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.

Changing the World One Mutation at a Time...

This post is meant for the education of my Anth 102 & 110L students, but it is accessible for the public at large.

Quote from X-Men: First Class.  Picture from www.welovefine.com.

 

Believe it or not, but growing up, I was a comic book geek.  I was a huge Spiderman fan and my sister was an X-men enthusiast.  This does not mean that I was not an X-men fan.  I just could not admit that because of the competitive nature that existed between my sister and I.  To summarize the series and its plot for those unfamiliar them, the X-men was a team of “mutants” who had special abilities and powers and were locked in a war amongst themselves and with nonmutant human beings who did not understand them (a comprehensive review can be found here).  In the recent reboot of the franchise, in the movie X-men: First Class Charles Xavier (Professor X) says, “Mutation is evolution and a part of human nature.”  He goes on to talk about how mutation(s) are what separated our Australopithecine and Homo ancestors from anatomically modern Homo sapiens, but the scene trails off somewhere in there, leaving the audience with a basic and incomplete understanding of what exactly he is talking about.  Today’s blog post is dedicated to explaining mutations and how they are in their own way a driving force in evolution, as pointed out in Professor X’s quote.

Before we begin, one must first have a basic understanding of genetics.  Genetics is the study of the mechanism of inheritance, and it is from studies of genetics that we have a basic understanding how individuals become biologically what they are.  We know that individuals are biologically diverse both within and among species due to their genetic makeup/the genes that they have, which are portions of the DNA molecule that codes for a specific protein that makes up part of the body that they inherit from their parents.  The DNA molecules in the body carry the genetic code of an individual, which defines whether, in humans at least, if you have two eyes versus three, two legs versus eight, and skin versus scales.  It is what defines one biologically. 

Mutations are changes in an organism’s genetic material and are responsible for the creation of new alleles in a population.  Alleles are variants of genes that define if you have blonde or brown hair, brown or blue eyes, a “widow’s peak” versus a straight hair line, etc.  Each gene has two alleles, and these alleles can be dominant, meaning it is always expressed, or recessive, meaning it may not be expressed.  For example, if we are speaking about the genes that code for eye color and you carry an allele for brown eyes (a dominant allele) and one for blue eyes (a recessive allele), you will have brown eyes, but if you carry two blue eye alleles, the absence of a more dominant allele means that the recessive will be expressed and you will have blue eyes.  Dominance or recessiveness is not a matter of good or bad.  It is simply a matter of which allele is stronger and more apt to be expressed.

Alleles present in any population (be it human, animal, or plant) are often times created through mutation because, as the above definition already descries, mutations are simply changes in an organism’s genetic material.  The term mutation is associated with negative connotations, but not all mutations are bad!  Scholars believe that the different alleles for eye (brown, green, hazel, grey, and blue) and hair color (black, brown, red, blonde) are due to mutations.  None of these alleles are correlated with serious negative biological consequences, and some are dominant (e.g. brown hair and eyes) while others are recessive (e.g. blonde hair and blue eyes).  Mutations are caused from a variety of means, including mistakes in DNA replication (the process of DNA copying itself), exposure to naturally occurring chemicals and temperature fluctuations, or by various chemicals and exposure to radiation. 

Mutations are considered to be a driving force in evolution because of the genetic diversity it creates. This drive is marked by genetic change over time and evidenced by changes in phenotypes (the physical appearance of an individual based on their genetic makeup).  Researchers note evolutionary change by examining a population, or a reproductive unit that can successfully breed, and certain alleles will be selected for that will either enable the species to continue and prosper or die and become extinct.  In this way, mutations drive but to not dictate evolutionary pathways because mutations produce random and new alleles in a population and other forces select the specific alleles that will help or hinder the population.  So while Professor X’s quote is not entirely correct, it does demonstrate how mutations, for better or worse, are related to evolution. 

References

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

Philip L. Stein & Bruce M. Rowe (2014). Physical Anthropology 11^th Ed: Early Species of the Genus Homo. McGraw-Hill.

 

In Honor of an Important Individual...

Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!

Culture…

 This post is specifically geared toward my Anth 101 students, but it is meant to be informative to a broader audience.

What is culture?

This is a pervasive question faced by anthropologists daily because it is what all of us study in some way.  Cultural anthropologists, in particular, but even archaeologists, physical anthropologists, and linguistics anthropologists study culture in some, albeit individually unique, way.  But what exactly is culture?  That is a question that I have received from time to time, both from students and the public at large, and I always bulk at the question because answering it is pretty difficult.  Culture is not one simple thing, but it is not nearly as complex as we, anthropologists, make it out to be.  Culture is both symbolic and intangible but material and tangible.  Culture is both inclusive and exclusive at the same time.  Culture is learned but also unconsciously carried out.  And culture is both helpful and harmful.  So as you may already be beginning to see, culture is not something that is easily definable or studied, which makes it both scary and exciting at the same time. 

But let us break this broad definition that I just provided down a bit, starting with a more substantive definition of culture:

“Culture…is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”  -Gezon and Kottak, 2011

This definition highlights the symbolic nature of culture.  Knowledge, belief, arts, morals, laws, and many customs can be and often times are very symbolic.  This definition, however, is not all encompassing and misses out on some very important aspects of culture, such as language, which is one of the key elements of culture and also is very much symbolic.  There is no material object one can point at and say, “Yes, this is a belief.  This is a moral.  This is language.”  One can point at material items, such as a cross, and say that object represents a belief in culture, but as the pictures below demonstrate, that same picture can represent many different ideas:

(Left to Right) Christian Cross (religion), Addition Symbol (math), Red Cross (organization), Upside down cross (religion)

  

The interpretation that one has of the above objects is largely based on their own cultural background.  Individuals who share the same cultural background will see an object and reach the same or extremely similar conclusion.  For example, those who grew up in American culture will quickly recognize the symbol representing the “Red Cross”, an organization dedicated to the health and well being of those in need.  Those who did not grow up in American culture may recognize the Red Cross symbol, but it will not hold the same meaning to them as it does to the Americans.  Just as those who grew up in a non-Christian culture, such as Jews or Muslims, will recognize the Christian cross but will not hold it in the same regard as Christians.  This does not mean one culture is better than the other.  It merely demonstrates that the shared nature of culture allows some people to share in cultural understandings versus others, which unites and divides at the same time.      

Now this cultural understanding is not as innate and natural as one may think, although as a member of several cultures (and even more so as an anthropologist) even I forget this sometimes.  Culture is actually learned, and this learning happens primarily early in life but continues every day.  For example, members of American culture learn to enter a home without removing one’s shoes unless dictated by the host/home owner, but in Canadian culture, it is expected that shoes are automatically removed upon entry into the home.  As an individual who identifies as a member of two different cultures (one of which is American), I learned this lesson quickly when I lived in Canada for several years.  Canadians were very quick to inform me that shoes had to be removed.  They did not tell me outright that this was a cultural tradition/standard, but it was one that I caught on to as I visited several friends at their places and was continually asked to remove my shoes.  Even my Canadian roommate made a point of telling me to remove my shoes in our apartment. 

Finally, culture can be both accommodating and damaging, particularly in the natural environment around us.  Cultural adaptations, such as the creation and use of tools, has allowed us as a human species evolve both biologically and culturally, and without culture, we may not be able to reside in certain environments.  For example, cultural adaptations such as air conditioners allow individuals to reside in some of the hottest places on earth, while heaters allow us to reside in some of the coldest.  The internet, telephone, email, text message, Facebook, Twitter, and many more technological advancements allow us to be more connected while at the same time further apart.  I currently reside in the Western United States, but my family is scattered across the Midwestern and Eastern United States as well as Europe.  And I have friends scattered throughout the United States, Canada, South America, and Europe.  Several years ago, even as a Military Brat, it would have been incredibly difficult (and in many cases impossible) for me to sustain these relationships, but today I can and do.  Several of us do it daily.

But culture can also be damaging.  Take for instance cultural beauty standards, which often times demand that people of all sorts of cultures manipulate the natural form of their bodies in order to meet the criteria of beauty as defined by the culture.  In American and many Western cultures, there is an expectation that women be thin and men be buff.  There are all sorts of “medicines”, beauty products, protein supplementsand shakes, and more that can be used to reach that beauty ideal but can also be incredibly harmful to one’s health.  In East Asia, the desire to lighten one’s skin and undergo blepharoplasty, plastic surgery of the eye undertaken by many Asians to appear to have more “Caucasoid” eyes, have inherent risks to one’s health, including but not limited to dry eyes, protruding eyes, blindness, hypertension, increased blood sugar levels, and more.  The use of skin lightening creams is also a profuse problem among African Americans who feel that having lighter skin is more beautiful and provides them several social advantages in American society.  So in these and many other ways, culture can be very harmful.

Culture is a very complex entity that is difficult to pinpoint yet broad enough to understand, albeit not fully.  Culture is the tie that binds but is also responsible for the fragmentation of peoples and groups.  Culture is not as natural as it appears to be but is something that individuals are continually catching on to and understanding.  Finally, culture has allowed the human species to grow and expand exponentially but at some pretty great costs in many cases.  Culture is an intricate yet unique entity and one that all anthropologists dedicate their time and energy to understanding even though a full and complete understanding may never be reached.  But what would be the fun in completely understanding culture?  It is about the journey, not the destination, after all.  

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