The World That Agrarian Civilizations Made

The World That Agrarian Civilizations Made

Lecture 32

So, the many striking similarities between Agrarian civilizations, even where there were no signi cant contacts, count as one of the most interesting and important factors about human history because they provide powerful reasons for thinking that human history is in some sense directional—that it was shaped by large, general factors that you could only see if you look at human history on a large scale.

Why were all Agrarian civilizations so similar despite the limited contact between them? Why did human societies in different parts of the world not evolve in utterly different ways? The fact that they did not suggests that there are large forces, perhaps related to our astonishing adaptability as a species, that drive human history in particular directions despite local differences in geography and cultural traditions. It is tempting to think that, ultimately, those similarities derive from the human capacity for collective learning, which ensured that, over time, human societies—wherever they might appear—would acquire increasing resources that would allow the appearance of larger and more complex societies. In short, it may be collective learning, the de ning feature of our species, that helps explain the apparent directionality of human history. This lecture concentrates on general features of the 4,000-year era dominated by Agrarian civilizations. Instead of discussing each civilization in turn, we will discuss Agrarian civilization in general. As Robert Wright puts it, “if we relax our vision, and let these details go fuzzy, then a larger picture comes into focus: As the centuries y by, civilizations may come and go, but civilization ourishes, growing in scope and complexity” (Christian, Maps of Time, p. 283).

Though labels for eras and types of societies are arti cial, we need them because to understand the past we have to break it into manageable chunks. Chronologically, we will use two interchangeable labels for the epoch from 3000 B.C.E. to about 1000 C.E.: the “later Agrarian” era and the “era of Agrarian civilizations.” This epoch was dominated by Agrarian civilizations.

Spatially, it is helpful to divide the world before modern times into four separate world zones. The Afro-Eurasian world zone includes the African and Eurasian continents and offshore islands such as Britain and Japan. It was the most ancient zone because this is where humans evolved. It was also the largest and most varied world zone, which may explain its dominant role in world history. It was where agriculture and Agrarian civilizations rst appeared. The American world zone was the second-largest world zone, though it was settled late, probably within the last 13,000 to 15,000 years. This was the second zone in which Agrarian civilizations evolved independently. The Australasian world zone includes modern Australia and Papua New Guinea, as well as offshore islands such as Tasmania. Though agriculture did appear in Papua New Guinea, Agrarian civilizations did not evolve independently in this world zone. The Paci c zone was settled within the last 4,000 years by seafaring communities from Southeast Asia, who brought agriculture with them. Here, some elements of Agrarian civilizations did appear by diffusion on some of the larger islands such as Hawaii. But no island was large enough to support large Agrarian civilizations. Not everyone lived within Agrarian civilizations even in the era of Agrarian civilizations. Beyond their borders were regions inhabited by peoples regarded, at least by the rulers of Agrarian civilizations, as “barbarians.” In some regions, such as Australia, most people continued to live in foraging communities like those of the Paleolithic era, and many lived in such communities until the 20th century. Many people lived in small farming communities with rudimentary political structures like the villages of the early Agrarian era. In arid regions of Afro-Eurasia, there were communities of pastoral nomads, some of which, like the Mongols, posed serious threats to neighboring Agrarian civilizations. Finally, there appeared the Agrarian civilizations that are the main subject of this lecture. This list provides a rudimentary, four-part typology of premodern human societies that reminds us of the great variety of adaptations developed by our species.

At the core of all Agrarian civilizations were tribute-taking states. States exacted resources in labor, goods, or cash.

Now we focus on some of the shared features of the largest and newest of these communities: Agrarian civilizations. Agrarian civilizations were huge and complex, with hundreds of thousands, or millions, of inhabitants linked by religion, trade, economics, and politics. They were supported by the surplus labor and produce of peasant farmers, who made up most of the population. (As a rule of thumb, in most Agrarian civilizations, it took about nine peasants to support one city dweller.) Peasant life was tough. Egyptian documents from late in the 2nd millennium B.C.E. provide a vivid description of peasant life and the many trials caused both by natural disasters and the demands of tribute-takers. Elite groups, particularly in towns and cities, supported themselves by exchanging specialist skills as artisans, traders, warriors, priests, and rulers.

At the core of all Agrarian civilizations were tribute-taking states. States exacted resources in labor, goods, or cash. Tributary rulers claimed the right to exact resources but backed up their claims with the threat of force. We call such exactions “tributes.” Their coercive power depended on organized armies that could defend against external attacks and suppress internal resistance. Administrative tasks, such as the collection and storage of tributes, or the administration of justice and law, were handled by organized groups of literate of cials. The documents we have used earlier in this lecture provide a vivid account of the attractions of being a scribe and of cial. Writing appears in all Agrarian civilizations, though in some cases (e.g., the Inka), it assumed rudimentary forms. Tributary rulers built “monumental architecture”: tombs, palaces, and temples designed to display their majesty and power. At lower levels, rulers depended on local nobles or of cials, who duplicated their power on smaller scales.

Within Agrarian civilizations there were steep, and relatively rigid, hierarchies of wealth and power. Class hierarchies ranked groups by their lineage and social status. Aristocracies were distinguished by their lineage, power, lifestyle, and wealth. Members of the ruling elites generally despised the peasants who generated most of society’s wealth. They also tended to regard those outside Agrarian civilizations as inferior or subhuman. And they normally despised merchants, whose wealth came not from tributes but from entrepreneurial activity. Power hierarchies shaped gender hierarchies. As most rulers were men, women rulers were generally regarded as exceptional

(which is why the Pharaoh Hatshepsut is often represented wearing a fake beard). However, women often ruled indirectly, through husbands, lovers, or fathers. And women rarely lacked rights entirely. The oldest surviving legal code, compiled by Mesopotamian emperor Hammurabi (who reigned circa 1792–1750 B.C.E.), recognizes their right to divorce abusive husbands.

This lecture has surveyed some general features of Agrarian civilizations. In the next lecture, we ask: How did Agrarian civilizations change during the 4,000 years after their rst appearance?

Essential Reading

Supplementary Reading

Questions to Consider

Christian, Maps of Time, chap. 10. Ristvet, In the Beginning, chap. 4.

Ehrenberg, Women in Prehistory. Trigger, Early Civilizations.

1. Did Agrarian civilizations share enough features to justify treating them as a major “type” of human community?

2. Of all the features shared by Agrarian civilizations, which do you regard as the most important?