Category: The Neolithic Revolution

When analysing the differences between the Neolithic era and the Paleolithic era the first thing we notice is the duration of each period. The Paleolithic age ranged from about 2 million BC to 10,000 BC. The Neolithic age on the other hand lasted for a much shorter duration, from 9,000 BC to 3,500 BC. In correlation with the time periods these eras took place they were given nick-names. The Paleoloithic age is known as the Old Stone Age and the Neolithic age is known as the New Stone Age.

There was a lot of innovation in the Neolithic Age such as in daily life, tools, and farming. In the Paleolithic Age people were hunters and gatherers, they would hunt, fish, and forage for their food. While the coming of the Neolithic Age changed all of that, agriculture and farming became very popular, people started to store their foods, and this could open up opportunities to sell, and trade. The farmers of the Neolithic age started systems of networks in order to trade or sell crops, and food for other goods. This was called the barter system, and money was not involved, and the trade would be immediate. Another big innovation that the Neolithic age saw was the development of pottery, “The development of pottery products made it easier to cook and transport food” (Kaushik, Nimisha). Living situations in the Paleolithic age were crowded to say the least. They lived in caves with up to 30 people at a time, this was a ‘family’. From this came the cave drawings we know so well today. In the Neolithic Age they lived in a more of a community setting, comprised of villages of up to 300 people. Housing was much different, “During this time man lived in houses made up of mud and stone”(Kaushik, Nimisha). The Neolithic age also created a ‘government system’, and this would follow into the future societies. The higher people of this ‘government system’ would live near the rivers. The lives of men and women changed in the Neolithic age due to the advancement of agriculture. Women would be able to tend to the crops, make cloth and pottery. Then after the Neolithic revolution the women stayed home, and the men took on the role of the farmers. This caused the women’s status to become lowered.

The accomplishments in the Neolithic age definitely set the stage for the rise of complex societies. The major accomplishment of the Neolithic age was the rise of agriculture. This made it easier for people to grow and store crops. The upcoming societies would be able to grow off that and develop further advancements in agriculture. The domestication of animals played hand and hand in this as they were able to keep animals and use all parts of the animal, from the fur to the bones. All of this resulted in people in these societies to be able to live longer, since there was always a supply of food, whether it was crops or domesticated animals. There was an advancement in tools, technology, and record keeping. All of these will be able to assist future societies as they would most likely build off of these new ideas and technologies.

The fact that our population continues grow exponentially, agriculture allows us to farm and we have land to sustain that tremendous amount of our population.

The hunter-gatherers of Neolithic Age were essentially the first to start thinking about the future, not just living in the moment. The climate was stabilizing, and minds became more complex. The thought process people in that period of time had was increasing. It because more difficult to find animals to hunt, and more groups of people were settling down in their own colonies, not being able to freelance hunting anymore, they came to the conclusion that hunting and planning accordingly can help them survive much more than what they did in the past. Once the hunter/gathers found a nice settlement where they can sustain life for a long period of time, they started to think about tomorrow and the future. Their minds became more complex and refined, they believed in domestication smaller animals that provided them a higher yield in sustainability rather than hunt just for today and worry about tomorrow when it inevitably came. “The benefits of animal domestication were obvious–secure supplies of meat, milk, fur, leather, wool, and even bones and horns for tool-making” (Hillel, 1998). This lifestyle came with risk, if a wanderer would see your thriving settlement, what is going to stop that person from raiding and taking what you have that is a disadvantage of having a settlement lifestyle. An advantage would be that you are providing for more people for longer periods of time and you can focus on living your life, as oppose to always being on alert.

Within the great transition period, lifestyles around the world were different, this was mainly because of the environment the people were living in. If you found yourself near a rive, you would most likely be farming plants and fishing to make it short and simple. While on the other hand if you found yourself in a dry climate you found yourself not really thinking about farming but more likely to think about hunting and domesticating animals to farm and reproduce them to sustain your life in the settlement. “The agriculture transformation radically changed almost ever aspect of human life. Food production and storage stimulated specialization of activities, and great enhanced the division of labor…in hunting-gathering societies” (Hillel, 1998). There was bound to be changes within lives and societies due to climate and environment. This later brought up some differences with culture, beliefs and mentality. One society might argue that eating animals is wrong, while the other might believe that they are wrong for not eating animals, they might even reference the bible. Social structure was very influence by the way the settlements were living at the time and their day to day actions.

If we fast-forward today, we can definitely see the changes, we have grocery stores, we don’t hunt, we don’t live by any rivers and don’t rely on fishing on a daily basis we don’t have domesticated animals that provide fur, we go and buy food, clothes, medicine. These changes are tremendous compared to how it all started in the Neolithic Revolution. If something were to happen in our present day lives and we were having to be forced to live like our ancestors that lived in 4000 B.C we would not survive. Although, one can argue that we are way more intelligent that how we were in the past, and we have developed more tools than how it started I still genuinely believe that we would not survive at all being hunter/gathers and 100% dependent on farming. That is why I always believed that learning about the past, will definitely aid in our future, and learning about the future will help our past as well.

The Neolithic Revolution had marked the transition of the society in which agriculture was promoted during the time. The Neolithic Revolution was a period of development as well as improvement in the standard of living (Kristin Harper and George Armelagos). In other words, it was the transition from hunter-gather to the agriculturalist (Wikipedia and PPT), it was the process of a life transition, from displaced to settled along with developing agriculture.

One of the most significant examples of the move during the Neolithic Revolution that was taught mostly from the high school world history class was the case of how ancient Egyptians moved into The Nile valley which was closer to the Nile river as well as taking advantage of the environment to develop agriculture, this was also mentioned as the river valley civilization (High School World History).

Unfortunately, although the development of agriculture changed the primary way of food development, “The transition to primary food production was so dramatic that it had been called the Neolithic revolution, and it was marked by the appearance of social stratification that created a significant differential in the risk of disease within a community” (Kristin Harper and George Armelagos). The result of the revolution was not as ideal as people expected: the switch of the primary food production method increased disease. Moreover, due to the increase of the diseases, the Neolithic Revolution also marked the accelerating of the mortality and the first epidemiological transition (Kristin Harper and George Armelago).

Before the Neolithic Revolution, people were mostly nomads who move around different regions. There were definitely diseases, and illness exists in each different communities, and the only way to solve the problem was possibly just carting off those people with illness from the community and left them all alone. There was no medical support when people were moving, as nomads, the only way to survive was to produce enough food and keep healthy. People at that time might think that if they got to settle in one place, there would be a lot fewer people getting decease. However, according to Amanda Mummert, an Emory graduate student in anthropology: “early agriculturalists experienced nutritional deficiencies and had a harder time adapting to stress, probably because they became dependent on particular food crops, rather than having a more significantly diverse diet” (Amanda Mummert).

It takes a lot for your body to accept the new environment as well as the new diet, it is not a natural process for a community who suddenly settled down in an area and get used to their life as quickly as possible. People have to follow their body’s instruction to develop a plan for what they put into their body instead of relying on the rapid development of agriculture.

For roughly 2.5 million years, people lived on Earth barring leaving a written file of their lives, but they left different sorts of remains and artifacts.

The Paleolithic length (Stone Age) is when humans began the usage tools made up of stones and there were no agricultural things to do and human beings had been based on looking and as well as the period used to be very cold, so frequently humans of that time used to live in caves. In contrast to the Neolithic length, people become a bit smart and commenced agricultural meals, additionally, they commenced the use of fire and sharp arrowheads, and further developed the village system.

However, Paleolithic technology noticed the advent of many human species. Hominids such as Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis lived and prospers in this period. By the Neolithic length only one human species was once dominant – modern humans, Homo sapiens.

Paleolithic human beings had been hunter-gatherers. They have been nomads who lived in tribes and relied on hunting, fishing, and gathering wild fruits. They hunted animals like bison, mammoths, bears, and deer. The meat was once a supply of food, and animals’ cover was once used to make clothes. They lived in clans of 20- 30 people in caves, exteriors, or cabins made of tree branches, and animals’ skin. Whereas the Neolithic period started when humans observed agriculture and elevating cattle, which allowed them to no longer have a nomadic lifestyle. They have been capable to settle in fertile areas with a predictable climate, normally close to river basins. Rice and wheat had been the first flowers they cultivated, and the first animals to be domesticated had been dogs, goats, sheep, oxen, and horses.

Paleolithic tools were made of wood, stone, and animal bones. Tools and weapons like harpoons, axes, lances, choppers, pebble stones, and flakes had been used. Meanwhile, Neolithic tools had been sophisticated. A range of equipment was invented, such as sickle blades and grinding stones for agriculture, as well as pottering and bone implements for meal production. Stone axes allowed Neolithic man to clear forests, and the adze allowed him to reduce wood for shelter, buildings, and cameos. Archeologists have additionally found projectile points, beads, and statutes from this period.

Paleolithic human beings are believed to have animistic religious beliefs. They decorated the walls of their caves with photographs of animals such as deer, bison, and mammoths. They also made small sculptures. The most famous prehistorical paintings are in the cave of Altamira in Spain and Lascaux in France. This form of art, wonderful from ‘natural formations in caves’, is called ‘cave art’. Cave art has been observed all over Europe, Asia, and Africa. People in paintings had been depicted as stick figures. However, in Neolithic art, human determination grew to be important, which often paint scenes with companies of people hunting, dancing, or farming.

Paleolithic humans were more healthy than Neolithic humans. Paleolithic humans were taller and lived longer than the Neolithic people. The adoption of grains in the Neolithic period coincides with a shortening of stature, thinner bones, and crooked, cavity teeth. Another interesting physiology trade was a cut-off date in pelvic inlet depth, making childbirth extra hard in the Neolithic length compared with the Paleolithic period. Diseases like tooth cavities, malaria, tuberculosis, and typhoid fever are first recognized to have come about in the Neolithic period.

While the most necessary invention of Paleolithic humans was language, and their capacity to control fire, Neolithic human beings located how to cultivate flora and cultivate animals. They additionally invented writing, pottery, and weaving. The agricultural revolution in the early Neolithic period had a profound impact on the human species. The wheel is additionally believed to have been invented in the Neolithic period. Calendars and time retaining have been additionally invented in this period.

Faith in the Paleolithic period was used to be not institutionalized nor used to be thinking well developed. Paleolithic humans believed in animism or spirits that managed their surroundings and animals around them. Small stone statues of pregnant ladies might also advocate the worship of fertility or nature. They normally buried their dead. Neolithic humans buried their useless with care. Although they did not make tombs, they buried their dead deep in the ground regularly instances sitting up and surrounded by the pots and weapons which he used in life. This used to be yet another indication that man was open to believing in lifestyles after death.

Summarizing the comparative analysis of the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods, it can be argued that the change from a nomadic lifestyle to settling in permanent communities led to some very clear influences on the works of art that were once created, such as the beginning of eternal architecture, the transition from cave paintings to wall paintings, expansion of ceramics and sculpture.

Discuss.

Although the invention of tools, the control of fire, and the discovery of uses of language and art by Paleolithic people were remarkable achievements, it was the Neolithic people’s use of systematic agriculture and settled life that was one of the most important events in the world history.

Paleolithic is the first period of prehistory. It began with human beings appearing about 300,000years ago in Africa. During this time, humans lived in tribes, and dwell in natural caves. They were typically nomads that’s, they moved from place to place in search of food. They developed a language that served as a means of communication and made it easier for people to work together and pass on knowledge. Ancient humans in the Paleolithic age were purely hunters. During the Paleolithic era, people held rituals to worship nature to ask for food abundance. During this time was when the fire was discovered. Fire provided them with warmth and light.

It also scared wild animals and it was also used for cooking. Art in the Paleolithic era began around 35,000yrs ago. The first cave paintings was made on the walls. They painted using their fingers or paint brushes. Their tools were key to survival. To make these tools, they shaped stone using another stone. As they were progressing, they started using materials like woods and bones to make weapons. They developed gradually through the practice of agriculture and the domestication of animals. This marked the end of the Paleolithic era.

The Neolithic era, also known as the new era began in 8000BC-4000BCE. The neolithic era began when homo sapiens moved from Africa to settle in Australia, Japan, Eastern Siberia, the Pacific margins, India, and America due to climatic conditions. The neolithic revolution is the first agricultural revolution thus, the evolvement from hunter-gatherers to agriculture and settlement. The neolithic revolution began when early humans settled into sedentary communities. They were basically into farming and domestication of farm animals. They mostly cultivated food crops such as wheat and barley.

Due to agriculture and the domestication of animals, the Neolithic era changed the life patterns of early humans to settle into sedentary communities. This was because they had to settle at one place and cultivate more food crops. During this era, they were solely into farming and domestication. They settled along river banks like the Nile river, Indus river, Yellow rivers, and many other rivers which led to their civilization. The availability of water, made them develop irrigation systems. They drained water from rivers to their farmlands. As a result of this, they improved by developing tools and weapons for farming and hunting. This gradually changed the life patterns of early humans into a civilized community.

The Neolithic revolution brought about a population explosion. Through agriculture, their population size increased rapidly and people began to settle down into sedentary communities. Their settlements later tend to form villages. Villages evolved into cities, cities later developed gradually into empires. Their increase in population generated an idea to create social classes in ancient societies.

These social classes were the upper class, middle class, and lastly, lower class. The upper class was made up of rulers, priests, government officials, and warriors. The middle-class people were mostly farmers, artisans and craft people. The lower class were the slaves. They all performed different roles in ancient society. Through the formation of social classes, came out a system of writing.

Lastly, the Neolithic revolution brought about specialized labor, pottery, metallurgy, textile production and many others. Agriculture caused a great impact in the Neolithic revolution. Due to agriculture, there was a shift in labor during that time. Unlike the Paleolithic era where ancient humans were more into farming and hunting.

Ancient humans engaged themselves in different jobs such as basketry, pottery, textile production and many others. All these jobs helped in facilitating agricultural production in the Neolithic era. Women on the other hand, helped in catering to their children and also supporting the men on the farmlands. They usually harvested cultivated crops on the farmlands together with their children.

In conclusion, agriculture, domestication of animal population explosion, the emergence of villages and towns, and specialization of labor contributed massively to the introduction of civilization.

1)What is the author attempting to study in the article?

This section of the essay will focus on what the author, Jacob Garner Hariri is focusing his article ‘The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood’ on, what his theory is, and based on what evidence (Jacob Hariri; The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood).

The author expresses that due to countries attempting to colonize other states, it restricted those states to develop their own idea of democracy, whereas countries that were stronger and resisted the attempt to colonize were able to minimize European concepts and ideas influencing them on how the state should be run and the type of government they should have. Furthermore, he goes on to explain how he believes that the countries that were successfully colonized end up being democratic as colonizers would move into those certain countries and thus bring with them political influence from Europe. Countries that were not entirely colonized did however go on to be colonized with an ‘indirect form of colonial rule.’ (Jacob Hariri; The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood, pp 471) He also goes on to say that if countries were ruled indirectly, and did not ‘experience massive European settlement,’ they would be ‘less democratic today’ (Jacob Hariri; ibid, pp 471).

Dependent variables (Y) are the concepts that are being studied and need to be looked at. They are the main purpose why the research is being carried out in the first place. On the other hand, independent variables (X) are notions are cannot be changed; they are there to explain the reason of why dependent variables are being affected. In Hariri’s article, he listed out a few dependent variables he tested out: ‘democracy’, ‘colonization’, ‘colonial duration’, ‘fraction speaking a European language’, ‘extent of indirect rule ’(Jacob Hariri ibid, pp 475- 484). His prime independent variable which he devoted his focus on was ‘early state development’ (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 475).

It is important to have a theory in order to explain why a researcher believes that X caused Y. There must also be enough explanation in order to state the reasons as to how X and Y are related. Proving that there is a link between the independent variable and the dependent variable is also one of the four causal hurdles that need to be studied in order to ensure that the research being carried out is valid. According to Kellstedt and Whitten, ‘the failure to clear this…is a very serious matter; the result being…the theory needs to be thrown out…or we need to revise it’(Kellstedt and Whitten; The Fundamentals of Political Science Research, pp 55). In Hairi’s article, he explains the relationship between his variables through giving background context on the issue in order to back up his theory. He starts off by saying that the way a country is governed affects how well it will do. Secondly, he believes it is important for ‘cultural and historical factors to be taken into consideration as it affects the way a country would run thereafter and it will provide a clear explanation of why certain countries outside of Europe would follow certain beliefs than others in terms of ruling the state (Jacob Hariri, The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood, pp 472). He used examples of other countries in order to further expand on his points and to back up his reasonings. He uses the example of Brazil, whereby small groups within the country tried to rebel when Portugal attempted to overtake them, however it is stated that they only succeeded because the country in itself was unstable and had no strong, cohesive political infrastructure. Another reason was also that those rebellious groups were also enemies amongst each other. Another country he mentioned was Ethiopia, as their state infrastructure was ‘the oldest kingdom-state on the continent’ (Jacob Hariri; ibid, pp 473). They were therefore unbeatable and did not allow themselves to be colonized.

In addition, the author uses IV and OLS to measure his theory. He uses Polity IV to measure his main dependent variable which is democracy. To test his proposal, he then split his research into ‘three proxies for settler penetration and influence’(Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 476). He also uses OLS to address ‘coefficients from OLS regressions of democracy on early state development’(Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 476).

The relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable can also be said to be negative. This is merely due to the fact that as countries had developed some form of state from early, it would be less likely to get colonized. In addition, the older a state is, the more likely it will not get colonized, therefore causing a decrease in the spread of democratic ideologies.

2)Discuss the potential endogeneity problems.

Hariri states that if the states had stronger infrastructures that were resistant before colonization, and therefore made sure that there was a ‘survival of the polity’, then this would change the ‘findings’(Jacob Hariri, The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood, pp 480). This is due to the fact that it had already been mentioned that the countries that had some sort of infrastructure and therefore had someone in authority were most likely to not be colonized. Furthermore, that might have been due to the efficiency of the infrastructure. This would therefore change the dynamic of what Hariri proposed and that was that ‘early state development constrained the development of democracy’ and the focus of the research would not be a democracy but ‘ centralization of power’ which would ‘bias our estimates away from zero’ (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 480). He further adds that ‘cultural variation’ may also be related to the ‘livelihood of the state and regime development’ and this leads to his introduction of the Neolithic Revolution (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 480), whereby he states that social gratification occurred. He goes on to form an equation with the claim that those that experienced the Neolithic Revolution faster, as well as the social gratification that came with it, they would have ‘developed statehood earlier’ (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 480). In order to test out that the exogenous variables were not of such big impact that it could change the main argument, Hariri imposed another a using IV 2SLS whereby he took into consideration concepts such as ‘geographic, topographic, or climatic factors’ (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 481).

To further add, as seen below, through carrying out different researches, and taking into account other variables that may affect the overall claim, it thus proves the robustness of the overall claim. (Source: Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 488)

Observational data is ‘a research design in which the researcher does not have control over values of the independent variable, which occur naturally’ (Kellstedt and Whitten; The Fundamentals of Political Science Research, pp 83). It is merely observing, and by observing the statistical information and regression results, one can conclude if X causes Y thus reaffirming the theory. Furthermore, other variables that could impact X are also analyzed and tested. These are the confounding variables that Hariri tested, one of them being ‘cultural factors’ through the use of 3SLS (Jacob Hariri, The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood, pp 483). The purpose of these tests are to ensure than X is the main cause of Y and that another factor does not have such a big impact as much as X should have.

With that being said, any researcher that attempts to make a claim that X causes Y, then in order for the research to be valid and credible, one must overcome the hurdles imposed by Kellstedt and Whitten. Firstly, one must be able to clearly explain and establish the causal relationships between X and Y, which Hariri successfully has through his research. For instance, one of his claims, that states that had a form of infrastructure before colonization occurred were harder to colonize and be influenced by democratic ideologies, thus they most likely remained autocratic. This is shown through Table 3 of his IV regressions (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 484). Secondly, it needs to be assessed whether X actually causes Y or if Y can cause X. In this instance, ‘democracy’(Y) would have to cause ‘early state development’(X) (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 475-476). This does not make sense as the main argument as some countries already had preceding ideologies, and therefore did not welcome democracy. Therefore, in this instance Y cannot cause X. Furthermore, Hariri recognizes that some factors may arise whereby they may give the impression that they are the independent variable and that they both cause X and Y. Those are the ‘Z variables’(Kellstedt and Whitten, The Fundamentals of Political Science Research, pp 56). In that case, he recognizes the Neolithic Revolution and how that could have been a potential barrier. Despite that, in his research, he says that ‘the timing of the Neolithic Revolution has no effect on democracy other than through its effect on early state development’ (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 481).

3) Describe the research design which the author uses in the article.

The author did opt for an observational study and used quantitative data in order to support his claims. The quantitative data can be seen through the author’s charts, where he used equations in order to analyze different countries and different dependent variables as well as confounding variables. (Source: Jacob Hariri, The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood,pp477)

Through the use of OLS, he came up with the following equation: ‘Di=αD+δsSi+ βDXi+ϵDi’ in order to test out his theory and determine if countries that had ‘early state development’ meant they would most likely end up being autocratic instead of democratic (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 476). This would also be the case even if some countries ended up being colonially ruled through indirect forms. From the regression, he comes to conclusions such as ‘if the United States…had the same pre-colonial state development as China’ then the democracy status in the United States would subsequently end up reducing by ‘-4.98 polity2 units’ (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp476). Therefore, through this Hariri succeeds in proving that if countries had a strong front and strong infrastructures before colonization, they would be less democratic.

Through the observation of his data, it is clear that he used a cross-sectional approach in order to study his theory. Cross-sectional studies are studies whereby one examines ‘a cross-section of social reality (Kellstedt and Whitten; The Fundamentals of Political Science Research, pp 85). In this instance, by looking at Hariri’s article, it can be seen that his studies are based on different non-European provinces.

For Hariri’s IV regressions on his independent variable, he included the Neolithic Revolution in his studies through the equation below: ‘Si=αs+δtTi+βsXi+ϵsi’ (Jacob Hariri, The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood, pp 480). His aim was to prove that certain countries developed quicker due to this revolution and the development of professions. His 2SLS results show that there is definitely an affiliation between the ‘Neolithic Revolution and early state development’(Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 481). His results are persistent with the OLS results, in the sense that they both lead to the same conclusion. To ensure that this variable was not a variable that had an effect on the dependent variable, he then included more concepts in which the Revolution might have also affected, which were ‘ruggedness, precipitation…temperature’ however they did not affect the original findings from the IV regressions in Table 3 (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 481-483). Table 3, Panel C illustrates the following results from the controls: ‘0.62, 0.82, 0.67’ and so on with the dependent variable being speaking a European Language. This means that all the countries that had developed early would have very few Europeans settling in their countries (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 484).

Furthermore, he argues that if countries outside of Europe were colonized, then they would be more likely to follow democratic rules. Even if the settlement was not big, they could be ruled indirectly through ways that the colonizers would think that they could control already existing institutions through. If a country was colonized, they would be affiliated with democratic ideologies afterward. The regression results in Table 4 of Hariri’s article goes in hand with this argument and findings using the ACLP indicator are that 0.22 percent of countries that were colonized will end up following the democratic path.

4) What does the author do in order to attempt to establish causality?

As seen in above, in order to be able to prove that X and Y have a genuine relationship, the hurdles must be overcome. One of the main issues one must overcome when conducting observational research is ensuring that the Z variables or any other variables are controlled and studied. Rightly so, ‘X and Y is generated by actually producing different values in a dependent variable, Y’(Warren E. Miller, Temporal Order and Causal Inference, pp 122). Through any of the concepts studied by Hariri, he managed to describe the link between those concepts and how they ultimately relate to his main argument or his main independent variable. This is seen through his IV research in Table 3 whereby he involves ‘controls for the quality of soil’ (Jacob Hariri, The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood, pp 483).

Hariri’s main independent variable is as mentioned before, ‘early state development’ (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 475). In order to prove the causal affiliation between his independent variable and his dependent variable, he used multiple other variables in order to show how they all interlink. His overall prognosis were that those with predeveloped infrastructures were unlikely to experience colonization; those countries, therefore, did not turn to democracy; some countries that did not experience colonization did however experience being ruled indirectly; and despite the ‘indirect colonial rule they were unlikely to turn to democracy (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 475). He then proceeds to say that those are to be analyzed as they ‘explain why an early development of statehood…was a historical impediment to the development of democracy) (Jacob Hariri, ibid).

This can be seen through Table 1(as seen above) whereby he conducted the search through OLS. (Source: Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp477)

His research is constructed through the use of ‘DFBETA’ whereby 111 countries were studied in this regression table (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 476-478). This, therefore, strengthens his theory as he focuses on multiple countries at once while also considering other factors. He also mentions that countries that resisted colonization, such as the ‘Middle East and Eastern Africa…are autocracies today’ (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp478). This is shown in the chart as for instance, Middle East’s coefficient was 0.15 and 1.07 which is relatively low. Furthermore, as also seen, column 10 shows the democracy coefficient being -235, thus reiterating the theory that countries that had previous political infrastructure would not end up being related to anything democratic in contemporary society.

In conclusion, Hariri lays out his independent variable(X) and dependent variables(X) and carries out robust experiments in order to explain how the variables interlink, especially the dependent variables. Despite different variables used, his ‘results proved very robust to both OLS and IV estimation, to different samples, to different democracy indices, and to a host of exogenous controls’ (Jacob Hariri, ibid, pp 489) and his theory remained consistent throughout.

Threshold 7 is about the emergence of agriculture. I learned here how the development of agriculture begins and how it changed human lifestyles all around the world. First, let’s talk about what is our world before agriculture, we all know that looking for food or what we call foraging is really hard. Foraging is searching for wild food resources. It affects an animal’s fitness because it plays an important role in an animal’s ability to survive and reproduce. Foraging theory is a branch of behavioral ecology that studies the foraging behavior of animals in response to the environment where the animal lives. Before it takes a long time to foragers to find food and all the needs of the whole village. And sometimes they even walk long distances just to find food and get everything that they needed.

Before roughly 15,000 – 20,000 years ago, we believe that our ancestors do haunting in order for them to get food.

The Neolithic Revolution began around 10,000 BC in the fertile crescent and there were also stone age humans in other parts of the world to practice agriculture. Neolithic Age or sometimes called New Stone Age because Neolithic humans used the stone as their tool. This is a radical and important period of change because here people began to plant plants, and breed animals for their food, and here they also built their permanent settlement. It is here that new things begin to emerge that can be an ingredient in the great change of each country. People at this era is admirable because of their knowledge and method for living. They have invented many things that they can use for developing the country. Impressive because of their diligence and perseverance and they are genius and intellect are the main tools for their success to change the world.

And now let’s proceed to the birth of agriculture, humans began to shape nature in order to get all their needed, and agriculture also began to appear in many places around the world it was about 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. We all know that our ancestors are knowledgeable so they use all their knowledge about the environment and they do many experiments and come up with the idea of how they will live which is farming. They thought of different ways and strategies to produce equipment that they can use and that can help them to produce food. They started to do the planting, taking care of the wild animals that they can eat. As time passes by they started to do breeding plants and animals. As our early ancestors explore, it is likely that scientists can find more places where agriculture can emerge even earlier. The birth of agriculture is often referred to as the Neolithic Revolution since it seems to coincide with the Neolithic period or the new stone age.

Pastoralism started as well as the time of growth of plants. Pastoralism is a kind of taking care of animals like goats, horses, and sheep. And sometimes we cannot avoid problems because plant cultivation and herding animals is not so easy that’s why our early ancestors need to do their best and think of some strategies that can help them overcome their challenges. Next is the impact of agriculture, because the number of people continues to increase agriculture affects people in terms of population.