查看听力原文
Listen to part of lecture in an anthropology class.
One of the big questions when we look at prehistory is: Why did early states form?Well, to begin we'd better define exactly what we mean when we talk about states. The human groups that are the smallest and have the least social and political complexity, we call bands. The groups that are the largest and most socially and politically complex, we call states. So, the level of complexity here refers to the organization of people into large, diverse groups, and densely populated communities. And there are four levels in total: bands, tribes, chiefdoms and states.
But, but back to my original question.Why did early states form? Why not just continue to live in small groups?Why become more complex?
One theory called the environmental approach hypothesizes that the main force behind state formation was population growth. It assumes that centralized management was critical to dealing with issues caused by sudden population surges, like a strain on limited food supplies.
At the least complex end of the spectrum, the few families living in bands are able to meet their own basic needs.They usually hunt together and forage whatever foods are available to them, instead of domesticating animals and planting crops. In order to efficiently take advantage of the wild foods available, bands are often nomadic and move around following herds of animals. This strategy is feasible when you have a small population.
But when you have a large population, well, the whole population can't just get up and move to follow a wild herd of animals. So you need sophisticated technologies to produce enough food for everyone. And there is an increased need to resolve social problems that arise as people begin to compete for resources. To manage intensified food production, to collect, store and distribute food, you need centralized decision-making, centralized decision-makers.
It's the same thing when it comes to maintaining social order. You need to create and efficiently enforce a formal legal code.It makes sense to have a centralized authority in charge of that, right? So a hierarchy forms.By definition, states had at least three social levels. Usually, an upper class of rulers, a middle class comprised of managers and merchants, and a lower class of crafts producers and agricultural laborers.
The environmental approach hypothesizes that states appear in certain environmental settings, settings which have a severe population problem or a shortage of agricultural land. But not everyone agrees with the theory.It definitely has some weaknesses.For example. states have developed in places like the mild lowlands of Mesoamerica and in Egypt's Nile River Valley. Both places had vast areas of fertile farmland, no shortage of agricultural land. And what about population increase? Well, there were some early states that formed where there wasn't any sudden population increase. So it seems that these are valid criticisms of the environmental approach.
查看听力译文
听一段人类学的课堂讲解
当我们审视史前历史的时候，最大的一个问题就是为何最早的城邦会形成。呃，首先我们需要给“城邦”一个明确的定义。最小的、社交最少的，而且政治体系最不复杂的人类群体，我们称之为群体。最大的、社交最多的，而且政治体系最复杂的，我们称之为城邦。这里指的复杂水平是说人们群体组织发展成庞大，群体多样，人口密集的集体。而总共有四种社会组织：群体、部落、酉帮以及城邦。
那么再回到我起初的问题上来为什么早期的城邦会形成呢？为何不继续生活在小群体中呢？为什么要变得更复杂呢？
一种叫做环境法的理论推测人口增长是城邦的形成的主要推动力。这种理论认为集中管理对处理人口突然剧增引起的问题是至关重要的，比如紧张有限的食物供应。
在社会复杂度最低的范围内，为数不多居住在bands 的家庭能够自给自足。他们通常一起打猎，寻找一切可以得到的食物，而不是驯养动物或种植庄稼。为了更有效的捕猎到野生动物，bands 通常是游牧民族，追随着一群群动物的迁徙而随遇而安。这种生活方式在人口小的群体中是可行的。
而当人口很多的时候，就不可能所有人都随时起身并跟着一群野生动物四处游荡。因此就需要复杂的技术来为每个人提供充足的食物。而且由于人们为资源相互竞争而引起的众多社会问题也都需要得到解决。为了加强食物的生产、收集、储藏及分配，你就需要一个中央的决策及一个决策者。
同样，维持社会秩序也如此。你需要创建并有效的实施一项正式的法典那么有个中央权力机构来负责就很说得通了，对吗？因此就形成了阶级。定义上看，城邦至少有三个社会等级。通常是上层由领导阶级构成，中层管理人员及商人构成，下层则由农作物生产者及农业劳动者构成。
环境法推测城邦是在特定的环境条件中出现的，这样的环境可能是存在严重的人口问题或者是农业用地短缺。但并不是每个人都同意这个观点。这个理论肯定是存在一些弊病的。如，在中美洲温暖的低地及埃及的尼罗河畔就都有城邦的出现。这两个地方有广阔肥沃的土地，并不是农业用地匮乏。那么人口增加这一点呢？呃，有一些早期城邦是在没有人口突然加剧的情况下产生的。因此，看来这些都是对环境法的有力的批判。
