3 ms·
(Breaking some HN etiquette here but I think a large portion of responses so far have been from people who've only scanned the introduction - there are some goo
by icanhackit 9y ago
(Breaking some HN etiquette here but I think a large portion of responses so far have been from people who've only scanned the introduction - there are some good bits in the article, you'll just need to skip the first few paragraphs to get to the meat)
Sorry for the cut-and-paste but it's only a fraction of a pretty long-form article:
The other conclusion we can draw from the evidence, Scott says, is that there is a crucial, direct link between the cultivation of cereal crops and the birth of the first states. It’s not that cereal grains were humankind’s only staples; it’s just that they were the only ones that encouraged the formation of states. “History records no cassava states, no sago, yam, taro, plantain, breadfruit or sweet potato states,” he writes. What was so special about grains? The answer will make sense to anyone who has ever filled out a Form 1040: grain, unlike other crops, is easy to tax. Some crops (potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava) are buried and so can be hidden from the tax collector, and, even if discovered, they must be dug up individually and laboriously. Other crops (notably, legumes) ripen at different intervals, or yield harvests throughout a growing season rather than along a fixed trajectory of unripe to ripe—in other words, the taxman can’t come once and get his proper due. Only grains are, in Scott’s words, “visible, divisible, assessable, storable, transportable, and ‘rationable.’ ” Other crops have some of these advantages, but only cereal grains have them all, and so grain became “the main food starch, the unit of taxation in kind, and the basis for a hegemonic agrarian calendar.” The taxman can come, assess the fields, set a level of tax, then come back and make sure he’s got his share of the harvest.
It was the ability to tax and to extract a surplus from the produce of agriculture that, in Scott’s account, led to the birth of the state, and also to the creation of complex societies with hierarchies, division of labor, specialist jobs (soldier, priest, servant, administrator), and an élite presiding over them. Because the new states required huge amounts of manual work to irrigate the cereal crops, they also required forms of forced labor, including slavery; because the easiest way to find slaves was to capture them, the states had a new propensity for waging war. Some of the earliest images in human history, from the first Mesopotamian states, are of slaves being marched along in neck shackles. Add this to the frequent epidemics and the general ill health of early settled communities and it is not hard to see why the latest consensus is that the Neolithic Revolution was a disaster for most of the people who lived through it.
- toasterlovin 9y agoI think this is too complicated of an answer to the question of why cereal grains lead to the creation of city states. IMO, the reason is much simpler: grains are more economical than roots and tubers. By a lot. Based on data from my local super market, here are the amount of calories that some of these foods provide for $1: - Flour: 4,252 - Russet Potatoes: 1,437 - Yams: 540 I don't know why this is exactly, but my hunch is that it has mostly to do with spoilage. Specifically, that grains essentially do not spoil. The cited expert is also wrong, if I'm not mistaken, about the lack of civilizations born of on a staple other than cereal grains. The New World civilizations (Aztec, Inca, Mayas) did not have access to cereal grains. Their primary staples were potatoes (South America) and corn (Central America). --- FYI, I've done some work quantifying food costs, which are, IMO, a fascinating lens through with to view the world. If you want to dig in deeper, here's the Google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSo8XQrIKZ8GnNq2ALLmgD6J7JD78RQiyP5vYomGp8n_hZrHlhcbjAjyhbfUYSYk4UcW5Tf5Ek2jR-Y/pubhtml https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSo8XQrIKZ8G.... I think the tabs labeled Food Chart and Category Range Chart are the most interesting (everything else is supporting calculations).
- icanhackit 9y ago> here are the amount of calories that some of these foods provide for $1 The glycemic index shows that calories are worth little if they blow your blood sugar through the roof and then send it crashing as flour-derived food stuffs usually do. Roots and tubers contain more complex carbohydrates and have a lower GI, providing energy over a longer period. That said I agree with the spoilage part - grains do last longer before spoiling. > The cited expert is also wrong, if I'm not mistaken, about the lack of civilizations born of on a staple other than cereal grains. The New World civilizations (Aztec, Inca, Mayas) did not have access to cereal grains. Their primary staples were potatoes (South America) and corn (Central America). The author wasn't talking about civilisations, they specifically mentioned states, which I guess could be translated as empire or collection of civilisations taxed by a central authority. That said I have no idea whether their point was correct - I just thought it was interesting.
- vilmosi 9y ago>>> The answer will make sense to anyone who has ever filled out a Form 1040: grain, unlike other crops, is easy to tax I heard of a different reason: alcohol. You get a consistent regular source of ale if and only if you stay in one place working on our lands (which you can call yours in exchange for taxes). Also, fermented drinks were usually safer to drink back then, so that's another bonus. Hunter gatherers and the other crop based "states" couldn't offer that, even with a nicer life style, so they weren't as popular.