“Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States”, James C. Scott (2017) ISBN 978-0-300-18291-0
Sounds like an interesting title, right? Sadly, Mr. Scott is an academic. Thus his book is larded with a thick layer of Political Correctness. More brain-dead BCEs than you could shake a stick at. Women & minorities always being hardest hit. This is so disappointing, because it could have been a fascinating book.
The author wonders how in only the last 5% of our species time on Earth we came to live in crowded communities depending mainly on only a handful of types of grain?
Archaeology in Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) shows that humans were putting down roots (“sedentism”) and domesticating plants & animals for at least 4,000 years before the first states appeared about 6,000 years ago. And people seemed to have had better diets and been healthier then, before they gathered in communities and focused on growing grains. Why did people decide to abandon a life where they had a reliable varied diet including hunting & gathering and some limited degree of crop-raising to one in which they took the risk of depending mainly on grains? And how does this relate to the appearance – and subsequent disappearance – of the many short-lived earliest states?
Mr. Scott does not mention the hypothesis advanced by the late L.F. Ivanhoe, among others: Mankind discovered beer; beer was good, and brewing beer required grain; our ancestors traded the good life of hunting & fishing for the enjoyment of alcohol. Instead, Mr. Scott advances a more disturbing hypothesis – the rulers of the earliest states forced their subject people to depend on grain because grain was easy to tax, collect, and redistribute.
Mr. Scott is rather vague about what constitutes an early state. He appears to identify a state as a walled community with some control over its hinterland. Why the walls? Although Mr. Scott does not explicitly draw the connection, it clearly had much to do with protecting the inhabitants from other marauding humans. He details the evidence for extensive raiding and slavery in those far-off years. The walls may also in part have been intended to keep the grain-growing (i.e. tax-paying) residents from heading out for a better life in the hills.
Implicit in Mr. Scott’s analysis is that the transition from self-sufficient well-nourished barbarians in an Edenic world to less well-nourished subjects of a State involved the evolution of a non-producing overhead Political Class. In the happy earlier days, people in Mesopotamia cooperated in what must have been substantial effort to build walls which focused migrating animals into kill zones. I can imagine a situation in which the leaders of the tribe were the first to start moving stones. Once states developed, the ruler presumably sat back and told the peons to tote those bales and build the walls around the city.
That brings us to one of Mr. Scott’s fascinating speculations: at the same time as our ancestors were domesticating grains and animals, they themselves were being changed by that domestication process. Is this why today’s human beings so often seem to seek the comfort of being part of a herd?
This could have been a wonderful book, an important book. But Mr. Scott ruined it by staying within the herd of the Politically Correct.