Mine

ur knowledge of world history to answer all parts of the question that follows.

Source 1:

“. . . .recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered.”

Jared Diamond, The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race, 1999

Source 2:

“This brings us. . . to the meaning of the so-called Neolithic Revolution. If you generalize, and take the typical effects on culture of hunting life on the one hand and of farming life on the other, you can see that something stupendous took place. . . it was a breaking of one of nature’s bonds, the freeing of man from the limits of the natural food supply.”

William Howells, “Back of the History(Man in the Beginning),” 1954

a) Identify and explain ONE piece of historical evidence that would support Jared Diamond’s interpretation about the Neolithic Revolution.

b) Identify and explain ONE piece of historical evidence that would support William Howell’s interpretation about the Neolithic Revolution.

c) From the two interpretations above, select the one that, in your opinion, better describes the results of the Neolithic Revolution. Briefly explain your choice using additional evidence beyond that used to answer a or b.

19. A. What seems clear is that between 1500 and 100 BC, Aryan tribes conquered the remaining pre-Aryans dasas through the Indus Valley and the Punjab, moving as far east as the plains of Delhi. When they first reached India, the Aryans were still pastoral nomads; hence no trace has been found of their villages or huts. By the end of this half millennium, however, no doubt because of much they learned about urban civilization was from the dasas they enslave, Aryan cities began to rise on those plains around Delhi, whose first capital was named for Lord Indra (Indraprashta). – Stanley Wolpert, India, 1991

B. The decline of the cities [of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa] was once ascribed to invading Aryans. However, there is little archaeological evidence for the type of massive invasion that would have led to the collapse of a well-established political and economic system, resulting in a displacement of culture, although the denial of an invasion does not preclude the possibility of migrants bringing the Indo-Aryan language into India. The argument supporting an invasion was based on the subsequent Indo-European, particularly with Old Iranian. That this language gained currency in northern India was thought to be the result of a conquest of the local population by Indo-Aryan speakers, the evidence being drawn from the hostility of the arya toward

...