Alexander writes:
Sorry, I can't agree that "state formation" can be taken as a component
of the
Neolithic Revolution. Look, in the Near/Middle East the very first
states
appeared only in about 5 millenia after the Neolithic Revolution
happened
undoubtelly and completely.
Gerry here: You just might be correct. But I need to check out a few
things. Do you by chance know the etymology of the word state? Perhaps
that's where we might clarify some of this jumble. I'm going to
research it and will get back to you.
Alexander: 5 millenia - is not too long duration for a
revolution? Analogous gap is found everywhere in the zones of primary
agriculture and primary states. Indeed, the large regions were the
Neolithic
Revolution and the establishment of states took place mostly coincide.
However
I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that almost everywhere
agriculture
first appeared in small mountain valleys, but the first states were
placed in
wide plains of great rivers (at least in the Old World).
Gerry: Yes. The first states seemed to congregate along riverways. I
always thought this was for transportation & irrigation. In Egypt, the
great Nile was used to innundate the land for crop cultivation and
likewise the same was true in the Indus Valley. And we mustn't forget
the great productivity of the Tigrus & Euphrates in the Middle East.
Alexander writes: Yes, we can say that establishment of states is a
result of the Neolithic Revolution, but only a remoted result, not a
component.
Gerry: Hmmm, I'm beginning to discover some interesting information for
the etymology of the word state.
> BTW, do you know of an instance
> where state formation is present without agriculture?
Alexander: Not, I don't know, and in "normal" situation this should not
be.
However I can imagine that in an extreme situation, in a zone where
agriculture
is not very productive or even possible (Arctic deserts) + in condition
of
isolation from post-Neolithic competitors theoretically it could happen.
It does
not seem me absolutely impossible that if Eskimoes would remain in the
isolation
some millenia longer they could create a state (a class society) based
not on
agriculture but on the sea hunting and fishing. But you see this is a
very
special case. I'm sure this could not happen, say, in Australia before
the
transition to agriculture.
Gerry: Whoh! If Eskimoes could create a "state" then so could the
!Kung bushmen! And what about all those California Indians? And if you
define "state" as a class society, then even an extended family could
"create a state". As soon as I discover more about the etymology of the
word "state" I be back in touch.
Gerry