What Is Howell's Arguments About The Neolithic Revolution?

The emergence of agriculture was a major stepping stone in human history. During this birth of agriculture, also known as the Neolithic revolution, humans began inhabiting permanent settlements, grow their own crops, and domesticate both plants and animals for food (Weisdorf, 2005). Considering humans have been hunter-gatherers for the majority of their approximately 7 million years of existence, the emergence of agriculture in the Old World only occurring 10,000-5,000 years ago, marks a significant transformation in food sustenance techniques (Weisdorf, 2005). However, this turning point in history is associated with both positive and negative implications. There is much controversy over whether or not the introduction of

According to Document 1, the Neolithic Revolution was good for the society because humans learned new skills and ways to live. Document 1 states, “The ability to acquire food on a regular basis gave humans greater control over their environment and enabled them to give up their nomadic ways of life and live in settled communities.” This shows that the humans learned many new things. In addition, based on Document 2, the context mentions, “Domestication means taming animals for human use. This was one of the most important innovations of the Neolithic Revolution.” This shows that the humans had good use of the animals. Also, the chart in Document 2 shows how common animals such as cows, goats, pigs, and sheep were used as advantages depending on their location, and for meat, milk, wool, and hide. As a result, Document 1 and Document 2 both support that the innovations of the Neolithic Revolution were good for

Hunter- gatherers was able to consume many variety of foods, such as animals meat, berries, nuts, roots etc which are high in proteins and fiber. Farmers can only consume the crops they grew, which is limited. Additionally, the main commonly crops are rice, corn, and wheat, which is high in carbs and lacked fiber, vitamins, and proteins. As a result, farmers’ diet consists of carbs and fats, but no vitamins or proteins. The second risk is limited crop production. Farmers are easily opened to risk of starvation if their crops fail to grow. The final risk to agriculture is epidemic diseases. Agricultural encouraged farmers to get together in crowded societies in order to trade their crops, which can easily lead to spread of contagious diseases and

A state is one of the earlier forms of government. These “states” consisted of farmers that grew crops, so the civilization remained in one place. Typically, there would be many states that were ruled under one king, which claimed divine authority by being a great military leader in the time of war. There were also a noble class, which aided the king with various tasks. For example, most nobles owned a small section of land that consisted of slaves.

Next, Mr. Diamond then goes to challenge the argument that farmers are more nourished then hunter gatherers because of the huge quantity it can produce. He says that although farmers produce a large quantity of goods they produce cheap carbohydrates which don’t have the certain amino acids we need to survive such as corn and wheat however, hunter-gathers with a varied diet have a more mix diet which provides them with more and different nutrients then farmers. Also he goes to say that with the dependency on farms it is easy to starve if there is a diseases that kills all of the crops, such as the Irish potato famine where hundreds of Irish starved to death because they we dependent on their farms. In the ending of his article Mr. Diamond discusses the inequality and class systems that have been brought up in an agricultural system. He discusses how kings who provides no food eats the best food compared to his peasants who are the ones working hard for the food.

Humans have always had to find a way to survive in the changing environment of our world. Humans have had to find many ways to adapt and find different practices to feed their communities. Humans were able to keep their communities alive due to their ways of hunting and gathering. Gender played a role in this way of finding food source. Men were set to be the hunters and the women were responsible for gathering any crops they could find. There was a transition that occurred and a new way of cultivating food emerged. Agriculture became a way of survival for human beings. Agriculture played an intricate role in providing a food source and it had a major impact on the Neolithic societies in the Near East. It provided a new way for society to be permanently transformed from what they once were, hunter gatherers to becoming something more stable and stronger.

For starters, “farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes” while hunter-gatherers got “more protein and a better balance of other nutrients” by eating a variety of wild animals and plants (3). The balance of nutrients that a hunter-gatherer obtained made their overall health better. For instance, the “average height of [Greek and Turkish] hunter-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages” was five to six inches taller than the average height of people after the adoption of farming. Even today only “3 high-carbohydrate plants-wheat, rice and corn--provide the bulk of the calories that we eat” (pg__). The author makes a good argument when he says, “the farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition” because all that farming did in a health standpoint was provide an abundance of poor nutritious food when people already had a balanced diet as

The Neolithic Revolution was a pivotal point in human history, marking the true beginning of agriculture and civilization. Civilization could only begin with the development of specialized jobs. The Neolithic Revolution created classes and therefore wars, economy, and permanent settlements. First, the Neolithic creation added disparity into small villages.

After the Neolithic Revolution happened, people began to make better clothes the invention of weaving it was used to make clothes, armor, and others things. This change was an advancement for people because these changes were better because instead of living in an icy cave you could live in a nice heated house that you won’t ever have to leave also you have nice coats (not really we’re not talking north face but that keep you warm) also you have crops face so you don’t have to eat the same thing over and over again. You can have a salad or a stew. This change was a turning point because. People were happy there was peace people weren’t killing each other, people weren’t stealing they traded and they loaned it was a happy place to

The Neolithic Revolution was one of the major turning points in human history. From hunters and gathers, we turned to farming to fill our daily dose of nutrition. Everybody was impacted due to this drastic change. The population grew, children started to work, and changing roles within a family. Before the Neolithic Revolution women took up a role as a major economic supplier to the family. But with this revolution, it was difficult for them to continue this role to do the longer period of time due to their responsibilities of carrying children, raising young children and dealing with their upbringing. Many just believe in the obvious positives with agricultural, but there were many setbacks. Some of these setbacks include new view of inequality,

What were the main ideas about the Neolithic Revolution? The Neolithic Revolution is the spread of farming{agriculture} throughout the world.The Neolithic Revolution began around ten-thousand years ago.The domestication is the process of increasing human control over the breeding of wild plants and animals.Without the domestication of plants and animals, it would have been very hard to survive.Ahunter-gatherer is someone that kills plants and animals to get food for other people and their

As discussed in class by Dr. Birch, the term Neolithic was coined to refer to new techniques of grinding and polishing stone tools. The significance of the Neolithic, however, is related to the creation of an entirely new economy, not just the difference in artifacts. During the Neolithic Revolution many groups became dependent on domesticated foods, meaning at least 50 percent of their diet consisted of domesticated foods (Kottack 2011:234). These Neolithic economies, whose primary diet consisted of agriculture, were associated with substantial changes in daily life. Until recently, scientists believed that these changes were for the improvement of human life. Most anthropologists and archaeologists agreed that hunter-gatherer societies were far more labor-intensive, disease-filled, and generally a had lower quality of life. This has all changed with new studies and characterizations in the fields of anthropology and archaeology. Among these studies and characterizations of hunter-gatherers are those collected in Man the Hunter which suggests “that Paleolithic populations had abundant resources and could be considered the earliest affluent society” (Armelagos et al 1991:13). These new findings have causes anthropologists to wonder if populations during the Neolithic really did increase and if these populations were healthier than those of the Paleolithic. Was the Neolithic Revolution a good thing for the human species?

Thomas Malthus argued in his Essay on the Principles of Population, that “the pressure of population on the means of subsistence acted like a noose that becomes tighter when population grew too fast and all attempts to redistribute wealth in a more egalitarian manner came to nought”. Malthus argued that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man”. It can be identified through the famines of the biological ancient regime that humanity was stuck in this trap, lacking resources for population growth. That being said, Marks states that the necessities of life and industries came from land and agriculture, yet argues that this biological ancient regime came to an end with the Industrial Revolution. I believe that it is due to the agricultural revolution that humanity was able to escape this regime, due to the massive output of food and resources

The Neolithic revolution (a.k.a. agricultural revolution) was a change in the way of life of our ancestors. It took place about 8000 years ago among various tribes in Asia and the Middle East. It included a transition from foraging and hunting to the domestication of animals (most probably starting with the dog) and to farming. Tribes settled in fertile areas and formed agricultural communities many of which grew into villages and cities. This relatively stable way of life and the more reliable food supply (and surplus) led to the development

The author John Robb compared the Neolithic period to the internet (which is a global phenomenon) as a result of this, the internet is said to be a thing where people irresistible gain knowledge which transformed their lives and their social activities even at work. This transformation is a gradual process in which people observed that their lives are being changed and they are more knowledgeable and before. The more knowledge they have the more it makes them thirst for more and this is said to be one of the transformation that affect human society due to the internet. The Neolithic period (the spread of farming) also had a gradual process just as the way the internet affected human lives. The Neolithic period is one of the major transformations in human history. John Robb attempts to frame the problem of the Neolithic era as an approach to exploring the social relations in any global phenomenon (internet) in such a way that, we all know that the Neolithic era was the spread of farming (Agriculture) throughout the world. It marked the end of hunter-gatherer societies. Also led to population explosion, people went into farming and animal husbandry due to the Neolithic period. Understanding the problem of Neolithic era as an approach to explore other social relations will be an explanation which acknowledges the great local variability seen archaeologically across Europe at this transition and deals with motivations and social relations without reductionism.