How Farming Led to the Formation of States | World History Project

Summary

在这段视频中，历史教授Trevor Getz与世界历史学家Candace Goucher和Laura Mitchell讨论了农业与国家形成之间的联系。他们探讨了农业是否是国家形成的先决条件，以及不同的农业形态如何影响国家的形式。Goucher指出，尽管农业通常与国家形成有关，但并非所有情况下都必然导致国家形成，且即使导致国家形成，也不决定国家的具体形态。Mitchell强调了劳动需求与国家形成之间的联系，并讨论了国家在危机时刻的积极作用。最后，他们讨论了农业与国家在现代社会的关系，以及如何衡量国家的成功。

Takeaways

• 🌾 农业是形成国家的重要前提条件之一，但并非唯一条件。
• 🎓 詹姆斯·斯科特认为，没有国家不是建立在灌溉谷物农业上的。
• 🐟 除了农业，捕鱼和游牧民族等其他生活方式也可以支撑大量人口定居。
• 🌱 稳定的资源对于国家形成至关重要，而农业是实现这一目标的一种方式。
• 🔍 世界历史上的一般化趋势和广泛模式表明，农业是国家形成的重要前提。
• 📍 特定类型的农业与国家形式之间的关系取决于当地的具体情况。
• 🍞 农业剩余的积累并不一定导致国家的产生，即使导致，也不能决定国家的形式。
• 🌳 斯科特还指出，谷物相比于其他食物更有助于国家的形成。
• 🌍 但某些地区，如西非和南美，可能以其他作物如山药作为重要食物来源。
• 💧 农业劳动需求，如灌溉工作，有助于国家的形成，但并非仅限于农业劳动。
• 🏛️ 国家的形成和维持还涉及到其他类型的集体劳动，如国家建筑和宗教场所的建设。
• 🤔 国家是否是一个好主意取决于不同人的利益，对于农民可能是负担，但对于精英阶层则是利益。
• 🏙️ 国家的成功与否可以通过其处理食物分配的能力来衡量，饥饿和无家可归是失败国家的标志。
• 🕰️ 尽管现代人大多数不是农民，但国家仍然存在，农业与国家的关系随时间而变化。

Q & A

特雷弗·格茨教授在讨论中提到了什么主题？

特雷弗·格茨教授在讨论中提到了农业与国家形成之间的联系。

詹姆斯·斯科特关于国家和农业的观点是什么？

詹姆斯·斯科特认为不存在不依赖于冲积平原谷物农业人口的国家。

坎迪斯·古彻对詹姆斯·斯科特的观点有何看法？

坎迪斯·古彻认为还有其他例子表明，不需要农业也能让大量人口定居在一个地方，例如渔业人口、牧民和游牧民族。

在世界历史中，农业通常被视为什么？

在世界历史中，农业通常被视为国家形成的重要先决条件。

为什么农业与国家形成之间的关系是有条件的？

因为农业与国家形成之间的关系取决于当地的具体情况，例如不同类型的农业和国家形式之间的关系。

农业剩余的积累是否必然导致国家的形成？

不是必然的。即使有农业剩余，也不一定会导致国家的形成，或者告诉我们国家将采取什么形式。

斯科特认为谷物与其他食物相比，为什么对国家的形成特别重要？

斯科特认为谷物特别重要，因为它们在欧亚大陆的一些早期农业社会中起到了关键作用。

在东非的一些国家，例如布干达王国，它们是如何发展的？

在东非的一些国家，例如布干达王国，它们的发展是围绕香蕉和大蕉的饮食，而不是谷物。

劳拉·米切尔提到了哪些与国家形成和维护有关的劳动类型？

劳拉·米切尔提到了除了农业劳动之外，还有国家建筑和公共宗教场所的建设等其他类型的集体劳动对国家形成和维护很重要。

斯科特似乎认为国家给农民带来了什么负担？

斯科特认为国家给农民带来了税收、战争等负担，对农民来说并不是一个非常好的交易。

国家在危机时刻可能带来的好处是什么？

在危机时刻，国家可以通过储存食物并在环境危机或饥荒时向没有食物的人提供多余的食物，从而改变人们的体验。

如何衡量一个国家的成功？

衡量一个国家成功的一个重要标准是它能否处理食物的分配问题。如果有很多人没有房子、饥饿，那么这可能是国家失败的迹象。

今天农业与国家之间的关系与过去几千年有什么不同？

今天，大多数人不再是农民，但国家仍然存在，这表明农业与国家之间的关系已经发生了变化。

Outlines

00:00

🌾 农业与国家形成的历史联系

Trevor Getz教授与Candace Goucher和Laura Mitchell两位世界历史学家讨论农业与国家形成之间的关系。他们探讨了农业是否是国家形成的必要前提，以及James Scott关于国家建立在灌溉谷物农业人口上的观点。Goucher认为，除了农业，还有渔业和游牧民族等其他因素可以促使大量人口定居。她强调，虽然农业是形成国家的一个重要前提，但具体形式和关系取决于当地因素。此外，她也提到了东非一些国家如布干达王国，它们并非以谷物为基础，而是以香蕉和大蕉为主。

05:01

🤔 国家存在的意义及其对农民的影响

讨论转向了国家是否是一个好主意，Scott认为国家增加了农民的负担，创建了税收和战争，对农民来说并非好事。Goucher提出，国家在危机时刻可能是一个好主意，可以通过储存食物和在环境危机或饥荒时提供食物给那些没有食物的人。她进一步讨论了国家作为强制性实体的模型并非唯一，国家的存在可以改变人们在危机时期的经历。Mitchell补充说，除了农业劳动，其他类型的集体劳动，如国家建筑和公共宗教场所的建设，也对国家的形成和维护至关重要。最后，讨论了农业与国家之间的联系在今天如何运作，以及过去几千年来的变化，指出我们大多数人今天不是农民，但国家仍然存在。Goucher认为，国家成功的一个重要标志是其处理食物分配的能力，如果有人无家可归或饥饿，那就是国家失败的迹象。

Keywords

💡农业

农业是指种植农作物和养殖牲畜的实践。视频中讨论农业作为形成国家的一个基础条件，特别是依靠种植谷物的农业，如何支持国家的建立和维持。

💡国家

国家是一种具有中央管理、法律系统和常规税收的社会结构。视频中提到国家如何依赖农业，特别是谷物农业，同时探讨了没有农业的游牧民族和渔业社会是否也可以形成国家。

💡谷物

谷物是指像小麦、大米等主要粮食作物，常见于早期农业社会。视频中讨论了谷物在形成早期国家中的关键作用，因为其储存和税收较为容易。

💡劳动

劳动指的是人们为生产食物、建筑等活动投入的体力和时间。视频中提到农业劳动如何推动国家的形成，特别是灌溉和公共工程建设。

💡集体劳动

集体劳动指群体共同参与的劳动活动，通常用于建设公共基础设施或宗教场所。视频中指出这种劳动不仅限于农业，还涉及国家建设和维护。

💡食物分配

食物分配指在社会中如何分配和管理食物资源。视频探讨了古代和现代国家在处理食物分配问题上的差异，以及这如何影响国家的成败。

💡社会资源

社会资源是指社区可用的食物、土地、水等资源。视频中讨论了稳定的社会资源对形成定居社区和国家的重要性。

💡积累盈余

积累盈余指农业生产超出家庭自用部分的多余食物或资源。视频中提到这些盈余是国家形成的基础，因为它们可以用于支持非农劳动者和建立行政体系。

💡宗教场所

宗教场所是指进行宗教活动的建筑或区域。视频中指出这些场所的建设往往依赖于集体劳动，并与国家的形成和维护有密切关系。

💡精英

精英是指社会中具有较高地位和权力的少数人。视频中提到国家的建立通常对精英有利，因为他们能够利用农业劳动的成果来巩固自己的地位和权力。

Highlights

农业是国家形成的前提条件之一。

大多数早期国家依赖于冲积谷物农业人口。

存在不依赖农业的国家，如捕鱼群体和游牧民族。

需要稳定资源，但农业并非唯一方式。

农业与国家的关系因地而异，不能一概而论。

农业盈余的积累不必然导致国家的形成。

谷物在某些地区对国家形成至关重要。

东非布干达王国基于香蕉和芭蕉而非谷物。

农业劳动要求与国家形成有密切关系。

除了农业劳动，其他集体劳动也对国家形成和维护重要。

国家在危机时能提供食物储备，有助于缓解饥荒。

国家的出现既有利也有弊，取决于利益群体。

国家形成导致了手工业和艺术的发展。

今天的国家仍然依赖于食物的分配能力。

衡量一个国家的成功与否可以看其是否能有效分配食物。

Transcripts

(music playing)

Hello, my name is Trevor Getz.

I'm a professor of history

at San Francisco State University,

and I'm here with two leading world historians,

Candace Goucher and Laura Mitchell,

to talk about the connection between farming

and the emergence of the state in human history.

We often hear that farming was a precondition for the state.

In fact, James Scott argues that

there was no such thing as a state

that didn't rest on an alluvial grain farming population.

In your experience, do you think this is correct?

(music playing)

(music playing)

James Scott argues that there was no such thing as a state

that didn't rest on an alluvial grain farming population.

In your experience, do you think this is correct?

GOUCHER: I think there are some other examples

that don't require farming

for large populations to settle in one place--

fishing populations;

there are the herders, the nomads;

states on the move.

You do need stable resources,

and farming is one way to reach that scenario.

I would encourage students to think about farming

in the state in multiple ways.

In world history we tend to look for generalizations

and for broad patterns.

And, in general,

farming is an important precondition for the state.

But what that farming looks like and what the relationship

between a particular kind of farming

and the form of the state are

is always contingent-- it depends on local factors.

So you want to be able to push and think that even if farming

is generally related to the state,

the fact that there is farming

does not inevitably mean that there will be a state.

The fact that there is an accumulation

of agricultural surplus

doesn't mean that we're going to lead to a state,

and even if it does lead to the state,

it doesn't tell us what form that state's going to take.

So thinking with this generalization

is a great place to start,

but you always want to dive in and look at specific examples

and not be content with just a generalization

that farmers live in states.

Because mostly they do, but not always,

and they don't live in the same kind of state

in every place, in every time.

Scott also argues that grains in particular,

rather than other foods, make states possible.

But I know of at least a few states in East Africa,

like the kingdom of Buganda,

that actually developed around a diet of plantains and bananas,

rather than grains.

What do you think?

GOUCHER: Grains work as an argument

in some parts of the world.

Grasses were indeed very important

in the early farming societies of parts of Eurasia.

But if you look at parts

of West Africa, South America,

then you have a totally different scenario.

You have yams that are important.

And, indeed, in some places you don't even need agriculture

because the resources are so abundant.

Scott also argues that the labor requirements of farming,

like doing irrigation work, help lead to the state.

What's the connection there?

MITCHELL: There is a connection about labor.

And it, it doesn't only have to be farming labor.

And I don't think that Scott's off-base

in his focus on farming,

because farming is the basis of most people's livelihood, right?

If you're, if you're not farming you're not eating,

if you're living in a large community.

But there are other kinds of communal labor that also matter

for state formation, and for state maintenance,

particularly the construction of state buildings

and communal religious sites.

All right, all of this leads me to ask:

Was the state actually a good idea?

I mean, Scott seems to suggest

that the state just added a burden.

It created taxes, it created warfare,

and that it wasn't actually a very good deal for the farmer.

What do you think?

GOUCHER: The state could be a good idea

if there were moments of crisis.

But the model for the state

as a coercive entity is not the only model.

So, states could alter

people's experience in times of crisis

by storing food and providing

excess food to those without food

in, in environmental crises, or in times of famine.

I want to push back on that question a little bit and say,

a good idea for whom?

Scott gets at that question

when he's saying it wasn't a good idea for farmers,

that farmers were more oppressed

and had fewer advantages.

But for elites?

For people who could control the labor of farmers,

states were, were clearly a good idea.

Without the coercion and hierarchy

that we see from most states,

we wouldn't have the kind of artisanal and artist class.

There's a richness of development

and the continuation or circulation of knowledge.

There are complex religious practices

that I think wouldn't happen

without the exploitation of farming labor.

That's not to justify exploitation, but to say that

it's hard to say that a state,

either a state as a concept or a specific state,

is a good idea or a bad idea

because, as in most historical circumstances,

you have winners and losers.

How does the connection

between farming and the state work today?

What has changed over the past thousands of years?

For example, most of us today aren't farmers today

but there are still states.

GOUCHER: I think one of the important measures

of the success of a state

is whether it can deal with

the distribution of food.

And if we look around

and see people who are without houses,

people who are hungry,

then we have, I think, evidence of failed states.

So we can measure states in ancient times

in much the same way that we can measure states today.

I want to thank both of you for joining me here today.

This is a really important topic,

the connection between farming and the state,

and I think we've all learned a lot.

(music playing)