Neolithic consequences

While much research attention has focused on Neolithic origins, far less discussion has been on the consequences of the Neolithic. There have, however, been more numerous recent discussions of these consequences, both positive and, especially, negative.

Settlements... were undoubtedly heavily polluted with... rotting organic matter and human waste... The refuse would have attracted vermin, as well as the diseases they carried with them. Flies and mosquitoes transmit fecal-oral infectious and other illnesses; rats bring hemorrhagic fevers; wild dogs and other carnivores carry rabies; and wild cats bring toxoplasmosis... diseases became constant... Clearing... the land near ponds and streams... may have encouraged the spread of tetanus, malaria, and schistosomiasis. Stock rearing may have been another major source of human disease... The Neolithic was... a world where life was difficult and people knew that they were ‘forever confronted with the Four Horsemen - death, famine, disease, and the malice of other men'.^[462]

This likely is an overstatement, but certainly village living brought with it several unanticipated consequences. Strangely, one thing that does seem clear is that despite increasing populations, and social complexity and stresses, Near Eastern Neolithic people were apparently reluctant to resort to extreme violence. There is a general lack of evidence indicating community-wide violence during the Near Eastern Neolithic. This is in sharp contrast to the later Neolithic in Europe, where violence was common.^[463] Perhaps this is a testament to the efficiency of the social organization that had been forged. Given the duration of many Neolithic settlements, the advantages of living in them must have outweighed the disadvantages.