Talk:Neolithic Revolution/Archive 1

Re-write
I still believe this article is need of significant re-writing. The section on the causes of the Neolithic revolution is vague and almost non-sensical. As a layperson reading this article, I find it deeply confusing and discursive. The first table seems to come out of no-where and isn't explained at all until afterward. If there's so much conflicting scholarship regarding the nature of the Neolithic revolution (as it appears from reading this article) then the conflict needs to be organized and explained.

Animal domestication
"The first occurrences of plant and animal domestication are apparently independent in China’s Yellow River Valley (pig, horse) and the fertile crescent (cattle, domestic goat)" horse domestication first in China, not Ukraine? Source please

Old discussion
I tagged this for clean up. It needs breaking into sections, which will possibly require some restructuring. —Jwanders 12:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 over link.  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;GraemeMcRaetalk 07:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, great job! I added a couple more wikilinks and have remove the clean-up tag. —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. - Redfax12.54, 5 December (UTC)
 * If it's on-line, how could it hurt? Just my opinion...--Wetman 17:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy and NPOV
"'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.'"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.
 * 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 hierarchical domesticated society, or if they did, they were not in any extensive competition 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.-- The ikiroid  20:17, 31 May 2006 (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 hierarchical domesticated society?" Even if that were true (and the prescriptive evolutionist "formula" were not problematic), what does that have to do with resistance 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.
 * 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. Where did I get my information from? I received 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.-- The ikiroid  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 vanguard 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"'Some historians, such as Jared Diamond believe.......'"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 talk page. Here, I'll create a new section for it.-- The ikiroid  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.
 * I don't see why there has to be so much debate about Jared Diamond's book when the subject of the article is the Neolithic (or agricultural) revolution. Diamond was answering the question why Europeans became dominant in world history, and neither the guns, nor the germs, nor the steel of his answer have much to do with how people first turned to farming in southwest Asia or anywhere else. As I read his book, he first set out to show why parts of southwest Asia were the scene of the earliest known adoption of farming and herding; and then, secondarily, he went on to discuss how and when the centre of gravity later moved from southwest Asia to Europe. Trevorwatkins 10:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion is classic wikipablum. Those in love with cultural relativism are sure to find fault with any assertion of process that does not involve the concept of victimization. However the real problem with the section under discussion is that it is poorly developed; the problems with citation flow from the exposition. the essential fact is that the agricultural revolution is not well understood and not well explained by any current theory, or at least the leading current theories rest on slim evidence. the key in that case is evidentiary: identify the complete range of innovations made possible by this "revolution" and the physical or inferential evidence for them. for example, my favorite is mass scale urbanization, which requires development of an administrative elite (which was incidentally typically a priestly or religious authority) to assert police authority; collect taxes; adjudicate disputes and rights; maintain and extend infrastructure for housing, transport and sanitation; defend or conquer territory; socialize religious obedience; and nurture slavery. then the "conquering" (overrunning) of the new world becomes an administrative achievement of cohesive centralized powers against independent tribes, not so much a guns and germs story. in any case, the dispute as to what "really explains" (whatever that means) the demise of north American Indians is only a deferred version of the dispute as to what "really explains" the rise of the agricultural revolution in the middle east rather than in the American plains, or what explains the rise of centralized, religiously governed human cultures in the middle east, Asia, central America and south America at different historical points. one should be looking toward the situational factors that induced this convergent cultural evolution across very different human habitats and resource bases. This is incidentally the essential method of Jared diamond's book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.72.92.150 (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Section
"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 Spanish conquistadors) 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."Condensing his book into one paragraph seems inadequate. Here's my suggestion."'In his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond argues that Europeans' advantageous geographical location, near a number of easily 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 advanced technologies such as firearms and steel swords. In addition, Europeans developed resistances to infectious diseases, such as smallpox, due to their close relationship with domesticated animals. Groups of people who had not lived in proximity with other large mammals, such as the Australian Aborigines, were more vulnerable to infection.'"
 * 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 argue that Europe's favorable geographical 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 a relative, and European weapon 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. -- bcasterline • talk 15:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)"'During and after the Age of Discovery, European explorers, such as the Spanish conquistadors, encountered other groups of people which had never or only recently adopted agriculture. Due in part to their head start in the Neolithic Revolution, the Europeans were able to use their advanded technology and endemic diseases, to which indigenous populations had never been exposed, to colonize most of the globe.'"
 * Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of species of maize and potatoes had been domesticated in Central and Andean South America thousands of years before Columbus arrived. Again, I think that the author overplays the initial head start 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 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 admittedly 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 head start.  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 domestic able 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. -- 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 firearms to capture slaves; the determine 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. -- 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 withheld--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.  Furthermore, 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. -- bcasterline • talk 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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-- The ikiroid  01:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Diamond's 1987 essay "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" is also an interesting counterpoint that deserves mention. That the Neolithic Revolution was beneficial 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. -- bcasterline • talk 16:47, 2 June 2006 (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."-- The ikiroid  18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Interpretive topics not suitable for methods and principle category?
what ever the merits there are in Neolithic revolution IMO it is not a principle or method in archaeology and i have removed it from that cat. Good article BTW Boris 14:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Someone suggested that we should merge the article First agricultural revolution into this one. Since that article is short, contains some weird facts that I'm not sure about, and hasn't got anything that this article lacks, I think the best way to do it would be to simply substitute the article with a redirect to this one. The two terms mean the same thing, so there shouldn't be any problem with that. Comments? --Screensaver 00:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Age of Discovery and NPOV
Why is this section very Eurocentric and East Asian-centric? The Neolithic Revolution occurred in India and the Middle East way before it did in Europe and East Asia... gunpowder and steel technology were also extensively used by the people of Middle East (Persia, Ottomans, Arabs, ect.) and India. India made superior sword and gun steel to the West for most of history and domesticated far more animals (like the elephant). It is foolish to say that people of hotter or tropical climates never developed civilization and this bias is very inaccurate. I thought Guns, Germs, and Steel was considered Eurasian centric, not euro/east Asian centric. No matter, this is inaccurate information regardless and needs to be changed. Zachorious 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This section seems to be informed by anti-European sentiment. The bias comes out in statements such as “Europeans were able to use their ... endemic diseases, to which indigenous populations had never been exposed, to colonize most of the globe”. This asserts, without references, that Europeans deliberately used germ warfare against indigenous populations during the age of discovery. I will remove this passage if references are not forthcoming. Qemist (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd need to check, but so far as I know, this old idea has been refuted. European diseases did indeed make colonisation in a lot of areas easier, but that's not the same as 'using' disease. Doug Weller (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Text from article moved here
Bellow is text added by 68.237.97.254 on Jan 31, 2008 (the only contribution on WP). I moved it here since it is not integrated with the rest of the article, is contradicting with the rest of the text and is most likely copy-pasted from somewhere."Neolithic culture appeared in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 8500 BC. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered wild cereal use, which then evolved into true farming. The Natufians can thus be called 'proto-Neolithic' (11,000–8500 BC). As the Natufians had become dependent on wild cereals in their diet, and a sedentary way of life had begun among them, the climatic changes associated with the Younger Dryas forced people to develop farming. By 8500–8000 BC farming communities arose in the Levant and spread to Anatolia, North Africa and North Mesopotamia. Early Neolithic farming was limited to a narrow range of crops, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat, millet and spelt and the keeping of dogs, sheep and goats. By about 7000 BC it included domesticated cattle and pigs, the establishment of permanently or seasonally inhabited settlements, and the use of pottery.[2] Not all of these cultural elements characteristic of the Neolithic appeared everywhere in the same order: the earliest farming societies in the Near East did not use pottery, and, in Britain, it remains unclear to what extent plants were domesticated in the earliest Neolithic, or even whether permanently settled communities existed. In other parts of the world, such as Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, independent domestication events led to their own regionally-distinctive Neolithic cultures which arose completely independent of those in Europe and Southwest Asia. Early Japanese societies used pottery before developing agriculture, for example."Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

10,000 BC/BCE or 10,000 BP
Casual reader who has read the work of Daniel Quinn:

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

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

Not logged in, but a reader.

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

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

Introduction
I have (as an outsider to the work on this article) taken the liberty to change the introduction to a more definite form. Two examples of the kind of text I have tried to eliminate:"The term (i.e. Neolithic Revolution) refers to both the general time period over which these initial developments took place and the subsequent changes to Neolithic human societies which either resulted from, or are associated with, the adoption of early farming techniques, crop cultivation, and the domestication of animals.'" My contribution may not make things much better, but at least it tries to be more informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.89.136 (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be so vague and general that it is hardly meaningful."'The Neolithic Revolution is notable primarily for developments in social organization and technology.'"
 * This could be said of any major historical change. Why it is not "notable" e.g. for developments in art, religion or ideology is hard to understand.

Technology" section The extensive debate on Diamond in Talk seems to have ended up with the two paragraphs in this section. Though I have not read Diamond, I find the section very problematic. Below, I have broken up the text into bits and appended my objections after each bit: blockquoteIn his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond argues that Europeans and East Asians benefited from an advantageous geographical location which afforded them a head start in the Neolithic Revolution. Both shared the temperate climate ideal for the first agricultural settings, both were near a number of easily domesticable plant and animal species, and both were safer from attacks of other people than civilizations in the middle part of the Eurasian continent. Being among the first to adopt agriculture and sedentary lifestyles, and neighboring other early agricultural societies with whom they could compete and trade, both Europeans and East Asians were also among the first to benefit from technologies such as firearms and steel swords.blockquote It is also incomprehensible to me what is meant by Europe" having a "head start" as opposed e.g. to China, where the Neolithic Revolution started very early and the chaotic later history of Europe (the Roman Empire and its fall, the political fragmentation of the Middle Ages, the constant wars since then) was not replicated... blockquote In addition, they developed resistances to infectious disease, such as smallpox, due to their close relationship with domesticated animals. Groups of people who had not lived in proximity with other large mammals, such as the Australian Aborigines and American indigenous peoples were more vulnerable to infection and largely wiped out by diseases.blockquote
 * Here an inexplicable jump is made from the Neolithic Revolution (pre-Sumerian) to firearms, which started playing a role in Europe in the late Middle Ages. Whatever benefits Europeans might have had during the Neolithic can certainly not be directly applicable to developments several thousand years later...
 * What is meant by "Europeans"? The parts of "Europe" that benefited during the Neolithic Revolution were limited to the (Eastern) Mediterranean, and had little or no relevance for England, France, etc., which became the leading powers in the age of colonialism, when "Europe" started dominating the world...
 * Though immunity to smallpox may be gained from association with large mammals, it is hardly correct to generalize this statement to all infectious diseases that the European colonials carried with them to the New World(s)...
 * And while immunities certainly gave the European colonials a "head start" in relation to Native Americans and Australians, they offered no advantage in relation to more obvious competitors such as China or India... blockquote During and after the Age of Discovery, European explorers, such as the Spanish conquistadors, encountered other groups of people who had never or only recently adopted agriculture, such as in the Pacific Islands, or lacked domesticated big mammals such as the highlands people of Papua New Guinea. Due in part to their head start in the Neolithic Revolution, the Europeans were able to use their technology and endemic diseases, to which indigenous populations had never been exposed, to colonize most of the globe.blockquote
 * "Due IN PART to their head start..." This is vague and misleading. The point must be to say something about HOW important the Neolithic heritage was for European colonial success and in what CONCRETE WAYS, and I find it hard to see that the "part" it played was other than negligible. Disease resistance was probably caused by the fact that Europe was part of the Eurasian-African multicontinent, and as such had been constantly exposed to contact with and infections from all over this vast territory during the millennia following the Neolithic Revolution (e.g. the Black Death), while the e.g. Americas were an isolate that had been spared such contact.
 * As any historian will confirm, the causes of European colonialism and colonial success must be seen on the background of more recent European history, starting with the fall of the Roman empire, the advent of European feudalism, the survival of independent trading cities and a semi-independent civil sector that promoted trade and science, the constant intra-European wars that provoked headlong development of military technologies and military organization, etc. etc.
 * Finally, as other contributors to this discussion have noted, it is incorrect to say that the Europeans (whatever other sins they committed) actively "used" their "endemic diseases to colonize the world. This would imply a use of bacteriological warfare many years before the mechanisms of infection were at all understood. (Though it is evidently the case that infection is used as a strategy against troublesome indigenous groups e.g. in the Amazon today.
 * Finally, and most essentially: I do not understand what the discussion of European colonialism has to do with the Neolithic Revolution. Too much water has flowed under too many bridges between these two historical events to permit any kind of meaningful line of causality to be drawn between them, other than on a level so general that it is meaningless. After all, the Neolithic Revolution might with equal justification be said to have given the Europeans a "head start" in the development of space technology, but no-one proposes to discuss this technology here... span style font-size: smaller class autosigned Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.89.136 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)span> Template:UnsignedIP Autosigned by SineBot

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

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

Less time as hunter-gatherers?
"When humans were still nomadic hunter gatherers they had no time during the day to teach their children things other than how to hunt and gather." Has the author ever lived as a hunter-gatherer? This claim should be backed up by a reference. Jared Diamond for example states that the average weekly time for acquiring food in hunter-gatherer communities is only about 10-15 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.74.57 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole section was bad and needed more authoritative citations - I've removed most of it. I'd prefer to find a better source than Diamond if any of that goes back. dougweller (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask what exactly makes Diamond per se a source that should be replaced by a "better source"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.74.57 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He's more of a generalist, certainly not an archaeologist or anthropologist, and his work has (probably inevitably considering the breadth of it) errors. Why quote a generalist when it should be possible to find a specialist in this period? dougweller (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

What about East Asia
This article suffers a major gap by not including anything about China etc!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, information about rice, which is one of the most important crops is not extensively discussed. South Asia, which was also an important center of domestication is also not discussed. There is a brief mention of banana domestication, but this is in Africa, which is more of a redomestication after the initial domestication in New Guinea. Sugar cane] too. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


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

Unacceptable
"Neolithic societies had a major impact upon the spacing of children (carrying more than one child at a time is impossible for hunter-gatherers, which leads to children being spaced four or more years apart)."

- No evidence - please delete

"This increase in the birth rate was required to offset increases in death rates and required settled occupation of territory and encouraged larger social groups.[citation needed] "

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

"These sedentary groups were able to reproduce at a faster rate due to the possibilities of sharing the raising of children in such societies. The children accounted for a denser population, and encouraged the introduction of specialization by providing diverse forms of new labor."

"The development of larger societies ***seemed***? to have led to the development of different means of decision making and to governmental organization."

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

"Food surpluses made possible the development of a social elite who were not otherwise engaged in agriculture, industry or commerce, but dominated their communities by other means and monopolized decision-making."

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


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


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

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

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

Should there be a new section indicating the new theories?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The map in this section is contradictory to the map in the article linked by footnote #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.132.189 (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.pnas.org

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


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

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

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


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


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


 * Removed --D. Norris (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Typical Western Bias
Nothing about early rice cultivation in China though following the link from the Mesolithic template shows rice cultivations cultures at earliest epochs covered. Lycurgus (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Disease
An unreferenced statement in this section claims that measles spread to humans from animals during the NR. This is contradicted by an equally unreferenced statement in Measles which states, "Humans are the only known natural host of measles."

A recent genetic study ([|Furuse et al., Virol. J., 2010 Mar 4;7:52]) suggests that measles originated by divergence from the cattle disease Rinderpest during the late Middle Ages, not prehistorically. Kelseymh (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it only says that measles spread from animals to humans, not when that's supposed to have happened. The section presents the transmission of diseases from domestic animals to humans as a consequence of the invention of agriculture (because before then people weren't in close enough contact with animals for this to be common), not something that necessarily happened during the specific period(s) of the Neolithic Revolution(s).  jroe  tkcb  19:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate page
The page Neolithic seems the same. Both pages are redundant. or not? Romanfall (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all, the Neolithic is a period in human history, the Neolithic Revolution is a specific event named after that period. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 19:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

First citation is flawed?
The first citation in this piece is to a paper titled "Origin of agriculture and domestication of plants and animals linked to early Holocene climate amelioration". The publication year conflicts between the one cited here (2010) and on the paper itself (2004). But possibly more severely, I don't think this publication is peer-reviewed. I think this citation should be removed and a replacement should be sought. Would appreciate other opinions first, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan1701 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think Current Science isn't peer reviewed? joe&bull;roet&bull;c 16:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

BC/BCE
Can we change the dating convention to the more neutral Common Era? Aromir19 (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with a mass change from BC to BCE for obvious reasons, but the edit warring must stop, or the page will protected. - DVdm (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no substantial reason to change from BC to BCE, both notations are accepted on Wikipedia and this IP attack is clearly the result of some ideological concerted effort from an off-site source. I will search for the source, I'm sure 4chan or some other website. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 10:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The obvious reason I see, is neutrality. wp:ERA says: "Do not arbitrarily change from one style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page." So all we need, is a consensus about neutrality. Any takers? - DVdm (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, BC implies religious ties. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and us such BCE should be the standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.199.134 (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If neutrality were an issue with BC/AD, then Wikipedia wouldn't find its use as equally acceptable as the euphemisms BCE/CE. BC and AD are used not only in articles like Roman Empire, Julius Caesar, and Augustus, but also for the years before the AD/CE era itself, as in 1st century BC, 1 BC, and so on. I'm not a Christian, but I like to compare AD/BC to "Thursday" (Thor's day). Both refer to a deity that one religious sect believes in, but both are also commonalities and therefore satisfactorily secularized. If it's not a violation of neutrality for Wikipedia to refer to Thursday instead of "Common Day 4", or January instead of "Common Month 1", then what's the difference with AD/BC? — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 10:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How many people constitute "a consensus"? I only ask because I have a feeling that FoxCE is going to be hard to win over. Aromir19 (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * wp:Consensus is not really about numbers, but about getting obvious agreement, which tends to show itself. Just discuss with rational (as opposed to personal or emotional) arguments. - DVdm (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am officially casting my vote in favour of conversion to BCE. Agree with it or not, if a consensus is met it is met. So far it seems to be a consensus in favour of use of BCE, but I suppose it is only fair to wait a bit for people to speak up either wayThecoshman (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once I find out the source of your ideologically-driven attack on this article, the opinions from your just-created sockpuppet accounts will be null and void, if they aren't already — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 11:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FoxCE, I think it's best to concentrate on purely rational arguments. Ultimately the IP's and these new sock users represent just one person's opinion. - DVdm (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure, it seems that this is a community-type effort, perhaps from an online forum like 4chan or Facebook, where individuals within a certain group have been instructed or encouraged to come to this particular article and change the era notation. The edits seem much too quickly in succession and from varying IPs to be the same person — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 11:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once you find the source you will quickly find that we are indeed separate people. Aromir19 (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, my account you will find has been around for a while. Sure we have been spurred on, but that is irrelevant. Is not Wikipedia democracy with all of the good and bad points this entails?Thecoshman (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a violation of the WP:Canvassing policy — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 11:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sock team, I suggest you stop pretending to be different people now. Continuing like this is the last thing you should do. - DVdm (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that we are not the same people. Aromir19 (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am no sock! You will find that my account is a few years old. Sure I have not done a huge amount with it, but it still a valid account. If you would like, I can send you message from various sources all using thie username that I use on a vast number of sites. Thecoshman (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, from a vast number of sites. I checked them all. - DVdm (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And with that, I restate my view that BCE is a more neutral way to refer to dates. Thecoshman (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if the new accounts here would please read WP:CON and WP:ERA more carefully that would be helpful. A lot of a bytes have been spilt over the BC/BCE issue on Wikipedia and that's why we have such strict guidelines about it. The Manual of Style is clear: we don't prefer one style over the other. You can't argue a for change based on one system being better or more neutral or whatever other intrinsic quality you can think of. These are debateable issues that have been argued to a stalemate many, many times before and that is not going to change here. What is required is consensus that there is a good reason to change systems based on some relevant quality of this subject in particular, not a vote on which system the people who happen to turn up prefer. If this were an article about some aspect of Jewish religion, for example, there would be a clear argument for BC/AD being specifically inappropriate, not just general assertions that one system is better than the other. I don't see any such argument for this article, though, for the record, since somebody will inevitably imply otherwise, I personally prefer BCE/CE.

To be blunt there's very little in this "proposal". It's coming after a flood of edit warring by multiple anon IPs and is mostly supported by if not newly created accounts ones with no edit history. You haven't cited any policies as to why we should change only argued BC vs. BCE in general terms, showing a lack of understanding of our fundamental principles of consensus and neutrality. Like FoxCE, however, I am interested in why you've chosen this particular article and this particular moment to launch your crusade. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 11:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, no, Wikipedia is not a democracy. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 11:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I made this proposal because it was brought to my attention that this is how things are done here. Aromir19 (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine - I will concede for now. Clearly this is not just a case of weather this article should use BC or BCE but more of a site wide issue. Thecoshman (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As a side point Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Thecoshman (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits were reverted because they went against multiple well established policies, not solely because they didn't have consensus. You have to realise how frustrating it is to see the same tired issues coming up again and again and stopping regular contributors from actually making positive additions to the encyclopaedia. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 11:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that the edit war seems to have died down, can we discuss this again? Aromir19 (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Source of raid found — Reddit's "atheism" subsection
Finally found the source of this arbitrary raid here. Clearly an immature trolling attempt by one similarly-minded group of editors. As for what the connection between atheism and BCE/CE is, I'm not so sure. I'm an atheist and I prefer BC/AD — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 11:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is were a is appropriate. - DVdm (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I frequent the subreddit too. Very disappointing. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 11:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Very indeed. The ideal way to fail to convince anybody. Good grief. - DVdm (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasn't trolling. We wanted to see change. When it was brought to my attention that that was not how things are done here, I created an account, put in a formal request, and told them to stop the edit war. Aromir19 (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

BC/BCE
(I have removed the previous discussion on this as it, let's be honest, nothing more then a bit of a flame war)

Let us try to start the discussion with cool heads, with us newer people trying to understand how things are done and preferable with out dragging up old arguments. One thing I am aware of is that this issue is probably more of a site wide issue rather then simply for this article.

Reasons for use of BCE
The main argument I can see use of BCE is that is not tied to any religion. This is admittedly the primary argument for this conversion, but it is a big point.

As this article is not about any form of religion, I believe that the date system should follow. A common argument for why we shouldn't use BCE is that then we would have to start not use names for things are descended form gods, such as Mars; but as far as I am aware, we do not have a proposed and widely known about alternate name that does not derive religious meaning.

Reasons against use of BCE
The primary reasons to not convert to BCE is that it seems to go against a lot of the 'rules' designed to avoid malicious changes. The guidelines state the either format is acceptable, but the style should not be converted simply because some one wants to.

(didn't realise I was logged out) Thecoshman (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, as you've acknowledged, it would be fruitless to discuss the merits of BC or BCE themselves at this talk page, as it would hold no weight in deciding whether Common Era or Anno Domini should be used on a wide scale at Wikipedia. For that, I'd suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. As to your point about why you think BCE should be used at this article, it is not a sufficient reason; thousands of Wikipedia articles about non-religious subjects use BC. BC has been used on this article historically without the issue once being raised, and the sole reason for the onslaught here now is a desultory, immature plea from a Reddit user who arbitrarily decided to attack this article's use of BC — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 13:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're still arguing for BCE in general terms and not anything specific to this article ("not about any form of religion" applies to 99.9% of articles). The primary reason not to convert to BCE is because this article has used BC since it was created and the MoS clearly states we should favour the status quo unless there's a strong reason not to. That's not a rule to avoid vandalism/malicious changes, it's a rule to avoid endless debates about a minor point of style that has no effect on the overall quality of an article.
 * By the way, you shouldn't delete or edit previous talk page comments, even your own, unless they're clear vandalism. See the talk pages guidelines (linked at the top of this page). joe&bull;roet&bull;c 14:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not reverting 'unacceptably', I'm reverting because reliable sources disagree with Diamond, as to our articles. My post to the editor's talk page was ignored, but here are the sources I provided and more can be found:   and ]%2C+with+maizedomestication+beginning+about+7500+BC&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&sourceid=Mozilla-search&start=0#hl=en&safe=off&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=OqACT9OiEMeQ8QOhhb3IAQ&ved=0CC8QBSgA&q=[Mesoamerica]],+with+maize+domestication+beginning+about+7500+BC&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=fcbbd6ee68173e53&biw=1288&bih=612].Dougweller (talk) We shouldn't be using Diamond for this, we should be using more recent research. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a strong reason to propose a change from BC to BCE in this article because there is no historical record of Christ. You may discuss Josephus use of the word Chrestus in relation to James at your will, but Wikipedia should not be governed or linked to religion and hence BCE should be adopted as standard for WP:ERA. A Timelord (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be something to discuss at the talkpage for WP:ERA, not here. Until you get agreement there, please follow the policy here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

First edit of article was BCE
Just saying. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

BP dating
Why is it in the lead? If it is C14 dating, we can't just convert to BCE by taking off 2000 years. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That lead sentence is terrible. Along with the dating problem you rightly point out, the six independent centers of domestication is unsourced and makes little sense and doesn't really correlate with the archaeological data I have read on this subject, I find it positively misleading! The neolithic revolution happened after the Late Natufian with domestication of emmer wheat, and possibly barley at Tell Aswad, Jericho and Netiv Hagdud at around 8800 to 8000 BCE in the Levantine corridor. This really kicks off the Neolithic Revolution proper (possibly earlier based on evidence from Iraq ed-Dubb). You can't really go forming a sedentary population based on the odd domesticated fig at Gilgal I or the finds at Ohalo II, but it's nice they were learning the skills back then. Graeme Barker is the authority here since Jacques Cauvin passed on, and he documents the neolithic revolution in different areas and he doesn't entirely rule out cultural diffusion, especially in the spread of the revolution into the fertile crescent, Anatolia and up into Europe. I am not saying that other cultures didn't independently domesticate later but I would like to see a source for this six centers theory or strongly suggest that the lead sentence is revised along the lines of something Barker would say, i.e. "The first clear evidence for activities that can be recognized as farming is commonly identified by scholars as at about 12,000 years ago". (Barker, Graeme., The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory, p. 1, Oxford University Press, 2009.) Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You've probably read WP:LEAD but if not just follow it. Key - lead is a summary of the article, not a stand alone commentary. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-Portable Art?
"These developments provided the basis for ... the development of non-portable art...": Could the this be clarified? The first pre-Neolithic art that comes to mind is the cave paintings, which were anything but portable, making this a very confusing statement.Nheduana (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Addressing claims by the paleolithic-diet crowd
Evidently there's a growing number of people that believe that the increase in diseases was actually caused by the dietary shift from hunter-gatherer ("paleolithic") to agricultural/domesticated, and that there was also a resulting drastic reduction in lifespan from 75+ to thirty-odd years. It might be a good idea if somebody with the relevant knowledge could address those claims as they relate to the (imho more accurate/credible) information presented by Wikipedia, much as controversial or debunked/ignored claims in some other scientific articles have been. Xyzzy☥Avatar (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We might be able to dig up some information. Analysis of burials is part of establishing when the neolithic revolution occurred in a particular location, as is evidence of some grain being cultivated and stored. My impression, however, is that the dietary virtue of meat is one thing, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle quite another; it's a hard life not suited to the elderly. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Neolithic Age?
I freely admit that I know almost nothing about ancient history, but it seems weird that this page has no mention whatsoever of the "Neolithic Age". How does the Revolution relate to the Age??? Kingpin (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. The Neolithic Age has changed in nature and period classification since it was named. The Neolithic Age is now generally assumed to start with the PPNA in 10,200 BCE. The Neolithic revolution in the Near East anyhow can probably be assumed to end around 6,400 BCE at the end of the PPNB and the start of the Pottery Neolithic. The revolution proper starting around 8,800 BCE with an "explosion" of culture at the start of the PPNB. Both PPNA and PPNB are assumed to be transitional stages between the Mesolithic/Epipaleolithic and the Neolithic, but are still termed Neolithic. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 06:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Gender
It's generally accepted by anthropologists that the neolithic agricultural revolution was the architect of patriarchy and consequently, modern gender identities and roles. Can this be added? 10:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)


 * It would be good to have a section on gender. In fact, social implications in general are neglected in the article as it stands. But I think what you've proposed is far too sweeping. As far as I know, gender relations in hunter-gather societies aren't well understood and there are definitely people who argue that male dominance has an evolutionary/biological origin (and therefore goes way further back than the Neolithic). And things aren't much clearer post-Neolithic – there's a lot of debate, for example, in the wake of Gimbutas about where exactly late Neolithic eastern Europe falls on the Matriarchy-Patriarchy scale. The concept of "patriarchy" is also pretty nebulous and arguably doesn't apply to early prehistory before the advent of complex forms of social organisation. So to do the topic justice a section on gender would have to be really quite detailed, well-sourced and well-qualified – bloody tricky to write, in other words. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 17:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Gender is a division of nouns which varies from one language to another. In European languages masculine, feminine and neuter are typical. North American languages typically include animate, inanimate and perhaps some others. The subject under discussion here is not gender, it is sex or perhaps sex roles. DavidLJ (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're trying to make some sort of abstruse point, but gender is also the socially constructed equivalent of sex. Joe Roe (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Date formating
I know almost nothing about pre/ancient history, so mixing the BP and AD/BC dating standards in the article made it hard for me to follow. The article starts with "years ago", and BP, which I had to look up, and then goes back and forth mixing BC and BP, so when trying to sort out where things fit in time I kept having to figure out if I should add or subtract 2000 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.2.222 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Date Formatting
In agreeing with the above post, it would be nice to have the format generic across the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.47.237.19 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * BP makes more sense IMO. Note that Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers measures this before January 1, 1950, where it is possible to precisely measure year. Note that the style guide suggests "ya" (years ago). I still would prefer BP though. Student7 (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dating
This article is incredibly difficult to read. I am not familiar with 'BP' as a means of dating. The research I did (through Wikipedia) indicated that this form is NOT used by historians. Furthermore, B.C.E. has generally replaced the outdated BC. The random decision to use 'BC' and 'years ago' only complicates my attempts to place various developments in relation to each other. Is the decision to use 'BP' an attempt to avoid religious affiliation? If so, failing to standardize the entire document stands out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.123.134 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * BP is simply "Before Present", so 1000 BP is 1000 years ago or 1014 CE/AD. I agree, it is an incredibly stupid and confusing way to date things. BCE simply means "Before Common Era" and has no religious affiliation and should be used if that's the issue. Otherwise, BC or BCE should be used as the general accepted standard for dating.173.56.79.75 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Before Present derives mainly from radiocarbon dating, which is very useful in archaeology. The term is sometimes used for the era for which such dating might be relevant even when the particular study gets its dates by other means.  Historians don't use it, because they deal with historical times, for which better dating is usually available. Yes, we could provide a little more help, either by explaining or by simply giving "BC" or "BCE" or "years ago".  "Years ago" is a terrible way to refer to a time in history, since it rapidly loses precision.  However, for archaeology we seldom know dates within a century anyway.  Jim.henderson (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Terror management theory?
Is it not somewhat out of place to put this section in such prominence? Shouldn't an encyclopedia article attempt to explain WHAT something is (or was) before putting out a half-baked theory of WHY it was? It may be valid ... I don't know. It would take me a week to read all the articles and get up to speed. And the presentation looks fairly speculative--not appropriate for an encyclopedia. What I do know is that, for a newcomer to the Neolithic Revolution, the discussion of TMT to does little to expand concrete knowledge.

It's interesting, though. Why not put it towards the end? Dynasteria (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't even in the main article on Tmt - I think WP:UNDUE applies, so I've removed it. I'm not sure it even merits a paragraph, certainly not such prominence. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good. I made the subsection because it was a distinct topic, but noticed also that it was an indigestible mass of words. I hoped prominence would inspire others to improve or exterminate it. Extermination is a quite acceptable result. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

China
I think the article is imbalanced in terms of how little it mentions China at the moment. Does anyone have the time to work on that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Agriculture in Europe" section needs a lot more
Specifically the contribution of the Iranian and Anatolian genes into Europe continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:101:17E6:71:97B4:57F8:2CAD (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you got recent peer reviewed sources linking the genes to agriculture? Doug Weller  talk 16:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neolithic Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.westfalen-blatt.de/nachricht/2012-11-25-klimaschutz-die-ziele-schmelzen-dahin/613/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101201656/http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/neolithic_agriculture.htm to http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/neolithic_agriculture.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neolithic Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160523072403/http://websites.lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter1.htm to http://websites.lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neolithic Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618214404/http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/zawichemishanidar.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/zawichemishanidar.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414142437/https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/development-of-agriculture/ to https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/development-of-agriculture/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819110723/http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture03/r_3-1.html to http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture03/r_3-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Transition
What about one theory where it's not implicit a superiority of specific races? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.5.243.233 (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing core hypothesis
How can one write an article about the "Neolithic revolution" without mentioning (Or knowing?) the Hypothesis of Lord Renfrew?2A02:8108:963F:F853:DDF:E40F:1E8:3D7A (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Which hypothesis is that? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Anatolian hypothesis no doubt. Johnbod (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Quality of human nutrition
this strikes me as wrong -- "The Neolithic Revolution greatly narrowed the diversity of foods available, resulting in a downturn in the quality of human nutrition" Because the revolution matched the loss in variety with an increase in quantity, it cannot be said that it simply resulted in a downturn in quality. Kaplanovitchskyite (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Effects of the Younger Dryas (and the impact hypothesis) on the agricultural transition
As requested, here's my reasoning for keeping an entry about the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) in the Agricultural transition section:

The contentious text

A version of this was first added at least as early as 2009, over 12 years ago.

Edits

The reasons given for the deletions were essentially WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE (not a prominent theory):
 * Joe Roe — 1st deletion
 * Aluxosm — 1st revert
 * Joe Roe — 2nd deletion
 * Aluxosm — 2nd revert
 * Joe Roe — 3rd deletion

For reference


 * From Fringe theories: "For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support."
 * From Fringe science: "Fringe science theories are often advanced by persons who have no traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline."

Moore's work post-1982 (his most recently mentioned paper in the section) but pre-YDIH

In my first revert I added citations to papers by Andrew Moore, whose work at Abu Hureyra goes back nearly 50 years. He's been talking about the effects of the Younger Dryas on agriculture for at least 30 years. This theory was apparently the leading explanation for at least 20 years. It is not a fringe theory.



YDIH/agriculture papers

In 2012, Moore was a co-author on a paper that looked at material from Abu Hureyra and argued for the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. In 2013, he accepted it as the cause for the cooling and therefore the reason for the transition to agriculture. The impact hypothesis does have a rough history of people linking it with other pseudoscientific theories, but the core thesis is now backed up by strong evidence, and is currently being accepted by a growing number of leading scientists. It is no longer a fringe theory. (See: WP:FRINGE/ALT)



YDIH/agriculture news

The prominence of a theory is hard to measure, and this is made even harder by the fact this can be looked at as two distinct hypotheses (impact causes the Younger Dryas & Younger Dryas causes neolithic revolution). The two main papers listed above do have a limited number of citations.12 At current count, they have around 12 between them (not including self-references), but most of the papers discuss the YDIH instead of agriculture. The link has, however, been widely discussed in the news.



News following a review of the YDIH

The references above are far from exhaustive but hopefully show that this isn't just some random idea. Moore and Hillman's hypothesis about the Younger Dryas being the reason for the transition to agriculture is/was widely accepted. The fact that it has now been linked with the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis is certainly worth a mention, even if you disagree with the validity of either hypothesis.

N.B. It would be good to get some secondary sources for the other hypotheses or a Primary sources template added to the Agricultural transition section because it almost entirely relies on primary sources. As you pointed out, that isn't ideal.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something fundamental here. By the looks of your userpage you obviously have far more knowledge about area this than I do. As a layperson though, It's just a bit odd to read a things like "Despite the Younger Dryas's 20-year run as a leading explanation for the rise of agriculture..." (Balter article) and then not see it even mentioned in this section. Aluxosm (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally, WP:FRINGE is a reason to exclude a theory completely, while WP:UNDUE is more a reason to limit coverage to a brief mention. As signs of "wide acceptance", it would be useful to see how respected magazines (rather than journals with papers) like the US Archeology and quality tertiary books treat it.  Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed explanation and sources. There are a several distinct theories here, and to give due weight to all significant points of view on this topic it's important not to conflate them:
 * The theory that the Younger Dryas caused the agricultural transition: as you say, this was the dominant theory for a long time, though it is now been contradicted by extensive evidence of proto-agriculture long before the YD, and lack of evidence for significant environmental impacts of the YD in SW Asia (cf. the Balter article). The good, secondary sources you cite above (Moore & Hillman 1992; Moore et al. 2000; Balter 2010) are about this theory and this theory alone; they do not mention the impact hypothesis. I totally agree that this theory should be included in the article.
 * The theory that the Younger Dryas impact caused the agricultural transition: amongst archaeologists, this theory is exclusively promoted by Moore after c. 2010. The secondary sources above don't mention it. In the Bunch et al. 2012 paper—the only one with other prominent archaeologists as coauthors (Gordon Hillman, Carl Lipo)—they studiously avoid suggesting it had a societal impact. The subsequent primary sources are all co-authored with geologists, who I'm sure are experts in their field but who we can't consider authorities on prehistoric social change. The Moore & Kennett 2013 paper cited a total of four times in the last eight years and never by another archaeologist. Also note that these papers linking the YD impact to the agricultural transition came after the the wider field discarded the YD itself as a significant factor in the origins of agriculture. Outside of this, there is a lot of press coverage, but this is irrelevant as these aren't reliable sources on science. There are also a lot of incontrovertibly fringe sources like Graham Hancock and Martin Sweatman who have latched on to Moore's YD impact/agriculture hypothesis and used it to argue for outlandish catastrophist, pseudoarchaeological narratives. Even if we don't call it fringe (I would), there is obviously a dearth of mainstream support or discussion of this theory in secondary sources, so including in a list headed the "most prominent" is indeed undue.
 * The theory than an impact caused the Younger Dryas: as you know this is a controversial theory, but that's not something we have to get into here. What caused the Younger Dryas is largely independent of whether it had major societal effects for prehistoric people (doubtful), and whether it had specifically caused the transition to farming in Southwest Asia (extremely unlikely). Making a link between the old view that the YD caused agriculture, to subsequent theories of the YD's cause, without reliable secondary sources supporting the link, is synthesis we should avoid.
 * As you've observed there are many other problems with this section—hardly any of the really major theories are actually mentioned—but that doesn't justify including material that doesn't meet WP:NPOV. As a way forward, if we could add a subsection on the first theory above, I wouldn't object to a line or two stating that Moore has since linked it to the impact hypothesis. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)