Persistent Controversies About the Neolithic Revolution Serge Svizzero

Persistent Controversies about the Neolithic Revolution Serge Svizzero

To cite this version:

Serge Svizzero. Persistent Controversies about the Neolithic Revolution. Journal of Historical Archae- ology & Anthropological Sciences , MedCrave, 2017, 1 (2), pp.00013. 10.15406/jhaas.2017.01.00013. hal-02145483

HAL Id: hal-02145483 https://hal.univ-reunion.fr/hal-02145483 Submitted on 3 Jun 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Journal of Historical Archaeology & Anthropological Sciences

Persistent Controversies about the Neolithic Revolution

Abstract Review Article

farming and then to the onset of agrarian societies. This process, which relied mainlyThe Neolithic on the Revolutiondomestication describes of wild the plants transition and animals, from hunting occurred and independently gathering to Volume 1 Issue 2 - 2017 in at least seven parts of the world from 10,000 BC. It is widely agreed that the shift Faculté de Droit et d’Economie, Université de La Réunion, from a total reliance on wild resources to the use of domesticated foods led to a France

*Corresponding author: continuesnumber of tofundamental lead to major and far-reachingdebates and changescontroversies in human among society. scholars. However, It is even the purposeeight decades of this after paper Childe’s to present (1936) and seminal critically publication, evaluate these the Neolithic major debates. revolution The Serge Svizzero, Faculté de Droit et latter are related to the presumed superiority of farming over foraging and to the d’Economie, Université de La Réunion, France, Tel: +262 262 speed of the transition process. They also concerned the origins of agriculture, Received:13 82 58; Email: | Published: the respective role of nature and culture in explaining the economic development, February 28, 2017 May 16, 2017 and the mechanisms bringing about the spread of agriculture.

Keywords:

Hunter-Gatherer; Foraging; Farming; Neolithic Transition; Biogeographic Conditions, Institutions; Agriculture Diffusion; European Neolithization Process

Introduction

The transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture has process.of agricultural It has developmentlong been assumed, - over foragingfollowing has the beenseminal seriously work long been regarded as one of the most important development questioned [1-3]. The second one is also related to the transition in human history. At its roots was the shift from the reliance on wild plants and animals to domesticated plants and livestock. Duringof Childe the (1936)last decades and thethis view terminology has been he challenged used the by so-called various Domestication is the process by which humans are able to control archaeological“Neolithic revolution” records - and that studies. the transition The transition was rapid revealed and radical. indeed the reproduction of plants and animals species and thus select for on foraging and farming) during millennia and even temporary in the Levant, around 10,000 BC and it marks the beginning of as a gradual and long-term process, with a mixed-economy (based various desirable characteristics. Domestication first occurred the archaeological period known as the “Neolithic”. From the is about the main theories explaining the transition to agriculture. Near East, farming spread across Europe between 8,500 and Chronologically,reversion to hunting those and related gathering to lifestylepush factors [4,5]. Thesuch third as climate debate 4,000 years ago. However, the adoption of domestic plants and animals is only a single symptom of a major societal and economic However in the recent decades, theories related to pull factors transformation. Indeed, people changed their views of many suchchange as or social population competition pressure and were feasting favored have in thebeen literature considered [5]. things during the Neolithic period, including the returns expected separately or side by side with the previous ones. The most recent from their quest of food, acceptable levels of risk, their ability of these pull explanations, based on the human management to change their environment, residential stability and property Theory) and the role of property rights has an increasing of the environment (more specifically on Niche Construction rights, definitions of kinship and residential groupings and the special event on a much larger scale of time its study becomes benefits of having more children. Most of these changes find their (HG) were living, but they came together during the Neolithic to intrinsicallyaudience [6,7]. embedded When the in Neolithic a fourth transition debate, the is consideredone about asthe a roots in the Mesolithic period, when solely hunter-gatherers produce a dramatic change in society. origins of economic development. Two main views are present Because the transition to agriculture encompasses a in the literature associated with this debate: one is focusing wide range of causes and consequences that are themselves on the role of natural resource endowments, geographic and multidimensional (economic, social, ecological, institutional, technical) its study has led to discussions and to some major of institutions. The last debate is about the diffusion of agriculture debates and controversies among scholars. It is the purpose of Biogeographic conditions; the other emphasizes the importance this paper to present and critically evaluate these major debates. gatherers. The migrationist approach was initially dominant in from its original center to areas occupied by indigenous hunter- shiftThe first to agricultureone is about was the transitionassociated process with many itself; advantages it has long been and inthe the literature integrationist [8,9] then approach it has which been challengedseems a more by the convincing cultural thereforeconsidered was that, obvious. compared However, to the according hunting-gathering to recent lifestyle,studies, the diffusion. More recently, both approaches have been combined presumed superiority of the farming lifestyle – in the early ages theory since it fits better with archaeological records, at least for South-East, Central and Northern Europe [10,11].

Submit Manuscript | http://medcraveonline.com

the presumed superiority of agriculture in its early ages was far have put in more rather than less labor to attain subsistence. As The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, it is shown that been challenged. The first agriculturalists are now believed to as highly desirable. Scholars of human history long assumed that tofrom agriculture obvious andbased that on hunting-gathering domestication and societies multiple were technical highly pointed out by [14] “Traditional scholarship has regarded farming resilient to external shocks. Section 3, explains that the transition and domestication, they would immediately take up farming. rather than a true (Neolithic) revolution. The main models about However,once humans more recognized recent studies the impressivehave indicated gains that from early cultivation farming theinnovations origins ofwas the therefore Neolithic a transitiongradual process are detailed over the in long-termSection 4, be they related either to push factors, or to pull factors, or to an admixture of both. In section 5 are presented and then compared was indeed back breaking, time consuming and labour-intensive”. the two main views about the origins of economic development, [1] Also asked “Why farm? Why give up the 20‐hour work week one focusing on natural endowments and the other on the role and the fun of hunting in order to toil in the sun? Why work harder, of institutions. The mechanisms bringing about the spread of for food less nutritious and a supply more capricious? Why invite famine,In other plague, words, pestilence early agriculturists and crowded livinghad to conditions?” work more hours than foragers did. They were also more prone to lethal disease and agriculture are analyzed in section 6, with special attention for the diffusion of agriculture to Europe from the Near-East. Section one or a few domesticated plants, with a diet based predominantly malnutrition [15], as a result of the shift towards dependence on The7 concludes. Presumed Superiority of Agriculture in its Early on complex carbohydrates. Increasing sedentism and living in close proximity to domestic animals led to poor sanitation and an Ages It is often believed that the initial effect of the shift from Sinceincrease there prevalence are almost of zoonoticno indications disease. of They increased also had standards to endure of the amount of food production. Societies that adopted agriculture livingless egalitarian immediately social after structures the agricultural than hunter-gatherer transition, why societies. complex werehunting-gathering able to produce to far agriculture more food was in a angiven immediate territory increasethan those of HG should have decided to give up their way of life in order to that relied on foraging. This increase in productivity could be used either to expand the economic surplus or expand population, with both usually occurring. However, recent studies have deeply adopt agriculture? cases of reversion from agriculture to hunting and gathering, challenged this vision demonstrating that compared to foraging, dependingThe low attractivenesson opportunity of agriculturecosts. Some is alsoexamples confirmed of reversion by some agriculture in its early ages was an activity with low return and that farmers were incurring high risks. The Low Attractiveness of the Farming Way of Life are well documented in Northern America [4] as well as in other Indiansregions tribes [16]. Indeed to revert in Northto hunting America as a the permanent (re)-introduction way of life. of Anotherhorses by example conquistadors3 of reversion caused concerns some the north-American Levant and is about native the the Ertebølle1 culture, HG were not mobile and nor were they In Mesolithic Europe, for example and as illustrated by reverted to a higher degree of mobility after having adopted a well-known Natufians. Indeed, it appeared that the late Natufians Neolithicorganizationally European simple. farmers On theas illustrated contrary, theyby the tended LBK 2 towardsculture well as changes in the burial record have been seen as indicators socio-economic complexity, including sedentism. Similarly ofsettled increased life. Decreases mobility. Itin issite suggested size, the thatdecline the ofreason architecture, for higher as were not super-productive and sedentary. On the contrary, they which occurred with the onset of the Younger Dryas, which ofwere the Neolithic often mobile revolution and had i.e. the a mixed-economy, deliberate choice i.e. of anHG economyto switch depletedmobility duringavailable the resources. late Natufian This wasin turn, the resultedclimatic indeterioration a dispersal combining hunting-gathering and farming. The cultural diffusion different areas and alleviate risk. to agriculture, finds therefore little support. Moreover, it was often of populations across the region to maximize their returns from believed that farmers were affluent and HG was poor. From the Adaptation and Resilience of Hunter-Gatherer 1960s, the latter part of this vision was challenged by the results Societies locatedof ethnological in Africa) studies were [12]very ofdifferent HG societies. from the Indeed, usual itdescription appeared ofthat HG some societies. modern Indeed, HG thesesocieties societies (mainly! did notKung experience and Hadza, scarcity both of food and individuals had to do little work to satisfy their limited to wildTraditional cereal cultivation climate forcing was a modelssolution [17] to the intended failure of to foraging explain the origins of agriculture in the Near-East proposed that the shift ends. Therefore, they were labeled as the “original affluent society” climatic deterioration. In doing so, they assumed that the Neolithic [13].1 Thus, the former part of the vision mentioned above has also systems driven by the terminal Pleistocene Younger Dryas Neolithic communities of Northern Europe – South Scandinavia, dated example of social collapse i.e. to the failure of foraging economies The Ertebølle culture is the name given to the Late Mesolithic/Early inrevolution the wake of was abrupt a response climatic change. to the However, earliest this well-documented view has been adopted pottery but not agriculture from their neighbors. between2The Linearbandkeramik 5400-3900 BC, Culture consisting (also of called fisher-hunter-gatherers Bandkeramik or Linear who farming communities in Central Europe, dated between about 5400 and ofchallenged vegetation [18] only in resultedthe case inof aHG shift societies in resource living focus in the of Levant HG rather - by 4900Pottery BC. Ceramic Culture or simply abbreviated LBK) is the first true assuming that climatic fluctuations leading to major restructuring 3 Cheyenne, Arapaho and Pawnee.

Citation:

Svizzero S (2017) Persistent Controversies about the Neolithic Revolution. J His Arch & Anthropol Sci 1(2): 00013. DOI: 10.15406/jhaas.2017.01.00013 Copyright: Persistent Controversies about the Neolithic Revolution ©2017 Svizzero 3/10

than forcing a collapse of foraging economies. Indeed the Levant are complex: woodlands dominated the west and the north while course, some plants as well as some animals were tamed [25] by For plants, a wide range of “technologies” may be considered grassesis within and the otherMediterranean steppic plants climatic are zone present where in vegetationthe east and zones the hunter-gatherers before the Neolithic revolution. south. In this context, the vegetation responds to climatic changes agriculture4 to foster the growth of edible plants and to eliminate by shifts in boundaries and shrinking or expanding within their theas taming others or and wild also resources to attract management. game in the They resulting include meadows fire-stick Levant were highly adaptable and resilient and robust in terms voluntary incomplete harvest of seeds5. Until recently, all these ofrespective diversity zones. of options In other and words,the mobility HG subsistence of HG. HG societiessystems inhad the a tending tubers, soil aeration, watering fields, semi-sowing or broad range of economic strategies that enhanced their resilience. domesticated,proto-agricultural before technologies the Neolithic were period, still used even in if manyit was hunter- not to gatherer societies. The dog was probably the first animal to be In difficult times, they may have had to extend what they foraged provide food resources but mainly for helping humans in their to include low ranked resources [19]. This foragers’ adaptation has been labeled by Flannery KV [20] “the broad-spectrum goat, cattle, pig and later horse, camel, llama (…). The reindeer hunting activities. Many other animals have been tamed: sheep,6 beenrevolution”. one of Inmany the lateoptions Pleistocene available or to early foragers. Holocene, It is only low-level until pre-domestication cultivation may have occurred and would have era,is also herds a good of reindeer example. migrated During the north Paleolithic to the arctic period, and it subarcticprovided regions80% of where human they diet. are With still the living global nowadays. warming In of these the Holocene regions, accumulatedwell in the Holoceneexperiences that was cultivation crucial in had these a significant HG societies impact for they have been tamed, providing meat, milk, hide and being also preparingon foraging and economies. responding Moreover, to economic long-term challenges. social memory of used for traction. However, they have never been domesticated The Transition to Agriculture: a Complex and Long- they may return to the wild easily and even they may interbreed with those still living in the wild. The taming of plants and animals Term Process For instance, the wild pig living in many European Islands was one of the major events in the history of humanity. Indeed, the also fostered the geographical dispersion of these species 7 [26]. shiftThe from “Neolithic foraging Revolution”, to farming has as beencoined one by of Childe the most VG important[21], was events in the evolution of human societies. From Childe’s seminal introduced there by human during the Mesolithic period. All these paper, archaeological records and studies have contributed taming activities of plants and animals developed by hunter- to qualify his initial view: the “Neolithic revolution” has been thesegatherers taming are activities corresponding have led to to adomestication, proto-agricultural i.e. they process have replaced by a long and gradual process called the “Neolithic contributed[27]. In some to places the Neolithic the so-called transition. ‘nuclear It zones’should [28]however some be of transition”. Yet Childe was using the term Neolithic or Agricultural noted that the process from taming to domestication was very revolutionary character of a change that no matter how rapid or howRevolution slow, transformed not in relation hunters to and speed gatherers but ininto relation shepherds to and the phenotype,long, as illustrated a key indicator by Larson of cereal G et al. domestication”. [29] “In wheat, The barley evidence and forrice, a itslow took pace 2,000-4,000 of domestication years to fiximplies the no a shatteringcultural period spikelet in manyfarmers. believed However, that many the shift of his from successors foraging haveto farming first interpreted was rapid, period lasted for many centuries and has been inferred from the word “revolution” [22] as meaning rapid and radical. Indeed agricultural origins called pre-domestication cultivation. This “Neolithic package” including agriculture, husbandry, sedentism, domestication process may be explained through the distinction8 stoneirreversible axes and and pottery. featured Since by the then one all shot these adoption interpretations of the so-called have betweenevidence consciousin the Near-East and unconscious and China. selection. Moreover, Indeed, the length during of thisthe been challenged. domestication process, conscious selection means that humans directly select for desirable traits9. In contrast, the nonshattering From Taming to Domestication

seeds in cereals a trait which took 2000-4000 years to be obtained human intention, domestication is a complex process along a sickles rather than by harvesting with the swinging basket. This are thought to have arisen as a by-product of stalk-harvesting by continuumAlthough of often human, characterized plant, animal as rapid relationships and the result that often of explicit took case illustrates what is unconscious selection i.e. when traits place over a long period and was driven by a mix of ecological, environments or from selection of other traits. evolve4 as a by-product of growth and natural selection in field between humans and the nature involves two polar cases: a For instance, in Australia, Aborigines used this technology since at least behaviorbiological in andwhich human human culturalacts as a prey factors against [23]. the The nature relationship and on the 9000 BC. 5In South California, once the seeds were harvested, the Kumeteyaay were some of the seeds they these two polar cases, there exist a wide range of relationships sowing had harvested. includingother hand taming.the domestication The latter [24] encompasses of plants and animals.commensalism/ Between burning the fields and thereafter they were 6E.g. Ireland, the islands of the Baltic sea (Gotland, Bronholm and reproduction is associated with domestication. Taming clearly Saaremaa),7Rangifer tarandus. Cyprus, Corsica and Sardinia. differsmutualism from to domestication low-level management, by contrast while with directed the latter, control it doesover 8 9E.g. some Asian cultures had consciously selected glutinous grains of rice Darwin was the first to make explicitly this distinction. not imply morphological or biological modification of species. Of for their cuisine-prized trait.

Citation:

The Required Stream of Innovations Climate and Environmental Changes The domestication of plants and animals is a necessary but not a

(e.g.Often, wild theanimal transition extinction to food due production to disease) is but explained the most by popular human seensufficient as an condition innovation for thebut transitionmany other from innovations foraging to are an economyrequired oneadaptation currently to externalis climate shocks. change Many and theexternal induced shocks transformations are possible forfully-based the whole on humanagriculture population to occur. to Indeed, be fed fromdomestication agropastoralism can be of ecosystems. This explanation is probably the most popular activities. These additional innovations are respectively related because past prevailing climate and ecosystems are nowadays to the production of food resources, their processing, storage and perfectly known and measured by means of various modern

the degree of competition among neighboring tribes (…) are at stickconsumption. to sow grains, Even ifan we irrigation consider system, agriculture even if in it its is firstvery stage,basic techniques. Others features of the past such as the population size specific tools and techniques are required, for instance a digging domestic cereals require human activity, in the form of threshing best hypothesized. the Neolithic revolution based on climate change was proposed andor a winnowing, sickle to harvest to separate cereals. and Once disperse they seeds have10 been harvested, One of the first and probably the most famous explanation of were obtained, they had to be stored in order to reduce the . Once the seeds initiallyby Pumpelly living Rin [32]an environment and popularized able to by satisfy Childe their VG basic [21] needs. and is as small clay bins, larger storage pits or silos and granaries to named the “Oases theory”. In this theory, bands of HG were seasonal food risks. This requires some storage systems [30] such pot and therefore the development of pottery, was necessary for However, a major climate change occurred; the transition from prevent the seeds from rain, moisture, insects and rodents. Clay- icethe age,Pleistocene some areas to thelike Holocene,the Sahara, around which was15 to initially 12.000 a savannahyears BC, plant processing instillations and tools were also necessary, such was characterized by a global warming. With the end of the last the transportation and the conservation of grains and flour. Some where bands of HG were living, became an arid desert unsuitable the innovations listed above seem us to be very basic they were all East in places where life was still possible i.e. in oases and on the necessaryas mortars for and a completepestles, to transition transform to grains agriculture. in flour. Therefore, Even though the banksfor HG ofto largelive in. rivers HG was11. To therefore survive forcedin these to places,migrate they to the adapted Near- complete transition to agriculture was a slow process. It seems that early agriculturalists for a long time were also involved in agriculture. The transition to agriculture results therefore from atheir logical way ofsequence living and having thus some some of themsimilarities the Natufians with biological invented or no economic surplus was yielded by agriculture. It probably was evolution theory. There is an exogenous shock climate change inhunting the nature and gathering of an income [31]. support In the beginning, measure, ratherit is likely than that a major little and then adaption and a process of natural selection that leads to agriculture i.e. to the emergence of a new human society, more development of irrigation around 5900 BC and around 4500 BC developed than the previous ones. theaddition plough to (calledincome. the A major ard) pulled step forward by draught in Mesopotamia animals (donkeys was the or oxen) was introduced and the wheel was invented and used both Even though this theory is quite seductive, it does not explain why agriculture was not invented before this time. Indeed, many and barley were also selected. It was only with these additional major climate changes have occurred since the appearance of for transport and making pottery. Heat-tolerant strains of wheat Homo sapiens. Another shortcoming of this theory is that in able to produce food surplus. and more advanced innovations that Mesopotamian farmers were for the period considered by Childe. Given this criticism, it has Explaining the Transition to Agriculture: Push Factors, the Near-East there is no evidence [28] of major climate change Pull Factors or Both? in the evolution of human societies remained important, its been argued recently [33] that while the role of climate change by either too high or too low intertemporal climatic volatility the Neolithic transition have been given by archaeologists, contribution should be more qualified. Regions characterized For more than one century, many explanations [14,5] of are evolving more slowly, i.e. are experiencing a late onset of farming. Indeed, under static climatic conditions, HG is not forced economists. Although it is widely agreed that this episode was to take advantage of the productive potential of their respective crucialanthropologists in human andhistory, pre-historians there is no unique and more explanation recently or even theory by of the Neolithic transition which therefore continues to attract discussions and intense debates. This transition to agriculture Inhabitats addition and occurrencesremain indefinitely of extreme in a hunter-gatherer environmental regime stress ase.g. is is viewed as the result of a few single agents that operate in assumed in the case of hunting and gathering “affluent societies”. potential for farming, erode any accumulated human capital human population pressure and culturally driven alternatives, usefula return for toagriculture, semi-glacial further or arid delaying conditions its adoption. - by eliminating It is therefore the suchthe Near-Eastas competitive at the feasting, onset ofare the among Holocene. numerous Climate alternative change, suggested that it is rather intermediate levels of intertemporal explanations proposed in the literature. climatic volatility which fostered the transition from foraging to sedentary agriculture. 10 11Such as the Nile, Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Wilds grasses generally disperse seeds by the presence of an abscission scar; however the latter is often lost in the process of domestication.

Citation:

Population Pressure Unconstrained or Voluntary Adaptation The various theories of the Neolithic transition illustrated a growing population provided the impetus for the development above and based on push factors, related either on climate Building on the ideas of Boserup E [34], who proposed that common thread: the transition to agriculture occurs when there of intensive agriculture, some archaeologists [35] have long ischange an excess [21] demand or on populationfor food resources. pressure The [36], latter are can sharing result a expandingargued that need hunter-gatherer for increased food economies supplies continually eventually evolvedleading to from the negative impact of climate change on environment. It theaccommodate adoption of exogenously farming. All growing approaches populations, highlighting with the the role ever- of may also appear when population growth exceeds the carrying population pressure in explaining the evolution of human societies diverse contributions of the economic literature in explaining capacity of environment. We therefore see that despite the considerare closely two related stages to inbiological the economic evolution development theory. This of affiliationany human is the ultimate driving force behind the transition to agriculture. obvious in many publications [36]. In order to illustrate it, we may Howeverthe Neolithic this Revolution,force is considered population as a pressure,constraint. in Indeed, most cases, people is must adapt their strategy to get food in order to satisfy the mainsociety. (unique) The first objective one is isthe to economyget enough of foodsubsistence. resources People to satisfy are excess demand, otherwise they die (or at least some of them theirnomads; basic they needs get theirsurvival food and from reproduction hunting and and gathering. of course, Their to will die). In that case adaptation is considered as it is in biology, as a selection process, i.e. it is not decided by human societies. andminimize excess their food effort resources in doing would so. Theybe wasted do not anyway try to maximize (storage ones related to the environment, human societies largely decide istheir not foodconsistent procurement with their because nomadic their way basic of needslife). If are there satisfied is no theirWe claim evolution. that even In other if there words, are adaptationfacing some is constraints,largely endogenous like the population pressure, nothing is changing, i.e. this society may in the social evolution. Therefore, the Neolithic transition can remain at this stage of economic development forever. However, be the result of voluntary human adaptation, i.e. of adaptation decided without constraint. In order to illustrate our point of than food resources provided by agricultural production and view we recall that, as it is usual in the biological evolutionist obviously,as highlighted faster by thanT. Malthus, food resources human population provided isby growing foraging. faster So, once population pressure is introduced, so is the evolution of simple systems to complex domains and climate change is the perfectapproach, candidate evolution for is that assumed purpose. to transform As Childe mostassumed, of the the time rise - to farming society, then to the development of cities and the of agriculture could be humanity’s response to a climate change emergencehuman society. of states. An infinite The underlying motion starts, mechanism leading is fromthe following: foraging resulting in a worse environment (altering the availability of food when population grows, the demand of food resources increases. for humans). In that case, the resulting ecosystems are worse than To satisfy this additional demand, more food is gathered, new food before, with greater scarcity of food resources, for example as a resources are gathered while they were not before and people are result of a drought. In order to survive, i.e. to avoid starvation and trying to improve their labor productivity. All these changes in the food procurement strategy necessitate more cooperation among coulddeath, beHG humanity’s must find new response ways toto geta climate food and change this may resulting have led in technologies or the formation of alliances to defend resources. ato betterthe start environment. of agriculture In [21].that However,case, the theresulting rise of ecosystemsagriculture Therefore,HG, more collective these changes works, likeimply groups the contributionemergence toof larger-scale a class of support more abundant and diverse plants and animals. As a result, food procurement is easier for HG who therefore has craftsman (…). Although this class contributes, directly or not, to more time for leisure and for experimenting with cultivation enhancenon-food the producers level of food including resources, chiefs, it soldiers,also demands traders, more priests, food and the domestication of plants and animals. They may settle resources for their own consumption. Consequently the economy and have more children12. These simple alternatives show shifts to a second stage of development. In this economy, people, that the agriculture onset can be the result of various external shocks (positive or negative) even when these shocks all arise henceforwardeither HG or farmersrequired areto satisfy now maximizingthe needs of theirpeople procurement/ belonging to demonstrate that in social evolution, opposite causes a negative production of food resources since a significant food surplus is orfrom a positive climate shock changes. may have More the fundamentally, same consequence, these i.e. alternatives may lead to the same evolution of human societies. the class of non-food producers. societies possess methods for controlling fertility via delayed Social Competition and Feasting marriage,Population prolonged pressure lactation, critics induced argue abortion that because or infanticide, many Another case may also lead to agriculture from conscious exceed carrying capacity or feel any of the supposed effects of an adaptation, i.e. the excess demand for food resources can exist the population level needs never reach any Malthusian limits, even if there is no population pressure. Indeed it is well known that population pressure alone could not have played a critical from Engel’s laws about consumption that when the income roleimbalance since there of persons is no archaeological to resources. Someevidence authors of food [37] crises maintain prior increases, consumption shifts from primary to luxury goods. Such to the development of agriculture. 12This case can be illustrated by the way of life of complex HG (e.g.

Natufians).

Citation:

transformation may have occurred during the early Holocene. During that period, postglacial environmental transformations have tried to verify the importance of these conditions as factors Many subsequent works following Diamond’s publication promoting the further economic development of the regions and[38] diversehave led food to theresources diversification provided of by food the nature,resources, HG i.e.may to have the concerned.influencing Some the occurrence of the necessary of the Neolithicconditions transition for agriculture and in chosenso-called to “Broad-spectrum consume more “luxuryrevolution” or prestige” [20]. With goods, more abundantare these food resources or non food resources . However, the production agriculture is studied rather than its origins. Indeed, in some areas of these prestigious goods required 13more labor and therefore theto emergediffusion are of moreagriculture easily has identified been hindered when theby geographical diffusion of led to an excess demand for (primary) food resources. In others conditions (hills, mountains, rivers, seas). In some others areas, words, social competition for prestige in HG societies occurred endogenously, without constraint and it led, by means of conscious adaptation, to the rise of agriculture14 ecologicalit has even barriers been stopped such as by the disease one that - in sub-Saharanexisted in the Africa, Carpathian cattle herding was not possible due to the presence of tsetse fly or by However this theory considers that farming was highly [39-40]. tolerance limits and this stopped the diffusion of agriculture from desirable from the earlier stages of agriculture development. theBasin Balkans. [44] where plants and animals reached in this place their In addition to the previous one, there are several others major is that without explaining the underlying causes of competitive feasting,problems it with fails thisto explain theory the about development the Neolithic of agriculture transition. Oneand theA transition central topic to agriculture in these subsequent on further workseconomic [45-48] development. following simply describes the process. Another problem comes from ImplicitlyDiamond’s or publication not, these works is about consider the influence that institutions of the timingonly have of the fact that the surpluses needed for competitive feasting only became available as an outcome of food production not before. Thesecond-order Role of effects Institutions on the economic development. Nature and Culture as Factors Leading to the Establishment and Sustainability of Agriculture are “a set of rules, compliance, procedures and moral and There is a debate among economists about whether economic ethicalFollowing behavioral the definition norms designed given by to North constrain DC [49], the behaviorinstitutions of development depends more on nature or on culture. This has led to the existence of two views or school of thoughts: for the individuals.” In a later essay [50], he added: “If institutions are the geographic conditions) are the prime determinant of economic togetherrules of the by somegame, commonorganizations purpose and to their achieve entrepreneurs certain objectives. are the first one, natural resource endowments (Biogeographic and players. Organizations are made up of groups of individuals bound course each of these two views provides a different explanation of thedevelopment Neolithic transition, while institutions i.e. of the are establishment central to the and second sustainability one. Of Organizations include political bodies, economic bodies, social of agriculture. bodies and educational bodies”. On the basis of the previous lastingdefinition, impact some on authors institutions [51] argue. In otherthat the words, major tropics, impact germsof the The Role of Natural Resource Endowments andenvironment crops do on not economic affect country development16 incomes runs directly through other its long-than through institutions. Among the various forms of the latter, the societies were widely explained by differences in geographic and one of the main necessary conditions for the Neolithic revolution After [41], the various levels of economic development among toimplementation occur. To account of private for the property difference rights of economicis considered development [52] to be biogeographic conditions conditions. consist Geographic of edible conditions plants [42]and animals include climate, latitude, soil, rain, orientation of continental axis (…); suitable for domestication and cultivation. They mainly refer to among countries, various types of institutions have been defined: The[53] latterinclusive are ones called favored “extractive” economic because growth such whereas institutions extractive are be noted that geographic and biogeographic conditions do not designedones lead to - after extract a while incomes - to andcrisis, wealth economic from oneand subsetsocial collapses.of society respectively large-seeded grasses and large mammals. It should and animals. Indeed, every plant or animal has certain habitat and have separate influence; they have a combined influence on plants environmental preferences. As such, they can only be cultivated Mutual(the commoners) Causation to benefit Between a different Both subsetFactors (the elite). 15 Environmental factors such as temperatures, precipitation, solar radiation during Even though natural endowments were important in enabling theand growth bred within season, their the length tolerance of the limits vegetation [43]. period (...) had agriculture to become established one should not conclude that geographic or biogeographic determinism existed. Indeed, some resources were crucial at one point of time and of less importance later, due to innovation or because they became more abundant overallE.g. prestigious influence polished on the axes, crops furs cultivated of scarce animals,and the jewelry animals (made bred. from 17 amber13 or spondylus shell…). Including technologies. 14 16 competition or feasting to explain the Neolithic transition period17 and used to make tools and weapons. However, with the 15ThisMany phenomenon contributions is incalled the literaturethe minimum are limitingemphasizing factor the role of social introductionSome stones of (e.g. metalworking, flint or obsidian) they became were valuableless valuable. during the Neolithic

Citation:

speed of agricultural spread was approximately 1 kilometer per geographic conditions, we immediately think of edible plants and animalsthrough suitable trade. Similarly, for domestication. when we However, talk about a critical necessary resource eco- in the rate of spread, e.g. unfavorable ecological and geographical may not necessarily be a food resource. For instance, during factorsyear [8]. caused Of course a retardation there were of very its spread significant to some regional part of variations Europe. the Neolithic period agriculture was highly dependent on stone Despite these evidences, the Neolithic diffusion or the tools, especially on stone axes used for forest clearance. Although they were not a staple food, stone tools were therefore a critical 19, not really solvable with known archaeological resource for the agricultural system indeed some of these stones methods.neolithization Did processpeople offrom Europe the hascore always invention been aarea controversial move en (especially obsidian) were traded on several hundred kilometers masseissue 20 [57] did people from other places learn about innovations from trade valuable. to other places bringing their innovations with them? Or from their origin area [54] which confirms that they were highly Therefore, resource endowments were important in enabling agriculture to become established while they were whetheror other theyrelationships were colonists such whoas intermarriage? settled in the majorIn other river words, valleys a major debate [58] in the study of earliest European farmers is increasing importance after agriculture was established and were gatherers who adopted domestic plants and animals coming from alsonot important unimportant for continuing for its sustainability; development. institutions In other words, assumed both of North-Central Europe or whether they were local hunter- factors were important but their relative importance varied along the development path of the agricultural system. For instance, Thethe Near-East? Migrationist Approach or the Struggle for Life human capital accumulation and intergenerational transmission Among these two alternative demographic scenarios proposed 21 and symbol system18 was required for that purpose. of knowledge were also necessary conditions [4]; consequently a scenarioto account is called for the the Neolithic demic diffusion transition, model the22 firstor, more one usually, was the migrationiststill is [59] approach. the most In popular the demic in thediffusion academic model, literature. the spread This of mechanism.According If we to consider a recent any publication center (e.g. Eurasia) [55], this where combined initially technologies involved a massive movement of people. The demic agricultureinfluence of emerged,both factors we could must bedistinguish explained between through thethe followingcore and diffusion is a kind of replacement model. It posits that there was economic development was important at the beginning but has Europe. Given their technological advantages these migrants slowedthe periphery afterwards. of this This region. is because In the the core institutions (e.g. the implemented Near-East), a significant migration of farmers from the Fertile Crescent into in the core were extractive. In the periphery (e.g. Northern Europe gathering populace. If the demic diffusion model is the most and Scandinavia), agriculture has been adopted by diffusion and would have displaced or absorbed the less numerous hunter-

orpopular natural explanation selection present of the neolithization in biological evolutionary process, it is theory. because it the resulting economic development (including the traits defining is based on a mechanism similar to competition among species - “civilization”) occurred later. Despite their later start, these thecountries beginning. are nowadays Therefore, more this developedthird view compared assumes toa degreethe Near- of We know that the Neolithic revolution is featured by a transition Eastern countries - because their institutions were inclusive from mutual causation between natural endowments and institutions. drawbacks.from foraging However, to farming agriculture and has that for both a long economic time ago essentially systems - In other words, particular types of economic growth facilitated takenfood procurementover the world and and food hunting production and gathering - have is advantagesnow found only and the development of particular institutions and social structures. in very marginal and supposedly “backwards” area. Such situation is implicitly explained by the existence of a tradeoff between Mechanisms Bringing about the Global Spread of having more leisure and better nutrition versus simply being Agriculture able to feed more mouths. Any given person may well choose to Current evidence suggests that the Neolithic materialistic have a more varied and interesting diet and more free time than to be able to feed more people but otherwise be more miserable. If the latter option wins out in the end, most explanations in the containculture wasthe plants introduced and animals to Europe initially via western domesticated Anatolia; in Southwest this is the academic literature are based on a vision which, implicitly or Asia:so-called einkorn, neolithization emmer, barley, process lentils, [56]. pigs, All Neolithic goats, sheep sites and in Europe cattle. not, is an evolutionary process. As for the development of any Genetic data suggest that no independent domestication of given species (a plant or an animal), the development of human animals took place in Neolithic Europe and that all domesticated 19It should be noted that until recently the same debate was present about animals were originally domesticated in Southwest Asia. It is the transition to agriculture in Japan. However, it is now widely agreed therefore widely accepted that the onset of agriculture in the that the introduction of agriculture and the simultaneous replacement of the Jomon culture by the Yayoi were the result of a major incursion from associated technologies across Europe starting about 10,000 years mainland Asia. ago.Near-East The information triggered a provided cultural bychange archaeological that diffused remains farming and andthe 20 trajectory of straight and short line paths suggest the estimated migration is often called the “wave of advance”. 21After Ammerman, A.J. and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza (1971), this massive folk 18It could be the spoken language and, for the elite, also the written 22 language. This demographic scenario was already present in V. G. Childe (1936). This model has been first introduced by Ammerman A. J. and L. L. Cavalli- Sforza (1984).

Citation:

societies is assumed to be greatly determined by what strategies The Integrationist Approach produce the most offspring. In any biological evolutionary competition, the strategy that produces the most children generation after generation will eventually win over strategies Most recent studies [59], as implied by archaeological data, that allow the production of fewer children no matter how happy spread rate of the Neolithic transition in Europe. Thus, cultural show that cultural diffusion explains between 30 to 40% of the or unhappy those children are. So agricultural societies simply fed diffusion cannot be neglected, but demic diffusion was the more people, allowed for larger families and so could push out, most important mechanism in this major historical process at the continental scale 23 run. Therefore, demographic pressure is generally considered migrationist diffusion and cultural diffusion are constitutive of . Mixed models of diffusion combining toabsorb be the or prime slaughter mover the of hunter-gathering the Neolithic expansion. societies inAs thepointed long of agriculture results from various combinations of three the integrationist approach [10]. In this approach, the diffusion foodout by producers. Diamond The J [41], much “A denserfinal factor populations in the transitionof food producers became than on massive folk migration or demic diffusion. This denotes decisive at geographic boundaries between hunter-gatherers and mechanisms. Firstly, it relies on leapfrog colonization rather numbers, not to mention the other advantages associated with optimal areas for cultivation (usually, loess land). These groups a selective colonization of an area by small groups, who target foodenabled production them to displace(including or technology, kill hunter-gatherers germs, and by professional their sheer are thus forming an enclave settlement among native inhabitants soldiers)”. Neolithization by Cultural Diffusion farmers,or HG [31]. occurring Secondly along it considers the established frontier mobility, social networks, i.e. small-scale such asmovement trading partnerships,of population kinshipwithin contactlines and zones marriages between alliances. HG and Nevertheless, the migrationist approach has two shortcomings: Thirdly contact exists through trade within the framework of role of competition between HG and farmers. In doing so, it rejects served as channels of communication through which innovations24 it minimizes the role of cultural diffusion and overemphasizes the the possibility that HG could have decided, without constraint, to spreadregional fromor extra-regional farmers’ communities trading networks to HG. [61]. Archaeologically, These networks ethnographically and ecologically, the migrationist approach often cited in the literature to explain the immigration of Neolithic adopt agriculture. However, the main rationale - which is the most agricultural diffusion in Europe. Therefore, one can conclude to growth brought about the emergence and development of farming as well as the cultural one finds little evidence to explain the farmers from the Near-East to Europe - i.e. the rapid population would argue that the agricultural transition in Europe was, in the the superiority of the integrationist approach, as [10] did: “…I - can be challenged. Indeed, as pointed out by many authors, such as [10], “Archaeologically, there is no evidence for sustained and communitiesmain, accomplished and the by settlements the local Hunter-gathererof Neolithic farmers. communities, Enduring wide-ranging immigration that would support either the demic contactwith varying and exchange degrees ofbetween gene flowthe foraging between and hunter-gatherer the farming diffusion hypothesis or a major continent-wide migration”. Moreover, the presumed competition between HG and farmers, support in ecological evidence. Indeed, before the late Neolithic, manifested in the archaeological record by enduring cultural therewhich is is no implicit indication in theof extensive migrationist agriculture approach, such does as woodland not find communities led to the development of agricultural zones, clearances and environmental degradation i.e. no indication of temperate Europe”. competition between two economic systems that would have boundaries, for example…the Mesolithic/TRB cultures of north Conclusion suitableprovided for a rationaleagriculture for i.e. relocation in fertile loess of HG area societies. and close On theto lakes one In the early twentieth century, archaeologists were steadily hand, farmers settled exclusively in specific areas that were accumulating data about past societies using a conceptual framework be noted that loess land was the best land for farmers while, with itsor rivers,dense limethe latter stands, being it was necessary poor in forgame fields’ and irrigation. yielded hardly It should any based on tools and technology. [21] Most important contribution was to re-conceptualize the archaeological data in social terms and the other hand, HG populations were much more attracted by that brought about new way of life and new form of society. Since to identify a major social transformation the Neolithic Revolution coastalvegetable and produce, lacustrine i.e. regions was not and consistent along major with rivers. HG economy. Since there On Childe’s publication, it is widely agreed that the transition from was no competition between these differing economic strategies, hunting and gathering to farming was one of the most important one can conclude that, “The arrival of these colonists does not development in human history. Despite this universal agreement, many debates and controversies among scholars remain about the Neolithic revolution, its causes, features and consequences. These resulted in any kind of direct violent conflict” [60]. Europe by cultural diffusion is not obvious. As stated previously (seeDespite section the 2), previousin its early conclusions, stages, the thesuperiority total neolithization of agriculture of demic23 and cultural – were combined, the spread of farming in coastal west over foraging was uncertain, especially for complex HG societies. By contrast to South-East and Central Europe where both diffusions – sea of a complete package of Neolithic domesticates around 5400 BC by This has led to a third explanation of the spread of agriculture, Mediterranean Europe now seems to have involved the rapid transport by mixing migration and imitation. 24Such as cultivation of plants, domestication of animals, pottery (…). colonizing pioneer farmers.

Citation:

vivid controversies overwhelmed traditional debates between

17. Dow GK, Reed CG, Olewiler N, (2009) Climate reversals and the 18. transition to agriculture. Journal of Economic Growth 14(1): 27-53. encompassesdifferent schools a wide of range thoughts of causes and between and consequences different scientific that are fields. They result from the fact that the transition to agriculture Rosen AM, Collazo IR (2012) Climate change, adaptive cycles and ecological, biological, institutional and technical. Future the persistence of foraging economies during the late Pleistocene/ 19. researchesthemselves multidimensionalon the Neolithic -revolution economic, shouldsocial, anthropological,require, maybe Holocene transition in the Levant, PNAS 109(10): 3640-3645. more than on others topics, more interdisciplinary approaches Stiner MC, Munro ND, Surovell TA (2000) The Tortoise and the Hare. Small-Game Use, the Broad-Spectrum Revolution and Paleolithic 20. Demography. Curr Anthropol 41(1): 39-79. References[62-65]. Flannery KV (1969) Origins and ecological effects of early 1. domestication in Iran and the near east. In Ucko PJ and Dimbleby GW (Eds.), The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Harlan JR (1992) Crops and Man. American Journal of Alternative 21. Animals, Gerald Duckworth & Co, London pp. 73-100. 2. Agriculture 8(1): 47-48. 22. ChildeGreene VG K (1936) (1999) Man V. makesGordon himself. Childe Watts, and London, the vocabulary pp. 271-272. of Bowles S (2011) Cultivation of cereals by the first farmers was not more productive than foraging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(12): Diamond J (2002) Evolution, consequences and future of plant and 4760-4765. revolutionary change. Antiquity 73(279): 97-109. Gatherers Have Less Famine than Agriculturalists. Biol Lett 10(1): 3. Berbesque JC, Marlowe FW, Shaw P, Thompson P (2014) Hunter- 23. 24. animal domestication. Nature 418(6898): 700-707. New Ideas. An Introduction to Supplement. Current Anthropology 4. 20130853. Price TD, Yosef OB (2011) The Origins of Agriculture: New Data, Smith VL (1993) Humankind in Prehistory: Economy, Ecology and 25. Institutions. In: Anderson TL and Simmons RT (Eds.), The Political 52(S4): S163-S174. Economy of Customs and Culture, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Zvelebil M, Pluciennik M (2003) The role of food, agriculture, 5. USA, 157-184. forestry and fisheries in human nutrition. Historical origins of Svizzero S, Tisdell C (2014) Theories about the Commencement of agriculture. EOLSS Publishers LTD, France. Agriculture in Prehistoric Societies: A Critical Evaluation. Rivista di 26. Zeder MA (2008) Domestication and early agriculture in the Storia Economica 3: 255-280. Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion and impact. Proc Natl Acad 6. Svizzero S (2016) Population Pressure and the Transition to Sci USA 105(33): 11597-11604. Agriculture. Global Journal of Human-Social Science 16(2): 7-12. 27. Pryor F (2004) From foraging to farming: The so-called “Neolithic 7. Svizzero S (2017) Transition to Farming More Likely in a Land of Revolution”. In: Alexander JF (Ed.), Research in Economic History, 28. 8. Plenty. Research in Economic Anthropology 37. JAI Press, USA, p. 1-14.

Ammerman AJ, Cavalli LLS (1971) Measuring the rate of spread of Braidwood RJ (1960) The agricultural revolution. Scientific 29. American 203(3):130-148. early farming in Europe. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great al. (2014) Current perspectives and the future of domestication 9. BritainAmmerman and Ireland AJ, Cavalli 6(4): LL 674-688. (1984) The Neolithic Transition and the Larson G, Piperno DR, Allaby RG, Purugganan MD, Andersson L, et

194. studies.Kuijt I, ProcFinlayson Natl Acad B Sci(2009) USA 111(17):Evidence 6139-6146. for food storage and Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton Univ Press, USA, pp. predomestication granaries 11,000 years ago in the Jordan Valley. 10. 30.

Zvelebil M (2001) The agricultural transition and the origins of Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(27): 10966-10970. 11. Neolithic society in Europe, Documenta Praehistorica 28: 1-26. Dependence and the Spread of Neolithic Agriculture in Central 31. Svizzero S, Tisdell C (2015) The Persistence of Hunting and Vizzero S (2015) Farmers’ Spatial Behaviour, Demographic Density Gathering Economies. Social Evolution and History 14(2): 3-25. 12. Europe, Documenta Praehistorica 42(8): 133-146. 32. Pumpelly R (1908) Explorations in Turkestan expedition of 1904: In Prehistoric Civilizations of Anau, Origins, Growth and Lee RB, Vore ID (1968) Man the Hunter, Adline, Chicago, USA. Influence of Environment. Washington DC Carnegie Institution of 13.14. Sahlins M (1974) Stone Age Economics. Tavistock, England. Washington, USA. Weisdorf JL (2005) From Foraging to Farming: Explaining the 33. https://ideas.repec.org/p/wil/wileco/2010-02.html economics of agrarian change under population pressure. Journal 15. Neolithic Revolution. Journal of Economic Surveys 19(4): 561-586. of the transition to agriculture: Human bioarchaeology, behavior 34. Boserup E (1967) The conditions for agricultural growth: The andStock adaptation. JT, Pinhasi R (2011)Human Changing bioarchaeology paradigms of in ourthe understandingtransition to of Political Economy 75(2): pp. 212. 35. Binford LR (1968) Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In: Binford SR, agriculture, John Wiley &Sons Ltd, UK, 1-13. Binford LR (Eds.), New Perspectives in Archeology, Chicago, USA, 16. Bellwood P, Oxenham M (2008) The Expansions of Farming Societies 313-341. Yosef B, et al. (eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Journal of the American and the Role of the Neolithic Demographic Transition. In: Appel BJP, 36. Johnson AW, Earle T (2000) The Evolution of Human Societies:

Consequences, Springer, Dordrecht, Europe, p. 13-34. Ethnological society 15(4): 819-820.

Citation:

52.

37. Harlan JR (1996) The Living Fields: Our Agricultural Heritage. The North DC, Thomas RP (1977) The First Economic Revolution. The quarterly Review of Biology 71(4): 597. Economic History Review 30(2): 229-241. 38. Roberts N (2004) Postglacial environmental transformation. In: 53. Acemoglu D, Robinson J (2012) Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Bogucki P and Crabtree PJ (Eds.), Ancient Europe 8000 B.C.- 1000 54. Power, Prosperity and Poverty. Crown Publishers, New York, USA. A.D. Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World, Charles Scribners & Sons, New York, USA, pp. 126-131. Tykot RH (2004) Trade and exchange. In: Bogucki P and Crabtree PJ (Eds.), Ancient Europe 8000 BC-1000 AD Encyclopedia of the 39. Bender B (1978) Gatherer hunter to Farmer: a social perspective. Barbarian World, Charles Scribners & Sons, New York, USA, pp. 65- 40. World Archaeology 10(2): 204-222. 55. 71. Hayden B (1990) Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers and Planters: Olsson O, C Paik (2013) A western reversal since the Neolithic? The Emergence of Food Production. Journal of Anthropological The long-run impact of early agriculture. University of Gothenburg 41. Archaeology 9(1): 31-69. 1-66. Diamond J (1997) Guns, Germs and Steel: the Fates of Human 56. Price TD (2000) Europe’s first farmers: an introduction. Cambridge 42. Societies. WW Norton, New York, USA. University Press, USA. pp 1-18. Gebauer AB and Douglas T (Eds.), Transitions to agriculture in Gallup JL, Sachs JD, Mellinger A (1999) Geography and economic 57. Crawford GW (1992) The transitions to agriculture in Japan. In: development. International Regional Science Review 22(2): 179- 232. 58. prehistory, Prehistory Press, Madison, USA, pp. 117-132. 43. Liebig J (1840) Organic chemistry and its application to agriculture Bogucki P (2001) Recent Research on Early Farming in Central and physiology. In: Playfair and Gregory W (Eds.), Taylor and 59. Europe.Fort J (2012) Documenta Synthesis Praehistorica between 28:demic 85-97. and cultural diffusion in 44. WaltonKert Press,ü London. why did the expansion of the Körö ész R, S megi P (2001) Theories, critiques and a model: the Neolithic transition in Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(46): s-Starcevo culture stop in the 18669-18673. centre of the Carpathian Basin? The Mesolithic to the Neolithic, southern Netherlands in an anthropological and geographical 45. Archaeolinqua Press, Budapest, Europe, 225-246. 60. perspective,Verhart LBM Leiden, (2000) Europe. Times fade away. The neolithization of the Olsson O, Hibbs D (2004) Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others are poor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(10): 3715-3720. 61. Svizzero S (2015) The Long-Term Decline in Terms of Trade and the Neolithization of Northern Europe. Scandinavian Economic History 46. Olsson O, D Hibbs (2005) Biogeography and Long-Run Economic Review 63(3): 260-279. Development. European Economic Review 49(4): 909-938. 62. Yosef BO (2011) Climatic fluctuations and early farming in West 47. Chanda A, Putterman L (2007) Early Starts, Reversals and Catch-up and East Asia. Current Anthropology 52(S4): S175-S193. in the Process of Economic Development. Scandinavian Journal of 48. Economics 109(2): 387-413. 63. Bowles S, Choi JK (2013) Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA Putterman L (2008) Agriculture, diffusion and development: Ripple 110(22): 8830-8835. 49. effects of the Neolithic revolution. Economica 75(300): 729-748. Norton & Co, New York, USA. 64. Cohen MN (1977) The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation North DC (1981) Structure and Change in Economic History. WW and the Origins of Agriculture, Yale University Press, New Haven. 50. North DC (1998) Economic performance through time. In: Eicher American Journal of Physical Anthropology 49(2): 286-287. 65. Smith B (2001) Low-Level Food Production. Journal of CK and Staatz JM (Eds.), International Agricultural Development, Archaeological Research 9(1): 1-43. 51. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA, 78-90. Easterly W, Levine R (2003) Tropics, germs and crops: how endowments influence economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics 50(1): 3-39.

Citation:

Svizzero S (2017) Persistent Controversies about the Neolithic Revolution. J His Arch & Anthropol Sci 1(2): 00013. DOI: 10.15406/jhaas.2017.01.00013

View publication stats