Road Not Taken Essays (327 words) - The Road Not Taken, Choice

Road Not Taken The title of a poem often reflects the author's theme. In his poem "The Road Not Taken" Frost's theme is about choices. He had two roads to chose from and wonders what would have happened had he taken the other road. His title reflects this. The first three lines, "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, / And sorry I could not travel both /And be one traveler, long I stood", tell us the narrator must choose between two roads he finds equally appealing. It is apparent the narrator has a difficult choice to make and is carefully considering his options. The fact that he is sorry he cannot travel, or choose, both paves the way for regret or wonderment. After the choice of roads is described and considered, Frost writes "Oh, I kept the first for another day! /Yet knowing how way leads on to way, /I doubted if I should ever come back." This is where the narrator makes his choice. Here, he knows he is bound by that choice. He wants to hold on to the other possibility, but knows this cannot be. His choice becomes the road taken. The choice he held on to, then somberly let go, becomes "The Road Not Taken." In the last stanza of this poem Frost writes, "I shall be telling this with a sigh /Somewhere ages and ages hence: /Two roads diverged in a wood, and I- /I took the one less traveled by, /And that has made all the difference. The narrator seems content with his choice yet he tells of it with a sigh: not so much a regretful sigh but a speculative one. He is resolving himself to the fact that even when "ages and ages" pass, he will still wonder what if he had taken the other road. This poem is about choices. But more than that, it is about the choices not made and the idea of wondering about them. The title of this poem "The Road Not taken" gives us insight to and reflects this theme.

About the Chilean Poet Pablo Neruda

About the Chilean Poet Pablo Neruda Pablo Neruda (1904-1973) was known as a poet and emissary of the Chilean people. During a time of social upheaval, he traveled the world as a diplomat and an exile, served as a Senator for the Chilean Communist Party, and published more than 35,000 pages of poetry in his native Spanish. In 1971, Neruda won the Nobel Prize for Literature, for a poetry that with the action of an elemental force brings alive a continents destiny and dreams. Nerudas words and politics were forever intertwined, and his activism may have led to his death. Recent forensic tests have stirred speculation that Neruda was murdered.   Early Life in Poetry Pablo Neruda is the pen name of Ricardo Eliezer Neftali Reyes y Basoalto. He was born in Parral, Chile on July 12, 1904. While he was still an infant, Nerudas mother died of tuberculosis. He grew up in the remote town of Temuco with a stepmother, a half-brother, and a half-sister. From his earliest years, Neruda experimented with language. In his teens, he began publishing poems and articles in school magazines and local newspapers. His father disapproved, so the teenager decided to publish under a pseudonym. Why Pablo Neruda? Later, he speculated that hed been inspired by Czech writer Jan Neruda. In his Memoirs, Neruda praised the poet Gabriela Mistral for helping him discover his voice as a writer. A teacher and headmistress of a girls school near Temuco, Mistral took an interest in the talented youth. She introduced Neruda to Russian literature and stirred his interest in social causes. Both Neruda and his mentor eventually became Nobel Laureates, Mistral in 1945 and Neruda twenty-six years later. After high school, Neruda moved to the capital city of Santiago and enrolled in the University of Chile. He planned to become a French teacher, as his father wished. Instead, Neruda strolled the streets in a black cape and wrote passionate, melancholy poems inspired by French symbolist literature. His father stopped sending him money, so the teenaged Neruda sold his belongings to self-publish his first book, Crepusculario (Twilight). At age 20, he completed and found a publisher for the book that would make him famous, Veinte poemas de amor y una cancion desesperada (Twenty Love Poems and a Song of Despair).  Rhapsodic and sorrowful, the books poems mingled adolescent thoughts of love and sex with descriptions of the Chilean wilderness. There was thirst and hunger, and you were the fruit. / There were grief and ruin, and you were the miracle, Neruda wrote in the concluding poem, A Song of Despair. Diplomat and Poet Like most Latin American countries, Chile customarily honored their poets with diplomatic posts. At age 23, Pablo Neruda became an honorary consul in Burma, now Myanmar, in Southeast Asia. Over the next decade, his assignments took him to many places, including Buenos Aires, Sri Lanka, Java, Singapore, Barcelona, and Madrid. While in South Asia, he experimented with surrealism and began writing Residencia en la tierra   (Residence on Earth). Published in 1933, this was the first of a three-volume work that described the social upheaval and human suffering Neruda witnessed during his years of diplomatic travel and social activism. Residencia was, he said in his Memoirs, a dark and gloomy but essential book within my work. The third volume in Residencia, the 1937 Espaà ±a en el corazà ³n (Spain in our Hearts), was Nerudas strident response to the atrocities of the Spanish Civil War, the rise of fascism, and the political execution of his friend, the Spanish poet Federico Garcà ­a Lorca in 1936. In the nights of Spain, Neruda wrote in the poem Tradition, through the old gardens, / tradition, covered with dead snot, / spouting pus and pestilence, strolled / with its tail in the fog, ghostly and fantastic. The political leanings expressed in Espaà ±a en el corazà ³n cost Neruda his consular post in Madrid, Spain. He moved to Paris, founded a literary magazine, and helped the refugees who glutted the road out of Spain. After a stint as Consul-General in Mexico City, the poet returned to Chile. He joined the Communist Party, and, in 1945, was elected to the Chilean Senate. Nerudas rousing ballad Canto a Stalingrado (Song to Stalingrad) voiced a cry of love to Stalingrad. His pro-Communist poems and rhetoric stirred outrage with the Chilean President, who had renounced Communism for a more political alignment with the United States. Neruda continued to defend Joseph Stalins Soviet Union and the working class of his own homeland, but it was Nerudas scathing 1948 Yo acuso (I Accuse) speech that finally provoked the Chilean government to take action against him. Facing arrest, Neruda spent a year in hiding, and then in 1949 fled on horseback over the Andes Mountains into Buenos Aires, Argentina. Dramatic Exile The poets dramatic escape became the subject of the film Neruda (2016) by Chilean director Pablo Larraà ­n. Part history, part fantasy, the film follows a fictional Neruda as he dodges a fascist investigator and smuggles revolutionary poems to peasants who memorize passages. One part of this romantic re-imagining is true. While in hiding, Pablo Neruda completed his most ambitious project, Canto General (General Song). Composed of more than 15,000 lines, Canto General is both a sweeping history of the Western hemisphere and an ode to the common man. What were humans? Neruda asks. In what part of their unguarded conversations / in department stores and among sirens, in which of their metallic movements / did what in life is indestructible and imperishable live? Return to Chile Pablo Nerudas return to Chile in 1953 marked a transition away from political poetry- for a short time. Writing in green ink (reportedly his favorite color), Neruda composed soulful poems about love, nature, and daily life. I could live or not live; it does not matter / to be one stone more, the dark stone, / the pure stone which the river bears away, Neruda wrote in Oh Earth, Wait for Me. Nevertheless, the passionate poet remained consumed by Communism and social causes. He gave public readings and never spoke out against Stalins war crimes. Nerudas 1969 book-length poem Fin de Mundo (World’s End) includes a defiant statement against the US role in Vietnam: Why were they compelled to kill / innocents so far from home, / while the crimes pour cream / into the pockets of Chicago? / Why go so far to kill / Why go so far to die? In 1970, the Chilean Communist party nominated the poet/diplomat for president, but he withdrew from the campaign after reaching an agreement with the Marxist candidate Salvador Allende, who ultimately won the close election. Neruda, at the height of his literary career, was serving as Chiles ambassador in Paris, France, when he received the 1971 Nobel Prize for Literature. Personal Life Pablo Neruda lived a life of whats been called passionate engagement by the Los Angeles Times. For Neruda, poetry meant much more than the expression of emotion and personality, they write. It was a sacred way of being and came with duties. His was also a life of surprising contradictions. Although his poetry was musical, Neruda claimed that his ear could never recognize any but the most obvious melodies, and even then, only with difficulty.  He chronicled atrocities, yet he had a sense of fun. Neruda collected hats and liked to dress up for parties. He enjoyed cooking and wine. Enamored by the ocean, he filled his three homes in Chile with seashells, seascapes, and nautical artifacts. While many poets seek solitude to write, Neruda seemed to thrive on social interaction. His Memoirs describe friendships with famous figures like Pablo Picasso, Garcia Lorca, Gandhi, Mao Tse-tung, and Fidel Castro. Nerudas infamous love affairs were tangled and often overlapping. In 1930 the Spanish-speaking Neruda married Marà ­a Antonieta Hagenaar, an Indonesia-born Dutch woman who spoke no Spanish. Their only child, a daughter, died at age 9 from hydrocephalus. Soon after marrying Hagenaar, Neruda began an affair with Delia del Carril, a painter from Argentina, whom he eventually married. While in exile, he began a secret relationship with Matilde Urrutia, a Chilean singer with curly red hair. Urrutia became Nerudas third wife and inspired some of his most celebrated love poetry. In dedicating the 1959 Cien Sonetos de Amor (One Hundred Love Sonnets) to Urrutia, Neruda wrote, I made these sonnets out of wood; I gave them the sound of that opaque pure substance, and that is how they should reach your ears†¦Now that I have declared the foundations of my love, I surrender this century to you: wooden sonnets that rise only because you gave them life. The poems are some of his most popular- I crave your mouth, your voice, your hair, he writes in Sonnet XI; I love you as one loves certain obscure things, he writes in Sonnet XVII, secretly, between the shadow and the soul. Nerudas Death While the United States marks 9/11 as the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, this date has another significance in Chile. On September 11, 1973, soldiers surrounded Chiles presidential palace. Rather than surrender, President Salvador Allende shot himself. The anti-Communist coup dà ©tat, supported by the United States CIA, launched the brutal dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet. Pablo Neruda planned to flee to Mexico, speak out against the Pinochet regime, and publish a large body of new work. The only weapons you will find in this place are words, he told soldiers who ransacked his home and dug up his garden in Isla Negra, Chile. However, on September 23, 1973, Neruda died in a Santiago medical clinic. In her memoirs, Matilde Urrutia said his final words were, They are shooting them! They are shooting them! The poet was 69. The official diagnosis was prostate cancer, but many Chileans believed that Neruda was murdered. In October 2017, forensic tests confirmed that Neruda did not die of cancer. Further tests are underway to identify toxins found in his body. Why Is Pablo Neruda Important? I have never thought of my life as divided between poetry and politics, Pablo Neruda said when he accepted his presidential candidacy from the Chilean Communist Party. He was a prolific writer whose works ranged from sensual love poems to historical epics. Hailed as a poet for the common man, Neruda believed that poetry should capture the human condition. In his essay  Toward an Impure Poetry, he equates the imperfect human condition with poetry, impure as the clothing we wear, or our bodies, soup-stained, soiled with our shameful behaviour, our wrinkles and vigils and dreams, observations and prophecies, declarations of loathing and love, idylls and beasts, the shocks of encounter, political loyalties, denials and doubts, affirmations and taxes. What kind of poetry should we seek? Verse that is steeped in sweat and in smoke, smelling of the lilies and urine. Neruda won many awards, including an International Peace Prize (1950), a Stalin Peace Prize (1953), a Lenin Peace Prize (1953), and a Nobel Prize for Literature (1971). However, some critics have attacked Neruda for his Stalinist rhetoric and his unrestrained, often militant, writings. He was called a bourgeois imperialist and a great bad poet. In their announcement, the Nobel committee said theyd given the award to a contentious author who is not only debated but for many is also debatable. In his book The Western Canon, literary critic Harold Bloom named Neruda one of the most significant writers in Western culture, placing him alongside literary giants like Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Virginia Woolf. All paths lead to the same goal, Neruda declared in his Nobel Lecture: to convey to others what we are. And we must pass through solitude and difficulty, isolation and silence in order to reach forth to the enchanted place where we can dance our clumsy dance and sing our sorrowful song.... Recommended Reading Neruda wrote in Spanish, and English translations of his work are hotly debated. Some translations aspire for literal meaning while others strive to capture nuances. Thirty-six translators, including Martin Espada, Jane Hirshfield, W. S. Merwin, and Mark Strand, contributed to The Poetry of Pablo Neruda compiled by literary critic Ilan Stavans. The volume has 600 poems representing the scope of Nerudas career, along with notes on the poets life and critical commentary. Several poems are presented in both Spanish and English. The Poetry of Pablo Neruda edited by Ilan Stavans, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005Listen to Neruda read Las Alturas de Machu Picchu from Canto GeneralHow the Library of Congress Helped Get Pablo Nerudas Poetry Translated into English by Peter Armenti, LOC July 31, 2015Canto General, 50th Anniversary Edition, by Pablo Neruda (trans. Jack Schmitt), University of California Press, 2000Worlds End (English and Spanish Edition) by Pablo Neruda (trans. William ODaly), Copper Canyon Press; 2009Pablo Neruda: A Passion for Life by Adam Feinstein, 2004Memoirs by Pablo Neruda (trans. Hardie St. Martin), 2001The poets own reflections on his life, from student years to the coup dà ©tat dà ©tat that toppled Chiles government just days before Nerudas death.The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages by Harold BloomMy Life with Pablo Neruda (Mi vida junto a Pablo Neruda) by Matilde Urrutia (trans. Alexandria Giardino), 2004Pablo Nerudas widow reveals details about the poet in her memoir. Al though not lyrically written, the book became a best-seller in Chile. For ages 6 to 9, Pablo Neruda: Poet of the People by Monica Brown (illus. Julie Paschkis), Holt, 2011 Sources: Memoirs by Pablo Neruda (trans. Hardie St. Martin), Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001; The Nobel Prize in Literature 1971 at Nobelprize.org; Biography of Pablo Neruda, The Chile Cultural Society; Worlds End by Pablo Neruda by Richard Rayner, Los Angeles Times, March 29, 2009; How did Chilean poet Pablo Neruda die? Experts open new probe, Associated Press, Miami Herald, February 24, 2016; Pablo Neruda Nobel Lecture Towards the Splendid City at Nobelprize.org [accessed March 5, 2017]

WHY, ACCORDING TO HAGEL, DOES THE ATTEMPT TO REALISE ABSOLUTE FREEDOM Essay

WHY, ACCORDING TO HAGEL, DOES THE ATTEMPT TO REALISE ABSOLUTE FREEDOM BRING ABOUT ITS OPPOSITE(absolute tyranny) TO what extent do you agree with Hagel - Essay Example One reason for Hegel’s concern with dialectics was because two of the philosophers he respected immensely, Hobbes and Rousseau, had contradictory ideas concerning the nature of freedom. To Hegel, the idea of absolute freedom could only lead to tyranny, and he was in agreement with Hobbes and his work from The Leviathan, which stated that people needed society because otherwise they would more or less destroy each other. This is part of the â€Å"utter indifference toward death that Hegel saw as the hallmark of the terror† (Schmidt 4). Of course, with any ideas that Hegel worked with, the concept of freedom was multifaceted and complex, and it is necessary to discuss the many different aspects of freedom in order to fully comprehend the ways in which absolute freedom would lead to tyranny. This tyranny, witnessed as a result of the French Revolution, was the part of Rousseau’s philosophy that he attempted to contradict: â€Å"Hegel believed that Rousseau’s political philosophy was fundamentally misconceived because it sought to transpose to the state much the same ideal of individual self-sufficiency as was ascribed to uncultured peoples and to an education concerned in accordance with nature† (Wokler 35). Once all of Hegel’s conceptions of freedom have been discussed, we can see how Hegel’s conception of absolute freedom truly would lead to its opposite, tyranny, because, as Hegel says, â€Å"The sole and only work and deed accomplished by universal freedom is therefore deathâ €  (Absolute). The first conception of freedom that needs to be discussed is natural freedom. This is what we find people in their natural state; to be able to choose to determine one’s own self: â€Å"When a man is so self-determined but the only content of his will the only source of his determinations - are his impulses, appetites and desires, he has what Hegel calls an immediate or natural

The Gettysburg Address Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

The Gettysburg Address - Essay Example They constituted the last line of defense between Lee and the Union capital of Washington D.C. On the third day, the Confederate Army’s frontal assault was repulsed and the Battle of Gettysburg was won by the Union forces. This was the only battle waged in the North and resulted in 23,000 causalities for the Union Army. The Confederates lost 28,000 (BookRags Web site). In the aftermath of the battle, the dead lay unburied, or were hastily bundled into makeshift graves in the fields. Pennsylvania’s Governor, Andrew Curtin, commissioned a reputed local Attorney, David Wills, to purchase land to serve as an appropriate cemetery for the Union dead. This resulted in the acquisition of the 17 acres of the Gettysburg National Cemetery. While the work of reinterring the Union dead from the field graves to the cemetery was still in progress, the cemetery was formally dedicated on 19 November, 1863. At present, the cemetery is home to over 6,000 American service men who died in t he Civil War, Spanish-American War, the World Wars and the Vietnam War (Gettysburg.com Web site). On 19 November, 1863, President Lincoln, members of his Cabinet, Governors of the Northern States and Civil and Military Officials gathered at Gettysburg, along with a crowd of about 15,000 citizens. A crude platform had been constructed on the battlefield, with journalists seated on one side and the dignitaries on the other. The keynote speaker at the dedication ceremony was Edward Everett from Massachusetts, an ardent Unionist and renowned Orator, who was considered one of the best speakers of the time.

A Study Of Interest Group Lobbying Politics Essay

A Study Of Interest Group Lobbying Politics Essay The introduction of organized interests is nothing new in American politics. Political scientists, politicians, and scholars alike all agree that interest groups are natural phenomena in a democratic regime. Political interests have played a central role in American politics since James Madison first warned the framers of factionalism. Since then, the last five decades have seen an alarming rise of interest groups, changing fundamentally accounting the ongoing transformation of American politics and the pressures of campaign reform. Modern parties as well as established interest groups have demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability. The 20th century saw an increase in penetration of political and economic interests in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, leading to the growth of political activity that have opened doors while closing others. With these changes, interest groups have adjusted their strategy and tactics to adapt to the opportunities and constraints among the decision-making arenas. In line with these changes in American politics, it has revolutionized the representation and success of social movements. With the continuing need for more representation, politicians have come to recognize the impact groups can have when they mobilize support. Though they have impacted American politics in various ways, it is important to understand the methods they have used accounting the changing political environment. These strategies however, are not limited to one particular decision-making arena, but are the most commonly used. Interest groups are involved in American Politics in various ways. This especially is true within the judicial processes. When it comes to strategies used by interest groups, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee has become the most formal strategy pursued by interest group representatives. This process provides opportunity for interest groups to express their opinions directly to the people who have the power to accept or reject a nominee. While the former has been the most popular tactic for groups, it requires a high level of national prestige to acquire an invitation to this committee. In the case of Roberts and Alito nominations, the absence of interest group participation did not reflect their unwillingness to testify. Instead, their influence was mitigated by the committees refusal to allow interest group participation. While the former method has been one of the most effective ways to be represented, it requires prestigious interest groups which often require abund ant human and financial capital. Position taking on the other hand, is a low-cost alternative tactic used to support a judicial nominee. These actions serve to mobilize members and help generate contributions. Advertisements, on the other hand, have been the most common tool used in all decision-making arenas. As a result, interest groups have used television, radio, and billboards to support or oppose a judicial nominees. The growth in communication technologies has increased the number of strategic opportunities for interest groups. In fact, during the Bush administration, nearly all ads for or against Bush nominees were aired on cable new programs, which appealed to audiences who are more likely to be engaged in political affairs. Interests groups are also likely to also participate in mass mailings containing nominee information to fundraising support. More recently however, with the ongoing changes and development of technology, interest groups have begun using technology as a tool in electoral campaigns. Technological advancements have complemented traditional strategies. Websites, e-mails, and blogs, have become a cheap and effective approach over the last decade. When it comes to Interest group influence in elections such as the presidency, parties and candidates must have enough money to communicate and mobilize properly. Candidates seeking funds have found organized interests willing to contribute to those who share their political view. Interest groups involved in campaign contribution have seen the most constraints. Fortunately, federal campaign finance laws have been largely ineffective in limiting the role of special-interest money. Following the federal regulations after 1971, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has administered and enforced numerous federal campaign laws. By setting hard money contribution limits, it subsequently led to the rise of political action committees. Since hard money was defined as money contributed directly to a candidate of a political party (Loomis, 285), it was opportunity for interest groups to donate unregulated (soft) money to the political party as a whole. Subsequently, the Bipartisan Campaign Re form Act in 2002, prohibited unregulated contributions to national party committees. With the ongoing constraints by the FEC, PACs have become vey creative in allocating their resources. One strategy they have used is bundling, when PACs collect checks made out to a particular candidate and then send each candidate the checks all at once (Loomis, 191). Morgan Stanley, for example, bundled nearly $600,000 to the reelection campaign for Bush. In addition, PACs have also funneled money by giving contributions to other PACs or organizations that support their interests. 527 groups which refer to the groups that are not regulated by the FEC found various methods for advocating issues. As a right to free speech, groups were allowed to spent unlimited amount of independent money. They are able to do this by avoiding the use of specific words that include: vote for, elect, support, oppose. As special interest seek to influence government policy and members of Congress, two main strategies are commonly used; electoral and access. Most elected officials want to be reelected therefore they listen to people who can help or hinder that reelection. Interest groups take advantage of this situation by rallying voters to their cause and contributing money to reelection campaigns. Most interest groups cannot legally encourage their members to vote for or against a particular candidate, but they can achieve the same effect by informing their members of candidates stances on issues. For example, for years the Christian Coalition have issued voter pamphlets which describe the candidates positions on issues that are particularly important to group members, such as abortion. Other groups play the ratings game by publishing the positions of all members of Congress on key issues with the hope of swaying voters. Unfortunately, Electoral strategies are highly ambitious and risky which ca n often backfire in future elections. Access strategies however, are known as risk-averse strategies. These are techniques in which interest groups work to get access to directly influence an official. Unfortunately, given how busy members of Congress and other government officials often are, getting access pose major challenges. Sometimes a lobbyist can only get a few minutes of the officials time, so the lobbyist must be prepared to make a pitch very quickly. Some types of people have an easier time getting access than others. Some lobbying organizations use these types of people to help gain access. Actor Michael J. Fox, for example, has lobbied for increased funding for Parkinsons disease research. Both Angelina Jolie and Bono have also successfully lobbied Congress for their causes. When looking at social movements in the 21st century, one of the most successful has been the contemporary environmental movement. While interest groups have had more success in American decision-making institutions in the past, social movements have utilized similar tools to get their voices heard. Through coalitions with interest groups, private funding, technological advancements, the environmental movement has become a formidable force in American politics.

Pen Y Bryn The Princes’ Tower :: British History

Pen Y Bryn The Princes’ Tower Wales has long been known as a country of myth and magic. She hides her secrets in her hollow hills. Pen Y Bryn, The Princes’ Tower is the latest treasure that has come to light and one of the most fascinating. In 1992 Kathryn and Brian Pritchard Gibson bought what they believed to be a thirty-six acre chicken farm with a 17th century Elizabethan manor house and it has changed their lives dramatically. The stone manor and out buildings are nestled against a forested hill in Snowdonia. It is just north of Bangor above the shores of Abergwyngregyn, ‘the mouth of the white shell river’ overlooking the Menai Straights with the mountains forming a protective backdrop behind. Kathryn Gibson says, The locals, it seems, have always called the house Twr Llewelyn, or Llewelyn’s Tower. They told us that’s where the princes lived and that below it there’s a Roman settlement and a bronze age fort. When asked how they came by this knowledge they always answ ered, "Nain (Grandmother) told me." It was only the academics who ignored this local lore that had been handed down for centuries. When you first see the house it is obvious the tower is by far the oldest section. You can also see where windows and doors have been blocked up. There is a distinct difference in the stones or the tower and those of the rest of the house but it has only recently been authenticated that the tower does indeed date back to Llewelyn’s time. Shortly after moving in the Gibsons noticed a hollow sound in a part of the living room floor. Pulling up floorboards they quickly discovered secret stairways, hidden rooms, hollow walls, tunnels, tales of princes and prisoners, lovers and war. As Kathryn Gibson says "We live in the middle of a giant historical jigsaw puzzle." In fact Pen y Bryn is the lost palace of the Princes Llywelyn, Llywelyn Fawr (the Great) and his grandson, Llywelyn the Last, dating back to 1211. It is where Joan, King John’s daughter and wife of Llywelyn Fawr lived and died, and it holds the key to the tragic story of Gwenllian, the first and last true born Pri ncess of Wales. Gwenllian was the only daughter of Llywelyn the Last. Llewelyn had reluctantly been granted the title of "Prince of Wales" in perpetuity by the English crown at the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267.

Why Agriculture Spread During the Neolithic Revolution

Around 10,000 years ago, a dramatic transformation occurred in parts of the Near East that forever affected the human experience. These were the economic and social changes from hunting and gathering subsistence strategies, which characterised over 99 per cent of our long tenure on Earth, to ones emphasising food production and settling down in small villages. This was not an easy transition, nor was it a universal one. Once it occurred, though, it changed the course of human history. Usually known as the â€Å"Neolithic Revolution†. (Simmons 2007: 1)There has been much speculation by academics in many disciplines as to the reasons why agriculture was developed and employed throughout the Neolithic revolution; and how the agricultural developments dispersed across the globe. However, I believe that there are unanimous definitions on both the Neolithic Revolution and agriculture. Both key to the answer of this essay. I believe the Neolithic Revolution to be the first agricultur al revolution to take place globally, which led to people becoming sedentary, resorting to agriculture instead of hunter gathering and mobile communities. Gupta 2010) Cohen (1977: 1) has a similar attitude towards the definition of the Neolithic revolution as he believes it to be, â€Å"the economic and social change [] which witnessed the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture as man’s major mode of subsistence. † Agriculture, as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1973), is â€Å"the science and art of cultivating the soil, including the gathering n of the crops and the rearing of livestock†. However, I believe that agriculture includes other aspects, which link in with it to create a fully operating agricultural system.These include, ‘farming’ and ‘domestication’, both pivotal for agricultural success. Farming is described as, â€Å"the business of cultivating land and raising ‘stock’† whilst domestication is â€Å"described as the action of ‘farming or bringing under control’. (More specifically, domestication can be defined as ‘the evolutionary process whereby humans modify, either intentionally or unintentionally, the genetic makeup of a population of plants or animals to the extent that individuals within that population lose their ability to survive and produce offspring in the wild’: Blumler and Byrne 1991: 24). (Barker 2006: 2) Simmons (2007) concurs that the Neolithic revolution was a transformation of the economic system at the time, but it was also a social change in how food was used and viewed in differing ways. To fully understand the impact of agriculture to Neolithic societies, I will use case studies to highlight my points. These will include the Fertile Crescent of the Near East, believed to be the first place where the use of agriculture has been found as Barker (ibid: 11) suggests ‘that the first farming would ha ve started in the ‘Near East’.However, I will also be using case studies from Africa, specifically the Ethiopian Highlands and the Kuk Swamp in Papua New Guinea. As Cohen mentions that â€Å"the most striking fact about early agriculture, however, is precisely that it is such a universal event† (1977: 5) therefore, it will be interesting to discuss the reasons why such rapid dispersion of agricultural development occurred across the Neolithic world. Why did the people around 10,000 years ago resort to a new way of life and with new ways of feeding?A way of life that was completely different from the people before them who had undertook hunting and gathering to feed themselves; a way of life that led to the beginning of agriculture and turning from mobile to non-mobile communities; forager societies that had been, â€Å"relatively unchanged since the depths of the Ice Age†. (Bogucki 1999: 191) There are many reasons that archaeologists have discussed about why this transition occurred in what has been coined as ‘The Neolithic Revolution’. There are many reasons why this transition occurred and I will explore many of these reasons.I will be looking at the reasons that are incorporated in Barbara Stark’s (1986) three main model types, which show the transition of foraging to the production of food in an agricultural sense. â€Å"Push†, â€Å"Pull† and â€Å"social’ models are used by Stark which create an ‘umbrella’ effect on the main underlying reasons which can be incorporated to fully explore the reasons why agriculture began and how it spread across the globe. When there is stress on a population, it can lead to the population being pushed to protect themselves to ensure that the stress does not damage them.These stresses, in the cause of agricultural causation include population pressure and/or climate change. The stress imposed on the population could have led to the beginning of agriculture being used. (Stark 1986) Many archaeologists have discussed reasons why agriculture began under this umbrella of a ‘push’ model. Childe (1936) began much of the work on the origins of agriculture by developing the Oasis-Propinquity theory; a theory that incorporated a significant climatic change at the end of the Pleistocene, which had a major effect on how animals, plants and humans operated to feed.Childe created the Oasis-Propinquity theory because he believed that this climatic change caused the areas, beginning in the Near East, especially the Fertile Crescent, to become arid and dry, thus becoming deserts. Simmons (2007: 11-12) thought that the new desert conditions of the Near East was causing â€Å"plants and animals [to die] or [they were] becoming scarce. † Without the presence of water nearby to most of the humans, plants and animals in the Near East and North Africa, it led to the congregation of these creatures to areas where water wa s available, such as the desert oases in the Near East.The close proximity that the plants, animals and humans had to undertake daily, it eventually led to the domestication of plants and animals. (Simmons 2007; Bogucki 1999; Pluciennik and Zvelebil 2009) Childe (1936: 77) considers that humans, plants and animals all became â€Å"united in an effort to circumvent the dreadful power of the drought†. The Oasis-Propinquity theory by Childe is only half of the story as to why agriculture began in the Near East. With this theory in mind, the domestication of plants would have been tending to and re-planting year after year.This would have led to the creation of some form of agricultural ideas and system that would have to be used to ensure that the domesticated crops can be utilised to their optimum. This early system of agricultural development would have had to be moulded into the systems that provided significantly greater quantities of food that would be able to sustain a pop ulation that would have been growing because of the change into a sedentary lifestyle. When Childe produced the theory in 1936, his investigations would have been one of the key reasons as to why agriculture developed.Despite still being a key argument in the origin of agriculture, other academics and evidence that has come to light since Childe’s Man makes Himself. Bogucki (1999: 186-187) mentions, â€Å"The difficulty is there is no evidence of widespread desiccation during the period in question between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago. † Paleoclimatic and geomorphological evidence of Braidwood’s Iraq-Jarmo project came to the conclusion supporting Bogucki’s (1999) claim that of no evidence of widespread desiccation. (Watson 1995) As Simmons (2007: 13) suggests that â€Å"these projects [] found no support for Childe’s claim of desiccation. This lack of evidence produces a significant amount of doubt to the Oasis-Propinquity. If there wasn’t a global change in climatic behaviour, it cannot be assumed that dry conditions occurred which resulted in the congregations at oases. Also, Childe’s work puts emphasis on the domestication of primarily animals at the oases and does not hold the beginnings of plant domestication, which inevitably lead to agriculture, in high regard and it was not accredited in his work. (Watson 1995; Bogucki 1999)Despite Simmons (2007: 12) mentioning that â€Å"Childe’s model is frequently acted as one of the origins of agriculture†, I believe that due to the climatic evidence of the time disagreeing with the theory of major climatic change resulting in dry and arid conditions, the Oasis-Propinquity theory does not hold as much regard with the origins of agriculture. I feel that other reasons incorporated in the push model have a much greater impact than Childe’s theory. I believe that the evidence found throughout the Fertile Crescent proves a lacking of substance for th e Oasis-Propinquity Theory and could provide evidence against it.Through the Fertile Crescent, establishments and the societies built up within have no been on major waterways (apart from Jericho), which diminishes the theory. This is because the domestication of all the wild resources occurred without the need for a congregation of plants, animals and humans in a small area surrounding oases’. The speed of domestication of Einkorn for example, showed that this congregation did not need to occur. Einkorn could be domesticated easily due to a number of genetic loci that it was able.Wild cereals and Einkorn had very similar ancestors, which allowed domestication to occur quite easily in the Crescents. (Zohary and Hopf 1993) This shows how significant other theories were in understanding the origins of agriculture. The Hilly Flanks Theory was produced to directly contest Childe’s theory. Braidwood was not enthused with the Oasis-Propinquity theory and did not hold it in h igh regard despite it being one of the significant and key models for the origins of agriculture, and pursued answers for the agricultural origin elsewhere. Braidwood 1960; Braidwood and Howe 1960) The Hilly Flanks Theory was created because â€Å"Braidwood thought that the best place to look for early domestication was where the habitats of the wild precursors of wheat, barley, sheep and goats overlapped. [] With desiccation and other widespread climatic changes discounted as a proximal cause of agriculture, Braidwood sought an explanation in human behaviour. He suggested that food production in the Old World emerged in certain â€Å"nuclear zones† in the arc of the Taurus and Zagros mountains of the Near East known as the Fertile Crescent†. Bogucki 1999: 187) I believe that his view on agricultural origins held a decent basis, as it feels natural for first cultivations by farmers on cereals within their natural habitat. (Miller 1992: 49) Braidwood’s theory was based, quite simply, on that the habitats of the Hilly Flank became so familiar to the people who lived there, that they started to domesticate the plants and animals that lived there in their natural habitats. Archaeological sites in Papa New Guinea, especially in the Upper Wahgi Valley, hold evidence for this theory.The importance of the sites in this region cannot be understated because the evidence that has been found as it showed agricultural developments without any significant evidence to suggest social transformations. Therefore, it can be assumed that people relocated to areas of natural wild resources to undergo â€Å"animal and plant exploitation† (Denham 2011). Without evidence for climatic change, this highlights significant headway in the Hilly Flanks theory. As Simmons (2007: 14) suggests that the people on the Hilly Flank had to become â€Å" [settled] in by groups who came to understand and manipulate plants and animals around them. From Braidwood’s work on the Hilly Flank Theory, there are many assumptions to be made about the origins of the first agricultural systems and I believe that the Hilly Flank Theory holds significant worth to the argument. I believe that it would be sensible for the first farmers to begin cultivating land that they foraged on and/ or lived on as mobile communities. I think this because the ‘raw materials’ were already en situ and the farmers did not have to relocate anywhere else. However, with this idealist notion of ‘being sensible’ views can only be mentioned due to indsight and the difference in culture that we see in our western cultures today. It must be noted that with over two millennia of the populations on earth being hunter-gatherers and foragers, the idea of becoming a sedentary farmer would have been very alien to them. Braidwood’s work on the Hilly Flanks Theory and the subsequent dismissal of Childe’s Oasis-Propinquity theory resulted in a signif icant change in the way agricultural origins were looked at and discussed. However, I believe that the push model had a significant result on why the origins of agriculture were continually discussed.I also must consider population pressure as an important argument for the origins of agriculture. In the early transitional period that occurred during the Neolithic Revolution could have been that many of the populations that existed changed from being mobile communities to becoming sedentary; non-mobile communities. The population that the mobile communities had was in relation to the â€Å"mobility and flexibility of hunter-gatherer organisation† (Green 1980; Lee 1972). Green (1980) discusses that population pressure is because of the decrease (or lack of) logistical mobility.When the population causes an effect on the mobility and flexibility, it can be assumed that the sedentary lifestyle was adopted. It could be argued that with a sedentary lifestyle, the population of the community could increase exponentially as Bellwood (2005: 23) says, â€Å"any major increase in the degree of sedentism [] would have encouraged a growing population, via shorter birth intervals, and would also have placed a greater strain on food supplies and other resources in the immediate vicinity of the campsite or village†.This resulted in the development of Binford’s (1968) Population Pressure model, which; Argued that once people (the early Vatutian in the Levant) became sedentary, populations inevitably increased, leading to an increasing use of locally available plant foods, such as cereals, that had previously been considered marginal. From this intensive use of cereals, and the technology ass65ociated with this processing, a regular cycle of plants and harvesting occurred, ultimately resulting in domestication. (Simmons 2007: 15)This increase in the population could have been down to a number of reasons including; an improved and more regularity in diets, i ncreased life expectancy and fertility, greater protection from diseases and â€Å"the need for more people to assist in seasonal harvests of wild plants† (Simmons 2007: 14-15; Bellwood 2005). Flannery (1969) elaborated further on Binford’s Population Pressure model, as Miller (1992: 49) mentions that Flannery â€Å"suggested that subsistence changes that took place prior to agriculture – during the â€Å"broad spectrum revolution†, could have been a response to population growth in the marginal zone†.A significant population increase can cause dramatic effects on the resources of the surrounding area. It would have come to the point that a foraging and hunter-gathering society no longer has the ability to provide resources for the whole population and leads people to try and find other sources for the resources. These resources, which provide the basis for sustaining life, could be pushed into competitions for the resources. With such competition, I believe that with the knowledge that resources would eventually run out, the population would have resorted to basic domestication of plants and animals for more reliable sources of resources. Neilson 2006) In times where pressures on the population seem great, the adoption of agriculture can lead to too much stress being inflicted on the availability of resources on the population. Stark (1986) emphases that this could create a pushing factor onto the population into agriculture. Without the push into agriculture, the population would have ceased to exist. Despite population pressure having a obvious impact on the ability for sufficient resources to be gained from hunter-gathering, it could have lead to the adoption of agriculture.However, some do not value the Population Pressure theory and believe it â€Å"inadequate as an explanation [because] for it necessary the increased population must be a purely local phenomenon which cannot exist without [locational] factors [or const raints]† â€Å"(Bronson 1975: 74). Sauer (1952) also believes with Bronson that a resource crisis due to pressures on the population due to a significant increase was not a highlighted reason for the genesis of agriculture. Sauer makes it known that the transition that occurred in the Neolithic was due to an altering relationship and the interaction between culture and the environment.This could lead to assumptions that Sauer did not believe that the transition developed out of a lack of food and resources to the ever-growing population. Green (1980) also argues â€Å"that population growth does not necessarily precondition either innovation or increased economic productivity†. As innovation would have to be the precondition to agricultural development, Green’s argument provides significantly altering evidence, which could lead to a different viewpoint on the origins of agriculture.This change in the relationship with culture and environment led to Stark’ s pull model. This cultural change that Sauer discussed had the ability to pull people into adopting the agricultural way of life, discarding the old hunter-gathering way of life. The pull model was based on a shift towards an unprecedented reliance on specific resources, which led to an alteration in the relationship between humans, animals and plants. This reliance ensured that the population was pulled into agriculture (Stark 1986).The pull model also put emphasis on the technological innovation that was developed pre-agriculture and such technology ‘pulled’ the population into the uses of agriculture and to benefit from such implementation of agriculture. The pull model â€Å"prevents a group from reverting to its earlier pattern of resource use† and this can be why, in the eyes of those who believe the pull model was the reason for agricultural development, that the pull model was so successful, effectively pulling those in further along in advancement. Dona ld Henry (1989) proposed a â€Å"pull† model for agricultural arising in the Near East.In his view, there were two key moments in the process of agricultural origins in the Levant. The first occurred around 10,500 BC when a global temperature increase promoted long-term settlement and necessitated a shift from what Henry calls â€Å"simple† foraging to â€Å"complex† foraging. A variety of high-yield resources, including wild cereals, were exploited, and restraints on population growth were relaxed. About 2000 years later, this complex foraging system collapsed possibly as the result of a second climatic change, and the foragers had two options, depending on where they lived.In the highly productive areas of the Levant, where the highest populations were, they began to cultivate cereals. In the marginal areas, people reverted to a simple foraging system. (Bogucki 1999: 190) Henry’s continuation on Stark’s pull model shows that he believes that envi ronmental pull factors resulted in the origins of agriculture. This is especially clear in the Levant where location dominated the resource development, for example: either hunter gathering and foraging or cultivation and domestication – resulting in agriculture.It can be assumed that the majority of highly populated areas of the Levant went to cultivation and that led to the growth of domestic dwellings. Those in marginal areas would have shifted towards domestic dwellings instead of staying as a mobile community. I also believe that technological advancement had a significant impact on the origins of agriculture and the further development of agricultural ways of life. Diamond (1997a) hold technological advancement as one of three linked developments which can be included within Stark’s pull model to try and develop a reason for the agricultural genesis.Technological development allowed people greater ways to â€Å"collect, process and store foods† (Simmons 20 07: 21), which is crucial when harvesting and cultivating is used to process foods and store the years amount of food. Without this development ensuring significantly greater storage capabilities, it causes hunting and gathering daily obsolete. Technological advances created developments, which could be used to â€Å"kill or displace hunter/gatherers† (ibid: 21-22). With violence being a consequence of technology, it would have force those hunter-gatherers into some form of agricultural developments just to survive.Technological advances started to produce greater items for warfare that were superior to what hunter-gatherers were using, mainly for the collection of resources, not fighting. Also, the other variables within Diamonds reasons for the origins were that there was a significant drop in species that used to be wild and resulted in the â€Å"human occupation of available habitats in order to decrease the risk of unpredictability† (ibid: 21). With the decline of wild species, the only option for the population would be to occupy their habitats to ensure that food could be hunted.However, by moving into the habitats were wild species were growing and living, it would have led to significant domestication of the species to ensure that the food is always present. However, there is some opposition to pull models, as Green (1980) says that â€Å"invention-pull models, which attributed agricultural change to technological innovation [which resulted in] considerations of agricultural change being dependent on technological innovation were considered non explanatory because they did not deal with the causes of innovation†.By being pulled into a change, populations would not be able to revert back to their earlier systems of gathering and hunting for food. However, others believe that social changes had a significant impact on the agricultural origins and were developed as one of Stark’s models for agricultural origins – the so cial model. Within the social model, there are numerous theories as to the origin of agriculture, however, all the theories, as Bender (1978) emphasised and â€Å"found that social changes acted independent of technology and economy to create pressures in production† (Simmons 2007: 18).Similar to Bender, Tilley (1996) also believes that greater social and ideological beliefs and their significance played an overwhelming part in the domestication of food rather than economic reasons. The theories that are under the umbrella of the social model are based on social development and competition. Competition feasting was a key theory set forward for the social model.It represents food as power and has been categorised as the â€Å"â€Å"food fight† model† (Simmons 2007: 18) by both proponents and critics (Hayden 1995: 282; Smith 2001: 218-221) With certain individuals accumulating surpluses of food, these could be transformed into items with value. With the accumulati on of surplus food, it would allow people to create feasts for the population. The individuals creating the feast would be held in higher regard in the community because it shows people who were generating the most food for the population.Feasting is a key part of the social model â€Å"given that the Neolithic revolved around food in one way or another; it seems somehow appropriate that feasting be considered as a reasons for its origin† (Simmons 2007: 18-19). By feasting, it was the first aspect of competition within communities. Competitive feasting would have been used as a method for the development and consolidation of power. Competition is a very important aspect of human society as it leads to the best being in positions of power. Within the Neolithic, extra resources must be utilised to ensure that power, influence and status is promoted and competed for. Feasting, gift exchange, trade, and other forms of codified, often ritualised contact† (Pluciennik and Zvel ebil 2009: 469) are the main ways for people to promote their own standings. This promotion of people’s own standards resulted in the need for extra resources beyond their dietary needs in the immediate timescale. This would result in overproduction. Overproduction by hunting and gathering would have got significantly harder with the climatic ever so slightly changing during the early Neolithic.Therefore, agriculture, a â€Å"more intensive system of exploitation† (ibid: 469) must be adopted to ensure overproduction can occur. Hayden (1995) believes that the need for competitive feasting lead to the first domestication of both plants and animals for the production of extra foodstuffs. With the use of food designated as prestige items, the accumulators could exceed their rivals in the consolidation of power (ibid). Runnels and van Andel (1988) have suggested that social customs, such as trade and competitive feasting would have led to motives for food production.Cowgill (1975) mentions that the more food an individual produces, the greater social and political power they possess. This analogy perfectly shows how important food was within a competitive environment and was used significantly to gain the upper hand. Without the implementation of agriculture, the excess food would not have been able to be produced and the ability to gain competitive edge over other individuals would have been diminished. As Miller (1992: 51) says, â€Å"[cultivation was] to ensure a reliable food supply or to increase their food supply to satisfy growing social or dietary needs†.However, Hayden has also put an argument across that does not believe the social model to be a significant reason for agriculture to begin. Hayden (1990: 57-62, 1992: 13) mentions that the social model could not have resulted in a Neolithic revolution to occur immediately as a lot of arguments believe happened. Hayden comments include the fact that a new culture of sharing food would ha ve taken a large amount of time to implement and the fist domesticated plants and animals would not have been appropriate for daily consumption due to his belief that they would have been delicacies.Despite this, I find this argument extremely thin and in my opinion, find it difficult to dismiss such a inquisitive social model, which, due to the change in social behaviour in the Neolithic, could have been very likely to occur, especially when the Neolithic â€Å"was an ideological phenomenon, a new way of thinking† (Simmons 2007: 20). I find that the Neolithic was an era where new ideologies and cultures were being developed and implemented globally throughout the Neolithic on an unprecedented scale.The arguments about how and why agriculture was developed and adopted throughout the globe in the Neolithic have produced very different and sometimes contradictory reasons why the origins of agriculture occurred. However, no one can deny the importance that agriculture had on the world as a whole and the impacts that it had to society as a whole. The impact that agriculture had, in my opinion, is unprecedented and extremely important to how we live in the society today. I can assume that most academics on the topic of agriculture believe that the impact of its adoption during the Neolithic was massively important to the world.Cole (1967: ix) made this quite clear by saying, â€Å"the development of full food production was an evolution rather than a sudden revolution; yet there is no doubt that the consequences of this change were revolutionary in the fullest sense of the world† and as Pluciennik and Zvelebil (2009: 467) also put forward the idea that the adoption of agriculture was one of revolutionary proportions, a â€Å"quantum leap in human history, and the basis for the development of widespread societal characteristics, both good and bad. †There are many main impacts that can be connected to the implementation of agriculture as the main characteristic of subsistence. By domesticating both plants and animals, it led to â€Å"increased sedentism, smaller social units, individual domiciles, investment in burial ritual and trade† (Bogucki 1999: 191), â€Å"specialisation in diet [was] also encouraged by the localisation of agricultural production† (Rindos 1984: 270) and â€Å"populations practicing agriculture come to be more successful relative to both domesticating and on-domesticatory. These populations not only will be generally larger but will also be dispersing at far greater rates [than populations that are not practicing agriculture]† (ibid: 267). Pluciennik and Zvelebil (2009: 467) mention that the impacts include â€Å"sedentism, population growth, certain endemic diseases, social and political hierarchies, literacy, cities, specialised arts and crafts, widespread environmental degradation, extensive trade, property, laws, morality, and more generally civilisation. It could be very easy to use these and suggest the impacts that agriculture had on today’s society, without thinking about the immediate impacts that occurred to the Neolithic society when agriculture was implemented. When agriculture was implemented in the early Neolithic, it can be assumed this would have led to a population increase due to the majority of early farmers becoming settled and becoming sedentary, resulting in a decrease in mortality rates due to better diets and better immune systems.With improved sedentary conditions, population numbers would begin to increase at a much quicker rate, putting significant pressure on food stores, resulting with the need for improved agricultural efficiency and crop numbers. This continues the cycle of population increase, greater sedentary conditions and thus, more agriculture. However, in the background of this cycle, an evolution of social, economic and religious (Bogucki 1999) norms would have occurred changing the culture of the Neolithic signi ficantly.With the culture changing constantly to include agriculture, it would have led to the societies having a greater involvement with agriculture especially when it became the main and/or only way for food to be acquired. The agricultural revolution led to the societies throughout the globe being hit by these impacts and resulting in a totally different world, and in the grand scheme, the beginnings of agriculture and the beginning of the Neolithic revolution could be argued to be the beginnings of civilisation, as we know it today.The impacts that agriculture had on societies throughout the last 10,000 years are unprecedented and the effects of which are still seen today – with some arguing that without agriculture, the world, as we know it in the modern time would not be the same. â€Å"Social, economic, and political complexity [] would not have emerged without the existence of agriculture† (ibid: 203)To conclude, â€Å"in the last 30 years, archaeologists hav e made considerable progress towards understanding the origins of agriculture, but the question of why prehistoric people made the transition from foraging to farming is still elusive† (ibid: 191) pinpointing one reason for why agriculture was adopted would be impossible. However, in my opinion, I believe that understanding why agriculture was developed, a number of reasons must be acknowledged and inter-link to fully determine the true reasons why agriculture was developed during the Neolithic revolution.The â€Å"push†, â€Å"pull† and social models that were established by Stark (1986) provided the most efficient way of trying to understand why agriculture was developed and it led to a significant advance in the way of thinking for its origins. However, â€Å"in the 1990s, social factors [had] begun to assume prominence in attempts to explain the origins of agriculture, although â€Å"push† and â€Å"pull† models still have considerable importan ce† (Bogucki 1999: 190).I believe that the social model provides more all-round reasons for agricultural origins, especially competitive feasting which provided an activity for the whole society to undertake together, thus, producing the beginnings of a society, and trade. This would increase in importance with the development and the increase of more sedentary populations. Despite this, I also feel that the push and pull models are very important. Without population pressures and some climatic change, agriculture would never have been produced.In my opinion, agriculture created the easiest and most efficient way for agriculture to spread and disperse across the globe through trade. Socially, trade was very important within a society, but in the greater picture, it played a much more important role in its dispersal. With the increase in trade, societies would have improved in prosperity and developed. Without agriculture, this would not have been possible. This leads to how mu ch of an impact agricultural development and its adoption had on societies across the globe.Without food production from agriculture, cultural advancements leading to the growth of urban areas, including technological, economic and political developments, which eventually led to the modern societies, we know today (Simmons 2007; Diamond 1997a). The impact that agriculture had on societies cannot be measured electronically, scientifically or any other way because the impacts are on an unprecedented scale; impacts spanning from one corner of the globe to the other and affecting everything.With the beginning of agriculture came the beginning of the New World, a world of new culture, beliefs and ways of life, economic, political and technological change and developments, resulting in the way we are today. Food production triggered the emergence of kings, bureaucrats, scribes, professional soldiers, and metal workers and other full time craftsmen. Literacy, metallurgy, stratified societi es, advanced weapons, and empires rested on food production. (Diamond 1997b) Word Count: 5298 Bibliography: Barker, G. (2006) The agricultural revolution in prehistory: why did foragers become farmers?UK: Oxford University Press Bellwood, P. (2005) First farmers: the origins of agricultural societies. UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd Bender, B. (1978) ‘Gatherer-Hunter to farmer: a social perspective’ in: World Archaeology 10: 204-222 Binford, L. (1968) ‘post-Pleistocene Adaptations’ in: New Perspectives in archaeology. Eds: Binford, S. and Binford, L. USA: Aldine Publishing Company Blumler, M. A. and Byrne, R. (1991) ‘The ecological genetics of domestication and the origins of agriculture’ in: Current Anthropology 32: 23-54 Bogucki, P, (1999) The origins of human society.UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd Braidwood, R. (1960) ‘The agricultural revolution’ in: Scientific American 203: 130-141 Braidwood, R. and Howe, B. (1960) Prehistoric inve stigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. USA: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Bronson, B. (1975) ‘the earliest farming: demography as cause and consequence’ in: Population, ecology and social evolution. Eds: Polgar, S. Netherlands: de Gruyter Mouton Childe, G. (1936) Man makes himself. UK: Oxford University Press Cohen, M. N. (1977) The food crisis in prehistory: overpopulation and the origins of agriculture.USA: Yale University Press Cole, S. (1967) The Neolithic Revolution. UK: Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) Cowgill, G. L. (1975) ‘On causes of ancient and modern population changes’ in: American Anthropologist 77: 505-525 Denham, T. (2011) ‘Early agriculture and plant domestication in New Guinea and island southeast Asia’ in: Current Anthropology Vol 52, No 4: 379-395 Diamond, J. (1997a) Guns, gems and steel: the fates of human societies. USA: Norton Diamond, J. (1997b) ‘location, location, location: the first far mers’ in: Science Vol 278, No 5341Flannery, K. (1969) ‘origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and the Near East’ in: The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals. Eds: Ucko, P. J. and Dimbleby, G. W. USA: Aldine Publishing Company Green, S. W. (1980) ‘towards a general model agricultural systems’ in: Advances in archaeological method and theory. Eds: Schiffer, M. B. USA: Academic Press Gupta, A. K. (2010) ‘origins of agriculture and domestication of plants and animals linked to early Holocene climate amelioration’ in: Current Science Vol 87, No 1: 19 Hayden, B. 1990) ‘Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers, and Planters: The emergence of food production’ in: Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 31-69 Hayden, B. (1995) ‘an overview of domestication’ in: Last hunters, first farmers: New perspectives on the prehistoric transitions to agriculture. Eds: Price, T. D. and Gebauer, A. USA: School of American Research Press Henry, D. O. (1989) From foraging to agriculture: the Levant at the end of the Ice Age. USA: University of Philadelphia Press Lee, R. (1972) ‘the intensification of social life among the ! Kung Bushmen’ in: Population growth: anthropological implications. Eds: Spooner, B.USA: MIT Press Little, N; Onions, C. T; Friedrichsen, G. W. S; Fowler, H. N; Coulson, J. (1973) Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. UK: Oxford University Press Miller, N. (1992) ‘the origins of plant cultivation in the Near East’ in: the origins of agriculture: an international perspective. Eds: Cowan, C. W. and Watson, P. J. USA: Smithsonian Institution Press Neilson, R. (2006) The little green handbook: seven trends shaping the future of our planet. USA: Picadore Pluciennik, M. and Zvelebil, M. (2009) ‘The origins and spread of agriculture’ in: Handbook of archaeological theories. Eds: Bentley R. A. and Maschener, H. nd Chippindale, C. UK: Alt amira Press Rindos, D. (1984) the origins of agriculture: an evolutionary perspective. UK: Academic Press Ltd Runnels, C. and van Andel, T. H. (1988) ‘trade and the origins of agriculture in the Eastern Mediterranean in: Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1: 83-109 Sauer, C. (1952) agricultural origins and dispersals. USA: American Geographical Society Simmons, A. H. (2007) The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: transforming the human landscape. USA: The University of Arizona Press Smith, B. (2001) ‘the transition to food production’ in: Archaeology at the Millennium: A sourcebook.Eds: Feinman, G. and Price, T. D. USA: Plenum Publishing Company Stark, B. (1986) Origins of food production in the New World. USA: Smithsonian Institution Press Tilley, C. (1996) An ethnography of the Neolithic: Early prehistoric societies in Southern Scandinavia. UK: Cambridge University Press Watson, P. J. (1995) ‘Explaining the transition to agriculture’ in: Last h unters: first farmers; New perspectives on the prehistoric transition to agriculture. Eds: Price, T. D. and Gebauer, A. USA: School of American Research Press Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. (1993) Domestication of plants in the old world. UK: Oxford University Press