Talk:Neolithic Revolution/Archive 2

Major missing information

There is no coverage of Amazonian crops/nuts/ etc. These were quite significant and supported a considerable population prior to the arrival of Europeans and Old World diseases. In addition, there is a lack of coverage of North American plants, again prior to Europeans. A serious omission in both cases. See 1491 by Mann and Guns, Germs and Steel by Diamond. ww 07:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Expert Attention

An admin has marked this article as in need of expert attention. It seems quite authoritive to me. I am curious to know what the admin had in mind. SmokeyTheCat 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the admin, but for the nature of the claims involved, this article has nowhere near enough citations and references. I know from my own reading that this is a contentious field, and while this article in its present state provides a fairly smooth and cogent overview, it's far too self-confident relative to the tendentious nature of the material presented. An expert in this context is not someone with a fancy education, it's a person who has a fairly broad perspective on the scholarship within the field and is willing to write careful and precise sentences, with each sentence firmly supported by properly construed references. Anyone can be an expert in the right state of mind. The problem is, articles in Wikipedia are not supposed to be authoritative, it's the sources referenced that are supposed to be authoritative. MaxEnt 13:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For the orthodox perspective on this matter, review Wikipedia:Verifiability. MaxEnt 13:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

POV

The assertions in the introduction about the impact of the revolution are overbroad and uncited. We really need evidence that marriage, private property, inheritance, and slavery are the result of it. Eluchil404 01:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Answer to POV

I agree with Smokey the Cat in the previous message that extra expert evidence is not needed. Sure the article can be improved, like anything. The evidence is widely agreed amongst historians and anthropologists about official marriage, inheritance, slavery, etc. But please think about it. Since the social revolution that brought us humans into existence, this agricultural revolution was, by far, bigger that the industrial, Russian and information revolutions all put together. From a life of gatherer-hunters in small (15-30) communal nomadic life style, where property had to be carried from camp to camp - accumulation could not happen. With the skills being developed (largely by women btw) of domesticating crops and animals, which led to security of food - a piece of land could now sustain 60-100 times the population - just imagine. It was a dramatic whole new way of life. With personal ownership of land and other items came inheritance, the nuclear (and extended) blood-related family was born - real communal life ended. This successful revolution was also expansionist (you could say colonialist), and in almost every continent it spread by pushing back or integrating gatherer-hunters - or enslaving them. Historian and anthropologist Jared Diamond's 1987 essay "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" (discussed above) I have also read, and he makes these correct points as to how this revolution had its positive and very big negative impacts on humanity, on our humanness - which we suffer to this day. Indeed, systemic inhumanity was first introduced into human evolution during the period of this revolution - religious people would refer to good vs. evil - but me, just the temporary 10k years battle between humanity vs. inhumanity. But in Jared's essay, he gets it wrong, it wasn't a 'mistake', it was/is a necessary inhuman phase in our evolution, which we humans must transcend if we are to develop a truly human society, overcome systemic inhumanity and return to a natural way of life - but on an altogether new and higher plane. Steve Masterson - 27 July 2007

Reference for "the move from overwhelming matriarchal life to patriarchal life"??

Somebody please find a strong reference for that or I'll remove it. In reviews of hunter-gatherer societies, it's been noted (e.g. John Gowdy (1999)) that inequality based on gender is not a historical necessity. But that's not (by far) the same as saying that the Neolithic revolution was a transition from matriarchal to patriarchal. Asserting that is more about making a (modern) political argument, rather than citing a fact from archaeology. --Psm 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

no refs yet; removing it. --Psm 05:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Source for "The walled town of Jericho was established almost 12,000 years ago, in which captured hunter-gatherers were enslaved."

That sounds cool, but it's the first I've heard of it. Source please, or it's out. --Psm 00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Map

A map would be really nice and useful. Something like this: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/images/figure17_09.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.186.205 (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the Neolithic Revolution

"Food gatherers (not the hunters) caring for children, keeping the fires alive, foraging near the base camp; led the way in developing language and culture, in knowledge of plants and increasingly semi-domesticated animals who traveled with the nomads from camp to camp. It is ironic that these women laid the foundation for a new type of society that replaced the rough egalitarianism of hunter-gatherer communal life - with systemic patriarchal forms of rule."

Can we please have some references or citations here? Is this the citation of a notable observer? The whole paragraph seems entirely speculative. And the last sentence sounds like a personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.86.197 (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to remove the sentence:

It is ironic that these women laid the foundation for a new type of society that replaced the rough egalitarianism of hunter-gatherer communal life - with systemic patriarchal forms of rule.

which is un sourced, confusing, and probably POV. "Laid the foundation" is far too vague for an article of this nature. MaxEnt 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sentence with no main verb

Once agriculture started gaining momentum, selective breeding cereal grasses (beginning with emmer, einkorn and barley), and not simply those that would favour greater caloric returns through larger seeds.

Not sure what the author meant. MaxEnt 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to Jared Diamond OR and unsourced

Removed the following paragraphs:

However, Jared Diamond seems to ignore that civilizations living in hotter and even tropical climates did develop steel and firearm technologies, such as the Middle East during the more arid Middle Ages and India's tropical climate. This coupled with the fact that the Middle East, India, and eventually Southeast Asia prospered with many of the same technologies sheds doubt in some of his theory of temperamental climate dominance.

Furthermore Diamond seems to place too much importance on western domination coming about through the use of steel weapons, when in fact the obsidian swords used by such Mexican civilizations as the Aztec and Maya were far sharper than steel. The only superior military technology that Europeans had was firearms, crossbows, and metal armor, which were by no means deciding factors in the conquest of Mexico.

For the first paragraph, why does this shed doubt? Diamond is likely suggesting that the Europeans held, on the whole, a distinct advantage. The second paragraph is too much. Sharper is not the only quality of a sword: weight, length, durability, and cost of production would also be critical. GG&S p.74, Diamond asks why did Pizarro capture Atahuallpa when Pizarro had 62 soldiers mounted on horses and 106 foot soldiers, to an army of 80,000 commanded by A. "Pizarro's military advantage lay in the Spaniards' steel swords and other weapons..." Diamond provides extensive sources for these claims, including Conquest of the Incas (1970) and History of the Conquest of Peru (1847) and ten others. These claims cannot stand in the article without a solid source to back them up, in opposition to Diamond's careful scholarship. What makes Mexico different? Diamond does not list Mexico in his index, and I don't presently have time to wade through the whole of his material on the Americas, but I suspect he would not agree. MaxEnt 14:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, it gets worse. Yes, obsidian is very sharp, but does not make for a great weapon.

Why didn't the Aztecs fare better against the Spanish with such effective swords? Probably because the swords didn't have tips and were not meant to pierce; they were designed only for lashing. An adept swordsman could fend off an Indian simply by ducking a swing of a sword and then running the enemy through.

MaxEnt 14:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, are you telling me that Europe only developed steel and firearm technology? You know this is utter bull...check the steel and musket article. In fact the Middle East was one of the first regions to use firearms in a major war (eg. Ottoman Turks against the Byzantines, the Moors in Spain when firearms were first introduced to Europe, Mughals in Dehli when firearms were introduced to India, etc.). Steel was used of course in the Middle East and India far before it was used widely for weapons in Europe...ever heard of Damascus steel or wootz steel? Firearms were of course used all over Eurasia including hotter tropical climates...how does that not shed doubt on his theory of temperamental dominance? Also not all of China is temperamental either...South China in particular has had a subtropical climate even during advanced eras like the Song dynasty. This should be common knowledge, but I guess people who believe everything Jared Diamond says haven't read much outside Guns, Germs, and Steel. I don't see why such common knowledge needs to be cited...but I'll provide some sources anyways. Secondly...many historians will say that disease (which wiped out 90+%) played a huge role in conquest. Remember Cortez's crew, including his thousands of native allies were nearly annihilated in the La Noche Triste. Of course by the time Cortez left disease started to spread like wildfire consuming of course the warrior class as well. This plus the amount of native allies Cortez had at their disposal made a huge difference. What main military advantage did the Spanish have? Aside from metal armor, not much. Not being able to or having a poor thrusting capability doesn't make these obsidian swords useless...your telling me that the Medieval Saracens driving back crusaders with their slashing scimitars doesn't show anything? The Spanish had firearms of course...but these were crude arquebuses that had a very slow firing rate wouldn't have made so much of a difference (other than scaring the Aztec with the sound). Zachorious 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the title of the section from Age of Discovery to Technology as there is already a section on disease and the information is repeated here. If anyone has a copy of the book it would be useful to move the Jared's theory about disease to the disease section (or cite the information already there), if page numbers could be used this would be very useful. --Kaly99 20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove that irrelevant idiocy about obsidian again. If glass is so damned good for blades, why is it only used in very specialized cases such as fine surgery? Mahuitls were crap compared to steel weapons. Also, later cultures in Afroeurasia did develop guns and blades, yes, but the precedent was already there. Also consider that the Celts were far better swordsmen than the Romans. The Romans were better SOLDIERS. Diamond, in fact, covered all this. The Europeans had a significant number of cultural advantages. /rant, and /obsidian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzmadmike (talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Article rated

Far bolder than normal, I decided to rate this article start class, high importance. Note that History of agriculture (which is the parent to this article) is similarly rated; though no other anthro article is yet rated high importance. There is far to much good material here to rate this as stub class, but there are also too many obvious problems to choose any rating higher than start. MaxEnt (talk)

Request for images

I've added some images that seem to be relevant to the article, if they don't seem appropriate please feel free to remove them. If there are any specific images required please can the request for images be updated or if there are no more needed removed. --Kaly99 (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)