In the 1930s, the Australian archaeologist V. Gordon Childe proposed that this suite of changes be called the “Neolithic Revolution.” Archaeologists first used the term Neolithic (or New Stone Age) to describe distinctive polished stone tools that appear from about 10,000 years ago. But Childe insisted that the real significance of this period lay in something more revolutionary: the emergence of agriculture. Agriculture laid the foundations for all the most important developments of later human history. Today, many prehistorians resist Childe’s term because they know that when examined closely, the changes turn out to have been gradual. Contemporaries could hardly have known they were living through a revolution. Nevertheless, Childe’s notion of a Neolithic or agrarian revolution deserves to survive, for on the scale of human history as a whole, the changes were both rapid and revolutionary. During a mere 7,500 years, between 11,500 and 4,000 years ago, agricultural communities with domesticated plants and animals appeared in at least three quite separate regions of the world, and perhaps as many as seven. Excerpt From: David Christian, Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History (2011), 489.
Which of the following evidence would most strongly challenge Childe’s idea of a Neolithic revolution?
Choose 1

Polished stone tools from much earlier periods

Some societies did not develop agriculture

Agriculture emerged in even more regions of the world between 11,500-4,000 years ago

Earlier traces of human domestication of plants and animals