Paper No.

: 03 Archaeological Anthropology
Module : 11 Neolithic Revolution

Development Team

Principal Investigator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor

Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi

Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh

Paper Coordinator
Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi

Dr. D. K. Bhattacharya, Retd. Professor, Department of

Content Writer
Anthropology, University of Delhi

Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor

Content Reviewer
Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Neolithic Revolution
 Description of Module

Subject Name Anthropology

Paper Name 03 Archaeological Anthropology

Module Name/Title Neolithic Revolution

Module Id 11

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Neolithic Revolution
 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

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Neolithic Revolution
 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
4

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Neolithic Revolution
 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
5

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Neolithic Revolution
 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

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Neolithic Revolution
 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
7

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Neolithic Revolution
 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,
8

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Neolithic Revolution
 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

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Neolithic Revolution
 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.

10

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Neolithic Revolution