Tuesday, October 13, 2009

The Bronze Age

Inevitably when you aver that the state is unjust, the law unfair, society mere coercion, etc. etc. and so forth, someone pops up to explain that while you may not like it, buster, if it weren't for our institutions, however flawed they may be, then you would be raped, killed, and eaten any second now. Then everyone yells Sudan!, jumps around, and demands an historical counterexample. In fact, the Harappan civilization of the Indus Valley seems to have existed as a peaceful urban culture for thousands of years with no indication of a ruling elite or priestly class, indeed with no presntly known indication of an army. Of course, their script is as yet undeciphered and our knowledge of them remains scattered and incomplete. It may have been that some sort of commercial class exercised oligarchic control--certainly the regularized systems of weights and measures as well as what appear to be codified systems of urban planning and building construction suggest some mechanism of large-scale cooperation, but again: there is no evidence of a governing structure that we would recognize from any other historic example. Keep in mind that not only was Harappan civilization durable, it was far-flung, occupying much of what is now Pakistan at its peak. It is in any case interesting to consider that such a thing not only existed, but endured.

69 comments:

Anonymous said...

Which blonde, American Frier?

Anonymous said...

oops! "Amelican Frier", of course.

Anonymous said...

Yes! And the same with the republic of fakeistan in the 9th century B.C., and the banana republic, which proved in the twentieth centuries that you CAN jerk off to water color portraits of teddy roosevelt with one hand, and still weave hundreds of thousands of pairs of shoddy pants with the other hand, WITHOUT a monopoly on the cotton textiles trade! Or is that Bangladesh?

Montag said...

uhh, IOZ, have you looked at Pakistan lately? the counterexample doesn't count unless it still exists. that it doesn't still endure, and that even our "knowledge of them remains scattered and incomplete," only reinforces the point that such civilizations SUCK!

get over yourself! violent coercive capitalism RULES!

Mike said...

The Harappan civilization seems to resemble the folks of upland Southeast Asia, described in James Scott's The Art of Not Being Governed.

NutellaonToast said...

I'm pretty sure opponent's of your argument have far more than ONE example, and it's not "incomplete."

AAAndrew said...

Some of the art seems to indicate elite classes such as the famous bust of a bearded man, and some of the buildings were definitely larger and more elaborate than others. If the Indus Valley civilization (the more appropriate term) truly was somehow organized and kept running successfully at the scale it seemed to be, without any ruling elite, then it would be a first in the annals of human history.

Anonymous said...

"The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia," by James C. Scott. New from the Yale University Press.

I'm just saying.

Anonymous said...

Harappan or upland southeast asia or whatever probably had more in common with pre-incan civilizations; beyond the similarities in their respective archeological records. The preincans just kind of drank shit-tons of corn beer to forget they were hungry. They also engaged in hella sodomy at their orgies, more often out of wedlock, to forget they were hungry and because they liked it, and so that they could keep their dried potatoes and corn gruel to themselves instead of having to let their dying infants suck on them. Obviously the Harappan were probably better situated to grow more delicious and nutritious crops with higher yields, but I don't know to what extent. But those preincans were starving anarcho-sodomites who lived in miserable theocratic communes of orgy parties and here and there a gray alpaca.
THEY, on the other hand, DO still exist and still do exactly the same things when the Spaniards and their progeny aren't persecuting them for wanting to be free.

David said...

The problem isn't that we lots of examples to counter "Sudan!", it's that people yell "Sudan!" when you oppose any government activity.

Whether you disagree about the U.S. invading the enemy du jour, police beating the shit out people, the drug war, zero-tolerance policies that result in six-year olds getting tased, or banning corn syrup, fast food, cigarettes, etc. It's always "there have to rules or we'll all be dead" as if agreeing that to some means you have to agree with all of them.

LA Confidential Pantload said...

Hell, even if you LIKE government, there can be way too much of a good thing. We have something like 2-3,000 government entities here in Pennsylvania, layer upon layer, and most of them do fuck-all except spend money.

David said...

I'm sure some must provide headaches for people who don't know which "i"s to dot and "t"s to cross.

Anonymous said...

"WITHOUT a monopoly on the cotton textiles trade! Or is that Bangladesh?"

That was Honduras.

Anonymous said...

I was quite impressed with Teddy Roosevelt declaring "Mission Accomplished" during the War Against The Filipinos. Fourth of July!

Anonymous said...

People of The Deer did fine until those meddlesome furtrappers showed up.

Christopher M. said...

So let's say that the Harappans were, in fact, a "good" stateless civilization thousands of years ago. Where does that get us today? The genie of coercive state power is pretty much out of the bottle. How do you get people to forget that the thugs with the most money and guns can terrorize anyone else?

My basic assumption about any anarchy is that it would eventually devolve into a state. As long as someone has access to more wealth than someone else, that someone has more power than them; as long as they have power, they can leverage that power to obtain more power. This is how states are born, and how we got states in the first place - and how we'll get them again, if this civilization collapses in a way that allows our species to persist. I genuinely admire your optimism, but I'm not sure we can get rid of states any more than we can get rid of murder.

Mr.Fundamental said...

Donny, were you listening to the Dude's story?

IOZ said...

Haha. We're trying to get somewhere.

crispin said...

cool! is there a good book/source on this?

Aaron said...

I think it's probably a mistake to conflate "the state" in 300 BC with "the state" today. Likewise the "un-state," assuming the Harappans were that. Apart from not convincing anyone, it's pretty much apples and oranges.

The James Scott book that somebody mentioned, however, is very relevant and a much better contrast. There is and has always been lots of resistance to nation-state organization. (As it happens I've just written a doctoral dissertation about plague and quarantine on the very subject!)

Christopher M. said...

I listened to the Dude's story, Walter, and found it unconvincing.

Mr.Fundamental said...

chop! chop! Monsieur! you're going to have to be more persuasive, it seems.

Anonymous said...

How do you get people to forget that the thugs with the most money and guns can terrorize anyone else?

Not being able to forget would provide the very reason to resist the reemergence of systemized thuggery.

My basic assumption about any anarchy is that it would eventually devolve into a state.

Totally. Unless the anarchy is composed of anarchists.

TGGP said...

That's ridiculous! Everyone knows you're supposed to use Iceland (or possible medieval Ireland) to argue for anarchy as a stable equilibrium for an agricultural civilization! Evidence of absence trumping absence of evidence and whatnot.

Unless the anarchy is composed of anarchists.
The trouble with anarchists is that they think they have agreed on what they all oppose -- the state -- whereas all they have agreed on is what to call it.

Anonymous said...

I have yet to hear of a society in which rape did not occur. Ergo, rape is as necessary to civilization as the State. Somewhere, Polanski is furiously pumping his arm in agreement.

Brian M said...

"Not being able to forget would provide the very reason to resist the reemergence of systemized thuggery."

Yet, the very act of violent organized resistance means you yourself must join up with others, organize, accept orders during time of war, etc. Wow...looks like a State could easily reform out of such efforts? If not a State, at least a Clan Group, a Tribe, a Commune, etc...which can all be pretty authoritarian in themselves.

Totally. Unless the anarchy is composed of anarchists.

Ah, just like the reason "Communism" failed is because there were not enough New Men around. If we can only get rid of all those slackers and evil Statists, the remaining True Anarchists will create heaven on earth!

Anonymous said...

Anarchy will evolve, just like everything else.

Anonymous said...

"Ape has killed Ape!"

Anonymous said...

yeah! what relevance does it have today that people did things very differently at some other time & place? beyond that they were idiots & barbarians, nothing.

Mr.Fundamental said...

I dabbled in anarchism before. not in `Nam, of course.

Anonymous said...

ioz, your destructive posts are better than your constructive posts.

anarchism would only work if humans weren't assholes. using the example of an ancient civilization that we have "scattered and incomplete knowledge" of to show that it could work is silly. also, you think "large scale cooperation" could work without some method of enforcement?

i'll admit, however, that anarchism is a pleasant fairy tale to mentally masterbate to while we sit at our computers pretending to work.

TGGP said...

If humans weren't assholes, dictatorship wouldn't be so bad either.

I wish I could link to the original page rather than through the internet archive, but here's Richard Garner saying Hobbes is wrong about anarchy if he's right about human nature.

James said...

Mayhaps you were thinking of these articles:
http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=574&issue=123

Christopher said...

Ah, just like the reason "Communism" failed is because there were not enough New Men around. If we can only get rid of all those slackers and evil Statists, the remaining True Anarchists will create heaven on earth!

And what's with this Democracy bullshit everybody's always going on about? Yeah, I'm totally sure that a bunch of Peasants and members of the savage races are going to suddenly learn to live peacefully together. When the hell has that ever happened? As soon as one group realizes it's bigger then the others they'll just vote their own into power and smash anybody who's different.

Mark my words, it'll turn right back into a Monarchy just like that.

cemmcs said...


Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary. The wider course would be to say that there are certain lines along which humanity must move, the grand strategy is mapped out, but detailed prophecy is not our business. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness. This is the case even with a great writer like Swift, who can flay a bishop or a politician so neatly, but who, when he tries to create a superman, merely leaves one with the impression the very last he can have intended that the stinking Yahoos had in them more possibility of development than the enlightened Houyhnhnms.

George Orwell, Why Socialists Don't believe in Fun

Christopher M. said...

I have yet to hear of a society in which rape did not occur. Ergo, rape is as necessary to civilization as the State.

Dude, "endemic" does not mean "necessary."

Soj said...

The dividing line is the number of STRANGERS you co-habit the "state" with, ie ones you either do not know by sight/face or are related to by blood.

As the number of "strangers" you deal with rise, so does the "government" rise bc that is precisely its (first) role, to mediate between people who cannot rely on friends/family to do so to resolve disputes.

There are many, MANY (and far more than just Iceland and Mohenjo-Daro et al) examples of populations large enough to require a gov't (aka "state") but yet not one that is oppressive slash tyrannical slash "bad".

Long story short, the more anyone "governing" you is a stranger, the more oppressive it becomes. This is why "Tony" on the customer service line is so tyrannical versus an actual human you can interface with aka the "old days" :P

Anonymous said...

Dude, "endemic" does not mean "necessary."

Wow, so, like, the State is endemic?

Montag said...

so what if anarchy is always temporary or can't work on a large scale?

there are too many people competing for scarce resources. at this point, peaceful coexistence is impossible under any system, absent a change in these conditions.

if i was to support a system of government based on my self interest in the continued survival of me and my progeny, it would have to be the violentest motherfucker out there, killing everybody, until my peeps had locked down everything we needed to continue existing indefinitely.

i just don't have the stomach for that.

indeed anarchy would make for worse times for people who spend time in comment threads, but it would be by some measure fairer to the less fortunate (pretty much the rest of the world population.)

i'm not up for violent organized resistance, though. but i might vote for anarchy given the choice.

Dunc said...

WTF? Just because we currently know very little about the organisation of Harappan society doesn't give you license to fill in those gaps with whatever you like.

This is "anarchism of the gaps".

Wait a minute, could you be talking bollocks?

"Most significant to the 'peaceful Harappans' model is the claim that weapons are scarce at Indus sites, and the overall number of weapons lower than at Mesopotamian sites. To test this, the metal assemblages from the Indus sites of Mohenjo Daro [...] and Surkotada [...] were compared to those from residential areas at Ur. [...] Artefacts were grouped into a number of broad, functional categories in order to compare the composition of the various assemblages. [...] Three observations can be drawn from Figure 6. Primarily, defined 'weapons' are rare at all settlements considered, from the Near East to the Indus. The claim that they are less numerous in the Indus can be rejected outright. Secondly, the proportion of the assemblages composed of 'tool/weapons' is often greater at Indus sites than at Near Eastern sites. Most striking in this respect is the scarcity of 'tool/weapons' at Tell Brak and Nippur, especially considering that the period under consideration at Nippur began and ended in violent upheaval (Stone 1987:114). Thirdly, the variability seen in the metal assemblages deriving from individual Near Eastern sites is striking compared to the Indus sites. This is doubtless a factor of the contrasting nature of political and cultural unification between sites in these two areas, but it does throw into doubt the validity of lumping together various Near Eastern sites into such a broad entity as 'Mesopotamian' sites.

If there really are comparable levels of weaponry in Indus and Mesopotamian sites, it begs the question why nobody has realised this simple fact. Part of the problem lies in the predisposition to interpret Harappan objects such as axes and spears as agricultural or hunting equipment rather than weapons for use against other people. However, this position is only the result of years of acceptance that there are no significant numbers of weapons at Indus sites; and this is the result of misconceived comparisons between early excavations of residential areas at Mohenjo Daro and Harappa on the one hand, and temple and palace compounds from Mesopotamia on the other.

[...]

It is very clear that the patterns evident in the distribution, design and possibly function of Mature Harappan metal weaponry differ from those in the comparative centres selected. Although there is a relative abundance of blades in Harappan urban contexts, this might be argued to imply wider access to copper and bronze tools by the general populace than in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The absence of more complex technological forms and especially of weapons made with precious metals and stones may suggest that the Harappan elite did not use weapons as symbols of power to differentiate themselves from the non-elite population in the same way that Mesopotamian elites did. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the Harappan elite did not use weapons, or use warfare as a method of social control, or for political and/or territorial gain, or that the nature and function of elite power did not involve these weapons. The absence of 'high status' weaponry suggests either that weapons were simply not a significant part of elite identity (which is entirely different to suggesting that weapons were not used by the Harappan elite), or that they did not enter the archaeological record in the same way."

[Peaceful Harappans? Reviewing the evidence for the absence of warfare in the Indus Civilisation of north-west India and Pakistan; Antiquity, June 2005, E Cork.]

Cüneyt said...

IOZ, you're looking for Minoan Crete, too. It's often held up as the anti-Mycenae, or anti-Mesopotamia, a peaceful, beautiful, charming civilization which was based in trade, exploration, and exposed breasts. The thesis was touched on briefly in Robinson's Red Mars and features in a lot of anti-authoritarian mythical understanding.

The only problem is that Minos (or whatever they actually called it since, as with the Harappans, we have limited ability to understand their language), as I understand, is understood from a series of palaces and town centers. The borders of this empire--and it is now thought that the Minoans had quite a trade empire, and perhaps that led to conflict for resources, as such activity always does--are, of course, on other islands, other shores, where weapons are found. Naval battles, you see, or foreign wars, leave few signs of battle on the homeland itself. Add in natural disaster and you can see how the archaeological record can become quite warped.

So now we think the Minoans might have been all those wonderful things, but they might also have practiced human sacrifice, slavery, and war. In other words, they were, like the Harappans, only human.

Now, I don't want to suggest that the human experience is monolithic. That peoples have existed and lived differently at times is certainly true. But if you're looking for the past as a model, it's good to be critical, and IOZ would do better to talk about 1930s Spain with all its troubles and its brief anarchist moments than play in the sand and speculate about the Harappans living this way or that. Oppression is as old as humanity, and though we might debate as to the reverence of women in the form of the dancing Harappan girl or the Venus of Willendorf, I see little reason to see either societies as less gender-role normative than the nominally female-reverent European Middle Ages. I love the hypothesis, don't get me wrong, but the facts..?

IOZ said...

Haha. There is not a person here who knows that the word "seems" means. You guys are nuts!

Christopher M. said...

There is not a person here who knows that the word "seems" means

Weak, IOZ. Try again.

Mr.Fundamental said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr.Fundamental said...

IOZ! IOZ! pleas hit our moving target! please oh please! we have no idea what we mean, we don't get that this is just an exercise in thought, but we're holding you to our word! we really think this means something! please oh please! help us!

Anonymous said...

Holy shit, Monsieur. The word "seems" is your escape hatch now? Why not just go all out and claim that this post was written on Opposite Day?

And am I the only one who's noticed that the only thing that makes Mr. Fun show any genuine emotion is when his idol gets mocked and criticized? Toughen up there, swee'pea, it's a rough 'n' tumble blawgworld out there, especially when you write silly-ass posts.

Brian M said...

Mr Fun:

I don't see any moving targets here. Posters here are simply noting their skepticism about Ioz' example. If we are engaging in a Thought Exercise, is it not proper to engage said exercise, to discuss whether its conclusions or postulates are valid? Isn't that the whole point of this little community?

Mr.Fundamental said...

if that is in fact what ya'll were doing.

dear lawd. just because I'm unable or unwilling to add something to IOZ's post doesn't mean I have to sit here and watch ya'll scrum to get to whatever the fuck ya'll are trying to conclude, without mocking ya'll.

Let me tell you something else.
I've seen a lot of spinals, Dude,
and this guy is a fake. A fucking
goldbricker.

This guy fucking walks. I've never
been more certain of anything in my
life!

Mrs. Fun said...

How dare you suggest that there is something at all the matter with a post on this blog! Desperate attempt to sound disaffected! Non sequitur! Lebowski quote! "Blawg!"

Mr.Fundamental said...

meh. you can do better than that.

Anonymous said...

But apparently you can't.

Mr.Fundamental said...

!!!

now that's funny.

Mr.Fundamental said...

They want us to fight, but we just wanna get high
Work all day all night tryin' to get fly
When I get some money imma buy me some time
I can't fight your war, until I'm finished with mine

Anonymous said...

dear lawd. just because I'm unable or unwilling to add something to IOZ's post doesn't mean I have to sit here and watch ya'll scrum to get to whatever the fuck ya'll are trying to conclude, without mocking ya'll.

But you're not mocking us, pumpkin. You're just stamping your little feet and yelling "cut it out, cut it out, cut it out!" because people actually take a moment to tell IOZ when he's full of shit.

erin4iraq said...

I love thinking about how great anarchy would be while I use the internet powered by a constant flow of electricity into my computer in my climate controlled office and also while driving home, stopping by a restaurant to pick up a hot, tasty and nutritious dinner. Those Upland Southeast Asians had it goin' on.

Anonymous said...

"Then everyone yells Sudan!, jumps around, and demands an historical counterexample. In fact, the Harappan civilization of the Indus Valley"

by doing this, you allowed those who yell "sudan!" to control the terms of your argument. that endless examples could be cited PROVING the barbarity of state-coercion is no longer relevant.

arguing humanity would be better off without the state is like arguing afghanistan would be better off without american troops; you shouldn't have to.

Enron said...

Ahem, uh, the Paris Commune, two times? The Ukraine during the Russian Revolution, the first Soviets, Masianelo's Napoli. There is a common theme, here, somewhere.

Cüneyt said...

Don't be coy, IOZ. You shouldn't paint a picture if you don't want us to observe it. To be clear, I don't know what you really think, deep down inside, but I'm going to respond to your statements, hypothetical or otherwise.

Don James Gerardo said...

what about preagricultural gatherer civ? no priestly class before the priestly class.... long record of sustainability on a timescale we can scarecely conceive of...

"why would we work when god has put so many monongo nuts on the jungle floor" or something to that effect...

Mr.Fundamental said...

ya'll, for the most part, are just yellin "Sudan!"

at least Cuney and several others were thoughtful enough to provide further examples, comparisons, and literature against believing that Harappan society existed and endured without a state. everyone else seemingly pulled the pin on their "it will never freaking work it never worked humans are atrocious creatures now shut up!" grenade and exploded all over the comments here.

now put down the bong and the Adbusters, wipe your ass and get off the toilet and come relax and consider that it could have been possible. sheesh.

Montag said...

that wasn't her toe, dude.

erin4iraq said...

Mr. Fun: why?

Cüneyt said...

Well, to be clear, Mr. Fundamental, I do believe that humans are atrocious, power-hungry creatures. But I don't think it's wise to see the present as some illustration of the eternal human condition. We are very far afield, as a result of high technology that sustains our population and controls our very relationship to ourselves as well as each other.

But I also know that the current situation's untenable (and aren't most moments of the modern era?) and it must turn, eventually, to more blatant conflict between the various subsets of society. Now, I don't know what form the future's going to take, but it's not going to be "just like the present, only with [emergent technology X]," no more than the modern US is Lincoln's republic, only with the Internet. There are themes. Yes, everyone will continue to be irrational and power-hungry, but there's huge variability as to how those themes play out.

And Somalia's only in anarchy because of the intrusion of states (likewise Iraq and most other supposed cases of anarchy today). There is a subtle interplay between the power to check or destroy other power and the power to establish dominance, don't you think?

Mr.Fundamental said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr.Fundamental said...

or, don't.

it don't matter to Jesus.

Mr.Fundamental said...

Cuney: yes.

you all win! I give up. can I go now?

Cüneyt said...

Nobody's keeping you here, Mr. Just call this Mohenjo-Daro.

Mr.Fundamental said...

LOL.

Cuney with the win. nicely done.

I Kahn O'Clast said...

Feh, yeah and people used to believe that the Mayans all sat around in peace and love when actually they were among the bloodiest assholes ever to spend loads of time killing and enslaving each other.