UPSB v3
Spammer's Bin / ^^
-
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 21:32:21
Yayyy so I finished rough draft for history so i'm going to post it here cuz I feel like it. =]
[/size]
The Affects of Neolithic Revolution on Hunter-gatherer Communities
The Neolithic revolution[1] was one of the single most dynamic changes in all of human history. With agriculture we became what we are today, able to control our own food supply, no longer relying on nature to provide us with food. But for the majority of human history[2] we had been primarily hunter-gatherers, relying on nature for food. So what caused humans to make such a drastic change, and what affects did the Neolithic farmers have on hunter-gatherer communities? Did they slowly absorb the new culture as farming became more predominate, or were they completely consumed by the earliest farmers, who encountered the bands of hunter-gatherers violently?
Agriculture today is commonly viewed as an inevitable occurrence. Many people believe that because of agriculture days of starving, living like animals, and by the whim of nature is gone. Upon closer inspection of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and social structure, a more complex society and, arguably, better system is revealed. By comparing the two, hunter-gatherer and agriculture, the veil as to how and why the Neolithic revolution occurred is somewhat lifted and it helps to create a better understanding as to what happened during the single greatest event in modern human history. People often forget that humans lived as hunter-gatherers for over two million years, and only recently, as soon as twelve thousand years ago, did they start to develop the agriculture and lifestyle we know today. History often skims over this time before the Neolithic revolution as it is murky and unsure; however, there is much to be learned from the transition period to agriculture.
First, what classifies a group as a hunter-gatherer? A hunter-gatherer[3] society consists of a group whose main method of attaining food is by procurement of plants and animals without significant domestication. However, the line between the two was often blurry, as many tribes used forms of domestication, indirect or direct, before agriculture was widely directed, albeit on a much smaller scale, and not as the primary food supply. Many misconceptions of hunter-gatherers come from the generalization of the term. While many groups and tribes had similarities each could have completely opposite social structure or lifestyle. While hunter-gatherers are often thought of nomadic people living in small groups, there were also densely populated sedentary hunter-gatherers who lived in well suited areas. Other smaller tribes of hunter-gatherers would sometimes come together annually and form a larger group. New archaeological findings[4] of pillars and sculptures, part of a temple, built by hunter-gatherers, dating back before the Neolithic revolution, also refute the idea that only large farming cultures could muster the resources and organization to build temples. While the reason for these structures appearing around a few hundred years before the Neolithic revolution may be the same[5], it also shows how large more sedentary hunter-gatherer societies could have achieved similar levels of culture and organization as that of farmers. Hunter-gatherers also led very healthy lives, a large variety of food and options, and no dependency on say, one specific animal or seed alone. Evidence shows that they were very well built, and had less disease than people relying on agriculture alone. While hunter-gatherers, in many cases couldn’t exist in high populations as it could result in a rapid depletion of food, they usually had more than enough surplus of food in comparison to their size.
Agriculture[6] on the other hand, involved domesticating animals[7], and plants. Agriculture, which allowed an easily accessible food surplus, also created denser population concentration, in many cases, hundreds of times greater than that of gathering societies. The development of agriculture also allowed the development of specialization, allowing certain people to dedicate themselves to other various skilled professions; such as tool making, pottery, and carpentry. It also allowed the development of trade, while trade had always been around in hunter-gatherer life, the surplus of food and specialization increased the amount of trade occurring. However, when looking at both in perspective many new issues arise in agricultural societies. Agricultural societies required more land and labor to succeed. While agriculturists must spend all year planting and harvesting to maintain a food surplus, most hunter-gatherers would hunt for only a few hours a day when they were hungry. The notion of the farmer was created with the development of agriculture, in which someone dedicates their whole life to planting and creating food for the community. Not only that, but because purely agricultural communities only relied on only a few crops, nutrition was far lower and starvation and famine could more easily strike[8].
With all the differences between agriculturalist and hunter-gatherers the question is still left as to why the change happened, especially after millions of years of humans primarily living the same way as hunters and gatherers. The switch over to agriculture, while recent, did not happen overnight[9]. The Neolithic revolution[10] itself was a gradual event taking place in around 10,000 B.C.E. over a period of a few thousand years[11]. Aside from the numerous birthplaces of agriculture all surrounding humans were still hunting and foraging as they had been for literally thousands of years. So how did the growing agricultural society and culture affect these hunter-gatherer communities?
There are two main affects the Neolithic revolution is speculated to have had on hunter-gatherers, a sort of absorption and change into an agricultural lifestyle, brought on socially, and spreading from the epicenters. Or by external affects such as invasion, or an expansion explanation, in which hunter-gatherers were replaced as groups who adopted agriculture first began to require surrounding land for their growing population. Most likely, it was a combination of the two, and science has helped lead the way to revealing what truly happened.
First, when considering why the Neolithic revolution took place, there are several big picture ideas to be addressed. The Neolithic revolution took place over a time period of a couple thousand years, shortly after the last Ice Age, and happened in many various places all around the world simultaneously, in a few epicenters[12] of agriculture. The world was highly populated with humans, even at that time, and agriculture developed alongside hunter-gatherers, many of which traded, or at the very least had social communications with the agriculturists. The first signs of agriculture tended to develop in highly fertile areas, where many hunter-gatherers were probably more sedentary and lived in denser groups, with high abundance of food[13]. While there are many people who would naturally come to the conclusion that agriculture may have been devised as a way to cope with shortage of food, agriculture is seen rising up the seemingly most fertile places. Which leads the first theory, dry seasons.
The theory of dry seasons states that as the terrain became drier, and food scarcer, hunter-gatherers developed a form of agriculture to survive. This theory of a forced entrance into agriculture is easily disproved simply by an allusion connecting the starvation of a people to a drowning person. Agriculture requires time in order to be useful domesticating plants and animals takes generations. It is not applicable for the same reason a man drowning in a lake does not suddenly build a boat[14]. Ancient hunter-gatherers would not have had the time, or the expertise to cope with drastic drought by suddenly applying agriculture and domestication.
A similar theory, the Oasis theory[15] presents the hypothesis that bands of hunter-gatherers were forced into the epicenters of agriculture due to a drier climate. There, due to their close proximity to other animals and plants they began to domesticate them. This theory takes into count both the global unity and time frame in which agriculture developed around the world, and the fact that it only occurred in specific highly fertile areas. However due to a better knowledge of climate change during the Neolithic period the Oasis theory has been largely discredited.
So why did the Neolithic revolution occur? The Neolithic revolution was most likely a result of a global climate change relating to the last Ice Age, which would explain the simultaneous nature of the rise in agriculture around the world. These environmental changes most likely favored agriculture and let already sedentary hunter-gatherer communities to expand even larger around areas of fertile land. As the population expanded due to the surplus in food naturally growing, hunter-gatherers developed more sophisticated social structures and eventually developed agriculture as a way to cope with the expanding population[16]. This is commonly known as the Demographic theory[17] in which farming allowed high population densities without the over consumption of land. Changing levels in carbon dioxide may have also played a role during the Neolithic revolution, increasing CO2 levels may have caused plant productivity to increase by up to fifty percent, allowing easy access to crops for domestication[18]. Many other factors during the Neolithic revolution also may have encouraged agriculture, as the climate got warmer, seasonality increased and sea levels rose.
Another hypothesis as to why humans transitioned into agriculture includes the chemical properties of cereals. Before agriculture humans did not consume cereals in any quantity at all. Compared to today where most human’s diet consists of two thirds[19] cereal; wheat, corn, rice. Humans only developed the tools needed for consumption of cereals during the Neolithic era. Cereals interestingly enough, contain exorphins, drug like substances which evidence shows activates reward centers in the brain. Feelings created by modern day cereals include motivation, reduction of anxiety and addiction. This theory suggests that as the climate became more suitable for wild cereals humans were attracted to settling around them and harvesting this favorable food. Creating a chemical insensitive for those who adopted agriculture. This theory explains why humans would have adopted and replaced other foods that had not health or nutritional benefits[20]. As the early farmers traded with surrounding hunter-gatherers they would have spread the reliance on the crop.
Most modern theories as to why the Neolithic revolution took place acknowledge a few key pieces of factual information. The Neolithic revolution took place in areas of high land fertility and dense animal and human population. And that climate change[21] was most likely the key factor. While so far only the cause of the Neolithic revolution has been addressed, the transition period is just as, if not more important when it comes to answering the initial question about what happened to the hunter-gatherers.
While the centers of agriculture were developing during the Neolithic revolution, there were many small hunter-gatherer communities roaming the entire Earth as well. By this time humans had spread their way across the majority of the land but not all humans were developing farming. Aside from the few isolated areas of farming, the rest, and majority people in the world were still hunting and gathering as their sole source of attaining food.
The first explanation as to what happened to these people during the Neolithic revolution is one of absorption and diffusion of culture through out surrounding communities. Evidence for this is shown in trade that occurred between hunter-gatherers and farmers, and supported by some tests and studies regarding the genes found in modern day Europeans and those found in the remains of hunter-gatherers and early Neolithic farmers. Agricultural tools and products are seen in many areas of hunter-gatherer tribes, which can be seen evidence of trading between the two communities.
Diffusion supports the idea that the last hunter-gatherers were the first agriculturists. As agriculture gained momentum it would became more socially beneficial to adopt agriculture. The exploitation of exports from farmers to hunter-gatherers also increased this time, which may have slowly took over the foraging community as they got used to the new diet[22] and started to grow the same food themselves. Hypergyny[23] would have also occurred as hunter-gatherers became viewed as culturally and economically inferior to the agriculturists[24]. In this kind of situation hypergyny could have amounted to up to fifteen percent [25]of the hunter-gatherer female population which would have caused a severe shortage of females for the hunter-gatherers. The agriculturists, who already had a high percentage of women to men compared to hunter-gatherers, could also reproduce at a faster rate than the hunter-gatherers, who required three to four years between childbirth. In this way hypergyny would have made farming an even more attractive socio-economic option for males as well.
While there is evidence supporting the claim that hunter-gatherers slowly transitioned into the agriculturists there are also many people who suggest that it was not so smooth. Earlier, genetic evidence[26] was mentioned to support the idea that the late hunter-gatherers became the early agriculturists, and thus the people around today. But new DNA evidence seems to refute these earlier tests[27]. A recent study [28]regarding the same question looked at four dozen skeletons[29] of hunter-gatherers compared the mitochondrial DNA to those of the modern day humans of the previous analysis[30]. However, unlike what the previous genetic evidence had found only about one to seven percent[31] of the modern DNA was found to be connected to the same DNA[32] as the hunter-gatherer skeletons. Four exceptions appeared in the hunter-gatherer skeleton samples as well though, all from a single site near the coast of the Baltic Sea. This DNA group, dobbed K[33], was found to have no DNA relation to more inland hunter-gatherer groups. This implied a very large dilemma for some who would have believed the transition was peaceful. In fact this study addresses something more complex and suggests more of a replacement of hunter-gatherers. But even more than that, the DNA evidence also helps to narrow down what may have happened, specifically, to the hunter-gatherers.
Throughout history there is a wealth of evidence showing how expanding agriculturist populations wiping out hunter-gatherer populations. And the study does make clear, that modern day humans do not have any direct link to early Neolithic farmers or European hunter-gatherers by population mixing alone. A theory was presented to deal with the new genetic findings, suggesting that since the coastal hunter-gatherers may have been a more dense and sedentary community[34] and thus slowly transitioned to farming as waves [35]of agriculturists migrated through the area. In contrast, the inland hunter-gatherers were probably a more separated group, and geological barriers and isolation could have kept them from interacting with the coastal hunter-gatherers. Then, when Neolithic farmers arrived instead of being slowly socially transitioned into agriculturists their lifestyle was wiped out. This new study helps to compel the idea that most of the hunter-gatherers who were not at first diffused into the farming community were overwhelmed.
On a less technical note, hunter-gatherers and early farmers would have also been competing for much of the same land. Early agriculturists who established hunting grounds, to supplement their farming, in hunter-gatherer territories would have a direct impact on the hunter-gatherer food supply. However as agriculture developed even further increased social competition and violence occurred around the perimeters of the agricultural frontiers. This was shown in fortified farming villages and in some areas, no mans lands[36]. The presence of arrows from Neolithic communities are also found presumably supporting the idea of trade between the two communities, however the presence of Neolithic artifacts could also be seen as loot rather than trade and commerce between the two communities.
Evidence on both sides of the argument, diffusion versus replacement are both very ambiguous. The conflicting DNA studies and misinterpreted information could be used to support either side. On the whole, the support for a cooperative change from late hunter-gatherers to Neolithic farmers seems to hold more ground than a competitive one. DNA evidence as well as physical evidence supports the fact that the more complex hunter-gatherers of the coastal regions were better equipped to interact with the agricultural communities than the hunter-gatherers located inland. In the coastal regions competition for land may never have overwhelmed the communities, rather a transferral of knowledge and intermarriage due to social pressures, resulting in a blend of cultural traits. As competition increased later on farming would have become even more attractive and the coastal communities would have been able to acquire farming rapidly as the early Neolithic farmers needed more land to support their increasing population. In this way, and because of the early social ties created with the agriculturists, the coastal regions may have avoided the destruction created by the early farmers’ expansion. This would have resulted in a social evolution rather than a process of replacement. While this shift occurred rather quickly in Europe it seems to be the norm for all coastal hunter-gatherers who encountered Neolithic farmers around the world. Evidence in culture and artifacts[37] can be found suggesting a rapid change as communities adopted farming techniques. In other regions however, the rate of change is much slower, such as the Baltic region, where farming was adopted over a period of two millennia. The presence of large complex trade networks between the two communities, early farming and late hunter-gatherers, may have delayed the adoption of farming for many foragers as the socio-economic pressure wouldn’t have been as high to conform to agriculture. Hunter-gatherer societies more inland, physically disconnected from trade and communication would have been later wiped out or engaged in violence with the agriculturalists as they expanded to meet growing population needs[38].
In order to understand the cause of the Neolithic revolution, the transition to farming must be understood as well. Although many theories have been posited as to why the Neolithic revolution took place, often, less attention is paid to the actual process and how the transition actually took place. Understanding what happened during the Neolithic revolution also helps us to look back and examine the theories as to why the Neolithic revolution occurred. Using the knowledge and information as to what happened we can also help answer why it happened. By realizing that for millions of years humans had been hunters and foragers the Neolithic revolutions scale becomes clearer. In a few thousand years Human evolution was sent down a completely different path. Learning about what happened during these changes also goes hand in hand in helping us figure out why they occurred.
Looking back from the year 2009 C.E. it may seem that the change into agriculturalist communities has created a better quality of life. However, evidence today suggests that humans were far better off as hunter-gatherers than after they transitioned into agriculture. Hunter-gatherers had a varied diet of plants seeds fruits and nuts, while early agriculturists relied on a few crops with poor nutritional value. Today the most common foods are wheat, corn and rice, but they are all deficient in certain proteins. Agriculturists run a much higher risk of starvation and must deal with the issue of population as food production is never enough to satisfy an exponentially growing demand, leaving people starving. Along with the Neolithic revolution was a coinciding increase in infectious diseases, malnutrition and anemia, due to the density of humans. Understanding what happened during Neolithic revolution and why, can also help us better understand why agriculture today, against all odds, is nearly the sole form of food production for humans. The Neolithic revolution was the single largest shift in human society. By better understanding it’s affect on society it helps us reexamine who we, as humans, are today.
Works Cited
1. Bellwood, Peter (2005) First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Oxford: Blackwell
2. Biology 103 The Origins of Agriculture: Rise of Civilization or Defying Evolution. Bryn Mawr College. Web. Oct. & nov. 2009.
3. Bobleckridge. "Hunter gatherers and Farmers." Web log post. Heroes Not Zombies. Wordpress, 6 June 2009. Web. Oct. & nov. 2009.
4. Bramanti, B., M. G. Thomas, W. Haak, M. Unterlaender, P. Jores, K. Tambets, I. Antanitis-Jacobs, M. N. Haidle, R. Jankauskas, C. J. Kind, F. Leuth, T. Terberger, J. Hiller, S. Matsumura, P. Forster, and J. Burger. "Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe's First Farmers." Science 2009: 137-40. Print.
5. Chandler, Graham. "The Beginning of the End for Hunter-gatherers." Saudi Aramco World 60.2 (2009). Www.saudiaramcoworld.com. March & april 2009. Web. Oct. & nov. 2009.
6. Diamond, Jared M. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. 1st ed. W.W. Norton & Co, 1991. Print.
7. Diamond, Jared. "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race." Discover (1987): 64-66. Print.
8. Gebauer, Anne Birgeitte, and T. Douglas Price, eds. Last Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture (School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series). School of American Research, 1996. Print.
9. Harris, David R. The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. 1st ed. Taylor & Francis, Inc., 1996. Print.
10. Hodges, Henry. Technology in the Ancient World. Barnes & Noble, Inc, 1992. Print.
11. "Hunter-gatherer." All Experts. Web. Oct. & nov. 2009.
12. "Hunter-Gatherers." Novelguide: Free Study Guides, Free Book Summaries, Free Book Notes, & More. Web. Oct. & nov. 2009.
13. Mithen, Steven. After the Ice: A Global Human History 20,000-5000 BC. Harvard UP, 2004. Print.
14. Oh-Willeke, Andrew. "Did Farmers Replace Hunter-Gatherers In Europe?" Web log post. WashPark Prophet. 10&22 Oct. 2009. Web. Oct. & nov. 2009.
16. Richerson, Peter J., Robert Boyd, and Robert L. Bettinger (2001) Was agriculture impossible during the Pleistocene but mandatory during the Holocene? A climate change hypothesis. American Antiquity 66(3):387‑411.
17. Rindos, David (1984) The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. New York: Academic Press.
18. Rindos, David (1989) Darwinism and its role in the explanation of domestication. In Foraging and Farming, D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman, eds, pp. 27-41. London: Unwin Hyman.
19. Wadkey, Greg, and Angus Martin. "The origins of agriculture: A Biological Perspective and a New Hypothesis." Australian Biologist 6 (1993): 96-105. Print.
20. Winterhalder, Bruce and Douglas Kennett (2006) Behavioral ecology and the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture. In Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture, ed. D. Kennett and B. Winterhalder, pp. 1-21. Berkeley: U. of California Press.
[size="3"][1] Also known as the New Stone Age, the transition between hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a sedentary agricultural based society.
[2] Anatomically modern humans appear to have originated 100,000 years ago.
[3] Also known as food extraction.
[4] In Turkey, discovered by an archeological surveyor, Bruce Howe, in 1963. The beginning of the End for Hunter-Gatherers, 1.
[5] Climate change, 1500 years prior to the stones were erected the last Ice Age had ended and thus created a large animal and plant surplus.
[6] Also known as food production.
[7] Also known as pastoralism.
[8] Hunter-gatherers could always pick up and leave if conditions became to hard, sedentary farmers did not have this luxury.
[9] While in the context of history the change occurred rather quickly.
[10] To put it in context the Neolithic revolution occurred after the Mesolithic (Epipaleolithic) and before the Bronze Age.
[11] Varies by location.
[12]Asia, Africa, the Fertile Crescent. (At least 7 separate locations). The Americas agricultural revolution actually occurred in a different era, causing some debate over whether or not major climate change was a sole factor in the Neolithic revolton.
[13] The Neolithic revolution occurred a few thousand years after the last Ice Age creating large surplus’s of food in areas which had been frozen over before, allowing hunter-gatherers to settle without over consuming the land and their resources.
[14] Ishmael, David Quinn, 57
[15] First proposed by Raphael Pumpelly in 1928
[16] Agriculture provides more food for area of land.
[17] Developed by Carl Sauer.
[18] Rise of Civilization or Defying Evolution? 2
[19] Rise of Civilization or Defying Evolution? 2
[20] The diet of early agricultural communities coincided with a decline in health with humans, suggesting that the diet was worse. A drug like appeal to the food would explain the reliance on the food today, and the adoption of agriculture.
[21] A few modern theories remain that do not acknowledge climate change directly as a factor, such as the Feasting theory proposed by Brian Hayden which suggests agriculture was driven by humans attempts to show power and superiority, and an evolutionary theory proposing humans naturally developed agriculture from their natural preference of foods. While most modern supporters of environmental changes causing the Neolithic revolution hold that it is necessary for the simultaneous rise of agriculture there were many other climate changes that occurred before and after the Neolithic revolution and agriculture arose independently in a few other continents like the Americas.
[22]Relating to the theory of exorphins in cereals.
[23] The loss through marriage of forager women to farmers.
[24] The Transition to Farming in the Circum-Baltic Region. 338.
[25] Baily and Annger 1989, Speth 1991
[26] These findings made by Brian Sykes suggested that about one in five modern Europeans were descended from Neolithic farmers, while the rest were from early hunter-gatherer populations who took up farming from the Neolithic farmers. Sykes conclusion was backed by a sample from a single hunter-gatherer skeleton dating back 9000 years. Studies done by Brian Sykes in 2001.
[27] Although the former studies are still widely acknowledged as accurate under the assumptions made when testing (grouping genetic groups by time and geological location.)
[28] Released on October 2, 2009 in an issue of Science. Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-gatherers and Central Europe’s First Farmers. B. Bramanti.
[29] About half from late European hunter-gatherers and half from early Neolithic farmers.
[30] Essentially the same group that Sykes used for his study.
[31] Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-gatherers and Central Europe’s First Farmers. B. Bramanti.
[32] A mix of the hunter-gatherer mitochondrial DNA.
[33] Standing for two sub groups, group T2 and J. Many of the skeletons were relatively young, about 5000 years old. The eleven other hunter-gatherer sites where skeletons were used for DNA samples were all inland and all contained a connecting group of mitochondrial DNA, group U, the K group, however contained the sub group U5 rather than U, implying an exception.
[34] Which would also account for the lesser gene variety within their DNA.
[35] These sorts of genetic “waves†are not only found in Europe where Bramanti’s study was done. They also appear in such places as India where similar DNA patterns are found.
[36] Keely 1992 Unocuppied areas 20-40 km between the agricultural border and inland hunter-gatherer sites.
[37] Primarily physical evidence of tools and increase of certain structures similar to confirmed agriculturists communities around periods of times found in hunter-gatherer sites.
[38] The onset of agriculture also produces a cycle in which agriculture depends on a food surplus and a food surplus causes the population to rise.
-
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 21:54:28
tl;dr
-
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 23:14:41
I got a spelling error I think
Hypergyny should be hypergamy, I had to google that word
the first sentence seems to be hyperbole
kinda boring, but thats expected with school essays -
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 23:16:50QUOTE (Zombo @ Nov 22 2009, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>tl;dr
-
Date: Sun, Nov 22 2009 23:39:49
wall-o-text
-
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 00:13:10
No indents, didn't read.
-
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 08:12:37
didn't read...
-
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 14:25:37
wall of text, so didn't bother to read