August 13, 2008 Time: 06:58am t1-v1.3

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Prehistoric Demography in a Timeof Globalization

Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel and Ofer Bar-Yosef

Abstract The signal of a relatively abrupt increase, in the immature proportionof skeleton is observed in cemeteries during the foraging-farming transition. Thissignal is interpreted as the signature of a major demographic shift in human history,now known as the Neolithic Demographic Transition (NDT). How can populationgrowth be explained?’ Was population increase gradual or abrupt? Was it related tothe stability in food provisioning due to building and maintaining storage facilities?Or was it just annual cultivation and harvesting under favorable climatic conditionsthat allowed the number of humans to increase? The volume presented here is di-vided into four parts. Part 1 concerns the demographic and economic aspects of theNDT. Part 2 focuses on settlement and village practices. The relatively rapid growthof human populations during the NDT radically transformed settlement behaviour.In this part, we consider the varied implications of the NDT for settlement andvillage practices at both regional and local or intra-village scales. Part 3 is con-cerned with community size and social organization. The growth of larger commu-nities gave rise to unprecedented stresses within these expanding villages, which inturn stimulated the appearance of novel social practices and institutions. This partis concerned with the transformations of human social life that resulted from theNDT. Part 4 focuses on population growth and health. Can the signal of a returnto homeostatic demographic equilibrium be detected, and what would have beenits tempo during the NDT? Was the signal the same in the different geographicalcentres of agricultural innovation and expansion? Did the NDT produce a decline oran improvement in the living conditions of early farmers? The time has come to re-flect upon the multiple consequences of that qualitative leap in human demographichistory.

Keywords Neolithic Revolution · Neolithic Demographic Transition · sedentism ·foragers · farmers · maternal energetics · fertility explosion · Natufian

J.-P. Bocquet-AppelCNRS, UPR2147 44, rue de l’Amiral Mouchez – 75014 Parise-mail: bocquet-appel@ivry.cnrs.fr

J.-P. Bocquet-Appel, O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transitionand its Consequences, C© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

1

August 13, 2008 Time: 06:58am t1-v1.3

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

2 J.-P. Bocquet-Appel, O. Bar-Yosef

Human history began some 2.6 million years ago with the first stone tool makers,who were hunters, gatherers, and sometimes scavengers. The foragers’ way of lifeevolved during most of this time, when major changes in the colonization of theworld were taking place. Both fossil and genetic evidence record a series of “out ofAfrica” movements, with the main ones occurring first some 200,000–150,000 yearsago and the second, namely the dispersal of modern humans, some 50,000–45,000years ago. By that time Australia had been colonized. The Americas were the last tobecome inhabited around 14,000 years ago or perhaps earlier. Through all this longperiod, human societies based their economy on hunting and gathering and wereorganized, as we believe on the basis of ethnographic and historical examples, asbands of foragers, keeping a mating system that allowed biological survival withinthe so-called “dialectical tribe”. The archaeology of the Palaeolithic period, andespecially of the Upper Palaeolithic, tends to support this general view. The majorsocial and economic changes occurred in several regions, when groups of foragersbecame farmers.

This revolutionary shift in human history is known as the Neolithic Revolution.Communities of foragers started cultivating several species of wild plants (barley,wheat, millet, rice, etc.), eventually also becoming herders in several regions wherewild animals could be domesticated. The importance of the agricultural economywas the crucial first step towards greater social complexity, population growth, andthe ensuing emergence of states. The process and the timing were not the same inevery region. It started some 11,500 years ago in the Levant (Near East), in northernChina (millet), and later with rice cultivation in southern China (Fuller et al. 2007).New Guinea was another locus and so were Ethiopia, south-east North America,Central Meso-America, and South America (Bellwood 2005; Weiss et al. 2006;Fuller et al. 2007). While the number of original plant domestication loci is stillbeing debated, mostly due to lack of sufficient archaeo-botanical research in severalregions, the evidence for the dispersal of the agro-pastoral economies in the OldWorld is relatively well dated.

One of the main questions raised by the outcome of the Neolithic Revolutionis ‘how can population growth be explained?’ More specifically, ‘was populationincrease gradual or abrupt?’ ‘Was it related to the stability in food provisioning dueto building and maintaining storage facilities? Or was it just annual cultivation andharvesting under favourable climatic conditions that allowed the number of humansto increase?’

At first, the answer had to come from the ethno-archaeological evidence. Basedon ethnographic evidence, the often small sites of Late Pleistocene foragers could beinterpreted as the remains of an average band of some 25–30 humans. However, onesite only gives a partial picture. It is obvious to most scholars that biological survivaldepends on having a reasonably large mating system with a minimal number of 400people (Wobst 1974). The more commonly observed size of a “dialectical tribe”as defined by Birdsell (1968, 1985), based on a sample of 256 American nativesocieties, was in the range of 113–7142 people, with an average of 897 (Newell andConstandse-Westermann 1986: 256). Such units are currently referred to as ethno-linguistic groups (e.g. Marlowe 2005).

August 13, 2008 Time: 06:58am t1-v1.3

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Prehistoric Demography in a Time of Globalization 3

The archaeological record is marked by the transition to sedentary communitiessince the Late Pleistocene and during the Holocene. Sedentism or semi-sedentism istaken to indicate that for at least half or most of the year, the social group stays in onelocation. Sedentism could be afforded when food resources were stable, predictable,and accessible, as in the case of the Northwest Coast Indians. In other regions, aneconomy based on plant cultivation with continuous gathering and hunting allowedthe population of early villages to be estimated according to the overall site size.Here too, ethnographic records play a major role in the proposed interpretations(Kramer 1982, 1983; Kramer and Boone 2002). Thus, the mean number of peopleper hectare is 150, and an early Neolithic village site such as Jericho, with a size ofabout 2.5 hectares, accommodated some 300–4000 people. Therefore, the estimateof population growth based on sites required archaeologists to obtain information onsite size, average depth, and radiometric dates in order to calculate the duration ofthe occupation and the potential changes in the number of community members. Inaddition, when a larger region is considered, comparisons between archaeologicallyobserved social entities and changes through time should be taken into account.While the overall picture for a limited area such as the southern Levant is feasible,in many other regions the records are too fragmentary.

The causal link between demography and cultural change has been a recurrenttopic of discussion in archaeology. But the problems involved in gathering archaeo-logical data have resulted in contradictory population estimates. The current investi-gation of this critical issue, namely, understanding the process of population growthduring the Holocene in various regions of the world, is changing thanks to the simul-taneous use of two methodological innovations in palaeodemography. Palaeoanthro-pological data from archaeologically exposed cemeteries, in spite of the limitationsimposed by past mortuary practices as expressions of cultural concepts as well astaphonomic processes (Guy et al. 1997; Gordon and Buikstra 1981), are still the bestcandidates for detecting demographic change. In seeking to obtain palaeoanthro-pological information from archaeological cemeteries, a methodological innovationwas employed: the large-scale use of a non-conventional demographic indicator thatpinpoints the proportion of young individuals in the age pyramid of a given popula-tion. This indicator expresses the input parameters in the living population (birth,growth, and fertility rates) and not, counter-intuitively, mortality (McCaa 2002;Johansson and Horowitz 1986; Sattenspiel and Harpending 1983). As the transitionfrom foragers to farmers occurred at different times in different places, the space–time distribution of the palaeodemographic indicators obscures the uniqueness ofthis phenomenon. While absolute chronology is essential for the historical record ofevery region in the world, it temporally masks distant statistical regularities that needto be compared in attempting to detect the signature of a global population process.Therefore, the second methodological innovation presents the data in relative ratherthan absolute (historical) chronology, by concentrating on the shift from foragers tofarmers regardless of the precise timing. Hence, we can detect the common denomi-nators behind the demographic patterns within the archaeological data. By removingthe absolute chronology for methodological reasons, we can trace the demographicprocess across different cemeteries in various regions of the world (Bocquet-Appel

August 13, 2008 Time: 06:58am t1-v1.3

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

4 J.-P. Bocquet-Appel, O. Bar-Yosef

2002; Bocquet-Appel y Paz de Miguel Ibanez 2002). This signal is characterizedby a relatively abrupt increase – over two to three millennia in the epicentre, fewcenturies elsewhere – in the immature proportion in cemeteries during the transi-tion, which expresses a corresponding increase in the parameter values for entryinto the age pyramid of the population (birth, growth, and fertility rate). This signalis interpreted as the signature of a major demographic shift in human history, nowknown as the Neolithic Demographic Transition (NDT). From archaeological data,a two-stage process has been identified in the NDT (Bandy 2005) with a first stagewhen the density of remains increases, followed by a second stage with a decliningdensity. It is interpreted as the signature of a density-dependent demographic pro-cess. The signal of the NDT has been detected in cemetery data in Europe and NorthAfrica, in several regions of North America (Bandy et al. 2007; Kohler and Glaude,this volume; Warrick 2006; Bocquet-Appel and Naji 2006) and the Levant (Guerreroet al., this volume; Hershkovitz and Gopher, this volume), and in archaeological datafrom Meso-America and South America as well (Bandy 2005). The two-stage NDTnow appears to be a global process that is characteristic of most – if not all – earlyagricultural sequences worldwide. This NDT initiated the demographic regime ofthe preindustrial populations, with their high birth and mortality rates. Once such alarge-scale process was identified, questions began to emerge as to its causes andconsequences.

Putative Causes of the Neolithic Demographic Transition

The NDT was caused by two factors that occurred in tandem but need to be dis-tinguished in order to elucidate the biological and cultural nature of the transition.These are (i) a shift in the mobility regime of foragers towards sedentism, and itsimpact on female fertility, and (ii) an increase in regional carrying capacities thanksto the invention (at the sources) or the introduction (elsewhere) of the agro-pastoraleconomy. In the empirical data sets acquired by archaeologists, demographic growthis observed with the sedentism of hunter-gatherer populations (in the Levant: Guer-rero et al., this volume; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1991; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000; in Meso-America: MacNeish 1972; in eastern North America: Bandyet al. 2007; Hassan 1973; Sussman 1972). The primary factor of this demographicgrowth, i.e. biological reproduction and, beyond this, a fertility explosion, is there-fore not to be sought in the emergence of the new farming economy. The potentialfor an increase in biological reproduction thus predated the emergence of the farm-ing communities and was realized with sedentism of females. We must thereforeconclude that the cause of the fertility explosion, independent of the survival rate ofborn individuals, is what led to this major demographic shift: sedentism.

Another assumption could be that demographic growth was caused by the slack-ening (or abandonment) of ancient conscious mechanisms of self-limitation, i.e. re-lating to density dependence, which are assumed to have existed in hunter-gatherersocieties, such as infanticide (Howell 1980). But besides the fact that we do not see

August 13, 2008 Time: 06:58am t1-v1.3

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Prehistoric Demography in a Time of Globalization 5

the cause of this new abundance in terms of resources and their patterns of regularitywhich would prompt communities to give up possible self-limitation measures, webelieve that the practice of infanticide has been greatly exaggerated, partly as anAmerican anthropological myth (see Caldwell and Caldwell 2003; Caldwell et al.1986). Mobile foragers (see Lee 1979) or female chimps, with their typically lowfertility, cannot afford to routinely kill their few babies as a means of regulation. Butthen by what mysterious process does mobility affect the reproductive performanceof populations everywhere on the planet? What could be the causal link betweenforager mobility and putative fertility?

Mobility, in fact, can be seen as a proxy variable for maternal energetics. TheNDT was caused by a major shift in the maternal energetics of farming communitiesrelative to mobile foragers. The energy budget included (i) on the intake side, anunderlying trend towards a reduction in low-calorie food items from hunting andfishing, and a correlative increase in the high-calorie food from agriculture, and (ii)on the expenditure side, a reduction in the physical energy devoted to mobility andthe maternal stress of children transportation. Suckling frequency and intensity isa necessary but not sufficient condition for regulating the rate of the reproductivecycle.

We thus have the following causal sequence: (1) carrying capacity decreases,(2) energy expenditure via mobility and energy intake of low-calorie food itemsincrease, (3) fertility decreases, and (4) population density decreases. The processis reversed when the carrying capacity increases. The causal sequence of variablescan be deduced from various sources (see for instance in Binford 2007, from graphs1.1–1.3: 7–8; Bocquet-Appel, this volume; Valeggia and Ellison 2004). Mobility isa difficult variable to measure. It is characterized in various ways in ethnographicdata, in terms of seasons, residence, or logistics, but finding the correlates in thearchaeological data is hard (e.g. Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000). In fact, thetype of mobility that would correlate best with energy expenditure is total mobility,which is seldom known (it is not, for instance in Binford’s data 2001).

An Unprecedented Fertility ExplosionWas Circumstantially Supported by the Emergenceof the Farming System

When foragers become sedentary, which may roughly increase by 1:3 their fertility,we know that if the carrying capacity of a production system remains more or lessunchanged, then the population will experience hardship. For the population to sur-vive, which now means to support its increasing numbers, the production system hasto be able to feed the additional mouths. This is exemplified by the archaeologicalsequence from the Natufian to the early Neolithic or the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A inthe Levant.

The Early Natufian (14,500–13,000 cal BP) population became semi-sedentarysurviving on the consumption of vegetal food (probably cereals, legumes, and nuts)

August 13, 2008 Time: 06:58am t1-v1.3

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

6 J.-P. Bocquet-Appel, O. Bar-Yosef

obtained by gathering and hunting gazelles, fallow dear, roe deer, wild boar (incertain areas), as well as fishing and trapping various types of birds (e.g. Bar-Yosefand Belfer-Cohen 1989; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000; Bar-Yosef 2002). Thearchaeological evidence includes the small villages (such as Eynan) and hamlets(Wadi Hamme 27, el-Wad terrace, Hayonim terrace, and other sites). Elaboratemortuary practices, collection and use of marine shells for making beads, and sev-eral hard rocks for making pendants, as well as bone beads and pendants, reflectthe relative richness of this society. Exchange with other regions is exemplified byshells from the Red Sea, basalt mortars and pestles that were brought from distancesof 80–100 km. The change took place with what is known as the Late Natufianculture and occurred during the cold and dry periods of the Younger Dryas. Theshort stress season did not affect well rain-fed areas such as Mount Carmel, but itled to a decrease in the predictability, reliability, and thus accessibility of vegetalfoods and possibly certain game animals (e.g. Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 2002).This crisis caused a shift for increased mobility, reduction in the use of body dec-oration, the building of more flimsy dwelling structures, and the like. These wors-ening conditions resulted biologically in lower sexual dimorphism (Belfer-Cohenet al. 1991), conventionally interpreted as a decline in living conditions. Thus, manyLate Natufian groups had to increase their mobility in order to feed themselves.However, sedentary groups in areas which were not affected by climatic vagaries,such as along river valleys or on Mount Carmel, became the earliest Pre-PotteryNeolithic A (PPNA) villages where we see the first clear indications of plant culti-vation (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 2002; Weiss et al. 2006). Moreover, we knowfrom the archaeological data that sedentism or semi-sedentism occasionally ex-isted among forager groups before the Neolithic, as demonstrated in certain MiddlePalaeolithic Mousterian sites in Israel (Lieberman and Shea 1994; Lieberman 1993;Hietala and Stevens 1977) or in the Early Natufian (Bar-Yosef 1983; Bar-Yosefand Belfer-Cohen 1989; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000; Bar-Yosef 2001). Ifthese groups were not able to increase the amount of their food resources, i.e. theircarrying capacity, they must have experienced miseries, using the famous word ofMalthus himself, as predicted by his model.

In this volume, we will not address the reasons for the emergence of sedentism,as this is a major topic in itself (e.g. Davis 1983; Hesse 1979; Hitchcock 1987;Matson 1985; Sellet et al. 2006; Tangri and Wyncoll 1989; Tchernov 1991, 1993).We will simply say for now that the reason should in all likelihood be sought inthe demographic saturation of many areas across the world that were exploitedby hunter-gatherers (Cohen 1977), despite their very low demographic densities(Bocquet-Appel et al. 2005; Binford 2001: 142–159).

The time has come to reflect upon the multiple consequences of the NDT, a qual-itative leap in human demographic history, which, to give an order of magnitude,saw regional populations multiply perhaps 200-fold in the space of a few hundredto a few thousand years.

This volume is divided into four parts. Part I concerns the demographic andeconomic aspects of the NDT. Starting with demography, we discuss the causesof the NDT at its onset. We ask whether the combined impacts of sedentarism

August 13, 2008 Time: 06:58am t1-v1.3

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Prehistoric Demography in a Time of Globalization 7

and an agricultural economy generated an auto-catalytic process that dramaticallyincreased the population growth rate. Agricultural populations managed their rela-tively rapid demographic growth during the NDT by expanding geographically intoecologically favourable zones, through an overall shift from a broad-spectrum dietto a more narrow agro-pastoral subsistence focus, and by applying new cultivationand storage techniques. This expansion raises two questions: (i) what was the paceof this intensification, as measured directly by dietary reconstruction or indirectly byassociated tools and raw materials? (ii) What happened to the “other” foragers whooccupied neighbouring regions? Did they join the farmers or were they extinguishedby the advance of the farmers? This part features contributions from Peter Bellwood,Jerome Dubouloz, Matt Glaude, Emma Guerrero, Timothy A. Kohler, Richard G.Lesure, Stephan Naji, Marc Oxenham, Mehmet Ozdogan, Jean-Denis Vigne, andJean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel.

Part II focuses on settlement and village practices. The relatively rapid growthof human populations during the NDT radically transformed settlement behaviour.In this part, we consider the varied implications of the NDT for settlement andvillage practices at both regional and local or intra-village scales, with contribu-tions from Anna Belfer-Cohen, Adrian Nigel Goring-Morris, Ian Kuijt, and StephenShennan.

Part III is concerned with community size and social organization. The growthof larger communities as a consequence of the NDT had radical implications forhuman social practices and village life. The growth of larger communities gave riseto unprecedented stresses within these expanding villages, which in turn stimulatedthe appearance of novel social practices and institutions. This part is concerned withthe transformations of human social life that resulted from the NDT, with contribu-tions from Matthew Bandy, Robert D. Drennan, Elizabeth Perry, Christian Peterson,Richard H. Wilshusen and Gary O. Rollefson.

Part IV focuses on population growth and health. We ask what were the varia-tions in the growth of children and adolescents, in the frequency of food deficiencypathologies and in the stature of adults and sexual dimorphism during the NDT?Can the signal of a return to homeostatic demographic equilibrium be detected, andwhat would have been its tempo during the NDT? Was the signal the same in the dif-ferent geographical centres of agricultural innovation and expansion? What was thedegree of relationship between demographic, health, social, and cultural changes?Did the NDT produce a decline or an improvement in the living conditions of earlyfarmers? This part features contributions from Mark Nathan Cohen, Avi Gopher,Israel Hershkovitz, Nicolas Tomo, and Ursula Wittwer-Backofen.

Globalization means the contraction of geographic spaces, so that what wasdistant becomes close. It forces us to raise the question of the common origin ofpopulations in our global village. Our planet’s inhabitants were dispersed due tohistorical processes, which we can analyse on three levels of chronological defi-nition, i.e. in the short term, meaning the last century; in the medium term – thelast 2000–3000 years; and in the long term, which covers the prehistoric periods.Globalization thus brings prehistory, our long evolutionary macro-history, into thefocus of current research.

August 13, 2008 Time: 06:58am t1-v1.3

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

8 J.-P. Bocquet-Appel, O. Bar-Yosef

Acknowledgments The contributions to this book were presented during the “NDT Conference”,which was held at the Harvard University Centre for the Environment (HUCE) on 8–10 December2006. The conference was supported by funds from the Joint Incentive Action (Action ConcerteeIncitative) to Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel for “Globalisation: Terrain, Techniques and Theory” (Ter-rain, Technique, Theorie: Globalisation) through the French Ministry of Research. Additional sup-port was provided by the American School of Prehistoric Research (Peabody Museum) to OferBar-Yosef and by Dan Schrag, Director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment.Thanks to Monique Tersis (CNRS, Paris), Matthew Bandy (CNRS, Paris), Marie Mars (CNRS,Paris), Stephan Naji (CNRS, Paris), Dan Schrag (HUCE), and Jenny McGregor (HUCE) for theirhelp in organizing the conference at HUCE.

References

Bandy MS. 2005. New World settlement evidence for a two-stage Neolithic Demographic Transi-tion. Current Anthropology 46(S):S109–S115.

Bandy M, S Naji and JP Bocquet-Appel. 2007. Did the eastern agricultural complex produce aNeolithic Demographic Transition? Submitted.

Bar-Yosef O. 2001. From sedentary foragers to village hierarchies: The emergence of social in-stitutions. The Origin of Human Social Institutions. G. Runciman. Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress. Proceedings of the British Academy, 110: 1–38.

Bar-Yosef O. 2002. Natufian: A complex society of foragers. In Beyond Foraging and Collect-ing, edited by B Fitzhugh and J Habu, pp. 91–149. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,New-York.

Bar-Yosef O and A Belfer-Cohen. 1989. The origins of sedentism and farming communities in theLevant. Journal of World Prehistory 40(3):447–498.

Bar-Yosef O and A Belfer-Cohen. 1991. From sedentary Hunter-Gatherers to Territorial Farmers inthe Levant. In Between Bands and States, Center for Archaeological Investigations, occassionalPaper No. 9, edited by S Gregg, pp. 181–202. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Bar-Yosef O and A Belfer-Cohen. 2002. Facing environmental crisis. Societal and cultural changesat the transition from the Younger Dryas to the Holocene in the Levant. In The Dawn of Farmingin the Near East, edited by RTJ Cappers and S Bottema, pp. 55–66. ex oriente, Berlin.

Belfer-Cohen A and O Bar-Yosef. 2000. Early Sedentism in the Near East: A Bumpy Road toVillage Life. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, andDifferentiation, edited by I Kuijt, pp. 19–37. New York: Plenum Publication.

Belfer-Cohen A, L Schepartz and B Arensburg. 1991. New biological data for the Natufian Pop-ulations in Israel. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O Bar-Yosef and FR Valla,pp. 411–424. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Bellwood P. 2005. First Farmers. The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Blackwell Publ.Malden:USA.

Binford LR. 2001. Constructing Frames of Reference. University of California Press: Berkeley.Binford LR. 2007. Bands as characteristic of “Mobile Hunter-Gatherers” may exist only in the

History of Anthropology. In Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility, edited by F Seller,R Greaves and PL Yu (eds.). University Press of Florida: Gainesville.

Birdsell JB. 1968. Some predictions for the Pleistocene based on equilibrium systems among recenthunter-gatherers. In Man the Hunte. Edited by RB Lee and I DeVore (eds.), pp. 229–240. AldinePublishing Company: Chicago.

Birdsell JB. 1985. Biological Dimensions of Small, Human Founding Populations. InterstellarMigration and the Human Experience, edited by BR Finney and EM Jones (eds.), pp. 110–119.University of California Press: Berkeley.

Bocquet-Appel JP. 2002. Paleoanthropological traces of Neolithic demographic transition. CurrentAnthropology 43: 638–650.

August 13, 2008 Time: 06:58am t1-v1.3

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Prehistoric Demography in a Time of Globalization 9

Bocquet-Appel JP and S Naji. 2006. Testing the Hypothesis of a Worldwide Neolithic Demo-graphic Transition. Corroboration from American Cemeteries (with comments). Current An-thropology 47(2): 341–365.

Bocquet-Appel JP, PY Demars, L Noiret and D Dobrowsky. 2005. Estimates of Upper Palaeolithicmeta-population size in Europe from archaeological data. Journal of Archaeological Science32:1656–1668.

Bocquet-Appel JP y M Paz de Miguel Ibanez. 2002. Demografia de la difusion neolitica en Europey los datos paleoantropologicos. Saguntum 5:23–44.

Caldwell JC and BK Caldwell. 2003. Pretransitional population control and equilibrium. Popula-tion Studies 57(2):199–215.

Caldwell C, P Caldwell and B Caldwell. 1986. Anthropology and Demography: The mutual rein-forcement of speculation and research. Current Anthropology 28(1):25–43.

Cohen MN. 1977. The Food Crisis in Prehistory. Yale University Press: New-Haven CN.Davis SJM. 1983. The age profile of gazelles predated by ancient man in Israel: Possible evidence

for a shift from seasonality to sedentism in the Natufian. Paleorient 9:55–62.Fuller DQ, Harvey E and L Qin. 2007. Presumed domestication? Evidence for wild rice culti-

vation and domestication in the fifth millennium BC of the Lower Yangtze region. Antiquity81:316–331.

Gordon CC and JE Buikstra. 1981. Soil PH, Bone preservation and sampling bias at mortuary sites,American Antiquity 46(3):566–571.

Guy H, Cl Masset and CA Baud. 1997. Infant Taphonomy. International Journal of Osteoarchae-ology 7(3):221–229.

Hesse, B. 1979. Rodent remains and sedentism in the Neolithic: Evidence from Tepe Ganj Dareh,Western Iran. Journal of Mammalogy 60(4):856–857.

Hassan F. 1973. On methods of Population growth during the Neolithic. Current Anthropology14:535–542.

Hietala HJ and DE Stevens. 1977. Spatial Analysis: Multiple procedures in pattern recognitionstudies. American Antiquity 42:539–559.

Hitchcock, RK. 1987. Sedentism and site structure: Organizational changes in Kalahari Basarwaresidential locations. In Method and Theory for Activity Area Research, edited by S Kent,pp. 374–423. Columbia University Press, New York.

Howell NL. 1980. Demographic behavior of hunter-gatherers: Evidence for density-dependentpopulation control. In Demographic Behavior 45, edited by T Burch (ed.). Conn.: Westview.

Johansson SR and S Horowitz. 1986. Estimating mortality in skeletal populations: Influence ofthe growth rate on the interpretation of levels and trends during the transition to agriculture.American Journal of Physical Anthropology 71:233–250.

Kent, S. (ed.). 1989. Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Kramer C. 1982. Village Ethnoarchaeology. New York, Academic Press.Kramer C. 1983. Spatial organization in contemporary southwest Asian villages. The Hilly Flanks

and Beyond. TC Young, Jr., PEL Smith and P Mortensen. Chicago, The Oriental Institute:347–368.

Kramer KL and JL Boone. 2002. “Why intensive agriculturalists have higher fertility: a householdenergy budget approach.” Current Anthropology 43(3): 511–517.

Kuijt I. (ed.). 2000. Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, andDifferentiation. Fundamental Issues in Archaeology. New York, Plenum Press.

Lee RB. 1979. The !Kung San: men, women and work in a foraging society. Cambridge UniversityPress: Cambridge.

Lieberman DE. 1993. The rise and fall of seasonal mobility among Hunter-Gatherers: The case ofthe Southern Levant. Current Anthropology 34: 599–632.

Lieberman DE and JJ Shea. 1994. Behavioural differences between archaic and modern humans inthe Levantine Mousterian. American Anthropologist 96:300–332.

Lozoff B and G Brittenham. 1979. Infant care: Cache or carry. The Journal of Pediatrics95(3):478–483.

August 13, 2008 Time: 06:58am t1-v1.3

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

10 J.-P. Bocquet-Appel, O. Bar-Yosef

MacNeish RS. (ed.). 1967–72. The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, vols. 1–5. Austin: Universityof Texas Press.

Matson RG. 1985.The relationship between sedentism and status inequalities among hunters andgatherers. In Status, Structure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstructions,pp. 245–252. University of Calgary.

McCaa R. 2002. Paleodemography of the Americas. From ancient times to colonialism and beyond,In The Backbone of history, edited by RH Steckel and JC Rose (eds.), pp. 94–124. CambridgeUniversity Press: Cambridge.

Marlowe FW. 2005. Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology14:54–67.

Newell RR and TS Constandse-Westermann. 1986. Testing an ethnographic analogue of Mesolithicsocial structure and the archaeological resolution of Mesolithic ethnic groups and breedingpopulations. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, SeriesB, 89(3):243–310

Ogilvie MA. 2006. Changing mobility roles at the advent of agriculture. In Archaeology andEthnoarchaeology of Mobility, edited by F Sellet, R Greaves and PL Yu (eds.), pp. 155–183.University Press of Florida: Gainsville.

Reed CA. 1977. Origins of Agriculture. World Anthropology series. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Sattenspiel, L and H Harpending. 1983. Stable Populations and Skeletal Age. American Antiquity

48:489–498.Sellet F, R Greaves and PL Yu. 2006. Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of mobility. University

Press of Florida: Gainesville.Sussman RW. 1972. Child transport, family size, and increase in Human population during the

Neolithic. Current Anthropology 13(2):258–259.Tangri, D and G Wyncoll. 1989. Of mice and men: Is the presence of commensal animals in

archaeological sites a positive correlate of sedentism? Paleorient 15(2):85–94.Tchernov E. 1991.On mice and men: Biological markers for long-term sedentism: A reply.

Paleorient 17(1):153–160.Tchernov, E. 1993. The impact of sedentism on animal exploitation in the Southern Levant. In

Archaeozoology of the Near East: Proceedings of the first international symposium on the ar-chaeozoology of southwestern Asia and adjacent areas, edited by H Buitenhuis and AT Clason,pp. 10–26. Universal Book Services/Dr. W. Backhuys, Leiden.

Valleggia CR and Ellison PT. 2004. Lactational amenorrhoea in well-nourished Toba women ofFormosa, Argentina. Journal of Biosocial Science 36:573–595.

Weiss E, ME Kislev and A Hartmann. 2006. Autonomous Cultivation Before Domestication. Sci-ence 312(5780):1608–1610.

Willcox, G. 2005. The distribution, natural habitats and availability of wild cereals in relation totheir domestication in the Near East: Multiple events, multiple centres. Vegetation History andArchaeobotany 14:534–541.

Wobst HM. 1974. Boundary conditions for Palaeolithic social systems: A simulation approach.American Antiquity 39:147–178.