Mithen is a well respected archaeologist, and one who has a wide body of
scholarly work to his name. Nevertheless, his book,
After the Ice
, uses speculative
fictional narrative, rather than scientific language, to present Neolithic societies. I
have found that students often have a visceral reaction (both good and bad) to
this form of data presentation. Did you like this style? Why or why not? Does it
do an effective job of presenting data on preNeolithic and Neolithic societies?
Explain.
How has the process of plant and animal domestication impacted the
Anthropocene? Please think broadly and give at least three concrete examples.
In 1999, the geographer Jared Diamond famously and provocatively wrote that
the development of agriculture was "the worst mistake in the history of the
human race." First, why would he say that, and second, do you find his
statement plausible? Why or why not?
Domestication as a process is complicated. What are some questions you have
about domestication that were not answered in the lecture or readings?
1.) I definitely like the stye that Mithen uses, it reads much smoother than a scientific book, as well as
letting the reader feel like they’re within a fictional story, even with nonfictional historical and
archaeological values. The combination of being captivating and informative is very effective.
2.) It has allowed for more permanent settlement, due to the creation of a founded source of food and
supplies. A negative example that came with it would be the spread of diseases between humans and
animals that would have otherwise remained between animal species. Additionally, the domestication of
animals has made meat more readily available, which created a change in human diet and as such
human growth.
3.) Diamond dislikes the impacts brought on by agriculture: “With agriculture came the gross social and
sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence.” He believes that the diet of a
hunter and gatherer is higher in protein and nutrients than a modern-day individual splurging on grains
and processed, domesticated foods. While I find this argument plausible, I disagree in the bigger picture.
The change to domestication is largely what led to the ultimate expansion of the human species to the
size it is today, and without it we perhaps would not be the apex predators that we are.
4.) I guess a question would be is what I said at the end there accurate? Would we not have expanded to
our current population size? Would an economy never have flourished enough to drive capitalism or any
method of economics to a point where our society would come close to resembling our current one?
