Talk:Neolithic Revolution: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:14, 6 July 2006

Latest revision as of 20:49, 25 August 2025

(291 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{reqdiagram}}

{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=High}}

__TOC__

{{WikiProject Archaeology|importance=Top}}

==Old discussion==

{{WikiProject Technology}}

I tagged this for clean-up. It needs breaking into sections, which will possibly require some restructuring. —[[User:Jwanders|Jwanders]] 12:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

{{WikiProject History|importance=High}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}

|maxarchivesize = 125K

|counter = 1

|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(100d)

|archive = Talk:Neolithic Revolution/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:Neolithic Revolution/Archive index

|mask=Talk:Neolithic Revolution/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes

}}

{{archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=100|search=yes|auto=long|index=/Archive index}}

*I moved sections around, changed wording slightly, added headings. Perhaps it could still use a bit of wikification here and there -- I tried not to overlink. I don't know if it's worthy of removing the cleanup tag yet. Perhaps someone else can take a look and either clean it up some more or judge it good enough and remove the tag. Thanks.&mdash;[[User:GraemeMcRae|GraemeMcRae]]^{[[User:GraemeMcRae|talk]]} 07:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

__TOC__

Yeah, great job! I added a couple more wikilinks and have remove the clean-up tag. —[[User:Jwanders|Jwanders]] 13:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to post a link to a thesis which analyzes the Neolithic Revolution from an economics standpoint? In the interest of full disclosure, it might be important to add that I wrote the thesis. - [[User:Redfax|Redfax]]12.54, 5 December (UTC)

:If it's on-line, how could it hurt? Just my opinion...--[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 17:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

==Accuracy and NPOV==

<blockquote>"The Neolithic Revolution ultimately gave the Europeans the upper hand in colonialization. As they reached continents that had experienced little or no domestication, the Europeans easily conquered these groups. Many of the natives in the Americas were killed by diseases brought from the Old World, simply because they had never developed an immunity to diseases caused by domesticated animals, in turn caused by the fact that they had never domesticated animals. Thus the hundred-thousand year gap in technological and social development played a part in leading to the demise of many native peoples."</blockquote>This is just WRONG. Clearly, the author does not know of the many llama species, guinea pigs or other animal species domesticated in the Andean highlands thousands of years before Columbus, and these societies fared no better in fending off Old World diseases. Moreover, humans need not have prolonged contact with ONLY domesticated animals to develop immunity to their diseases. I've cut this excerpt out, PLEASE, someone with more qualifications should work on this article. Kemet 31 May 2006.

== Linear progression of society ==

:Then why don't you fix it? That is how I learned it. You don't need to be near animals to contract diseases and whatnot, but many of the severe diseases the Europeans brought over, like smallpox, ''did'' come from these animals. And the natives of the Andes did not have as much contact with llamas as Europeans did with their domesticated animals. Last time I checked, the people of the Andes did not butcher llamas for food like the Europeans did with animals. The interaction was not as intimate. Also, societies in North America did not have the chance to build extensive civilizations with advanced technology because they never finished the first step of creating a hierarchial domesticated society, or if they did, they were not in any extensive comptetition for resources with another huge civilization. Perhaps some of it was wrong, or worded badly, but the whole section should not be completely cut out. Repair it, be bold, if you are more qualified than I am.--[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white">&nbsp;The ikiroid&nbsp;</font></b></tt>]] 20:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The part of the introduction about the neolithic package and how farming gave rise to hierarchy just isnt true? Hierarchy can exist both with and without hierarchy. The opening also implies that farming, once adopted, was a permanent feature, something that's not always reflected. Amending some of the phrasing here and later on would more accurately reflect the ways that agriculture changed societies, and help resist the idea that history only moves one way. [[User:Bookyteeth|Bookyteeth]] ([[User talk:Bookyteeth|talk]]) 15:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

::That discourse reminds me of turn-of-the-20th century cultural evolutionists, whose paradigms have been largely rejected in anthropology and the social sciences since the 1950s and 1960s. The last time you checked, what were the sources of your assertions? By what criteria do you define "advanced technology?" Do you seriously want to make the statement "never finished the first step of creating a hierarchial domesticated society?" Even if that were true (and the prescriptive evolutionist "formula" were not problematic), what does that have to do with resistence to livestock-borne diseases as you suggest? I cannot "repair" the section, because its founded upon flawed assumptions, the entire needs to include more cited sources (other than the opinions of the author). Kemet 31 May 2006.

:An amendment made on 28 August 2017 by [[User:Chiswick Chap]] removed the statement "Personal land and private property ownership led to a hierarchical society, with an elite social class, comprising a nobility, polity, and military" from the lead section, without an edit summary but presumably because the statement was inadequately supported by citations. The words "hierarchical ideologies" remained, without citation, presumably overlooked then and ever since. I agree that this requires a citation and have flagged it as such. Don't know what [[User:Bookyteeth]] means by "Hierarchy can exist both with and without hierarchy". [[User:Masato.harada|Masato.harada]] ([[User talk:Masato.harada|talk]]) 16:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

:::I think you've taken what I've said out of context. I am not racist, I don't believe that Europeans are better than Native Americans, and for what it's worth, I think it's completely unfair that many Native American cultures have been destroyed. You can still see the damage today.

::Sorry about that, meant "hierarchy can exist both with and without ''farming''" [[User:Bookyteeth|Bookyteeth]] ([[User talk:Bookyteeth|talk]]) 00:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

:::Where did I get my information from? I recieved my information from "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Information from that resource has already been added before, and the book is fairly recent, having been written in the last 20 years. I define "advanced technology" as a relative measurement of power through human development, in other words, the use of gunpowder weapons and swords against bows, arrows, et cetera. The reason why the first step of domestication is so relevant to livestock-borne diseases is because a society will not raise livestock unless they have the time and security to do so, something most hunter-gatherer societies don't have.--[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white">&nbsp;The ikiroid&nbsp;</font></b></tt>]] 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

::::No one suggested that you were racist. I think the text should very clearly indicate the source(s) for every step of the way, so that you can clearly show where you're extrapolating the arguments of others, or inserting your own. I have read works similar to those of Jared Diamond before, and although their intentions (to argue against the inherent intellectual and cultural "supremacy" of certain groups over others--in the case Western Europeans over everyone else) are noble, the strict determinism tends to restrict the role of agency and the ability of people to transform the objective conditions of their physical environments (and might actually hurt their cause because of this). Since such determinism has by no means stood the test of time and academic rigors, then it has to be taken as educated conjecture, not fact. You should strongly make this point if you use Jared Diamond as a source for your assertions. By the way, Europeans were hardly alone in colonizing the New World---free-born and enslaved Africans were at the vangaurd at every step of the "conquest," especially in Spanish and Portuguese exploits (this is well-known in the historiography of the conquests). Kemet 2 June 2006.

:::::So what should we change in the paragraph other than adding citations and notes? We should probably change the introduction of the section into<blockquote>"Some historians, such as [[Jared Diamond]] believe......."</blockquote>But I'm not sure how encyclopedic that would look. You have explained that this section needs to be carefully written, and I fully agree with that. You have demonstrated that your handle on the subject is at a much higher level than mine, and I agree with that too, so you need to help me edit the paragraph here before adding it back in. How about that? We'll edit it on this talkpage. Here, I'll create a new section for it.--[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white">&nbsp;The ikiroid&nbsp;</font></b></tt>]] 14:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::I think that Diamond's work should be presented, and then balanced with a critique of the determinism. As it stands right now, the article still presents Diamond's work as fact. It would be a good idea to cite published critiques of Diamond's work (and/or others like it) to balance the article in a more neutral way. Kemet 3 June 2006.

==Proposed SectionBP ==

Some historians, such as [[Jared Diamond]], believe that the Neolithic Revolution ultimately gave the Europeans the upper hand in colonialization. As they reached continents that had experienced little or no domestication, the entering groups (such as [[Spain|Spanish]] [[conquistador]]s) killed the native population with advanced weaponry and by diseases brought from the Old World, as these groups had never developed an immunity to diseases caused by the European domesticated animals, or developed weaponry as powerful as those used by the Europeans.

Why is BP (a relatively unknown standard) used? [[Special:Contributions/197.234.165.147|197.234.165.147]] ([[User talk:197.234.165.147|talk]]) 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

:Condensing his book into one paragraph seems inadequate. Here's my suggestion.

:Because it concerns [[prehistory]]. [[Before Present]] is standard in such cases. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 00:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

::It would be truer to say it it is often preferred in such cases, further back than some cut-off point. I wouldn't expect to see it used for the European Bronze Age for example. This topic is about at the borderline imo. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

::While its usage may be common, it is bad practice when multiple chronological are referenced as it requires doing additional mental math using a yearly shifting reference point and is not used in ancient and prehistoric academic chronologies. For example, the chronology of Egyptian dynasties are much easier to understand using the BCE standard. [[User:Eulersidentity|Eulersidentity]] ([[User talk:Eulersidentity|talk]]) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

== Change proposal to chronological era standard ==

:<blockquote>"In his book ''[[Guns, Germs, and Steel]]'', [[Jared Diamond]] argues that Europeans' advantageous geographical ___location, near a number of easily [[domestication|domesticable]] plant and animal species, afforded them a head start in the Neolithic Revolution. Being among the first to adopt agriculture and sedentary lifestyles, ''and neighboring other early agricultural societies with whom they could compete and trade,'' Europeans were also among the first to benefit from <s>advanced</s> technologies such as [[firearm]]s and steel [[sword]]s. In addition, Europeans developed resistances to [[infectious disease]]s, such as [[smallpox]], due to their close relationship with domesticated animals. Groups of people who had not lived in proximity with other large [[mammal]]s, such as the [[Indigenous Australians|Australian Aborigines]], were more vulnerable to infection."</blockquote>

::I have problems with the term "advanced technology" and the assertion that Europeans were the first to develop them. Are steel swords and firearms sufficient elements to regard a technology as "advanced?" According to whom are these necessary elements? Also, from what I read in this article and discussion, there is too strong a tendency to treat European technological advancements as innovative, native developments, not as local adaptations and evolution of technologies and ideas that originated outside of Western Europe by the time of the Age of Discovery. I believe that Diamond would aruge that Europe's favorable geograhical position that facilitated the flow of ideas, not Europe's special inventiveness, would explain the initial technological advantages it experienced by Age of Exploration. Kemet 3 June 2006.

:::I think you're right, Diamond would also make that argument -- he would certainly agree that it was not Europeans' special inventiveness. (And I don't think my suggestion gives that impression.) This is an article on the Neolithic Revolution, not more generally the rise of Europe, so I didn't mention the flow of ideas. But it is one of the proximate causes, although not the ultimate, so it deserves mention. As for "advanced technologies", we can take out the word "advanced" if you like. "Advanced" is relative, and European weapons were always the best of their time, so I think it's fitting, but it's not crucial. I've changed the paragraph above; tell me what you think. -- [[User:Bcasterline|bcasterline]] • [[User_talk:Bcasterline|talk]] 15:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The usage of the BP scale has a yearly shift in reference point that is better suited for geological scale chronologies but poorly suited for the chronology of human histories. The academic standard of using the BCE scale is used to address this by using a fixed reference point to make this chronology easier to intuitively understand, store, and recall from memory.

:<blockquote>"During and after the [[Age of Discovery]], European explorers, such as the Spanish [[conquistador]]s, encountered other groups of people which had never or only recently adopted agriculture. Due ''in part'' to their head start in the Neolithic Revolution, the Europeans were able to use their <s>advanded</s> technology and [[endemic]] diseases, to which indigenous populations had never been exposed, to colonize most of the globe."</blockquote>

:: Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of species of maize and potatos had been domesticated in Central and Andean South America thousands of years before Columbus arrived. Again, I think that the author overplays the initial headstart in the Neolithic Revolution, and contradicts himself---since this revolution did take place more or less simultaneously and independently in many parts of the globe. The vast majority of colonized societies had been agrarian for thousands of years before Europeans arrived, and the firearms of the latter were no match against endemic diseases in many tropical areas, against which which Europeans had no immunity. The primary initial reason for the use of African slaves in the Americans was that Africans had developed immunity to the diseases the author describes (and admitedly their having been agrarian societies thousands of years before the Age of Exploration does seem to support part of the hypothesis). The racist rationalization of the slave trade would come later. At the same time, Europeans made no headway into the interior of the African continent for several centuries, held back by a variety of endemic tropical diseases, and the uselessness of "advanced" technology to subdue the population (the slave trade would not have been possible without African raiders capturing and selling the people they conquered to European and Arab slave traders, and "divide and conquer" strategies were far more potent than any rifles or cannons). This is just an example of why its too simplistic to describe the scope of European colonization as essentially a consequence of an early headstart. There are just too many factors. 3 June 2006.

:::Have you read ''Guns, Germs, and Steel''? There are very many factors, but Diamond accounts for all of them. Maize and potatoes are much less domesticable than wheat, barley, and other grasses, and were probably not domesticated until thousands of years after the Neolithic Revolution in the Fertile Crescent. Agriculture was not adopted across the world simultaneously, and this is supported by hard evidence. (This is all information which should be included in the article somewhere, but not under this heading.) You're right about endemic diseases of the tropics and neotropics, which impeded European expansion. The Europeans colonized most of the globe, but not the whole thing. The enslavement of Africans to further their conquest also had everything to do with Europeans' head start, if not always directly. Typically Europeans acquired their slaves by trading firearms. -- [[User:Bcasterline|bcasterline]] • [[User_talk:Bcasterline|talk]] 15:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::::When I say "simultaneously," I mean that in span of our species' existence, roughly 150-200 thousand years, the agricultural revolution WAS rather sudden and spontaneous, with between 2500 and 5000 years separating earliest Old World and latest New World revolutions. The fact that conservative estimates that 20 million Native Americans lived in civilizations of Central and South America (with comparable population densities to those in Western Europe at the start of the Age of Exploration), strongly suggests that their agricultural practices were sufficiently efficient to support dense, urban populations. Population densities in western African civilizations were even greater. There is no doubt that diseases such as smallpox contributed to the demographic catastrophe in the New World, but so did malnutrition, overwork, and shock from unimaginable disruptions of social, political and economic networks. Concerning the African slave trade, with or without firearms, Europeans would not have gained slaves without Africans using those firewarms to capture slaves; the determing factor was human agency, not continuing resonances from early agricultural advantages. I want to make one thing clear: I DO believe that favorable geography and ecology, not any special innate mental prowess, gave Europeans very early advantages in the agricultural revolution, whose effects snowballed through thousands of years. That said, even you admit that the link between early Neolithic advantages and, in this case, the African slave trade, is indirect. The fundamental argument for direct, one-way cause-and-effect relationships between the latter and former (or so forth) is undermined, which is why I suggest that critiques of this determinism be included in the article. If Diamond accounts for all of the factors, then the article should reflect this. At this point, I think its helpful to remember that WESTERN Europe eventually colonized most of the globe, as eastern Europe lay in the periphery and under the domination of Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire (later the Russian Empire and Soviet Union) during all of the period in question---there was never a "Pan European" hegemony of the world. As I maintain, present Diamond and the like as educated conjecture, not as fact. Kemet 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Diamond's thesis is presented as one ''explanation'' of the facts. It shouldn't be presented any other way. This is an article on the Neolithic Revolution, not geographic determinism, and not the rise of Europe -- so I don't think extended criticism (especially of the [[WP:OR]] variety) is really appropriate, either. At this point, it seems that you personally disagree with Diamond's hypothesis, and that's not reason enough to withhold it. If there are any facts you dispute, or any sourced criticisms you'd like to include, feel free. Otherwise I'm going to add this section to the article. -- [[User:Bcasterline|bcasterline]] • [[User_talk:Bcasterline|talk]] 17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::I'm not sure if you read the original passage I deleted, but the tone was one that presented Diamond's thesis as fact, not as an conjecture on the ultimate effects of initial advantages that some societies had in the agricultural revolution. In any event, any work whose purpose is to inform is only as strong as its weakest sections, so the extended criticism on a "minor" point is completely appropriate. Pandora's box was opened with insufficiently-defined terms of discussion and rigid extrapolations. Moreover, I never suggested that Diamond's perspective be witheld--I suggested that it be balanced with dissenting views, which is reasonable if a particular line of reasoning has not stood the test of time and self-correction. Futhermore, as I said, I do not dispute the thesis fundamentally, I dispute the deterministic interpretation of it. Finally, in all sincerity, please do add that section, as I'm sure that you will keep in mind the suggestions I had (and which you and the author agreed were valid). If not, I'll contribute in that particular section with cited sources.Kemet 21:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I've added the section as agreed here. And again, if you want to add cited criticisms -- or expansions of some sort -- please feel free. -- [[User:Bcasterline|bcasterline]] • [[User_talk:Bcasterline|talk]] 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As a result, I propose keeping BP for references to geological epochs in the article such as the beginning of the Holocene era, but changing the chronological scale for references to human history and its corresponding archaeological record to BCE.

::::::::I've backed out of this&mdash;it's very apparent that you two know a lot more about the Neolithic Revolution and the theory of geographic luck than I do. :P--[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white">&nbsp;The ikiroid&nbsp;</font></b></tt>]] 01:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know your thoughts and declare whether or not you support or oppose this proposal to determine whether or not to accept or reject it by consensus.

:Diamond's 1987 essay [http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race"] is also an interesting counterpoint that deserves mention. That the Neolithic Revolution was benficial is almost always taken for granted, as it is here. This article mentions one of the downsides (disease) briefly, but Diamond argues that there are others. -- [[User:Bcasterline|bcasterline]] • [[User_talk:Bcasterline|talk]] 16:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! [[User:Eulersidentity|Eulersidentity]] ([[User talk:Eulersidentity|talk]]) 17:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it could go under a new subsection called "Effects on the [[Age of Discovery]]." Another section could be created called "Disadvantages of the transition to an agrarian society."--[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white">&nbsp;The ikiroid&nbsp;</font></b></tt>]] 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:'''Oppose as proposed''' The BP ([[Before Present]]) scale in fact has a fixed "present" of 1950; "years ago" dates I suppose will need updating in 30 years or so. I agree there are too many of both of these in the article - both involve irritating mental arithmetic for the majority who think in BC/BCE dates. Per [[WP:ERA]] we should go back to the original BC scale, which is perfectly fine, and better understood in most parts of the world outside America. It was changed illegally at some point, with no discussion that I can see. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 04:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:As Johnbod says, Before Present is a well-defined era with a fixed epoch. I also don't agree that it is {{tq|better suited for geological scale chronologies but poorly suited for the chronology of human histories}}; BP is widely used by scholars working on (human) prehistory and is the norm for most things Stone Age. Geologists, in contrast, tend to use the [[Year#SI_prefix_multipliers|SI annum]] or [[Year#Abbreviations_for_"years_ago"|kya/mya]] notation. For a general readership I think the most natural way to talk about things that happened a very long time ago is in terms of "X years ago", which for practical purposes is equivalent to Before Present. That is, I think the average person will find it just as easy to parse a statement like "agriculture appeared around 12,000 years ago" as "agriculture appeared around 10,000 BC" so I see no strong reason to prefer one or the other in this article. Consistency would be great, of course. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 06:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)