO (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lee provides some pretty good data on Bushmen foraging practices from before they were forced out of that lifestyle. Using that is probably a bit too close to WP:SYNTH, but I'm sure we could find a source that address it in a more detailed fashion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

i read this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.46.201 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What about East Asia

This article suffers a major gap by not including anything about China etc!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, information about rice, which is one of the most important crops is not extensively discussed. South Asia, which was also an important center of domestication is also not discussed. There is a brief mention of banana domestication, but this is in Africa, which is more of a redomestication after the initial domestication in New Guinea. Sugar cane] too. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What is very critical about missing China is that the article currently gives the wrong "big picture". China was one of the first places where farming started, apparently completely independently of the Middle East. India was later, and influenced by both.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable

"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)."

- No evidence - please delete

"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.[citation needed] "

- There is no way death rate can require and increase in birth rate. By what mechanism can an increase in death rate create an increase in birth rate? This is atrocious, teleological, anti-scientific nonsense.

"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."

- It has already been pointed out that agriculture was associated with decrease in height. This is plain contradictory.

"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."

- This has also been pointed out to be contradictory. 82.36.106.30 (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

-The notion of children being spaced 4 years apart for hunter gatherers and killed to keep that balance is mentioned in Guns, germs, and steel - Cephlapod

Still, it defies causality, so without a source it will have to go. (If you have no better source than Diamond's speculation, you'll want to be sure to re-introduce it as such in the article.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Map

What's missing from this article is a world map of the places where agriculture originated and showing how it spread from there. The map at Center of origin might be a good place to start, if there's not already something more to the point? —JAO • T • C 11:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Newsweek article

What about the new theories detailed in this article from Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/233844/page/1

Should there be a new section indicating the new theories?

151.207.244.4 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Causes" section and "Agricultural Transition" section.

It isn't all that clear why a separate "Agricultural Transition" section is needed, that talks mostly about the various hypothesized causes, and then a shorter (and worse) "Causes" section comes separately much later in the article. Shouldn't this be in one section? -- 92.229.88.116 (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did it happen globally?

It would seem that any hypothesis has to account for the reason why, compared to the length of the paleolithic and mesolithic periods of maybe two million years, agriculture appeared "almost simultaneously", i.e. within a few thousand years, in at least two, probably three or more, areas that were totally isolated from each other - the Middle East, China, the Americas. This would mean that any theories based on purely local conditions aren't all that convincing, right? There is little discussion going in this direction in the article. -- 92.229.88.116 (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead must be consonant with its sources

I've corrected some inconsistencies between the first paragraph of the article lead and its cited source:

1. The beginning of the revolution has been revised from 10,000 BC to 10,000 BP. Gupta, the cited source, consistently uses the 10,000 BP date as the beginning ("rapid and large-scale domestication of plants and animals ca. 10,000–7000 cal years BP" i.e. in the abstract). He dates animal husbandry to 10,000 BP ("The remains of sheep and goats found at hominid sites that are older than about 10,000 cal years show no evidence of domestication" ff ) and agriculture to 10,000+/- BP ("A variety of food plants... were all domesticated in the Near East and South Asia about 11,000 to 9000 cal years ago" ).
2. India and the Near East are now both given as areas of earliest development. The mass slaughter of undomesticated animals at sites in the Near East before 10,000 BP is an interesting and important precursor to herding and should be mentioned in this article, but the lead must paint the outline of the article with broad strokes, leaving detail like this to be parsed in the body of the article. "The early settlement at Mehrgarh dates back to ~ 9000 cal years BP, which presents the oldest evidence so far for the beginning of agriculture and domestication of animals in the Indus system," somewhere between the domestication of animals and the domestication of plants in the Near East .
3. The number of areas of independent development have been reduced from "at least seven or eight" to six. Gupta lists six in the text ("southwestern Asia, a large part of central Africa, India, eastern Asia and Central and South Americas" ), an inclusive superset of the five listed in figure 1 and the five listed in the abstract.

Revert if you must, but please cite before you fight; otherwise, I will have to harangue you.

Perhaps someone can cite sources for the second paragraph. Dripping with adjectives, hyphens used as an expedient to supplement vocabulary (I particularly liked "non-portable art" and "full-blown manifestation"), it seems lifted from a freshman textbook or a pop science trade paperback. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have genetic genealogy on this page?

I thought that genetic genealogy was supposed to be associated with well genetic genealogy articles.In the past I have noticed such information on articles about nations and their demographics and I have noticed that they are commonly removed. If we are going to have information about genetics it needs to be about Autosomal markers information which has been studied for a much longer amount of time and is well just much more relevant.Thank you Semeticdruwa (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

Actually I am not sure which bits you are referring to as genetic genealogy so it would help if you explain. But on the other hand study of Y DNA is common to genetic genealogy and the part of population genetics which so far as had the biggest impact in archaeology. So I presume you are referring to Y DNA studies? I understand your point, because all use of DNA is difficult in discussing historic and prehistoric movements of people. (In fact there are no uncontroversial tools in archaeology?) Good quality autosomal studies are newer and also so far quite hard to use when discussing things like ancient migrations. For sure they'll become more important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Discovery of 30,000 years old farming in Europe =>earliest in the world.

Discovery of 30,000 years old farming in Europe =>earliest in the world.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=11910219

New Evidence Found for Flour in Stone-Age Diet Stone-age diet more than just a chunk of meat, new research indicates The Associated Press Post a Comment By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID AP Science Writer WASHINGTON October 18, 2010 (AP) PrintRSSFont Size: Share:EmailTwitterFacebookMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahoo The popular image may be of Stone Age people gnawing on a chunk of woolly mammoth, but new research indicates their diet may have been more balanced after all.

Many researchers had assumed people living in Europe thousands of years ago ate mainly meat because of bones left behind, and little evidence of plant food.

Now, new findings indicate grains were part of the diet at ancient sites in Italy, Russia and the Czech Republic, researchers report in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The team led by Anna Revedin of the Italian Institute of Prehistory and Early History in Florence found grinding stones, similar to a stone and pestle, with remains of grains at the sites.

The three sites were all dated to about 30,000 years ago and the residues appear to originate mainly from cattails and ferns, which are rich in starch and would have provided a good source of carbohydrates and energy.

But "a large number of plant families are likely to have been involved in the diet," the researchers said.

Peeling and grinding the roots would also have allowed people to produce a dried flour which could be stored and cooked later, to compensate for seasonal changes in food availability, the researchers said.

The remains were found at the archaeological sites of Bilancino II in the Mugello Valley of Italy; Kostenki 16 (Uglyanka), in the Pokrovsky Valley, Russia; and Pavlov VI on the slopes of the Pavlov Hills in southern Moravia, Czech Republic.

http://www.pnas.org

Humanbyrace (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Grinding a flour does not mean farming. Australia aboriginals also ground many types of food before eating them. Some have suggested that this style of plant use probably intensified a lot before farming began properly, but they are not the same thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove reference to present-day Climate Change

References present-day Climate Change under theories about the origin of Neolithic Revolution should be removed.

Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denorris (talk • contribs) 07:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean "The case was extended to current issues of global warming/climate change presenting the thought that perhaps a major effect of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere could very well be a shift to a less stable and more unpredictable climate. Such a shift could impact agriculture in profound ways" ? I would have no objection at least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant. --D. Norris (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)