[HN Gopher] Scrap for cash: Bronze Age witnessed revolution in s...
___________________________________________________________________
Scrap for cash: Bronze Age witnessed revolution in small change
across Europe
Author : diodorus
Score : 68 points
Date : 2021-05-10 05:24 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I'm part-way through "By Steppe, Desert, and Ocean: The Birth of
| Eurasia" [0] and it does a fantastic job of illustrating the
| significance of markets in the ancient world. One tidbit that
| struck me as particularly interesting was that the appearance of
| the earliest civilizations in the near east demanded resources
| from other areas, notably the caucuses and beyond, which caused
| the emergence of more advanced civilizations in those regions as
| well--and similarly, when a given near-east civilization declined
| or collapsed, the satellite civilization declined or collapsed as
| well. In general, I'm always surprised that enormous markets
| existed before nation states, animal husbandry, before
| metallurgy, and even before agriculture itself. People were
| trading obsidian or other resources back into the stone age. I
| guess I always thought of widespread trade networks as a later
| development--something that depended upon (not preceded) the
| existence of agriculture, metallurgy, or nation states.
|
| [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Steppe-Desert-Ocean-Birth-
| Eurasia/dp/...
| hyperpallium2 wrote:
| Matt Ridley in [1] argues that trade drove the evolution of
| human intelligence.
|
| First he makes the interesting point that intelligence doesn't
| just evolve - it has to be for something; it must enhance
| survival or reproduction. So, what is intelligence good for?
|
| He then argues how comparative advantage and division of labour
| is enormously beneficial. Also points to the pre-existing and
| unusual division of labour between men and women, as a starting
| point.
|
| Now, once you have trade, you have all kinds of issues of
| accounting, cheating etc, which you do better at the cleverer
| you are - an additional driver for intelligence.
|
| So, according to this theory, trade predates human
| intelligence.
|
| [1] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Virtue
| samatman wrote:
| This has an interesting tie to Nick Szabo's essays on
| "collectibles", which he paints as proto-money which
| coevolved with homo sapiens itself.
|
| There's more to be found at his blog
| (http://unenumerated.blogspot.com), this essay in particular
| is a good introduction:
|
| https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > I'm always surprised that enormous markets existed before
| nation states, animal husbandry, before metallurgy, and even
| before agriculture itself. People were trading obsidian or
| other resources back into the stone age.
|
| I don't think any of this is wrong, but it reads oddly --
| agriculture is older than the Bronze Age too, making the second
| sentence much weaker than the first one.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| You can't eat Bronze, so i would say agriculture is older...
| cosmojg wrote:
| Did markets incentive the development of agriculture, or was
| its invention largely independent?
| samatman wrote:
| There is a great book which touches on this subject, _Against
| the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States_ , by James
| C. Scott.
|
| It overturns many of the latent assumptions about early
| history, particularly in Mesopotamia. It's well argued, I
| recommend it. I listened to the audiobook FYI.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Grain:_A_Deep_Hist.
| ..
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Agriculture isn't just one thing, but the earliest kind of
| agricultural innovation was wheat and it developed around the
| fertile crescent. The idea spread via migration and cultural
| exchange. Other agricultural innovations were developed
| elsewhere (cattle, horses, etc) and they spread via trade
| networks, conquest, etc. As an example, horse domestication
| (specifically for riding and traction as opposed to food)
| developed in the steppe region of eastern Europe and gave its
| discoverers an ability to manage bigger herds of sheep and
| cattle as well as to be more effective raiders and warriors.
| They were so much more effective at herding and warfare that
| they were able to spread their language over the Eurasian
| continent from the british isles to parts of China. Their
| language was proto indoeuropean and we're pretty sure they
| are the same group archeologists identified as the Yamnaya or
| Pit Grave culture.
|
| It's also worth noting that agriculture likely developed
| independently in China and certainly in the Americas. People
| crab about it a lot, but Guns, Germs, and Steel covers the
| development and spread of agriculture and other technologies
| pretty well, and the controversy seems to be more about
| alleged subtext than the actual facts presented.
| masklinn wrote:
| > the controversy seems to be more about alleged subtext
| than the actual facts presented.
|
| It's not about subtext, it's about the actual text, namely
| GG&S's narrative, the thesis it purports to prove, and how
| it goes about doing that. GG&S is not an innocent list of
| facts and a recapitulation of historical events, if it were
| nobody would care about it.
|
| In case you are actually interested in "the controversy",
| the /r/askhistorians FAQ has multiple comments on the
| subject: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/histor
| ians_views...
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I think it's worth reading through those criticisms, but
| in general I think they validate my claim that "it's
| about subtext". For example, a popular criticism is that
| GG&S wrongly paints Native Americans as inferior, but I
| don't know how anyone can read the book and genuinely
| walk away with that impression considering that it is
| contradicted by the very explicitly stated and much
| repeated thesis. Other criticism seems to be
| philosophical and esoteric ("Like, what does it really
| mean to be 'conquered', man?") or otherwise pedantic.
|
| I get the distinct feeling that much of the criticisms
| are ultimately rooted in political differences. I don't
| think Diamond intends to be controversial or political,
| but I suspect the GG&S thesis chafes with the political
| narratives that have come to, shall we say, 'conquer' the
| humanities. Anyway, I can't prove it, and I don't have
| any interest in debating it--just something to keep in
| mind for anyone who is digging into GG&S criticisms.
| pm90 wrote:
| Agriculture enabled the centralization of human populations,
| allowing for specializations and advances in crafting more
| durable goods (clothing, weapons, metal working etc.) which
| could then be traded, increasing the wealth of your
| settlement. Obviously you need to grow food to feed your
| populace before you can expand... and agriculture was the
| best way to do that.
|
| It would be interesting to know though, if trade networks
| enabled the easy transfer of know-how and technology, so a
| settlement might make use of that to increase their
| productivity and such.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Many modern archaeologists don't draw a direct line between
| agriculture and sedentarism. It's mainly a feature studies
| in the middle east, and in particular southern mesopotamian
| societies. Excavations in these areas were influential in
| early narratives about the neolithic, but the idea that
| it's the only way urbanism occurs has become pretty archaic
| as our understanding of the rest of the world improves. For
| example, we now know that all the innovations you mention
| predate urban settlements.
|
| Beyond that, the "why" of early urbanism is still
| fundamentally unclear. Some people, myself included, argue
| that there's no singular concrete reason that's universally
| applicable. Others take that a bit farther (e.g. Michael E.
| Smith) and argue that we need to invoke high level concepts
| of feedback loops and scaling laws to explain them.
| Regardless, there isn't a settled explanation in the
| literature.
| gostsamo wrote:
| Not the OP, but:
|
| Agriculture is a technological invention, but its results are
| perishable and usually hard to transport. The idea of
| agriculture likely spred through already existing trade
| routes, but transporting food needed another technological
| advances to become reliable and profitable.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| As an aside, from my _very amateur_ understanding,
| agriculture's propagation was a lot more an outward
| migration of agriculturalists than I had previously
| believed (as opposed to spreading agricultural ideas to
| hunters and gatherers). This seems to be supported by
| genetic evidence, which I don't purport to understand. I
| heartily recommend "Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of
| Europe from The First Adventurers to The Vikings" by Jean
| Manco.
| akiselev wrote:
| I'm curious why you assumed it was more due to cultural
| exchange?
|
| I always assumed the reverse because agriculture
| increases surpluses that lead to more births, more
| specialization (which leads to improved warfare vs hunter
| gatherers), and more land pressure that forces outward
| migration. AFAIK most of the hunter gatherers didn't
| convert to farmers, but they were squeezed out by those
| that did because they grew much more slowly. I didn't
| think cultural exchange was a major factor until much
| later when large agricultural societies started to
| colonize and "modernize" the rest of the planet.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| This is only approximately true in parts of the middle
| east and mediterranean basin. It's very much not true in
| the rest of the world. Even in Europe, foragers and
| agriculturists lived in reasonably close proximity for
| thousands of years and yes, modern Europeans are related
| to both.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| This is presented as a rebuttal, but it seems to support
| my earlier comment that _migration and cultural exchange_
| (rather than the latter alone) accounted for the
| propagation of agrarianism.
| masklinn wrote:
| > Agriculture is a technological invention, but its results
| are perishable and usually hard to transport.
|
| The neolithic founder crops (rice, wheat, barley, flaxseed,
| various pulses) keep extremely well when whole or dried
| though.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Did markets incentive the development of agriculture, or
| was its invention largely independent?
|
| Obviously not. Most agriculture until very recently was of
| the subsistence variety. People want food to eat before they
| want trade goods.
| dTal wrote:
| But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the
| marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not
| so big. And you probably already grow more than you need
| anyway, so that you don't starve in bad years. Seems to be
| that even subsistence agriculture will _inevitably_ provoke
| some sort of economy, as long as other people are around.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the
| marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not
| so big.
|
| You're forgetting that people like to have kids, and
| those kids like to eat, too.
|
| > And you probably already grow more than you need
| anyway, so that you don't starve in bad years.
|
| IIRC, this problem was usually solved by having good
| relationships with your neighbors so they'd help you when
| you had a bad year. There's whole host of reasons why
| individualist solutions probably didn't work: e.g.
| storing surplus food for long periods using pre-modern
| technology is not as easy as it may seem.
|
| > Seems to be that even subsistence agriculture will
| inevitably provoke some sort of economy, as long as other
| people are around.
|
| But not necessarily a _market_ economy.
| dTal wrote:
| >good relationships with your neighbors so they'd help
| you when you had a bad year
|
| Yes! that's _exactly_ the point. That 's an economy. You
| share your food with your neighbors when their harvest is
| bad, and vice versa. You also swap foods when you get
| bored. And the more people in your food-ring, the better
| it works, but also the more complex it becomes to keep
| track of, and eventually someone gets the bright idea to
| start writing it down, or swapping tokens...
| Ekaros wrote:
| My understanding is that most of the history there really
| wasn't whole lot more to grow. At least on marginal
| effort. Most of the history it was pretty tough and slim
| margins, at least outside certain areas.
| analog31 wrote:
| We were taught in first grade (just to give credit where
| due) that a big enough food surplus allowed for
| specialization of labor. So it might not have stimulated
| trade directly, but enabled people to work on things that
| could be traded, such as artisan goods, smelted metals,
| and so forth.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the
| marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not
| so big
|
| I don't think this perspective squares well with the
| reality that starvation and malnutrition were realities
| for most people for most of history. I don't think it's
| just because they didn't think to do the extra bit of
| effort to generate a surplus. :)
|
| > And you probably already grow more than you need
| anyway, so that you don't starve in bad years.
|
| _If_ you do grow enough to have such a reserve surplus,
| you don 't trade that away or else you starve during the
| bad years. That surplus can only be either a reserve for
| hard times _or_ currency for trade, but not both. If you
| want currency you have to have a surplus on top of your
| reserve.
|
| > Seems to be that even subsistence agriculture will
| inevitably provoke some sort of economy, as long as other
| people are around.
|
| "Subsistence" is kind of a confusing term because we use
| it in cases like feudal Europe where most people were
| subsisting because their surplus was being taken by their
| Lords. If you aren't generating a surplus at all, then
| you presumably don't get an _agrarian economy_ (but you
| can still trade other things, like local minerals).
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| >> But if you're already growing enough to survive on,
| the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is
| not so big
|
| > I don't think this perspective squares well with the
| reality that starvation and malnutrition were realities
| for most people for most of history. I don't think it's
| just because they didn't think to do the extra bit of
| effort to generate a surplus.
|
| There are different ways for something to be a reality of
| life. Starvation was a risk throughout history in a way
| that it isn't today. But it wasn't something that
| happened to people under normal circumstances. The
| historical norm involves paying a large portion of your
| crop as taxes. Starvation tends to happen to many people
| at once, due to bad weather or other inclement
| circumstances.
|
| > _If_ you do grow enough to have such a reserve surplus,
| you don 't trade that away or else you starve during the
| bad years.
|
| You do. You always grow enough to have a surplus. But you
| can't just sit on it indefinitely or it will rot. So you
| personally store enough for winter, part of your in-kind
| taxes go to fill public granaries (which need to be
| continually refreshed), and otherwise you attempt to
| dispose of any remaining surplus as you can, often by
| giving it away.
| legulere wrote:
| > In fact, money was widespread and used on a daily basis at all
| levels of the population.
|
| I don't know how they came to that conclusion. Cutting scrap in
| equal weight pieces pointing to use can be argued about. But how
| does daily use follow from that?
| samatman wrote:
| I agree, it doesn't automatically follow and it's unlikely on
| the face of it.
|
| A shepherd, for one example, is unlikely to transact on a daily
| basis, in fact he or she might not see another human being for
| weeks during summer transhumance.
|
| A merchant, on the other hand, would handle cash dozens of
| times a day. The inference that even a shepherd would sell
| sheep for cash, and use it to acquire the supplies his family
| needed, is intriguing, but needs to be demonstrated: probably
| not with grave goods, since we wouldn't expect a peasant to
| necessarily be buried with something as fungibly valuable as
| cash (though I wouldn't rule it out! We don't know how far back
| paying the oarsman's toll goes!), but finding the right corpse
| would go far.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-10 23:01 UTC)