Essay Sample about V. Gordon Childe: Neolithic and Urban Revolutions

A “revolution” in the context of ancient cultural change is a concept that all archaeologists have a grasp of, yet none seems to agree on what exactly it connotes. Due to the vagueness and ambiguity of what contends as a revolution in an ancient cultural context, researchers have failed to create a concrete definition for it, leaving the floor open to endless interpretation and perpetual debate. Notwithstanding this issue, by considering thoughts from the major models, evidence, and theories of ancient cultural change, a concise and comprehensive definition for “revolution” in an ancient societal context can be made: an event, idea, innovation, or invention introduced to a specific region or culture that significantly and quickly changes how humans live and interact with each other and their environment. Regardless of how an archaeologist may define the term “revolution”, it remains an incredibly useful label for distinguishing inflection points in human history. This sentiment is visible in the work of Vere Gordon Childe, the study of the Human Revolution, and the study of the Broad-Spectrum Revolution. 

To create a complete definition of “revolution,” it is important to understand the term’s origins in the field of Archaeology. First proposed by the archaeologist Vere Gordan Childe in his 1930s publications, the idea of ancient revolutions originates from the social movements of the early 20th century (Gathercole 2005: 26-27). As a Marxist Archaeologist, Childe saw the study of ancient societal changes as a study of changes in the socio-economic practices of humans, which ultimately led to major shifts in how people behaved and interacted. Using the English Industrial Revolution of the 18th century as a pretext for his requirements of a “revolution,” Childe wrote extensively about his theories of a Neolithic and Urban Revolution that took place in the ancient Near East. Like the Industrial Revolution, Childe saw the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions as both causing “an upward kink in the population curve” (Gathercole 2005: 28) in a relatively short amount of time, upheaving the previous economic systems previously used by society. In sum, Childe saw a revolution as a rapid change in the socio-economic structure of a geographically specific society that inevitably leads to a growth in the population. Despite never explicitly defining what he meant by revolution, Childe’s writing and inspirations provide some clues as to what he may have envisioned a true revolution was. 

Although Childe began publishing almost a century ago and is now read “primarily for historical interest” (Gathercole 2005: 29), the longevity of Childe’s ideas about revolutions speaks to the term’s significance to the field of archaeology. Revolution, unlike most of Childe’s work, has not been disproven, changed, or completely overhauled because no other term or designation for the theories Childe proposed in his papers can be created. The domestication of plants and animals witnessed during the Neolithic Revolution and the shift towards permanently stationary and hierarchical society found during the Urban Revolution were events so different than what came before them that no other archaeological concept can fully encapsulate the magnitude of these cultural events quite like “revolution.” It is no mistake the concept of a revolution has survived this long, and while archaeologists have tweaked its meaning over time, revolution’s importance to archaeology and the study of the past cannot be disregarded or understated. 

Of the known revolutions, none are quite as impactful to modern life as the so-called “Human” or “Upper Paleolithic Revolution.” In essence, the Human Revolution is the theory that “modern human behaviors suddenly, and nearly simultaneously” (McBrearty, Brooks 2000: 453) arose throughout the Old World roughly 50,000 years ago. A highly debated topic, archaeologists are incapable of agreeing on whether the Human Revolution should even be considered a “revolution” due to the lack of conclusive evidence for or against the existence of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. The first side to the debate over the origins of behavioral modernity is best addressed in the paper The Revolution That Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Human Behavior by Sally McBreaty and Alison S. Brooks. As believers in Gradualism, that is the theory that small changes in the actions and behaviors of ancient humans accumulated over time resulting in certain modern human activities and traits, McBrearty and Brooks conclude archaeological evidence from Africa shows changes in human cognition occurred at times thousands of years before the proposed start of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. On the flip side of this debate is Ofer Bar-Yosef, whose The Upper Paleolithic Revolution was written as a direct rebuttal to McBreaty and Brooks’ article. A firm supporter of Punctuated Equilibrium, the theory stating certain modern cultural behaviors arose out of periods of quick and intense alterations in the lives of ancient peoples scattered throughout extended periods of little to no change, Bar-Yosef did not discount the archaeological evidence showing the “accumulation of markers for modern behavior as gradual” (Bar-Yosef 2002: 365) but made it clear he believed the gradual introduction of changes does not represent a real change in human life. Since the invention of different stone tool technologies requires high levels of cognition, communication, and societal structure, the authors of both papers use the archaeological evidence of stone tool industries as key arguments for the existence or non-existence of the Human Revolution. In McBreaty and Brooks’ paper, they point out the blade technology of the Aurignacian Industry that appeared at the start of the Human Revolution in Europe about 40-45 ka, shares a remarkable semblance to the pre-Aurignacian blade technology from Haua Fteah, Libya, which dates to 127-75 ka. Additionally, archaeologists have found evidence for blade technology from Kapthurin Formation, Kenya that, if dated properly, could predate 280 ka (McBrearty, Brooks 2000: 494-496). If, as McBrearty and Brooks claim, the introduction of blade production is “considered a key ingredient of the ‘Human Revolution’” (McBrearty, Brooks 2000: 494), then its appearance over 200,000 years before the Upper Paleolithic should weaken any argument for the Human Revolution’s existence. 

By debating the validity of the Human Revolution and using the archaeological evidence to prove their arguments, McBearty, Brooks, and Bar Yosef indirectly prove the necessity of the term “revolution.” Due to its deep integration in the archaeological lexicon, “revolution” has become a check of sorts on the relative importance of or existence of rapid cultural change in an ancient society. In this case, the authors are arguing not just what can be considered a revolution (can cultural changes that happened previously still count as a revolution?), but also the timescale of a revolution (at what length of time is too long to count?). Whether a researcher believes the Human Revolution happened or not, all can agree that the concept of a revolution remains incredibly important to the continued study and classification of early human cultural and cognitive changes. 

Despite being an idea from a bygone era of archaeology, the term revolution has remained a principal concept in the field of archaeology well into the 21st century. By taking Childe’s original vision of an ancient revolution and tweaking it to be more encompassing and inclusive, “revolution” has become indispensable. Although no one can seem to agree on a tangible definition for a revolution, it is no accident archaeologists to this day use it to convey their arguments and beliefs in major cultural shifts found in the archaeological record. This was first witnessed in the proposal of the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions and is still seen in the research and debate surrounding the Human and Broad-Spectrum Revolutions. In a sense “revolution” works as a term because of its agency over the minds of researchers and the public alike. It is for these reasons that, unless a better descriptive term is invented, “revolution” will continue to be the best describer of events or ideas that rapidly and abruptly change the course of human society in a specific region.