itself was changing. Britain and Ireland had certainly become islands
by 5000 B.C. The Baltic was sometimes a salt sea, sometimes a large
fresh-water lake. Forests began to grow where the glaciers had been,
and in what had once been the cold tundra areas in front of the
glaciers. The great cold-weather animals--the mammoth and the wooly
rhinoceros--retreated northward and finally died out. It is probable
that the efficient hunting of the earlier people of 20,000 or 25,000
to about 12,000 years ago had helped this process along (see p. 86).
Europeans, especially those of the post-glacial period, had to keep
changing to keep up with the times.
The archeological materials for the time from 10,000 to 6000 B.C. seem
simpler than those of the previous five thousand years. The great cave
art of France and Spain had gone; so had the fine carving in bone and
antler. Smaller, speedier animals were moving into the new forests. New
ways of hunting them, or ways of getting other food, had to be found.
Hence, new tools and weapons were necessary. Some of the people who
moved into northern Germany were successful reindeer hunters. Then the
reindeer moved off to the north, and again new sources of food had to
be found.
THE READJUSTMENTS COMPLETED IN EUROPE
After a few thousand years, things began to look better. Or at least
we can say this: By about 6000 B.C. we again get hotter archeological
materials. The best of these come from the north European area:
Britain, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, north Germany, southern Norway and
Sweden. Much of this north European material comes from bogs and swamps
where it had become water-logged and has kept very well. Thus we have
much more complete _assemblages_[4] than for any time earlier.
[4] “Assemblage” is a useful word when there are different kinds of
archeological materials belonging together, from one area and of
one time. An assemblage is made up of a number of “industries”
(that is, all the tools in chipped stone, all the tools in
bone, all the tools in wood, the traces of houses, etc.) and
everything else that manages to survive, such as the art, the
burials, the bones of the animals used as food, and the traces
of plant foods; in fact, everything that has been left to us
and can be used to help reconstruct the lives of the people to
whom it once belonged. Our own present-day “assemblage” would be
the sum total of all the objects in our mail-order catalogues,
department stores and supply houses of every sort, our churches,
our art galleries and other buildings, together with our roads,
canals, dams, irrigation ditches, and any other traces we might
leave of ourselves, from graves to garbage dumps. Not everything
would last, so that an archeologist digging us up--say 2,000
years from now--would find only the most durable items in our
assemblage.
The best known of these assemblages is the _Maglemosian_, named after a
great Danish peat-swamp where much has been found.
[Illustration: SKETCH OF MAGLEMOSIAN ASSEMBLAGE
CHIPPED STONE
HEMP
GROUND STONE
BONE AND ANTLER
WOOD]
In the Maglemosian assemblage the flint industry was still very
important. Blade tools, tanged arrow points, and burins were still
made, but there were also axes for cutting the trees in the new
forests. Moreover, the tiny microlithic blades, in a variety of
geometric forms, are also found. Thus, a specialized tradition that
possibly began east of the Mediterranean had reached northern Europe.
There was also a ground stone industry; some axes and club-heads were
made by grinding and polishing rather than by chipping. The industries
in bone and antler show a great variety of tools: axes, fish-hooks,
fish spears, handles and hafts for other tools, harpoons, and clubs.
A remarkable industry in wood has been preserved. Paddles, sled
runners, handles for tools, and bark floats for fish-nets have been
found. There are even fish-nets made of plant fibers. Canoes of some
kind were no doubt made. Bone and antler tools were decorated with
simple patterns, and amber was collected. Wooden bows and arrows are
found.
It seems likely that the Maglemosian bog finds are remains of summer
camps, and that in winter the people moved to higher and drier regions.
Childe calls them the “Forest folk”; they probably lived much the
same sort of life as did our pre-agricultural Indians of the north
central states. They hunted small game or deer; they did a great deal
of fishing; they collected what plant food they could find. In fact,
their assemblage shows us again that remarkable ability of men to adapt
themselves to change. They had succeeded in domesticating the dog; he
was still a very wolf-like dog, but his long association with mankind
had now begun. Professor Coon believes that these people were direct
descendants of the men of the glacial age and that they had much the
same appearance. He believes that most of the Ice Age survivors still
extant are living today in the northwestern European area.
SOUTH AND CENTRAL EUROPE PERHAPS AS READJUSTED AS THE NORTH
There is always one trouble with things that come from areas where
preservation is exceptionally good: The very quantity of materials in
such an assemblage tends to make things from other areas look poor
and simple, although they may not have been so originally at all. The
assemblages of the people who lived to the south of the Maglemosian
area may also have been quite large and varied; but, unfortunately,
relatively little of the southern assemblages has lasted. The
water-logged sites of the Maglemosian area preserved a great deal
more. Hence the Maglemosian itself _looks_ quite advanced to us, when
we compare it with the few things that have happened to last in other
areas. If we could go back and wander over the Europe of eight thousand
years ago, we would probably find that the peoples of France, central
Europe, and south central Russia were just as advanced as those of the
north European-Baltic belt.
South of the north European belt the hunting-food-collecting peoples
were living on as best they could during this time. One interesting
group, which seems to have kept to the regions of sandy soil and scrub
forest, made great quantities of geometric microliths. These are the
materials called _Tardenoisian_. The materials of the “Forest folk” of
France and central Europe generally are called _Azilian_; Dr. Movius
believes the term might best be restricted to the area south of the
Loire River.
HOW MUCH REAL CHANGE WAS THERE?
You can see that no really _basic_ change in the way of life has yet
been described. Childe sees the problem that faced the Europeans of
10,000 to 3000 B.C. as a problem in readaptation to the post-glacial
forest environment. By 6000 B.C. some quite successful solutions of
the problem--like the Maglemosian--had been made. The upsets that came
with the melting of the last ice gradually brought about all sorts of
changes in the tools and food-getting habits, but the people themselves
were still just as much simple hunters, fishers, and food-collectors as
they had been in 25,000 B.C. It could be said that they changed just
enough so that they would not have to change. But there is a bit more
to it than this.
Professor Mathiassen of Copenhagen, who knows the archeological remains
of this time very well, poses a question. He speaks of the material
as being neither rich nor progressive, in fact “rather stagnant,” but
he goes on to add that the people had a certain “receptiveness” and
were able to adapt themselves quickly when the next change did come.
My own understanding of the situation is that the “Forest folk” made
nothing as spectacular as had the producers of the earlier Magdalenian
assemblage and the Franco-Cantabrian art. On the other hand, they
_seem_ to have been making many more different kinds of tools for many
more different kinds of tasks than had their Ice Age forerunners. I
emphasize “seem” because the preservation in the Maglemosian bogs
is very complete; certainly we cannot list anywhere near as many
different things for earlier times as we did for the Maglemosians
(p. 94). I believe this experimentation with all kinds of new tools
and gadgets, this intensification of adaptiveness (p. 91), this
“receptiveness,” even if it is still only pointed toward hunting,
fishing, and food-collecting, is an important thing.
Remember that the only marker we have handy for the _beginning_ of
this tendency toward “receptiveness” and experimentation is the
little microlithic blade tools of various geometric forms. These, we
saw, began before the last ice had melted away, and they lasted on
in use for a very long time. I wish there were a better marker than
the microliths but I do not know of one. Remember, too, that as yet
we can only use the microliths as a marker in Europe and about the
Mediterranean.
CHANGES IN OTHER AREAS?
All this last section was about Europe. How about the rest of the world
when the last glaciers were melting away?
We simply don’t know much about this particular time in other parts
of the world except in Europe, the Mediterranean basin and the Middle
East. People were certainly continuing to move into the New World by
way of Siberia and the Bering Strait about this time. But for the
greater part of Africa and Asia, we do not know exactly what was
happening. Some day, we shall no doubt find out; today we are without
clear information.
REAL CHANGE AND PRELUDE IN THE NEAR EAST
The appearance of the microliths and the developments made by the
“Forest folk” of northwestern Europe also mark an end. They show us
the terminal phase of the old food-collecting way of life. It grows
increasingly clear that at about the same time that the Maglemosian and
other “Forest folk” were adapting themselves to hunting, fishing, and
collecting in new ways to fit the post-glacial environment, something
completely new was being made ready in western Asia.
Unfortunately, we do not have as much understanding of the climate and
environment of the late Ice Age in western Asia as we have for most
of Europe. Probably the weather was never so violent or life quite
so rugged as it was in northern Europe. We know that the microliths
made their appearance in western Asia at least by 10,000 B.C. and
possibly earlier, marking the beginning of the terminal phase of
food-collecting. Then, gradually, we begin to see the build-up towards
the first _basic change_ in human life.
This change amounted to a revolution just as important as the
Industrial Revolution. In it, men first learned to domesticate
plants and animals. They began _producing_ their food instead of
simply gathering or collecting it. When their food-production
became reasonably effective, people could and did settle down in
village-farming communities. With the appearance of the little farming
villages, a new way of life was actually under way. Professor Childe
has good reason to speak of the “food-producing revolution,” for it was
indeed a revolution.
QUESTIONS ABOUT CAUSE
We do not yet know _how_ and _why_ this great revolution took place. We
are only just beginning to put the questions properly. I suspect the
answers will concern some delicate and subtle interplay between man and
nature. Clearly, both the level of culture and the natural condition of
the environment must have been ready for the great change, before the
change itself could come about.
It is going to take years of co-operative field work by both
archeologists and the natural scientists who are most helpful to them
before the _how_ and _why_ answers begin to appear. Anthropologically
trained archeologists are fascinated with the cultures of men in times
of great change. About ten or twelve thousand years ago, the general
level of culture in many parts of the world seems to have been ready
for change. In northwestern Europe, we saw that cultures “changed
just enough so that they would not have to change.” We linked this to
environmental changes with the coming of post-glacial times.
In western Asia, we archeologists can prove that the food-producing
revolution actually took place. We can see _the_ important consequence
of effective domestication of plants and animals in the appearance of
the settled village-farming community. And within the village-farming
community was the seed of civilization. The way in which effective
domestication of plants and animals came about, however, must also be
linked closely with the natural environment. Thus the archeologists
will not solve the _how_ and _why_ questions alone--they will need the
help of interested natural scientists in the field itself.
PRECONDITIONS FOR THE REVOLUTION
Especially at this point in our story, we must remember how culture and
environment go hand in hand. Neither plants nor animals domesticate
themselves; men domesticate them. Furthermore, men usually domesticate
only those plants and animals which are useful. There is a good
question here: What is cultural usefulness? But I shall side-step it to
save time. Men cannot domesticate plants and animals that do not exist
in the environment where the men live. Also, there are certainly some
animals and probably some plants that resist domestication, although
they might be useful.
This brings me back again to the point that _both_ the level of culture
and the natural condition of the environment--with the proper plants
and animals in it--must have been ready before domestication could
have happened. But this is precondition, not cause. Why did effective
food-production happen first in the Near East? Why did it happen
independently in the New World slightly later? Why also in the Far
East? Why did it happen at all? Why are all human beings not still
living as the Maglemosians did? These are the questions we still have
to face.
CULTURAL “RECEPTIVENESS” AND PROMISING ENVIRONMENTS
Until the archeologists and the natural scientists--botanists,
geologists, zoologists, and general ecologists--have spent many more
years on the problem, we shall not have full _how_ and _why_ answers. I
do think, however, that we are beginning to understand what to look for.
We shall have to learn much more of what makes the cultures of men
“receptive” and experimental. Did change in the environment alone
force it? Was it simply a case of Professor Toynbee’s “challenge and
response?” I cannot believe the answer is quite that simple. Were it
so simple, we should want to know why the change hadn’t come earlier,
along with earlier environmental changes. We shall not know the answer,
however, until we have excavated the traces of many more cultures of
the time in question. We shall doubtless also have to learn more about,
and think imaginatively about, the simpler cultures still left today.
The “mechanics” of culture in general will be bound to interest us.
It will also be necessary to learn much more of the environments of
10,000 to 12,000 years ago. In which regions of the world were the
natural conditions most promising? Did this promise include plants and
animals which could be domesticated, or did it only offer new ways of
food-collecting? There is much work to do on this problem, but we are
beginning to get some general hints.
Before I begin to detail the hints we now have from western Asia, I
want to do two things. First, I shall tell you of an old theory as to
how food-production might have appeared. Second, I will bother you with
some definitions which should help us in our thinking as the story goes
on.
AN OLD THEORY AS TO THE CAUSE OF THE REVOLUTION
The idea that change would result, if the balance between nature
and culture became upset, is of course not a new one. For at least
twenty-five years, there has been a general theory as to _how_ the
food-producing revolution happened. This theory depends directly on the
idea of natural change in the environment.
The five thousand years following about 10,000 B.C. must have been
very difficult ones, the theory begins. These were the years when
the most marked melting of the last glaciers was going on. While the
glaciers were in place, the climate to the south of them must have been
different from the climate in those areas today. You have no doubt read
that people once lived in regions now covered by the Sahara Desert.
This is true; just when is not entirely clear. The theory is that
during the time of the glaciers, there was a broad belt of rain winds
south of the glaciers. These rain winds would have kept north Africa,
the Nile Valley, and the Middle East green and fertile. But when the
glaciers melted back to the north, the belt of rain winds is supposed
to have moved north too. Then the people living south and east of the
Mediterranean would have found that their water supply was drying up,
that the animals they hunted were dying or moving away, and that the
plant foods they collected were dried up and scarce.
According to the theory, all this would have been true except in the
valleys of rivers and in oases in the growing deserts. Here, in the
only places where water was left, the men and animals and plants would
have clustered. They would have been forced to live close to one
another, in order to live at all. Presently the men would have seen
that some animals were more useful or made better food than others,
and so they would have begun to protect these animals from their
natural enemies. The men would also have been forced to try new plant
foods--foods which possibly had to be prepared before they could be
eaten. Thus, with trials and errors, but by being forced to live close
to plants and animals, men would have learned to domesticate them.
THE OLD THEORY TOO SIMPLE FOR THE FACTS
This theory was set up before we really knew anything in detail about
the later prehistory of the Near and Middle East. We now know that
the facts which have been found don’t fit the old theory at all well.
Also, I have yet to find an American meteorologist who feels that we
know enough about the changes in the weather pattern to say that it can
have been so simple and direct. And, of course, the glacial ice which
began melting after 12,000 years ago was merely the last sub-phase of
the last great glaciation. There had also been three earlier periods
of great alpine glaciers, and long periods of warm weather in between.
If the rain belt moved north as the glaciers melted for the last time,
it must have moved in the same direction in earlier times. Thus, the
forced neighborliness of men, plants, and animals in river valleys and
oases must also have happened earlier. Why didn’t domestication happen
earlier, then?
Furthermore, it does not seem to be in the oases and river valleys
that we have our first or only traces of either food-production
or the earliest farming villages. These traces are also in the
hill-flanks of the mountains of western Asia. Our earliest sites of the
village-farmers do not seem to indicate a greatly different climate
from that which the same region now shows. In fact, everything we now
know suggests that the old theory was just too simple an explanation to
have been the true one. The only reason I mention it--beyond correcting
the ideas you may get in the general texts--is that it illustrates the
kind of thinking we shall have to do, even if it is doubtless wrong in
detail.
We archeologists shall have to depend much more than we ever have on
the natural scientists who can really help us. I can tell you this from
experience. I had the great good fortune to have on my expedition staff
in Iraq in 1954-55, a geologist, a botanist, and a zoologist. Their
studies added whole new bands of color to my spectrum of thinking about
_how_ and _why_ the revolution took place and how the village-farming
community began. But it was only a beginning; as I said earlier, we are
just now learning to ask the proper questions.
ABOUT STAGES AND ERAS
Now come some definitions, so I may describe my material more easily.
Archeologists have always loved to make divisions and subdivisions
within the long range of materials which they have found. They often
disagree violently about which particular assemblage of material
goes into which subdivision, about what the subdivisions should be
named, about what the subdivisions really mean culturally. Some
archeologists, probably through habit, favor an old scheme of Grecized
names for the subdivisions: paleolithic, mesolithic, neolithic. I
refuse to use these words myself. They have meant too many different
things to too many different people and have tended to hide some pretty
fuzzy thinking. Probably you haven’t even noticed my own scheme of
subdivision up to now, but I’d better tell you in general what it is.
I think of the earliest great group of archeological materials, from
which we can deduce only a food-gathering way of culture, as the
_food-gathering stage_. I say “stage” rather than “age,” because it
is not quite over yet; there are still a few primitive people in
out-of-the-way parts of the world who remain in the _food-gathering
stage_. In fact, Professor Julian Steward would probably prefer to call
it a food-gathering _level_ of existence, rather than a stage. This
would be perfectly acceptable to me. I also tend to find myself using
_collecting_, rather than _gathering_, for the more recent aspects or
era of the stage, as the word “collecting” appears to have more sense
of purposefulness and specialization than does “gathering” (see p.
91).
Now, while I think we could make several possible subdivisions of the
food-gathering stage--I call my subdivisions of stages _eras_[5]--I
believe the only one which means much to us here is the last or
_terminal sub-era of food-collecting_ of the whole food-gathering
stage. The microliths seem to mark its approach in the northwestern
part of the Old World. It is really shown best in the Old World by
the materials of the “Forest folk,” the cultural adaptation to the
post-glacial environment in northwestern Europe. We talked about
the “Forest folk” at the beginning of this chapter, and I used the
Maglemosian assemblage of Denmark as an example.
[5] It is difficult to find words which have a sequence or gradation
of meaning with respect to both development and a range of time
in the past, or with a range of time from somewhere in the past
which is perhaps not yet ended. One standard Webster definition
of _stage_ is: “One of the steps into which the material
development of man ... is divided.” I cannot find any dictionary
definition that suggests which of the words, _stage_ or _era_,
has the meaning of a longer span of time. Therefore, I have
chosen to let my eras be shorter, and to subdivide my stages
into eras. Webster gives _era_ as: “A signal stage of history,
an epoch.” When I want to subdivide my eras, I find myself using
_sub-eras_. Thus I speak of the _eras_ within a _stage_ and of
the _sub-eras_ within an _era_; that is, I do so when I feel
that I really have to, and when the evidence is clear enough to
allow it.
The food-producing revolution ushers in the _food-producing stage_.
This stage began to be replaced by the _industrial stage_ only about
two hundred years ago. Now notice that my stage divisions are in terms
of technology and economics. We must think sharply to be sure that the
subdivisions of the stages, the eras, are in the same terms. This does
not mean that I think technology and economics are the only important
realms of culture. It is rather that for most of prehistoric time the
materials left to the archeologists tend to limit our deductions to
technology and economics.
I’m so soon out of my competence, as conventional ancient history
begins, that I shall only suggest the earlier eras of the
food-producing stage to you. This book is about prehistory, and I’m not
a universal historian.
THE TWO EARLIEST ERAS OF THE FOOD-PRODUCING STAGE