Soci111 – Human SocietiesModule 10 – Horticultural Societies

François Nielsen

University of North CarolinaChapel Hill

Spring 2007

Outline

Main Themes

Emergence of Horticultural Societies

Metallurgy & Advanced Horticultural Societies

Characteristics of Horticultural Societies

Horticultural Expansions & World Languages

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)

Emergence of Horticulture in the New World

Main Themes

I causes of the first switch from hunting & gathering tohorticulture (plant cultivation) ca 8,000 BC

I causes of the invention of metallurgy as a consequenceof the shift to horticulture

I 5 distinctive characteristics of horticultural societies,their interrelationships, and origin in horticulturaltechnology

I effect of adoption of horticultural technology on vastpopulations expansions (demic expansions) causingintensive intersocietal selection, including

I Bantu expansionI Austronesian expansionI perhaps Indo-European expansion?

I emergence of horticulture in the New World as a test ofecological-evolutionary theory

Emergence of Horticultural SocietiesHorticultural Technology

I horticulture from Latinhortus = “garden”

I a.k.a. swidden orslash-and-burn farming

I = husbandry & plantcultivation with hoe &digging-stick (no plow)

I emerges ca 8,000 BC(10,000 BP)

Emergence of Horticultural SocietiesCauses of Emergence of Horticultural Societies

I horticultural societies emerge about 8,000 BC first inNear East (=“Middle East”)

I older view: humans chose to adopt a better subsistencetechnology

I modern view: humans were forced to switch tohorticulture, because

I depletion of big game animals caused by progress inhunting technology

I global warming (end of last ice age) making plantcultivation possible

Emergence of Horticultural SocietiesOne Clue to Causes of Emergence of Horticulture: Disappearance of NorthAmerican Mammals

I pattern ofdisappearance ofNorth Americanmammals

I between 14kyaand 6kya

I due to humanactivities?

Emergence of Horticultural SocietiesCauses of Shift from H&G to Horticulture

Emergence of Horticultural SocietiesIndependent Centers of Early Domestication of Plants & Animals

Emergence of Horticultural SocietiesThree Centers of Early Horticulture: Principal Domesticated Species

Emergence of Horticultural SocietiesEarly Horticultural Societies in Near East

Metallurgy & Advanced Horticultural SocietiesInvention of Metallurgy

Invention of metallurgy

I first copper, and later bronze

I marks transition from simple to advanced horticulturalsocieties

I ultimately caused by adoption of horticulture

I following long chain of causes and effects

I as direct consequence of use of kilns

Metallurgy & Advanced Horticultural SocietiesCauses of the Invention of Metallurgy

I more permanentsettlements

I → beginning ofpottery

I how to make aclay pot without awheel?

I just the way youthought!

I make a snake,etc. . .

Metallurgy & Advanced Horticultural SocietiesHow Invention of Metallurgy Was Ultimately Caused by Shift from H&G toHorticulture

Emergence of Horticultural SocietiesReview Questions

I Q – What are the causes of the emergence ofhorticultural societies? Is increasing human intelligenceone of them?

I Q – How reasonable is it to argue that the moresedentary lifestyle associated with horticulturaltechnology is an indirect cause of the invention ofmetallurgy?

Characteristics of Horticultural SocietiesFive Characteristics of Horticultural Societies

Horticultural technology primary cause of some of thecommon characteristics of horticultural societies. Theseinclude

I cultivation primarily a female responsibility

I high incidence of matrilineality

I high incidence of warfare

I high incidence of ancestor worship

I high incidence of slavery

These characteristics are causally interrelated (next slide)

Characteristics of Horticultural SocietiesHow Characteristics of Horticultural Societies Are Interrelated

Characteristics of Horticultural SocietiesCultivation by Women: Comparative Evidence

Cultivation is more often a female responsibility inhorticultural societies than in agrarian societies

Table: Division of Labor Between the Sexes by Type of Society

Type ofsociety:

Cultivationprimarilya femaleresponsi-bility

Bothsexesshareequally

Cultivationprimarilya male

responsi-bility

Total N ofsocieties

Horticultural 39 33 28 100 389Agrarian 8 33 59 100 100

Characteristics of Horticultural SocietiesMatrilineality: Comparative Evidence I

Table: Percentage of SocietiesMatrilineal, by Type of Society

Type ofsociety:

Matrilineal(%)

N

H&G 7 TBASimple Hort. 24 TBAAdvanced Hort. 12 TBAAgrarian 4 TBA

I matrilineality =tracing of descentthrough thematernal line (notthe same asmatriarchy)

I although generallyrare, matrilinealitymore commonamonghorticulturalsocieties

Characteristics of Horticultural SocietiesMatrilineality: Comparative Evidence II

Among simple horticultural societies likelihood ofmatrilineality declines as % subsistence from hunting &herding increases

Table: Matrilineality by % Subsistence from Hunting & Herding(Simple Horticultural Societies)

Subsistence fromhunting &herding (%)

Matrilineal (%) N societies

26 or more 14 2916 to 25 24 5415 or less 30 60

Characteristics of Horticultural SocietiesFrequency of Warfare: Comparative Evidence

Warfare is more frequent in horticultural than in h&gsocieties

Table: Incidence of Warfare by Type of Society

Type ofsociety:

Warfareperpetual

(%)

Warfarecommon

(%)

Warfarerare orabsent(%)

N ofsocieties

H & G 0 27 73 22Simplehorticul-tural

5 55 41 22

Advancedhorticul-tural

34 48 17 29

Characteristics of Horticultural SocietiesAncestor Worship: Comparative Evidence

Characteristics of Horticultural SocietiesSlavery: Comparative Evidence

Characteristics of Horticultural SocietiesReview Questions

I Q – What is the division of labor between the sexes withrespect to plant cultivation in horticultural societies?

I Q – Which of the following items of culture are morelikely to be present in a horticultural society than in ahunting & gathering society, or vice-versa?

I children trained to be independent and self-reliantI ancestor worshipI art and religionI warfareI ceremonial cannibalismI sharingI slaveryI private ownership of landI it is profitable to conquer other societiesI animismI games of strategy

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesWave of Advance Model: Population Density & Subsistence

Table: Median Population Density, byType of Society

Type ofsociety:

Personsper

squaremile

Nsocieties

H&G 0.6 27Simple Hort. 13.8 35Advanced Hort. 42.7 38Agrarian 100.0+ 27

I horticulturaltechnologypermits muchhigher populationdensity than h&g

I emergence ofhorticulture(farming) triggersa demic expansion

I horticulturaltechnologyspreads as wave ofadvance (nextslide)

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesWave of Advance Model (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza)

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesWave of Advance Model: Spread of Neolithic Horticulture in Europe I

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesWave of Advance Model: Spread of Neolithic Horticulture in Europe II

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesSpread of Farming & Formation of Language Families

I Exciting recent scientific development is hypothesis thatold demic (population) expansions due to adoption offarming have caused distribution of languages observedtoday; expansions can also be seen in distribution ofgenes

I Three well-studied instances

1. Bantu expansion in Africa2. Austronesian expansion in Pacific3. Indo-European expansions in Europe and Asia

(controversial)

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesBantu Expansion in Africa

I Bantu “homeland” near Cameroon-Nigeria border

I emergence of horticulture (& later iron metallurgy)triggers demic expansion

I from ca 3,000 BC to 500 AD

I reconstructed from genetic, linguistic, anthropological& archaeological clues

I origin of contemporary distribution of languages inAfrica

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesBantu Expansion in Africa: Distribution of Language Families

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesBantu Expansion in Africa: Ancient & Modern Distribution of San People

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesBantu Expansion in Africa: Major Movements

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesAustronesian Expansion in Pacific

I Austronesian-speaking people from South China coast &Taiwan

I expand 3,500 BC to 1,3000 AD

I east all the way to Easter Island

I west all the way to Madagascar near African coast

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesAustronesian Expansion in Pacific: Distribution of Austronesian Languages

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesAustronesian Expansion in Pacific: Paths of Expansion

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesIndo-European Expansions in Europe & Asia

I Indo-European family of languages expanded eitherI around 6,500 BC from homeland in Anatolia together

with horticultural technology (Neolithic)I OR around 3,500 BC from homeland between Black Sea

& Caspian Sea (in modern Ukraine) together withdomesticated horses, oxen-drawn carts & plow

I scholars disagree over which took place (but secondhypothesis favored)

I discovery of Indo-European family of languages andreconstruction of ancestral proro-Indoeuropean is amajor episode of intellectual history

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Indo-European vs. non-Indo-European Words

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Conjugations of “to bear” Compared

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Sir William Jones (1746–1794)

I born Westminster, fathermathematician

I linguistic prodigy learnsGreek, Latin, Persian,Arabic, Chinese early

I 1764 graduates U.College, Oxford

I tutors Earl Spencer(ancestor of PrincessDiana)

I reputed orientalist by 22

I 1783 becomes ChiefJustice of India

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesEnigma of Indo-European Origins

I in 1786 Sir William Jones observes similarities betweenGreek, Latin, Sanskrit, “Gothick” (Germanic) and Celtic

I in both individual words & syntax

I postulates common origin for these languages spokenover vast area of Europe & Asia

I this is called the Indo-European hypothesis

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Sir William Jones’s Indo-European Hypothesis (1786)

“The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of awonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, morecopious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined thaneither, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both inthe roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than couldpossibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed,that no philologer could examine them all three, withoutbelieving them to have sprung from some common source,which, perhaps, no longer exists.”

I common source later termed proto-Indo-European

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Languages of Europe & Western Asia Around 1492

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)The Indo-European Family of Languages

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Hypothetical Spread from PIE Homeland in Ponto-Caspian Steppe

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Spread of PIE owis

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Spread of PIE perd

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Reconstruction of PIE

I linguists realize correspondences among IE languagesare regular

I suggesting systematic sound changes from ancestral todaughter languages

I allowing reconstruction of ancestral language, termedproto-Indo-European

I over next 200 years historical linguists (mostly Danish,German, and French) use comparative method toanalyze correspondences among IE languages

I and reconstruct original sounds of PIE

I by 1870 main outline of reconstruction in place

I reconstruction of PIE is triumph of 19th c linguistics

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Reconstruction of PIE – Comparative Method (Handout from Craig Melchert)

Introduction to LanguageHandout 6

The Comparative Method: “Grimm’s Law” and “Verner’s Law”

Sample Data:

Sanskrit Greek Latin Gothic Correspondences

pitāÂ patēÂr pater fadar ‘father’ p=p=p=f; t=t=t=dtráyas treîs trēs þreis ‘three’ t=t=t= s‰atám (he)katón centum hund ‘hundred’ s‰=k=k=h; t=t=t=d

kannábis ‘hemp’ k= h; b= pdás‰a déka decem taihun ‘ten’ d=d=d=t; s‰=k=k=hyugám zugón iugum juk ‘yoke’ g=g=g=kbhrāÂtā phrāÂtēr frater brôþar ‘brother’ bh=ph=f=b; t=t=t= dhā- -thē- -dere ‘put, do’ dh=th=d=dstighnóti steíkhō steigan ‘go (up)’ gh=kh= g

Proto-Indo-European Stops:

*p *t *k*b *d *g*bh *dh *gh

“Grimm’s Law”:

PIE voiceless stops > Germanic voiceless fricatives: (p, t, k > f,  , h).PIE voiced stops > Germanic voiceless stops: (b, d, g, > p, t, k).PIE “voiced aspirated” stops > Germanic voiced stops: (bh, dh, gh > b, d, g).

Exception: PIE voiceless stops remain voiceless stops after another consonant (e.g. sp, st, sk > sp,st, sk).

“Verner’s Law”:

After an unaccented vowel, Germanic voiceless fricatives became voiced stops, then Germanicfixed accent on the first syllable: *fa ár > *fadár > fádar. This includes *s already inheritedfrom PIE: *woséyo- ‘to put on’ > Gmc. *wasíya > *wazíya- > OldEnglish werian ‘to wear’.

Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Reconstructed PIE Fable

Horticultural Expansions & World LanguagesEnigma of Indo-European Origins: Anatolian vs. Kurgan Hypotheses

I Anatolian Hypothesis (Colin Renfrew in Archaeology &Language):

I PIE homeland in AnatoliaI IE languages expanded with Neolithic horticulture

starting ca 6,000 BCI plausible because other horticultural expansions well

documentedI but much too early given IE knew the wheel &

domesticated horses (from reconstructed lexicon)

I Kurgan hypothesis (Marija Gimbutas)I mainstream hypothesisI PIE homeland in Pontic-Caspian steppe (Ukraine)I expansion ca 3,500 BCI helped by horses & wagons & plow

Emergence of Horticulture in the New WorldDemic Expansions Following Emergence of Horticulture in the New World

Emergence of Horticulture in the New WorldEmergence of Horticulture in the New World as a Natural Experiment

I first human settlements in New World 13ky BP (perhapsas early as 50kya)

I through Beringia, land bridge between Siberia & Alaska

I after last glaciation land bridge submerged

I → New World cut off from the Old World

I “natural experiment”: horticulture cannot have diffusedfrom Old World

I independent emergence of horticulture in New Worldsuggests

I similar environmental circumstances + similartechnologies→ similar outcomes

Horticultural SocietiesReview Questions

I Q – According to Colin Renfrew, what mechanism isultimately responsible for the spread of Indo-Europeanlanguages in Europe?

I Q – What does the independent emergence ofhorticulture in the New World suggest forecological-evolutionary theory?