Turning Back the Timeline: Human Growth Boom Started Before Agriculture

Picture: Margaret A. McIntyre (PD)

Researchers who dare to propose that the development of human civilization started well before the established timeline of approximately 4,000 BC are used to the scorn of mainstream academics. However, as historical anomalies too big to ignore or cover up continue to surface some academics are learning that they don’t like the taste of their own medicine.

Mainstream academia teaches that proper civilizations and its associated sciences, like architecture, began with the birth of agriculture. Crops offered a sustainable source of food, hence ending the need to wander in search for sustenance. Population growth followed, and along with it specialized social strata and trades: artisans, farmers, soldiers and priests. Walls, temples and towers grew to dominate the landscape. Or at least, that’s what generations of students have been taught.

The so-called “Neolithic Revolution” – one part of which was the birth of agriculture – began sometime between 10 and 5,000 years ago. Population growth and subsequent global colonization was thought to have followed. However, a team of researchers from China’s Fudan University have concluded that the great human population boom, and with it the colonization of Asia, Europe and beyond, began well before the birth of agriculture; perhaps 5,000 years earlier.

Could what we deem “civilization” started thousands of years earlier than we are taught to believe? Historical anomalies like Gobekli Tepe challenge the established timeline, leaving some scientists delighted and others feeling threatened. thousands of years before the Neolithic Revolution and the birth of Sumer, Gobekli Tepe was supposedly built by pre-literate, wandering hunter gatherers without access to the tools and complex maths that would aid their descendents to build equally (and sometimes even less) complex structures of their own. It seems unlikely, at least to this writer. Even more controversial is the fact that later additions to Gobekli Tepe were less sophisticated than the original structure, suggesting a regression over time that could pose additional – perhaps uncomfortable to some – challenges to the way we view human history.

Ideally, science should be open-minded to possibility, welcoming challenges to theories as opportunities to add to the corpus of human knowledge. Practically, science isn’t pure: Egos, tenures and research grants hang in the balance, and controversy of any sort can lead to the derision of peers and loss of livelihood. The days of the “gentleman scientist” are over, and the pressures of capitalism exert more influence on the decisions of researchers than the pursuit of pure knowledge ever did.

Interested in alternative archaeology? Check these out:

Underground! The Disinformation Guide to Ancient Civilizations, Astonishing Archaeology and Hidden History, edited by Preston Peet

The Egypt Code, Robert Bauval

 

, , , , ,

  • eheh

    Rice Noodles

  • eheh

    Rice Noodles

    • MoralDrift

      are funky?

    • MoralDrift

      are funky?

  • Rex Vestri

    I’m not saying, I’m just saying…

  • liquidself

    From the linked article: “The increase in population size was probably one of the driving forces that led to the introduction of agriculture, turning it from a supplementary food source to the primary one.” This! Makes so much sense. So we have isolated agricultural activities and strategies being implemented in various places, with varying levels of success; which then bootstrap populations to where agriculture had to be systemetized as the only really viable support. From this perspective agriculture is the true progenitor of a natural philosophy (later science). Is it really only 4000 B.C. that is officially accepted? That seems rather narrow even for a dogmatic mainstream academia. Seems that the timing of the development of a written language is very important here as well – maybe earlier “civilizations” had not perfected this aspect.

  • liquidself

    From the linked article: “The increase in population size was probably one of the driving forces that led to the introduction of agriculture, turning it from a supplementary food source to the primary one.” This! Makes so much sense. So we have isolated agricultural activities and strategies being implemented in various places, with varying levels of success; which then bootstrap populations to where agriculture had to be systemetized as the only really viable support. From this perspective agriculture is the true progenitor of a natural philosophy (later science). Is it really only 4000 B.C. that is officially accepted? That seems rather narrow even for a dogmatic mainstream academia. Seems that the timing of the development of a written language is very important here as well – maybe earlier “civilizations” had not perfected this aspect.

  • emperorreagan

    The notion of a gentleman scientist is a pleasant myth.

  • emperorreagan

    The notion of a gentleman scientist is a pleasant myth.

    • Anarchy Pony

      Feynman Libel!

  • alizardx

    I’ve seen discussion in credible science-oriented publications of cities of > 10K population that existed over 10k years ago.

  • alizardx

    I’ve seen discussion in credible science-oriented publications of cities of > 10K population that existed over 10k years ago.

  • BuzzCoastin

    the conventional narrative is likely wrong
    but getting it right is of absolutely no consequence for today
    however, after a million years of human existence
    it would be sad to think that this time period is a peak in human evolution

  • BuzzCoastin

    the conventional narrative is likely wrong
    but getting it right is of absolutely no consequence for today
    however, after a million years of human existence
    it would be sad to think that this time period is a peak in human evolution

    • Anarchy Pony

      Like Derrick Jensen likes to say, all of evolution did not happen so we could watch television.

  • Anomaly_of_Anomie

    History is historically rewritten until all history is lost.

  • Anomaly_of_Anomie

    History is historically rewritten until all history is lost.

  • Anomaly_of_Anomie

    History is historically rewritten until all history is lost.

  • Simiantongue

    My problem with archeology and/or history is this. Have you ever been involved in a situation that was publicized? I have. And inevitably there are many facts that are just outright wrong, mistaken, inaccurate.

    Now that’s reporting on happenings from several weeks in the past, where evidence and eyewitness testimony is still readily available. You would think that establishing an accurate sequence of events would be simple. It’s not. Now think just how distorted many historical “facts” are when removed by several decades, several hundred, even several thousand years. How close to reality do you think “they” have it?

    Don’t get me wrong I enjoy reading about the past. It’s just that I take it with a pinch of salt. More like a general feeling of the way it was, perhaps nothing more than a suggested possibility. Not saying that we can’t actually know anything about the past. Just that our specific facts and information is a lot more amorphous than historians and archeologists let on.

  • Simiantongue

    My problem with archeology and/or history is this. Have you ever been involved in a situation that was publicized? I have. And inevitably there are many facts that are just outright wrong, mistaken, inaccurate.

    Now that’s reporting on happenings from several weeks in the past, where evidence and eyewitness testimony is still readily available. You would think that establishing an accurate sequence of events would be simple. It’s not. Now think just how distorted many historical “facts” are when removed by several decades, several hundred, even several thousand years. How close to reality do you think “they” have it?

    Don’t get me wrong I enjoy reading about the past. It’s just that I take it with a pinch of salt. More like a general feeling of the way it was, perhaps nothing more than a suggested possibility. Not saying that we can’t actually know anything about the past. Just that our specific facts and information is a lot more amorphous than historians and archeologists let on.

    • Mr Grimsby

      Couldn’t agree more.

      Was discussing the subject of reporting inaccuracy with my partner the other day, and neither of us could cite a single instance of personal involvement in, or specialist background knowledge of, a situation that was subsequently reported in the media without some fairly large inaccuracies.

      This included several where the story that was reported, and/or the conclusion drawn, was effectively the exact opposite of the reality.

      These weren’t earth-shattering events, by any means, but it makes you wonder, if the media at large can get fairly straightforward details of small stories completely wrong, why would they be any more credible or accurate on the bigger stuff?

      For the record, I don’t think there’s any kind of conspiracy of silence or disinfo in this: just plain, good ol’ human incompetence, laziness and fuck-uppery.

      • Simiantongue

        I would add cognitive bias to incompetence, laziness and fuck-uppery. Perspective is not everything but it accounts for a lot. I’m not talking about some kind of nefarious type of bias but the kind that we all can have.

        Our personal experience influences how we perceive facts, events, evidence etc. Often times I observe that events from the past may only be ‘correctly interpreted’ from an accepted point of view that is often times based on preconceived notions rather than what the evidence is strictly telling us.

        When enough people share a perspective and interpret events from those shared preconceived notions we call that a consensus view of historical events. Which is akin to the fallacious argumentum ad populum, in that the historical “facts” are determined more often than not by how most people interpret those events from a popularly accepted point of view, rather than what the objective evidence can tell us. As if to say that if enough people perceive these historical events from a popular shared perspective, the actual evidence only matters inasmuch as it supports that belief, because the beliefs of the many are the major determining factor in forming the reality. Which, said bluntly, sounds like a strange notion, but it’s often how many events are perceived and why the historical record gets it wrong.

        When I witness these cognitive biases it perturbes me, even my own, but what can you do really? Go into some long explanation about where the popular perception has gone wrong in some anachronistic historical examination? Who would want to do that, who would listen, especially given that fact that when you show people where they may be mistaken they tend to double down on their belief, not change their perception.

        That’s something I try very hard to do myself, change my perception and see things from other perspectives in order to get around any biases. It’s difficult when your perception built from your past experiences are screaming to you that you’re right.

        Damn I do tend to ramble. Sorry about that.

21