[Gerry]:
> I'm sorry, Alexander, but I cannot agree with you that only
> agriculture is a component of the Neolithic Revolution.
Agriculture is not the ONLY component. Otherwise we would better use the term
"Agricultural Overturn" rather than "Neolithic Revolution". But the transition
to agriculture was the leading factor which correlated with the appearence of
other components (pottery, polished stone tools, houses, weaving and other). It
is not easy to say whether some of "other components" were direct consequences
of
agriculture, or developed parallelly, or stimulated appearence of agriculture.
At least all of them can be found separately (not as a complex ! ) in some
Mesolithic cultures (even metallurgy which belonges to the next step of
development after the Neolithic Revolution).
But I'd like to stress that using
pottery or building houses don't turn over the whole life of a tribe and don't
change the historical fortune of the descendants as the transition to
agriculture (and THEREFORE the Neolithic Revolution as a whole) does. I belive
that from the
ecological point of view people of Paleolithic and Mesolithic societies could be
considered just as other animals - wolves or locust. Domesticated dogs changed
here nothing - it was just a kind of symbiosis. Using agriculture changes
everything
principally: people create ARTIFICIAL BIOMS - fields and farms+pastures - and
control them (at least partly).
Actually they become gods (for their domestic plants and animals).
A crazy question: are not we just souls plantations for our gods?
> What's wrong
> with the origins of civilization as part of the Neolithic Revolution?
> Civilizations also originated in certain areas such as the Middle East
> and Southeast Asia. Several posts ago I listed V. Gordon Childe's 10
> criteria for "state formation" and my 11 criteria. Based on the
> evidence presented through archaeology, anthropology, history,
> linguistics, biology, etc. it would appear that BOTH "state formation"
> and agriculture are components of the Neolithic Revolution. Now both
> agriculture and state formation were present in the Middle East during
> the Neolithic but (according to you) state formation wasn't present in
> South East Asia until the Bronze Age.
Sorry, I can't agree that "state formation" can be taken as a component of the
Neolithic Revolution. Look, in the Near/Middle East the very first states
appeared only in about 5 millenia after the Neolithic Revolution happened
undoubtelly and completely. 5 millenia - is not too long duration for a
revolution? Analogous gap is found everywhere in the zones of primary
agriculture and primary states. Indeed, the large regions were the Neolithic
Revolution and the establishment of states took place mostly coincide. However
I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that almost everywhere agriculture
first appeared in small mountain valleys, but the first states were placed in
wide plains of great rivers (at least in the Old World).
Yes, we can say that establishment of states is a result of the Neolithic
Revolution, but only a remoted result, not a component.
> BTW, do you know of an instance
> where state formation is present without agriculture?
Not, I don't know, and in "normal" situation this should not be.
However I can imagine that in an extreme situation, in a zone where agriculture
is not very productive or even possible (Arctic deserts) + in condition of
isolation from post-Neolithic competitors theoretically it could happen. It does
not seem me absolutely impossible that if Eskimoes would remain in the isolation
some millenia longer they could create a state (a class society) based not on
agriculture but on the sea hunting and fishing. But you see this is a very
special case. I'm sure this could not happen, say, in Australia before the
transition to agriculture.
Alexander