> Before agriculture, life wasn't bountiful. It was short and harsh
We all have a linear view of evolution: nomadism -> agriculture -> villages -> cities => for all the better. And we think life was really not fun before agriculture. Yet, some authors (especially in the recent years, with the progress of archeology) will note that things are maybe not so clear, and that's fascinating. With agriculture, man was (possibly) in a less good physical and spiritual shape (so, life would be harsher and shorter for peasants than for nomads). With agriculture and the concentration of people and animals, diseases spread, they ate a less diversified food, they had to fight periods of scarcity, they had a less diversified life, less rituals, things like that. We also know of tribes of nomads that joined in like summer, accumulated and shared big amounts of food, built monuments, and split again. Just to say maybe it wasn't scarcity all year long. Sources: Graeber, James C. Scott, Wengrow. Happy reading!
+1 "the dawn of everything" by Graeber is a lovely, fun, and inspiring read.
it's because Graeber expands thinking on history. who is to say he's right? it's not about that, it's about realizing how much we think we know about history... that we really can't actually know.
filling in the gaps is something people are great at doing. doesn't make it true though.
Looking at the information surrounding the sources you've cited, it seems like you've literally cited the dissenting voices from the consensus view. It's not a coincidence that Scott literally names his book "Against the grain" and that reviews of his book point to his pre-existing political beliefs as colouring his view on a time in history about which we know relatively little.
It certainly doesn't seem like any of your sources actually describe a well-accepted understanding of the history. In which case it's kind of like, ok well sure we can all cherry pick academics who have quite idiosyncratic views of the topics we pick but it's a little bold to be going "Well actually" to the standard view. If you read the paragraph I pulled that quote out of, it's quite clear that the author of this blog has an extremely rose-tinted view of "mortal intensity" and "novel virtue" and finding life "at it's ... highest". A literal reading of that section is advocating for you to quit your job and to rule over those who keep theirs.
> Just to say maybe it wasn't scarcity all year long.
Society changed very slowly historically speaking, so yes, there may have been long stretches of peace just as there have been even much later in some parts of the world. However if we understand the purpose of the agricultural revolution to be producing more bodies for warfaring/conquest and consequently leading to the creation of bureaucracy and Civilization (as Fukuyama would argue), then the incentive for which would have been driven by a keen awareness of scarcity and a history of violent warfare. It would be no small coincidence however that this take fruit largely in the fertile crescent before expanding out. Agriculture did sprout in the Americas too for instance (and the strife associated with it), but it came later.
I imagine that like everything in nature both extremes and everything in between existed in prehistoric human life. There were probably tribes that had so much bounty for generations life was easy, and others on the constant brink of starvation. Places that were peaceful, places with bloody conflicts..
We all have a linear view of evolution: nomadism -> agriculture -> villages -> cities => for all the better. And we think life was really not fun before agriculture. Yet, some authors (especially in the recent years, with the progress of archeology) will note that things are maybe not so clear, and that's fascinating. With agriculture, man was (possibly) in a less good physical and spiritual shape (so, life would be harsher and shorter for peasants than for nomads). With agriculture and the concentration of people and animals, diseases spread, they ate a less diversified food, they had to fight periods of scarcity, they had a less diversified life, less rituals, things like that. We also know of tribes of nomads that joined in like summer, accumulated and shared big amounts of food, built monuments, and split again. Just to say maybe it wasn't scarcity all year long. Sources: Graeber, James C. Scott, Wengrow. Happy reading!