RSS
Spencer Wells, along with many others, such as Jared Diamond, argued that agriculture was a disaster in terms of what it wrought for the quality of life for the average human in his book Pandora’s Seed. This is broadly plausible to me. On the other hand, I also think it is highly likely that agriculture and civilization were basically inevitable.
The “great leap forward” in cultural complexity and explosion of symbolic expression ~50,000 years ago, give or take, seems likely to have been only the culmination of a process of encephalization and increased sophistication which had proceeded over millions of years. The precursors to the agricultural life were likely already there before the Holocene.
To a great extent the hypothesis of inevitability has been tested: in the Americas much of the dynamics which characterize the Old World were recapitulated. Agriculture, civilizations with writing and class stratification, and monumental architecture, all with analogs in the Old World, are there. In fact, this National Geographic piece, In Search of the Lost Empire of the Maya, is fascinating to read, because it seems to me that it likely parallels developments in the Old World two thousand years before. The Snake Kings were warlords in a manner which would have been familiar to the “Great Kings” of the ancient Near East.
There are two great schools of history from the pre-modern era. Those which are cyclical, and those which exhibit some intuition that there is an endpoint or progress. The “independent” experiments of human history suggest that both are true, with an arc of history on the macroscale scaffolded by innumerable cycles of rise and fall.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
A spiral or helix.
I agree with this.
On another note (and inspiration for sci-fi?):
(1) It’s one of the great tragedies of history that we never got to see the Mesoamerican and Andrean civilizations reach and explore their full potentialities, cut as they were at the stem by the conquistador’s sword.
(2) If the Ice Age had continued indefinitely, how long would the industrial age have been delayed by?
“agriculture was a disaster terms of what it wrought for the quality of life for the average human ”
When they get to that point, you know they have left orbit.
Even Marx did not regret agriculture, nor did he attack industry. He lauded capitalism for having: “rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. ”
“Intellectuals” who claim that we were better off as hunter gatherers, have claimed that they are superfluous to human happiness, as they have no place in an h/g society.
Why anyone would write a book who asserts that books and literacy, which are products of civilization, and therefore of agriculture, are bad is beyond me.
BTW, they never follow up on their critiques by heading to the back country to live as h/gs.
On another note (and inspiration for sci-fi?):
(1) It's one of the great tragedies of history that we never got to see the Mesoamerican and Andrean civilizations reach and explore their full potentialities, cut as they were at the stem by the conquistador's sword.
(2) If the Ice Age had continued indefinitely, how long would the industrial age have been delayed by?Replies: @Walter Sobchak, @Anonymous
I agree with 1. A recent trip to Peru left me in awe of the Inca civilization. They accomplished all of that without writing and without money. OTOH, less than 300 Spaniards destroyed it all (an empire of over 10 million subjects, 2000 miles from one end to the other) in short order. The Inca had been in power for a mere century. One wonders how stable it would have been.
1) disease had destabilized the empire
2) both pizzaro and cortes had numerous local allies. they literally cut off the "head of the snake." the conquest of the inca actually took 40 years in any case, and the native elite were co-opted into the spanish dominated order (most of the old elite peruvian families can apparently trace lines of descent back to the inca nobility, even if they are mostly european in ancestry now).Replies: @Walter Sobchak
When they get to that point, you know they have left orbit.
Even Marx did not regret agriculture, nor did he attack industry. He lauded capitalism for having: "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. "
"Intellectuals" who claim that we were better off as hunter gatherers, have claimed that they are superfluous to human happiness, as they have no place in an h/g society.
Why anyone would write a book who asserts that books and literacy, which are products of civilization, and therefore of agriculture, are bad is beyond me.
BTW, they never follow up on their critiques by heading to the back country to live as h/gs.Replies: @Razib Khan
that’s a gross mischaracterization IMO. but i’ll ask spencer tomorrow, i’m going to see him socially.
the 300 is misleading, as you have to know
1) disease had destabilized the empire
2) both pizzaro and cortes had numerous local allies. they literally cut off the “head of the snake.” the conquest of the inca actually took 40 years in any case, and the native elite were co-opted into the spanish dominated order (most of the old elite peruvian families can apparently trace lines of descent back to the inca nobility, even if they are mostly european in ancestry now).
*Disputed successions in monarchical polities are a fertile source of civil wars. The Romans experienced them very few generations. The English War of the Roses, and the French War of the Three Henrys.True, but the Spainards had to find them and use them. And there were differences between Peru and Mexico. In Mexico, the other tribes hated the Aztecs who treated them as lunch. In Peru, the the Inca were far more magnanimous to the tribes they conquered and for the most part worked to integrate them into the imperial hierarchy. In the early staged of Pizarro's conquest, the Spaniards did most of the frontline fighting and the locals were auxiliaries.
Nothing succeeds in getting allies like beating their enemies. The Spanish were able to do that. They made greater use of allies in the later stages of the Conquest. Allies were important in defeating the rebellion of 1536/37.They could do that, and have it work, because that was the way the Inca Empire had been structured. It was very hierarchical and very centralized. That the Inca, who had neither writing, nor trade based on money, could do operate an empire that large was miraculous. But it does create a very important vulnerability.Sort of. It was not 40 years of continuous fighting. After the failure of the Rebellion in 1536/37, the Inca retreated to the Amazonian quarter of their Empire and established their capital at Vilcabamba, which is 550 mi from Lima and 800 mi from Cuzco. But, their Empire was truncated to a small Amazonian corner of its old glory. The Spanish sent expeditions against Vilcabamba desultorily over the next generation. One of them succeeded in getting to Vilcabamab in 1572, capturing the Sapa Inca, Tupac Amaru (whom they subsequently executed), laid waste to the city, and relocated the surviving inhabitants. In 1911, when Hiram Bingham found Machu Picchu, he claimed that it was Vilcabamba. He was wrong. Vilcabamba was not identified until 1982, and not excavated until the 21st century.Replies: @Razib Khan
What is a gross mischaracterization? I quoted your opening for the post.
Why anyone would write a book who asserts that books and literacy, which are products of civilization, and therefore of agriculture, are bad is beyond me.you win your argument by framing it thusly. spencer would never say that books and literacy were bad. the chain of logic and inference naturally leads to your victory. low. i also doubt he would say that agriculture was not an inevitable step toward where we are now. but, it is also intellectually honest to consider the thousands of years between the end of the ice age and the rise of post-malthusian civilization.Replies: @iffen
i was careful to state *agriculture* most people agree that the post-malthusian industrial world, contingent on agriculture, is better than that of the hunter-gatherers. the debate, and there is some debate, is whether the lot of the peasant was better than that of the hunter-gatherer.
e.g., you put words in spencer’s mouth:
Why anyone would write a book who asserts that books and literacy, which are products of civilization, and therefore of agriculture, are bad is beyond me.
you win your argument by framing it thusly. spencer would never say that books and literacy were bad. the chain of logic and inference naturally leads to your victory. low. i also doubt he would say that agriculture was not an inevitable step toward where we are now. but, it is also intellectually honest to consider the thousands of years between the end of the ice age and the rise of post-malthusian civilization.
If given a chance, peasants like to read too.
Although some will say that most of us are happier watching Naked and Afraid. :)
1) disease had destabilized the empire
2) both pizzaro and cortes had numerous local allies. they literally cut off the "head of the snake." the conquest of the inca actually took 40 years in any case, and the native elite were co-opted into the spanish dominated order (most of the old elite peruvian families can apparently trace lines of descent back to the inca nobility, even if they are mostly european in ancestry now).Replies: @Walter Sobchak
That is true to some extent in Peru, but not that directly at first. The first impact of disease in Peru was that an epidemic (apparently smallpox) killed the Sapa Inca (emperor), Huayna Capac, and his son and designated heir, Ninan Cuyoche, not long before Pizarro arrived in Peru. Those deaths triggered a civil war between rival claimants Atahualpa from Quito and Huascar from Cuzco.* Atahualpa had just finished defeating Huascar when Pizarro showed up and captured Atahualpa. That was only possible because Atahualpa made a horrendous strategic blunder and went to visit Pizarro in Pizarro’s camp, instead of insisting on Pizarro visiting Atahualpa in Atahualpa camp, unarmed.
*Disputed successions in monarchical polities are a fertile source of civil wars. The Romans experienced them very few generations. The English War of the Roses, and the French War of the Three Henrys.
True, but the Spainards had to find them and use them. And there were differences between Peru and Mexico. In Mexico, the other tribes hated the Aztecs who treated them as lunch. In Peru, the the Inca were far more magnanimous to the tribes they conquered and for the most part worked to integrate them into the imperial hierarchy. In the early staged of Pizarro’s conquest, the Spaniards did most of the frontline fighting and the locals were auxiliaries.
Nothing succeeds in getting allies like beating their enemies. The Spanish were able to do that. They made greater use of allies in the later stages of the Conquest. Allies were important in defeating the rebellion of 1536/37.
They could do that, and have it work, because that was the way the Inca Empire had been structured. It was very hierarchical and very centralized. That the Inca, who had neither writing, nor trade based on money, could do operate an empire that large was miraculous. But it does create a very important vulnerability.
Sort of. It was not 40 years of continuous fighting. After the failure of the Rebellion in 1536/37, the Inca retreated to the Amazonian quarter of their Empire and established their capital at Vilcabamba, which is 550 mi from Lima and 800 mi from Cuzco. But, their Empire was truncated to a small Amazonian corner of its old glory. The Spanish sent expeditions against Vilcabamba desultorily over the next generation. One of them succeeded in getting to Vilcabamab in 1572, capturing the Sapa Inca, Tupac Amaru (whom they subsequently executed), laid waste to the city, and relocated the surviving inhabitants. In 1911, when Hiram Bingham found Machu Picchu, he claimed that it was Vilcabamba. He was wrong. Vilcabamba was not identified until 1982, and not excavated until the 21st century.
1) they were about 4,000 years behind europeans in terms of social complexity (they were basically late neolithic societies).
2) so, That was only possible because Atahualpa made a horrendous strategic blunder and went to visit Pizarro in Pizarro’s camp, instead of insisting on Pizarro visiting Atahualpa in Atahualpa camp, unarmed.
*Disputed successions in monarchical polities are a fertile source of civil wars. The Romans experienced them very few generations. The English War of the Roses, and the French War of the Three Henrys.
these are not good analogies. even if the incas got their shit together, they would have capitulated culturally and almost certainly politically. the other cases you cite intra-political. they might have delayed, but that's all. this is like redbad king of frisians frustrating christianity. if taken at face value it was only a delay to the inevitable.
even native peoples which resisted spanish rule down to the modern era, such as the mapuche, were transformed (also, their liminal position probably protected them).Replies: @Karl Zimmerman, @CupOfCanada
I would love to carry on Razib. but I have got priorities to attend to today. I do not hereby concede.
*Disputed successions in monarchical polities are a fertile source of civil wars. The Romans experienced them very few generations. The English War of the Roses, and the French War of the Three Henrys.True, but the Spainards had to find them and use them. And there were differences between Peru and Mexico. In Mexico, the other tribes hated the Aztecs who treated them as lunch. In Peru, the the Inca were far more magnanimous to the tribes they conquered and for the most part worked to integrate them into the imperial hierarchy. In the early staged of Pizarro's conquest, the Spaniards did most of the frontline fighting and the locals were auxiliaries.
Nothing succeeds in getting allies like beating their enemies. The Spanish were able to do that. They made greater use of allies in the later stages of the Conquest. Allies were important in defeating the rebellion of 1536/37.They could do that, and have it work, because that was the way the Inca Empire had been structured. It was very hierarchical and very centralized. That the Inca, who had neither writing, nor trade based on money, could do operate an empire that large was miraculous. But it does create a very important vulnerability.Sort of. It was not 40 years of continuous fighting. After the failure of the Rebellion in 1536/37, the Inca retreated to the Amazonian quarter of their Empire and established their capital at Vilcabamba, which is 550 mi from Lima and 800 mi from Cuzco. But, their Empire was truncated to a small Amazonian corner of its old glory. The Spanish sent expeditions against Vilcabamba desultorily over the next generation. One of them succeeded in getting to Vilcabamab in 1572, capturing the Sapa Inca, Tupac Amaru (whom they subsequently executed), laid waste to the city, and relocated the surviving inhabitants. In 1911, when Hiram Bingham found Machu Picchu, he claimed that it was Vilcabamba. He was wrong. Vilcabamba was not identified until 1982, and not excavated until the 21st century.Replies: @Razib Khan
i’m a big fan of alternative history. but really i can see no scenario where the europeans would not have eventually conquered the native peoples of the new world over the two centuries between 1500 and 1700.
1) they were about 4,000 years behind europeans in terms of social complexity (they were basically late neolithic societies).
2) so, That was only possible because Atahualpa made a horrendous strategic blunder and went to visit Pizarro in Pizarro’s camp, instead of insisting on Pizarro visiting Atahualpa in Atahualpa camp, unarmed.
*Disputed successions in monarchical polities are a fertile source of civil wars. The Romans experienced them very few generations. The English War of the Roses, and the French War of the Three Henrys.
these are not good analogies. even if the incas got their shit together, they would have capitulated culturally and almost certainly politically. the other cases you cite intra-political. they might have delayed, but that’s all. this is like redbad king of frisians frustrating christianity. if taken at face value it was only a delay to the inevitable.
even native peoples which resisted spanish rule down to the modern era, such as the mapuche, were transformed (also, their liminal position probably protected them).
But, given how little resistance that Amerinds had to Eurasian plagues in our history, I concur they were essentially doomed. I just wish more research would go into how they ended up doomed. I no longer find Jared Diamond's hypothesis that it was all about the lack of many domesticated animals all that plausible.
Wells’s views are mundane, his Pandora’s Seed portrays conflict between groups as something foisted on humanity by religious fundamentalism (the naughty mythos, as exemplified by Southern Christians of course ) and the root of all evil. But religions and countries are as natural as ant nations .
Wells enthuses about the sensible beliefs of Hadza, who are disappearing fast. And he cannot see any harm in trying to contact space aliens, who would surely be our Conquistadors.
Pre-agricultural societies weren’t all that cushty either (if I may call a necessarily prejudiced witness)
Agriculture may have come as a blessed relief, to some.
But I digress.
I wouldn't take European writers commenting on what they viewed as promiscuity among indigenous peoples as particularly reliable given how warped their own views were on the subject.
Why anyone would write a book who asserts that books and literacy, which are products of civilization, and therefore of agriculture, are bad is beyond me.you win your argument by framing it thusly. spencer would never say that books and literacy were bad. the chain of logic and inference naturally leads to your victory. low. i also doubt he would say that agriculture was not an inevitable step toward where we are now. but, it is also intellectually honest to consider the thousands of years between the end of the ice age and the rise of post-malthusian civilization.Replies: @iffen
the lot of the peasant was better than that of the hunter-gatherer
If given a chance, peasants like to read too.
Although some will say that most of us are happier watching Naked and Afraid. 🙂
Agriculture might have been truly inevitable in some form. I wonder about pastoralism. Only really originated in a fairly narrow range of Eurasia IRC. If the early H. Sap had overhunted all the viable candidate species (goats, horses, cattle, sheep), like in theory happened in the Americas…. I bet a world without pastoralism, and really limited mainly to vegetable agriculture + chickens and pigs would still have seen civilization, but much more isolation between the different subregions (Europe, Middle East, India, East Asia) without the pastoralist movements of people to blend Eurasian civilization together (culturally / genetically).
History would have ever heard of (e.g.) the Vikings/Normans without it.
I wonder what a world encompassed by Polynesians, or pre-15th century China would look like now? Madagascar and Zanzibar was only the start.
(Discounting the M/LBA introduction of carts/bronze etc into East Asia, they seem to have got along swimmingly without them up, to that point).Replies: @Razib Khan, @Matt_
Up to a point, m’lord. The point where the disparate non-equestrian/wheel-less civilizations developed Navigation and consequently, Proximity and War.
History would have ever heard of (e.g.) the Vikings/Normans without it.
I wonder what a world encompassed by Polynesians, or pre-15th century China would look like now? Madagascar and Zanzibar was only the start.
(Discounting the M/LBA introduction of carts/bronze etc into East Asia, they seem to have got along swimmingly without them up, to that point).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQSE2CzRFPYReplies: @Expletive Deleted
As opposed to the Austronesian expansion, which would seem to be likely as soon as agriculturalists out of Taiwan / southern China need to move into insular SE Asia for more land, pastoralism or no.
You're basically right though (sea navigation and boat travel becomes a lot more important in the absence of the horse and pastoralism) and this is the fine detail of already speculative alternate history.
History would have ever heard of (e.g.) the Vikings/Normans without it.
I wonder what a world encompassed by Polynesians, or pre-15th century China would look like now? Madagascar and Zanzibar was only the start.
(Discounting the M/LBA introduction of carts/bronze etc into East Asia, they seem to have got along swimmingly without them up, to that point).Replies: @Razib Khan, @Matt_
you’re a commoner?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY4V3UUY95A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQSE2CzRFPYReplies: @Expletive Deleted
Me? Pure filth, me. We wants meat.
History would have ever heard of (e.g.) the Vikings/Normans without it.
I wonder what a world encompassed by Polynesians, or pre-15th century China would look like now? Madagascar and Zanzibar was only the start.
(Discounting the M/LBA introduction of carts/bronze etc into East Asia, they seem to have got along swimmingly without them up, to that point).Replies: @Razib Khan, @Matt_
Vikings (and their Norman descendants), not so sure. I would envision you getting to something like them via a pretty particular path where your land based fractious Indo-European pastoralists have ended up in a bit of the world where travel by boat is pretty important (more of a broken, insular / coastal dominated terrain than even a large island like Britain would have to offer).
As opposed to the Austronesian expansion, which would seem to be likely as soon as agriculturalists out of Taiwan / southern China need to move into insular SE Asia for more land, pastoralism or no.
You’re basically right though (sea navigation and boat travel becomes a lot more important in the absence of the horse and pastoralism) and this is the fine detail of already speculative alternate history.
1) they were about 4,000 years behind europeans in terms of social complexity (they were basically late neolithic societies).
2) so, That was only possible because Atahualpa made a horrendous strategic blunder and went to visit Pizarro in Pizarro’s camp, instead of insisting on Pizarro visiting Atahualpa in Atahualpa camp, unarmed.
*Disputed successions in monarchical polities are a fertile source of civil wars. The Romans experienced them very few generations. The English War of the Roses, and the French War of the Three Henrys.
these are not good analogies. even if the incas got their shit together, they would have capitulated culturally and almost certainly politically. the other cases you cite intra-political. they might have delayed, but that's all. this is like redbad king of frisians frustrating christianity. if taken at face value it was only a delay to the inevitable.
even native peoples which resisted spanish rule down to the modern era, such as the mapuche, were transformed (also, their liminal position probably protected them).Replies: @Karl Zimmerman, @CupOfCanada
I’ve felt for awhile the best-case scenario for Amerind civilization would be basically a “lost colony” from Eurasia during antiquity – either Roman or Carthaginian. The Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head implies some low-level of contact between Rome and Mesoamerica may have happened, even if it was merely castaways. Regardless, basically set up a situation where the demographic collapse due to Eurasian diseases is allowed to happen 1500 years in the past, which provides ample time for recovery. If enough West Eurasian settlers are left behind, you could see a situation similar to the modern-day Maya and Quecha, who (IIRC) tend to be around 10%-15% European by ancestry, even though they are culturally Amerind, as presumably even if the West Eurasians didn’t end up socially dominant, they might have genes related to immune response which would be heavily selected for. Add to this such a scenario would provide an early way to introduce European domesticates to the New World, and you could end up with a moderately plague-resistant population in much of the Americas by 1492 (even if not one which was any more technologically advanced).
But, given how little resistance that Amerinds had to Eurasian plagues in our history, I concur they were essentially doomed. I just wish more research would go into how they ended up doomed. I no longer find Jared Diamond’s hypothesis that it was all about the lack of many domesticated animals all that plausible.
On another note (and inspiration for sci-fi?):
(1) It's one of the great tragedies of history that we never got to see the Mesoamerican and Andrean civilizations reach and explore their full potentialities, cut as they were at the stem by the conquistador's sword.
(2) If the Ice Age had continued indefinitely, how long would the industrial age have been delayed by?Replies: @Walter Sobchak, @Anonymous
1. Why is that so sad when it happened multiple times in the old world? And if a civilization wasn’t destroyed it was usually heavily influenced by other civilizations.
1) they were about 4,000 years behind europeans in terms of social complexity (they were basically late neolithic societies).
2) so, That was only possible because Atahualpa made a horrendous strategic blunder and went to visit Pizarro in Pizarro’s camp, instead of insisting on Pizarro visiting Atahualpa in Atahualpa camp, unarmed.
*Disputed successions in monarchical polities are a fertile source of civil wars. The Romans experienced them very few generations. The English War of the Roses, and the French War of the Three Henrys.
these are not good analogies. even if the incas got their shit together, they would have capitulated culturally and almost certainly politically. the other cases you cite intra-political. they might have delayed, but that's all. this is like redbad king of frisians frustrating christianity. if taken at face value it was only a delay to the inevitable.
even native peoples which resisted spanish rule down to the modern era, such as the mapuche, were transformed (also, their liminal position probably protected them).Replies: @Karl Zimmerman, @CupOfCanada
I think the key difference would have been the situation in the 20th century. Without disease, I doubt Europeans would have been able to demographically overwhelm indigenous agriculture peoples to such an extent, and eventually demographics would have let to a political revival.
Agriculture was pretty widespread in much of North America by the time Europeans arrived. The Iroquois were the leading edge of agriculture, and the Algonquians had already begun adopting it in response too. Any interesting unanswered question (in my view) is how Algonquian or more broadly Algic languages spread. It’s a ~3,000 year old language family that spans from California to Nova Scotia, and it’s spread wasn’t driven driven agriculture. How did it spread? Why? Answering these questions might give us some insight into the situation in pre-agriculture Europe.
But I digress.
I wouldn’t take European writers commenting on what they viewed as promiscuity among indigenous peoples as particularly reliable given how warped their own views were on the subject.
but really i can see no scenario where the europeans would not have eventually conquered the native peoples of the new world over the two centuries between 1500 and 1700.
Pizarro or possibly Cortes “going native” shortly after their conquest of the respective empires. Usurping and integrating into the native hierarchy, and then declaring their independence from Spain.