The graphic is not focused on a specific settlement and the displayed years are approximations that can be updated by new discoveries.
I do not know much about Gobekli Tepe, but my understanding is that it appears to be during the local transition from Hunter-Gatherers to Horticultural societies. The inhabitants appears to have been Hunter Gatherer who gathered wild grain and lived in villages for part of the year.
The only thing I find difficult to accept is that Hunter-gatherers could have the economic surplus or the massive amounts of co-ordinated laborers to cut, shape, and erect such megaliths.
Yes, there are many questions to still be answered.
A lot comes down to how many calories could be extracted from the local environment and during what season. Wild grains are ready for harvest at the same time of year and tend to be geographically concentrated, so it is possible that most of the building took place immediately after the harvest. Over a period of decades this might have been enough.
Permanent fishing villages have been discovered that existed long before the advent of agriculture. And Hunter Gatherers in some very productive regions had semi-permanent settlements, particularly where oak acorns grew locally. Both situations created enough food surplus that societies could start to approximate Horticultural societies in their complexity.
"On the other hand, it is also interesting how many of the nations that have been able to industrialize within the last 150 years were previously Agrarian societies. These include Germany, France, Russia, Japan, South Korea, China, and India as well as large swathes of the rest of Europe and Asia."
Great write-up here. I am working on a few essays regarding the agricultural revolution as well.
I am not 100 percent certain, but it seems to me that the list below contains countries that went through some kind of significant land reform before they industrialized.
Perhaps a one-time “reset” was needed to overthrow the extractive agrarian regimes?
That is true, for example in South Korea and Taiwan.
I do not think that land reform is necessary to industrialize, but there is evidence that land reform in those two nations increased agricultural productivity and helped to increase urbanization. Both of those factors are necessary for industrialization.
The key factor in both those nations, and most developing nations today, are creating competitive export industries (typically manufacturing).
Land reform, in various forms, played a significant role in both the French Revolution and the Japanese Meiji Restoration. In each case, land previously held by the nobility was confiscated and, in many instances, redistributed—often sold to wealthy merchants or prosperous peasants. These shifts in land ownership helped reshape the economic and social structure of both societies.
I agree. Land redistribution fundamentally involves the distribution of assets, which can empower individuals with the economic means and confidence necessary for upward social mobility. It's a powerful mechanism for fostering broader economic participation.
One intriguing aspect of this discussion is why Britain, as a pioneer of industrialization, did not undergo a similar process of land redistribution or a comparable societal reset.
Yes, it certainly did. What’s particularly interesting is how the dynamics played out differently across regions. In Western Europe, as many peasants moved to cities, those who remained in rural areas gained greater bargaining power against landlords—leading to improved conditions. In contrast, Eastern Europe, with its lower levels of urbanization, lacked the capacity to absorb rural labor, limiting such shifts in power. The takeaway: even in times of crisis, urbanization was a key factor in empowering the lower classes.
Great article! Very interesting 🙌
How does your time line demarcation between hunter-gatherer and agrarian societies (~7500BC) incorporate the finds at Gobekli Tepe?
Thanks for the comment.
The graphic is not focused on a specific settlement and the displayed years are approximations that can be updated by new discoveries.
I do not know much about Gobekli Tepe, but my understanding is that it appears to be during the local transition from Hunter-Gatherers to Horticultural societies. The inhabitants appears to have been Hunter Gatherer who gathered wild grain and lived in villages for part of the year.
I hope that answers your question.
The only thing I find difficult to accept is that Hunter-gatherers could have the economic surplus or the massive amounts of co-ordinated laborers to cut, shape, and erect such megaliths.
Yes, there are many questions to still be answered.
A lot comes down to how many calories could be extracted from the local environment and during what season. Wild grains are ready for harvest at the same time of year and tend to be geographically concentrated, so it is possible that most of the building took place immediately after the harvest. Over a period of decades this might have been enough.
Permanent fishing villages have been discovered that existed long before the advent of agriculture. And Hunter Gatherers in some very productive regions had semi-permanent settlements, particularly where oak acorns grew locally. Both situations created enough food surplus that societies could start to approximate Horticultural societies in their complexity.
"On the other hand, it is also interesting how many of the nations that have been able to industrialize within the last 150 years were previously Agrarian societies. These include Germany, France, Russia, Japan, South Korea, China, and India as well as large swathes of the rest of Europe and Asia."
Great write-up here. I am working on a few essays regarding the agricultural revolution as well.
I am not 100 percent certain, but it seems to me that the list below contains countries that went through some kind of significant land reform before they industrialized.
Perhaps a one-time “reset” was needed to overthrow the extractive agrarian regimes?
That is true, for example in South Korea and Taiwan.
I do not think that land reform is necessary to industrialize, but there is evidence that land reform in those two nations increased agricultural productivity and helped to increase urbanization. Both of those factors are necessary for industrialization.
The key factor in both those nations, and most developing nations today, are creating competitive export industries (typically manufacturing).
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-export-industries-matter-so-much
I need to go back and read your book on this section. The five keys, that is.
My favorite comment of all-time!
Land reform, in various forms, played a significant role in both the French Revolution and the Japanese Meiji Restoration. In each case, land previously held by the nobility was confiscated and, in many instances, redistributed—often sold to wealthy merchants or prosperous peasants. These shifts in land ownership helped reshape the economic and social structure of both societies.
China too. Its weird how this seemed to be a necessary prerequisite to industrialization.
I agree. Land redistribution fundamentally involves the distribution of assets, which can empower individuals with the economic means and confidence necessary for upward social mobility. It's a powerful mechanism for fostering broader economic participation.
One intriguing aspect of this discussion is why Britain, as a pioneer of industrialization, did not undergo a similar process of land redistribution or a comparable societal reset.
Maybe the black death did this naturally by reducing the labor supply and pushing wages up?
Yes, it certainly did. What’s particularly interesting is how the dynamics played out differently across regions. In Western Europe, as many peasants moved to cities, those who remained in rural areas gained greater bargaining power against landlords—leading to improved conditions. In contrast, Eastern Europe, with its lower levels of urbanization, lacked the capacity to absorb rural labor, limiting such shifts in power. The takeaway: even in times of crisis, urbanization was a key factor in empowering the lower classes.