11 Neolithic Revolution

D. K. Bhattacharya

Table of contents:

1. Introduction

2. Changes during Neolithic Revolution

2.1 Technology

2.2 Social structure

2.3 Ideology

3.  Features of Neolithic Revolution

3.1 Celts

3.2 Pottery

3.3 Habitation

Learning Outcomes

• To know and understand the Neolithic Revolution
• To know the changes that took place during this time
• To know the features of Neolithic Revolution
• To develop an in depth knowledge of the topic

1.    Introduction

It is interesting to observe that the term Neolithic, unlike the preceding terms viz., Palaeolithic, Mesolithic etc., is not referred to as merely a chrono-cultural category progressing under the forces of evolution. It is taken as a revolution and not merely an evolution. The possible combination of forces which give rise to the birth of full time dependency on farming, as such, forms an important area of study. Further it is far more important to investigate the manner in which diverse socio-cultural rearrangements occur as a result of undertaking this economy.

One of the most widely current views about the emergence of farming has been an acute stress of subsistence because of the twin causes of population increase on the one hand (Malthus, 1895) and climate shift (Binford, 1968) on the other. Boserup‟s (1965) thesis purports that when a population grows more people per land unit are faced with the necessity of being provided with more food. This has to be done by intensifying their relationship with land and also adequately changing their technology. In addition to climate change and population increase weakening of social control is cited as the third factor by Benett (1968) and Amartya Sen (1981) which causes subsistence stress within a society. Which of the above factors results into what kind of resource retrieval strategies remain largely dependent on the character of the biodiversity available. The first ever thrust of hunger in early Holocene was met by rapidly shifting the subsistence base to r-selected species (i.e.,species with short maturation period- both in the animal as well as plant world) from the earlier (Upper Pleistocene) adaptation of k-selected species (species with long maturation period). Probably the changed climate also heralded a proliferation of hundreds of graminae (grass species) all over the middle latitudes and banks of newly formed lakes and bogs. These tempted a large proportion of our ancestors to adapt to the wild growth of these grass seeds. It is important to mention here that rainforests which had shrunk to almost 15º latitude on both sides of the equator, provided no such opportunity. Obviously leaf, roots, tubers and nuts in addition to the k-selected species continued to be the subsistence base for the populations inhabiting these regions. There are, however, many gaps within these rainforests cover where a different form of adaptation can originate. That is, one cannot have a blanket of latitude limits to generalize cultural adaptation. In fact mini eco-niches seem to have played a far more crucial role in developing cultural changes.

Generally speaking adaptation to few species of the grass family such as wheat, barley, rice and millets started well within Mesolithic period in the mid-latitudes (say, between 35º and 15º). Beidho in Jordan and the adjoining Natufians are probably the earliest evidence of such man to wild seed relationship known from these latitudes. But these variety of adaptation required animal source of protein as well. Consequently by the sixth millennium B.C. man was totally geared to exploiting only r-selected species in both the floral and faunal components of the biomass. For the west Asian sites collection of pistachio nuts or hunting of gazelle and wild ass are examples of such hunting-gathering economy. The archaeological evidences available from these sites also help in answering the question- Did sedentism precede agriculture or is it the other way round? Again, going by the evidences of excavated sites from west Asia it would appear that sedentism occurs at least 1000 years earlier, if not more, before domesticated seeds are identified. Thus, one can see that a simple choice made by man in early Holocene had an enormous effect on human destiny. Since wild wheat and barley could be obtained only at specific localities (like the slopes of Zagros mountains in present day Iraq), man had to, by necessity, become semi-sedentary. It is argued that this resulted in the rise of fat content in human body. Fat content in the body below a critical level inhibits ovulation, and this could keep an average birth spacing of 3 to 4 years for active hunters. Taking to sedentism, as such, is believed to have released this barrier and consequently human population started growing exponentially within a short time. The nature of the resource being geo-specific, these hunter-gatherers could not undergo fission-which must have been an effective population management technique in the preceding period. The combined effect of these two contradictory factors finally led man to carry the wild seeds and plant them along alluvial stretches, bogs, and lakes. Thus, man enters into productive economy, without realising what such an economy entails in the long run.

2.   Changes during Neolithic Revolution

The new economy requires a series of substantial changes in technology, social structure and ideology. These changes create such a degree of change in the society that one feels that the word revolution alone can adequately describe it. The changes may be briefly described as follows:

2.1 Technology: Clearing forest in order to allow sun to reach the farming field was by no means a simple task. Specially rubbed and ground homogeneous rock was chosen to create efficient axes. Possibly clearing by fire was also used to clear bushes and undergrowth. Heavy ring-stones were created to be used as thrasher. Logging is essentially a labour intensive activity and harnessing labour always brings about the cardinal issue of redistribution of harvest in the manner of wages.

Production economy brings about a new challenge. Our ancestors were never confronted with the problem of surplus and their storage in the preceding economy. This new problem was solved by creating adequate technique and expertise of pottery making.

2.2 Social structure: Labour management can be done by many methods. For instance people from simple societies practising Mesolithic economy in the neighbourhood can be lured into a symbiotic relationship. Alternately these people could be forced to contribute their labour, but this requires a degree of militarisation which is not evidenced till early metal age (e.g. in Sumeria). If marriage is established as an institution supported by whole range of sanctions and regulatory mechanisms this can enable one to draw labour on the basis of obligatory kinship loyalties. Thus, besides regulating mate selection marriage starts functioning also as the assured source of labour management.

2.3 Ideology: Agriculture is based on a limited land space chosen for farming. This contrasts the psychic stand of accepting a limitless ecology of both forest and waterscape as subsistence base in the preceding cultural period. Early farming was not only rain dependent but also wide open to insects and parasites. Consequently a permanent security of supply was not always predictable. This led to complex rituals and allied activities to combat unpredictability. It is believed that ancestor worship might have emerged at this stage. It is also through this link and allied rituals that inheritance rights have to be established. Inheritance becomes a central concern in agriculture because the subsistence base of a homestead is limited in this economy.

A community which is not capable of creating a regulatory mechanism for these diverse factors may not be able to sustain agriculture even if it has been able to domesticate wild seeds. In fact the manner in which these varieties of factors combine themselves can create different shades of societies. Gradually a peasant group emerges with the ability to possess a surplus which constructs power and this in turn creates hierarchical rights to resources. The call for intensification of agriculture occurs only when a political authority rises from within the system and mobilises productivity above the culturally determined cut-off point. Role of farming in giving rise to a proper village culture has to be, therefore, understood more in terms of the rise of social institutions which went hand in hand with demographic strength. It is, consequently, understood that areas where demography did not show much change because of high rate of child mortality in endemic parasitic zones farming remained in a very rudimentary stage. Harris (1972) has also argued that, “On ecological grounds, therefore, we can postulate that a long initial phase of cultivation by ecosystem manipulation preceded the emergence of agriculture in the strict sense of the word.” (page 183)

3.   Features of Neolithic Revolution

It will be worth our while to examine the available archaeological evidences of Neolithic period in the backdrop of the issues delineated above. The cultural attributes can be reduced into the following discriminating antiquities: a) Celts, b) Potsherds and c) Habitation structure.

3.1 Celts: The earliest farmers had to cut the virgin forest to clear a patch for tilling. It is believed that the Neolithic celt was evolved to meet this end. A hard and compact rock is selected and flaked into an axe or adze. Then the sharp edges caused by the intersection of flake scars are knocked off in the manner of pecking. Finally the tool is rubbed on a hard rock with sand and water thrown in. This results into a smooth metal like sharp border. The final step is referred to as „grinding and polishing‟. Axe, adze, wedges and ring-stones are some of the interesting tool types of this family.

Of these the type called ring- stone is not a cutting implement. It is a stone rubbed flat and circular in shape and then an hour-glass like hole is driven in the centre by drilling. It is believed that these were hafted on thick wooden staffs and used as mace head for separating shaff from grain. In some parts of India these are so small in size that it is believed that these may have been used as net sinkers.

3.2 Pottery: If cultivation is to be accepted as a gainful economy, it requires storing of the harvest for regularity and security of supply. It is argued that during earlier economy man had never faced the problem of storing. Some excavations have shown that for temporary storing in late Palaeolithic period man used to dig a hole in the ground. It is possible that the first farmer tried the same trick but had discovered that his entire surplus has become plants within 24 hours. This led him to decide that the hole under the ground can be brought above the ground and this led to the discovery of pottery.

Initially these were created by moulding with hand and then fired superficially. Thus, handmade and ill fired potteries are taken as early Neolithic ceramic attribute. Such pots do not have uniform thickness and show a blotchy grey appearance.

3.3 Habitation: Agriculture ties down man because he has to wait for more than 3 months for the plants to grow and seeds to ripen. Permanent habitation structure, therefore, is also linked with the economy chosen. It is important to note that man is known to have constructed habitation structures of some sort as early as 400,000 years ago at Terra Amata in France and also as early as 9000 B.C. at Sarai-Nahar-Rai in Allahabad. Besides these rare evidences the economy chosen by man during Palaeolithic and Mesolithic period did not require him to stay put at one place. During early farming stage he had no alternative but to construct a dwelling place. Most of these dwelling structures were of stone and mud bricks (sun dried bricks) in areas of less rainfall. In India almost all evidences of habitation are wattle-and-daub structure. The latter is a technique in which dried branches of trees and bushes are used to form a screen. Subsequently wet mud is plastered over this screen from both the surfaces.

The evidence of early Neolithic sites from both the western and eastern border of India show emergence of domestication of seed from as early as 8000 to 6000 B.C. The western border is formed by the largest district of Pakistan called Baluchistan and parts of eastern Afghanistan. Kili Ghul Mohammad, Damsadaf and Mehergarh are some of these early Neolithic evidences known from the western border. In the eastern border we get equally old settlement sites from northern Thailand. These are Ban Chiang, Ban Kao and Non Nok Tha. Within India, however, Neolithic do not have a consistent date of emergence, neither do these evidence compare at all. Mehergarh shows rectangular habitation structure of mud bricks from as early as 5,100 B.C. Neither Neolithic celts nor pottery are found from the earliest levels of this site. In the eastern group of sites a large variety of beans have been domesticated but there is no elaborate habitation structure like Mehergarh is evidenced here.

Burzahom: Not very far from Srinagar on the second terrace of Jhelum more than two sites of this cluster are identified. These are Burzahom, Martand and Gufkral. The oldest date of these occupations is estimated as 3,930 ± 120 B.P. These sites represent pits dug nearly 4ft. below ground for dwelling. A large variety of celts and handmade ill fired pottery constitutes the cultural material. Microliths are conspicuous by their absence. Trepnation in some of the skulls indicate the possibility of the knowledge and/or practice of primitive surgery. These people buried their dead in a variety of methods. Some are buried in crouched position, some are in extended position and there are yet some which represent secondary internment. Finally in many cases either a full wild dog or selected bones of dogs are found buried with the human skeletons. Scholars believe that this practise shows a similarity with evidences known from south China.

If one examines evidences of Neolithic sites from other parts of India one is really surprised by the total contrast that the rest of India offers. We may, as such, briefly look into some of the important excavated sites to illustrate this point.

Chirand: It is an early historic mound in district Saran. Three phases are identified, of these the earliest phase has a radio-carbon date of 1,755 B.C. This is probably one of the youngest date of early farming known from the Gangetic basin. Although very few celts are known from this excavation, both bone and antler tools are found in overwhelming variety. This includes harpoons, eyed needles, pierced batons, fishing hooks etc. Microliths are also known in lesser amount. Varieties of seeds are domesticated. Bones of wild animals also indicate that they were avid hunters.

Koldihawa: South of Allahabad in the neighbourhood of Mahagara, Dam Dama cluster occurs this Chalcolithic mound which had yielded a Neolithic layer dated to almost 5,440 B.C. This site drew a great deal of attention primarily because domesticated rice in pure Neolithic group has so far not been recorded from many middle Ganga sites. Microlithic blades and ground stone axes form the main tool kit besides some bone tools. The potsherds are crude handmade, carry cord and mat impression, and are ill fired.

Chopani Mando: This site is also close to Allahabad and this shows a continuous occupation from Epi-Palaeolithic Early Mesolithic to advanced Mesolithic to Proto-Neolithic Period III records a variety of ground stone tools, hammer stones, anvils, querns, mullers and ring stones. Few potsherds of thick fabric and handmade variety accompany these.

Mahagara: It is a single cultural site situated on the right bank of river Belan. 2.6 feet occupational debris has been excavated and six cultural phases have been identified. A series of successive floors, post holes and pits occur within this deposit. Neolithic celts, microlithic blades, pottery, querns, mullers, sling balls, arrow heads, terracotta beads and numerous animal bones constitute the inventory. Ceramics are cord impressed, rusticated and burnished black or red. Two TL dates are available for this layer. These are 2,265 B.C. and 1,616 B.C. Besides these middle Ganga represents some more sites like Oriup, Sonepur, Chechar Kutulpur and Barudih.

Lahuradewa: An early lake site settlement in the village named Lahuradewa near Gorakhpur was excavated in 2005-2006. The early farming phase with crude handmade pottery and domesticated rice (Oryza sativa) is dated 6,290 ± 160 B.P. It is quite likely that the wild species of rice available in the Terai region was first domesticated here and then diffused to Koldihawa and also further west to Harappan sites.

It would appear from the above that the middle Ganga region shows a Neolithic emergence which is neither consistent in their date as also in the cultural material. Going further east we find few such evidences as Kuchai in Odisha and Daojali Hading in North Cachar Hills. Except some cord impressed, handmade, ill fired pottery these sites do not throw much light on the nature of Neolithic in eastern India. The celts in these eastern Neolithic sites are shouldered. Going by the evidences of Early Village Farming sites of lower Ganga region it appears that farming does not occur till early 2,500 B.C. Unfortunately these being very close to metal age already show evidences of beads, bangles and wheel made pottery. Most of the Neolithic evidences from the rest of India are known from the region lying south of Narmada. It is also important to remember that most of Deccan India did not experience the early Holocene climate change as strongly as rest of India did. Consequently farming emerges quite late in this region. Again because of its late appearance it does not show any sharp boundary with metal age. Consequently Deccan Neolithic is also referred to as Neo-Chalcolithic. The sites indicating these early settlers are the so-called ash-mounds discovered from Andhra-Karnataka region. The character of these areas of settlement, however, is entirely different from those observed in the north and north-west. Such excavated sites as Utnur, Kupgal, Kodakal and Pallavoy show distinct evidence of a strong pastoral base in their economy and society.

The ecology within which these people sought their adaptation was not the least conducive to the development of large scale agricultural settlements. Even today these regions of Karnataka receive less than 25” rainfall in a year. The tropical monsoon exhausts itself either on the western or eastern ranges (depending on the time of the year) and therefore an arid area develops around the region which is equidistant from both the coasts. These isolated groups must have had relationship with each other based on either marriage or economic exchange. Cultivation of seed crops is recorded only around 2,000 to 1,600 B.C. and here too such sturdy lentil crops were selected which require small patches of land only. Ragi and Hulgi are the millets which are found commonly in them. Apparently this adaptation brought virtually no change in the demographic picture; at least not strong enough to call for intensification of economy.

Neolithic in Deccan India, therefore, seem to be more strongly rooted to pastoral economy. On the hilly terrain sites like Tekkalkota, Elchuru and Peddamudiyam show small round habitation structures with profusion of stone axes, mullers, ringstones and bolas. Whether it is the ash-mound sites or the scattered hill dwellers infusion of cultural material from metal age is evidenced almost everywhere. It will naturally become evident that Neolithic India develops with completely new cultural features at different sites. Further, the date of their emergence can vary from as much as 6,000 BC in some specific regions to as young a date as 1,600 BC in other regions.

Finally it will appear that some break away groups from these south of Krishna river moved to the north and consolidated with the power of higher demography into such settlements as Navdatoli, Daimabad and Inamgaon in Maharashtra. To the west another group consolidated into such sites as Kayatha, Chandoli and other Malwa and Jorwe groups.

References

• Bennet, M.K. 1968. Famine. In International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 5. New York. MacMillan and Free Press. pp. 332- 336.
• Bhattacharya, D.K. 2014. An Outline of Indian Prehistory. Delhi, Palaka Prakashan.
• Binford, L.R. 1968. Post-Pleistocene Adaptation. In New Perspectives in Archaeoplogy. Eds. S.R. Binford and L.R. Binford. Chicago, Aldine. pp. 313- 341.
• Boserup, Esther. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. Chicago.
• Harris, D.R. 1973. The Prehistory of Tropical Agriculture: An ethno- ecological model. In Explanation of Culture Change: Model in Prehistory. Ed. Collin Renfrew. London, Duckworth. pp. 391- 418.
• Malthus, Thomas, R. 1895. An Essay on Principle of Population. London, MacMillan Co.
• Sen, Amartya. 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford, Oxford University Press.