Agricultural Revolution or Devolution? A Review of the Cost/Benefit Analysis of the Neolithic Revolution

Approximately 12,000 years ago, cultures around the world were rapidly changing.  People were surrendering their nomadic lifeways and adopting permanence and settlement as they independently learned to manipulate the land and vegetation around them.  This period is known as the Neolithic Revolution, or the New Stone Age, which is also associated with the advent of agriculture.  This “revolution” and the introduction of agriculture occurred at varying intervals around the world, and each “revolution” was unique to both the environments and people that were affected.  The reactions to this “revolution” were, however, very similar, bringing about extreme cultural changes and seemingly many benefits, but archaeological scholars have since reexamined these benefits and realized that there were many disadvantages to the adoption of agriculture.  (And as an aside, it appears many people who are so passionate about the “Paleo-diet” feel the same, whether they acknowledge it or not).  Today’s blog post is dedicated to the exploration of the benefits and costs of the “Agricultural Revolution”.

Prior to the adoption of agriculture, human groups around the globe were primarily foragers, also known as hunter-gatherers.  Humans survived by gathering edible plants and hunting or fishing for animals.  It was not an ecologically dominant existence, meaning human groups only exploited their environment for what they needed, but it was not necessarily the easiest existence either.  Hunter-gathering groups must remain small and the group’s survival is very much dependent on the cooperative effort of all group members.  Every member of the group is expected to contribute in some way, meaning as soon as one is able-regardless of age-an individual is working toward not just his or her own survival but the group’s as well.  These groups are considered to have led a relatively peaceful existence, but evidence among ancient Chilean groups has demonstrated that during times of scarce resources, interpersonal conflict did occur (Standen and Arriaza, 2000). 

So it is not unexpected that agriculture, the cultivation involving continuous use of crop land & domesticated animals, would be alluring to foragers.  It provided not only a controllable and steady food supply but also the ability to manipulate crops to become heartier and healthier, enabling more plants to be grown and ultimately harvested for the purposes of consumption.  Eventually, these heartier crops enabled human groups to create food surpluses, enabling them to store food for later if they so chose.  In addition, human groups gained access to garden hunting, which was hunting animals that considered the crops an easy and available food source.  Eventually, instead of killing, some groups actually captured and domesticated these animals, leading to more resources: meat, wool, hides, fat, bones, etc. 

As groups became more adept in agricultural practices not every member of the group had to farm.  This led to a specialization in labor, meaning individuals concentrated their efforts on learning and mastering specific skills.  Some individuals became farmers, while others became traders, which led to other roles being created and filled to meet the economic (e.g. trading and banking) and social (e.g. education and religion) needs of cultures and societies.  Agriculture transformed cultures into what many are today-a network of people who fulfill specific roles in society that ultimately benefit both the individual and group but in a radically different way as compared to the system that existed in foraging societies.  People became specialists as a result of the agricultural “revolution”, whereas they were generalists as a result of foraging based economies. 

And one final advantage of the adoption of agriculture is that human groups were able to exploit and inhabit environments that were previously deemed inhospitable, but this was dependent on the technology available to the society.  As long as people had access to the technological means to manipulate the land, they could make it suitable for agricultural development and ultimately settlement.  Highly forested areas, deserts, and hilly or mountainous areas suddenly became habitable areas as a result of axes and man power, irrigation, and terracing, which expanded the geographical reach of humans across the globe.

But as much as the agricultural “revolution” assisted humans, it also brought about many negative consequences.  The newfound abilities to manipulate the environment caused an increase in pollution and environmental degradation, particularly among early agriculturalists who utilized slash-and-burn horticulture.  Even when strictly agricultural practices are completed, they are still incredibly harmful to the environment in general as local flora and fauna are displaced and natural resources extremely reduced or depleted.  Unlike foraging, agriculture is environmentally dominant. 

In addition, agriculture is a very labor intensive practice, which leads to a lot of wear and tear on the body.  Paleopathological analyses of past agricultural societies demonstrate an increase in occupationally related pathological conditions, such as arthritis, which were not known or minimally known among foraging societies.  Agriculture did not just lead to occupational diseases but all sorts of illnesses, both communicable and nutritional.  A comprehensive study of agriculturalists around the world has demonstrated that their overall health statuses were compromised as compared to previous and current foraging societies (Cohen and Armelagos, 1984).  Increase incidences of such maladies as influenza, iron-deficient anemia, and caries (cavities) were found among agriculturalists but not necessarily foragers.

While the specialization of labor brought about many positive changes and individual freedoms to human groups around the globe, this was also associated with a very negative consequence: social stratification.  Social stratification is a system of ranking individuals within a hierarchical social system or dividing them up into social classes imbued with specific privileges or lack therefore.  Social stratification did not exist in foraging societies, which does not mean that foraging individuals were considered completely equal.  There was some division, which was based on prestige, or status bestowed upon individuals based on their level of contribution to specific tasks within the group (e.g. best gatherer, best hunter, wisest of the group), but everyone was considered fairly equal within the group, a necessity that decreased competition and assured mutual assistance of the group (and therefore its individual members).  Because of the labor specialization that agriculture enabled within societies, some individuals were deemed more important than others, and therefore, there was a different power dynamic within cultures and societies.

Finally, agricultural practices, in many ways and in many societies, created overdependence among individuals on agricultural products, leading to a loss of understanding and knowledge of survivable skills that foragers had.  This is problematic when food surpluses do not exist and environmental hardships cause crops and harvests to fail.  Many agriculturalists lose necessarily survival skills (e.g. gathering nonpoisonous plants and hunting wild game) that foragers know in order to ensure their own survival.  This loss of knowledge creates the potential for the downfall of individuals and eventually groups if the problematic situation spreads throughout the society.

In conclusion, while historically the advent and introduction agriculture is considered a “revolution”, it may actually have been more of a devolution based on the number of serious consequences felt by agricultural societies around the world.  While there has been a progression in technological and cultural developments among agricultural groups compared to preceding foraging groups, these benefits are not considered greater than the consequences to some.  Ultimately, this is a matter of opinion, but it does not appear that any modern agriculturalist is comfortable or willing to return to a foraging lifestyle, demonstrating that ultimately the benefits outweigh the consequences.  In other words, the term “agricultural revolution” rings (mostly) true.

References:

Cohen M.N. and G.J. Armelagos, editors.  1984.  Paleopathology and the Origins of Agriculture. Orlando: Academic Press.

Feder, Kenneth and Park M. Human Antiquity: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archeology, McGraw-Hill.

Gezon, Lisa and Kottak, Conrad.  2011.  Culture.  Mc-Graw Hill.

Standen, Vivien and Bernardo Arriaza.  2000.  Trauma in the preceramic coastal populations of northern Chile: Violence or occupational hazards?  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 112: 239-249.