Upheavals in the Third Millenium BCE

[Beagle]

probably denial I imagine.

That's my view as well.

[Digit]

That sudden burst Min annoys me. We had a TV programme about here sometime back under heading 'the day we learned to think'.
An example of what was supposed to have happened was the sudden flowering of art, with the Franco Spanish cave paintings as an example.
Anybody who thinks that those cave paintings, so perfectly rendered in colour, form, and perspective occurred over night is a moron!
Nobody paints any subject that well without many years of of training and practice, somewhere, on skin, bark, sand, or whatever, are the practice runs. To me, whatever the function of those paintings was, it seems to me that only those who had met some agreed standard was allowed to use the caves as a canvas.
They are art rote large, not graffitti. There had to be a tradition going back some way to achieve that standard.

[Charlie Hatchett]

The Club says "no," but......

A vastly oversimplified view of linear development, as espoused by orthodox history, is that modern man emerged around 100,000 years ago, gradually spread all over the planet, and basically did not develop at all until there was a sudden "intellectual burst" which led to agriculture and subsequent civilization as a result. This burst is anywhere from 5-8,000 bc depending on who you ask.

That would be in the pocket, give or take any 14C calibration issues.

[Minimalist]

I agree. I do accept that the biggest change in human history was the move from hunter/gatherer to agriculture but it seems unlikely that this only happened once.

Climate change seems to be the driving force behind those decisions not a sudden burst of intellectualism.

[Minimalist]

Hancock cites Wendorff and Schild's "Prehistory of the Nile Valley" for farming implements found in the 13,000 - 11,000 bc time period. They have made discoveries in the Sahara, too. It seems to be an inviting area of exploration.

[Digit]

Depends what they mean by implements Min. The easiest implement to make and use is a simple dibber, still in use today as well.

[Beagle]

it seems unlikely that this only happened once.

There was a "permanent" settlement around Romania about 30,000 yrs. ago. I imagine that settlements like that are nearly impossible during an ice age glaciation though.

[Minimalist]

Once again, thanks to Monk for finding an online version of FOTG, we have this from page 412.

There is something mysterious about Egypt’s so-called ‘palaeolithic agricultural revolution’. Here, quoted from the standard texts (Hoffman’s Egypt before The Pharaohs and Wendorff and Schild’s Prehistory of the Nile Valley) are some key facts from the little that is known about this great leap forward that occurred so inexplicably towards the end of the last Ice Age:

1 - ‘Shortly after 13,000 BC, grinding stones and sickle blades with a glossy sheen on their bits (the result of silica from cut stems adhering to a sickle’s cutting edge) appear in late Palaeolithic tool kits ... It is clear that the grinding stones were used in preparing plant food.’6

2 - At many riverside sites, at exactly this time, fish stopped being a significant food source and became a negligible one, as evidenced by the absence of fish remains:

‘The decline in fishing as a source of food is related to the appearance of a new food resource represented by ground grain. The associated pollen strongly suggests that this grain was barley, and significantly, this large grass-pollen, tentatively identified as barley, makes a sudden appearance in the pollen profile just before the time when the first settlements were established in this area ...’7

3 - ‘As apparently spectacular as the rise of protoagriculture in the late Palaeolithic Nile Valley was its precipitous decline. No one knows exactly why, but after about 10,500 BC the early sickle blades and grinding disappear to be replaced throughout Egypt by Epipalaeolithic hunting, fishing and gathering peoples who use stone tools.’8

[Digit]

Recent evidence in the Uk is that animal husbandry came first here followed by crop growing and entirely independently of outside sources.
As an engineer I have long understood that 2 engineers faced with similar problems are likely to arrive at similar solutions.
Early man was probably in a similar position.

[Forum Monk]

I think early populations would have been very reluctant to scatter to far afield when it seems there were clear avantages to staying near others for the purpose of provision and protection. Of course I don't mean cities but I mean people living near each other as we see in rural communities today. Room to spread out and hunt without stepping on each others toes but close enough to help out if a pack of wolves came in.

[Minimalist]

Now that Arch is gone I can safely mention Finkelstein without provoking a biblical rant.

He noted that agriculture and pastoralism had existed side by side in the Middle East in a symbiotic relationship. The farmers produced grain and traded with the herders for meat and hides. As I recall, and I could go look it up, the main distinction tended to be the suitability of the land for agriculture. In the M/E, marginal land was used for grazing herds while the more arable and watered land had to be used for farming. Now, to build on what you said, Finkelstein notes that this same pattern rose and fell three times during the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age so you do see the idea of similar problems generating similar solutions.

[Digit]

The way it seems to have worked here Min at one site is that crops were intially grown to keep the livestock alive. The bones showed that sheep were the most common animal followed later by cattle.

[Minimalist]

I imagine that England always tended to get a lot more rainfall than the M/E so comparisons between the two need to be mindful of that. You can domesticate animals in all sorts of weather but farming requires a stable climate.

[Digit]

Quite Mine. That was one of the points brought forward in support of farming starting here without outside help.
The likely entry into the UK from Europe was from the east rather than the south, this would have put people very soon onto the Chalk hills, which are known to be the area of earliest and densist settlements.
Below the Chalk hills the land is frequently damp clay and was very heavily wooded and all the early trackways avoided the valleys and followed the hills.
The down side would have been the lack of surface water, most vanishing below ground very quickly.
One site near me apparently involved a hike from a supply of water, up hill, for half a mile. Water must have been a precious commodity under those conditions, but the Chalk hills are very good animal country though very poor for crop growing as the soil, in many cases, is only a couple of inches deep.

[Forum Monk]

Animal husbandry also requires a larger area to support the herd. Animals reproduce fairly rapidly and basically eat continuously.