Accumulation , and the Emergence of Civilizations (original) (raw)
Related papers
Institutional Development, Capital Accumulation, and the Emergence of Civilizations
2013
This paper examines the hypothesis that institutional development, in the form of property rights, may have played a key role in facilitating agricultural capital accumulation, which in turn promoted the emergence of early civilizations. We rely on a falsication approach to examine Neolithic settlements in riverine environments along major ancient trade routes, and argue that neither geography nor trade|two main fundamental determinants of growth|were not sucient to ensure the emergence of civilizations between 4500 and 1600 bce. We go on to show that a distinguishing feature of these early civilizations was the development of institutional regimes that oered either actual or notional respect for property rights, and the importance of the development of writing in supporting such regimes.
Many economists have recently tried to explain the diverse levels of economic development of countries by studying their trajectories during past eras and in recent history. Special attention has been given to the influences on contemporary societies of relevant developments in prehistory and more particularly, those arising from the Neolithic revolution, i.e. the transition from foraging to farming. This transition from simple to complex hunting and gathering and then to farming is a sequence couched in social evolutionary terms. It suggests a pattern of progressive development resulting in increasing cultural complexity. In this evolutionary scheme, simple hunter-gatherers develop into complex hunters and collectors, whose critical economic decisions are a consequence of climatic changes that inevitably lead them to irreversibly adopt agriculture. Although this pattern of development is widely accepted, we challenge it. Studies of past and recent hunting and gathering societies show an incredible diversity of human social organization through time. Similarly, the various centers where agriculture started during the Neolithic period display great diversity in terms of their genesis, nature and consequences. The nature of the spread of agriculture from the Levant to Europe displays diversity. Demic diffusion and cultural diffusion were both present, and generated a variety of diffusion processes. This diversity of human societies is not easily accounted for by social evolutionary processes; indeed, people’s understanding of the world directly influences the economic decisions they make. The development of agriculture eventually generated an economic surplus. This (combined with increasing social and economic inequalities), another feature of the Neolithic revolution, led to economic growth and therefore to the long-term dominance of agropastoralists societies. Inequality (the appropriation by dominant classes of the economic surplus generated by agropastoralism and by stemming economic developments) was therefore a necessary early condition for increasing the chances of the survival and development of these societies; otherwise they would all have been caught in the Malthusian trap.
It is commonly believed that it is only from the Neolithic period that one can speak about the economy. Before the development of this economy of food production – based on farming and livestock rearing – the economy of hunter-gatherers – based on food procurement – is usually assumed to be limited to a subsistence economy. Our purpose is to demonstrate that even during the pre-Neolithic period, the economic activity had been already quite developed. Indeed, this period starts with the end of the last ice age and is then featured by a broad-spectrum economy, including varied food resources. Such change has induced less nomadism, increasing division of labour and human population growth. In turn, it has implied, on the one hand, trade, wealth accumulation, the implementation of property rights, including land ownership. On the other hand, it has stimulated labour productivity and human knowledge. Even if it was less developed, the pre-Neolithic economy was quite similar in nature to the Neolithic one’s. Therefore it already contained the origins of our civilization.
Inequality and Wealth Creation in Ancient History: Malthus’ Theory Reconsidered
Economics & Sociology
The main purpose of this paper is to propose the hypothesis that inequality was essential for the sustainability and ‘development’ of early agriculturally based societies that developed in Prehistory and Ancient History. This was so for varied reasons: there was a need for some members of societies - the dominant class also called the elite - to escape from the Malthusian trap. In most cases, agriculture produced a bigger economic surplus eventually. Managerial problems – such as the ones associated with storage, the division of labor, irrigation, trade –being part of the consequences of the Neolithic revolution, created pressures to develop more centralized political organizations, a process which led later to the formation of the early states. This process allowed the appearance of powerful local chiefs who changed the nature of their original communities with new forms of social organization, in which one individual and his enlarged family - transformed into a ruling elite - received the benefits of the labor of a large number of serfs belonging to less-favored communities in neighboring areas. Although the surplus appropriated by the elite was used in specific ways – consumption, investments and expenditures on armed forces - it increased the power and wealth of these societies, albeit a solution involving unequally distributed wealth. While this is not the only factor in the growing dominance of agriculturally based societies, it is one of main ones as is evidenced by considering six early civilizations resulting from the Neolithic revolution. This result involves an important modification of Malthus’ theory. However, inequality - though necessary - was not a sufficient condition for the sustainability and economic development of these early societies.
Neolithic versus Bronze Age Social Formations: A Political Economy Approach
PARADIGM FOUND Archaeological Theory Present, Past And Future Essays in Honour of Evžen Neustupný, edited by Kristian Kristiansen, Ladislav Šmejda and Jan Turek, 2015
What are the major qualitative differences – if any – between more complex Neolithic societies, such as tell settlements, and mature Bronze Age societies? While a general consensus exists among researchers that Bronze Age societies were differentiated in terms of hierarchy and complexity distinctly from Neolithic societies, recently some have questioned if these differences are simply of degree rather than of kind. We argue that fundamental qualitative differences separates Neolithic and Bronze Age social formations, differences linked to institutionlized trade in the Bronze Age
Many economists have recently tried to explain the diverse levels of economic development of countries by studying their trajectories during past eras and in recent history. Special attention has been given to the influences on contemporary societies of relevant developments in prehistory and more particularly, those arising from the Neolithic revolution, i.e. the transition from foraging to farming. This transition from simple to complex hunting and gathering and then to farming is a sequence couched in social evolutionary terms. It suggests a pattern of progressive development resulting in increasing cultural complexity. In this evolutionary scheme, simple hunter-gatherers develop into complex hunters and collectors, whose critical economic decisions are a consequence of climatic changes that inevitably lead them to irreversibly adopt agriculture. Although this pattern of development is widely accepted, we challenge it. Studies of past and recent hunting and gathering societies sh...
The Paradox of Civilization: Pre-Institutional Sources of Security and Prosperity
2015
T he production of economic surplus, or "prosperity," was fundamental to financing the rise of pristine civilizations. Yet, prosperity attracts predation, which discourages the investments required for civilization. To the extent that the economic footing of civilization creates existential security threats, civilization is paradoxical. We claim that, in addition to surplus production, civilizations require surplus protection, or "security." Drawing from archaeology and history, we model the trade-offs facing a society on its path to civilization. We emphasize preinstitutional forces, especially the geographical environment, that shape growth and defense capabilities and derive the conditions under which these capabilities help escape the civilizational paradox. We provide qualitative illustration of the model by analyzing the rise of the first two civilizations, Sumer and Egypt.
Affluent societies of Later Prehistory
2018
Most a-cephalic societies identified by anthropology are described as being poor in absolute (material) terms, but rich in time for leisure or other activities. Affluence is generally understood as a situation where material needs remain limited and where the idea of necessity governs economic production. In this stoic understanding of human existence, social equality is inevitably linked to limited economic wealth and, hence, to hunter-gatherer societies. According to this logic, the development of individual needs not only requires a greater input of labour, but also leads to social inequality, political institutions, etc. This dominant civilisational narrative is being challenged by archaeology, as increasing evidence is provided of prehistoric societies with an exceptional demographic and economic development, including a high level of specialisation and coordination, but where no or few signs of political centralisation can be identified. These societies engaged in substantial joint enterprises, extended over large territories, organised large-scale distribution networks, and developed exceptional technical skills. No convincing interpretative framework has yet been developed for these archaeological complexes, which evade the conventional labels of chiefdom, state, social complexity, etc. The various spatial and material expressions used in archaeology to identify political institutions, centralised power, or social hierarchies remain elusive in these cases. Although settlement areas may have reached considerable sizes, they did not develop into urban centres. The production of substantial surplus is the common feature of these groups. This production was utilised in very different social, ideological, or political realms, but was not transformed into private property. Consequently, we can speak here of cooperative affluent societies, where substantial material benefits were shared and enjoyed collectively. In our presentation, examples of several archaeological case studies, ranging from the Near East to the western Mediterranean, will be used to discuss the strategies adopted by these societies in relation to surplus production and obliteration, as well as their political forms. Ultimately, this will also allow us to understand why it proves difficult to find equivalences in the ethnographic record.