3 ms·

Hunting vs agriculture, nomadic vs settled lifestyle, both without notable metallurgical capability. These are the primary capability differentiators between th

by aksss 6y ago

Hunting vs agriculture, nomadic vs settled lifestyle, both without notable metallurgical capability. These are the primary capability differentiators between the paleolithic and neolithic periods [0]. You are absolutely right that these terms are bound up in the study of particular places at particular times. They are generally not applied to the Americas directly for the time element skews the descriptors. However, relative to what the Europeans were encountering in North America upon contact - and indeed in some areas right up into the late 19th century, it was societies that shared these characteristics with their own history. Yes, people know what you mean when you use these terms in this context. I am not the first or last, and could point to contemporary books on early America that make these comparisons. Societies thousands of years apart are not at all to be strictly understood through the lens of one or the other, but the insights into how hunter-gatherer tribes live even today, and 100 years ago, are highly valuable to gaining insight into the human condition under similar constraints eons ago. This is highly valuable in anthropology and informs archeology, certainly. One must be careful, but to say it should be avoided? That's wasteful. >> protest using the term "advanced" unqualified Do you feel my use of the term was unqualified? My intention was to qualify it in the context of energy sources and material science, which I think is not an unreasonable way to understand development. It is iterative, societies can regress or progress along this continuum. Progress is generally synonymous with advancement. If I may ask, what is your discomfort with the term? [0] i.e. https://www.wappingersschools.org/cms/lib/NY01001463/Centricity/Domain/261/U1_L3_Comparison-Chart.pdf https://www.wappingersschools.org/cms/lib/NY01001463/Centric...

AlotOfReading 6y ago
You're falling into a well known thought trap that's had a lot of ink spilled about it. I typically recommend Machines as the Measure of Men. At its core, the idea that the material culture is both the primary organizing mode of society and an unambiguous way to categorize and rank societies is fatally flawed. I'm sure you can find books that make this mistake, but I'm specifically telling you that it's an arbitrary assumption that will lead you to bad conclusions. > ...the insights into how hunter-gatherer tribes live even today, and 100 years ago, are highly valuable to gaining insight into the human condition under similar constraints eons ago. Most researchers on this subject will tell you that it's unclear what similarities there are between modern foragers and ancient humans. The people in my social circle (unsuprisingly) mostly approach it the same way I do: modern foragers represent a small, limited subset of the available lifeways and probably differ a great deal from what foragers must have been like in a pre-agricultural world. They're studied because they're interesting in their own right, they're what we have for analogues, maybe optimal behavior constrains the possibilities somewhat, etc. > It is iterative, societies can regress or progress along this continuum. Progress is generally synonymous with advancement. The core issue is that progress isn't a linear scale. If everyone in X decides to go live in relatively peaceful communes and give up hierarchical class systems, is that progress? Star trek suggests it's pretty futuristic, but archaeologically we've labeled such things as "collapses". If a society is "neolithic", but has 20th century agricultural yields centuries before the west, is that more or less advanced? Both of these things are (heavily simplified) real examples.
- aksss 6y ago
  BTW, I appreciate everything you're saying, thanks for hanging in there with me. But aren't you ascribing some sort of qualitative value to these descriptions that is entirely unnecessary? I'm simply talking about comparative capabilities of energy sources and material science - e.g. this society was using horses to plow fields, this one used oxen, this one was doing it all by hand. There are implications to the net crop yields in each of these societies. This may in turn afford that society different modes of living, social structure, warfare, etc., but who am I to say one is better than another? Those evaluations are irrelevant to anything I believe I've said and frankly contrary to my stated fascination with and the value of societies in the pre-contact Americas a couple posts ago. To wit, in your example you talk about living in communes and giving up hierarchical systems as progress, which seems completely out of left field relative to the context in which I have used. Now, in Star Trek's world maybe society has developed capabilities that enable sustainable peaceful communes without hierarchy, I don't know, nor would the context of my point care (it's tough to even puzzle out what it implies). But Star Trek's ability to harness new energy sources and develop new materials (transparent aluminum) certainly is more advanced than where we are today (within the context I described, and have remained faithful to in these posts). > [inferences from modern hunter-gatherers must be carefully harvested, but they are what we have for analogues] agreed, was trying to point out the need to be careful with this, while preserving the value of what they can teach us. I'm interested in your statement that modern foragers probably differ a great deal from what foragers must have been like in a pre-agricultural world. That's an interesting statement that would be fun to unpack. First, what do we mean when we say "modern"? It's notable that until very recently, the horse represented the top speed any human could travel at. It was that way for eons. > unambiguous way to categorize and rank societies is fatally flawed Again, I can't help but think that you're ascribing a value system where I am not. Comparing societies by material science and energy source capabilities is pretty close to an objective way to talk about (categorize) differences between those societies, and it is a pretty linear progression forward or backward, and measured using things like energy inputs, energy outputs, and materials. There is no need to start saying "this one is better than that one", and I feel you're making an assumption that there is that kind of ranking going on. That is foreign to what I'm discussing, subjective, and I disclaim it. It chafes me to feel that's necessary to explain. Now, one could say that the ability of the Comanche to breed horses and employ them directly in combat made them "better" than the Tonkawas from an survivability or evolutionary standpoint. Or that insulation from the variability of hunting seasons made one society "better" in the same sense, but that's an entirely different discussion, and I'm not sure "better" has a place there either. Better equipped, better prepared, perhaps, but you can see how we're adding a different context in at that point.

by aksss 6y ago

AlotOfReading 6y ago

You're falling into a well known thought trap that's had a lot of ink spilled about it. I typically recommend Machines as the Measure of Men. At its core, the idea that the material culture is both the primary organizing mode of society and an unambiguous way to categorize and rank societies is fatally flawed. I'm sure you can find books that make this mistake, but I'm specifically telling you that it's an arbitrary assumption that will lead you to bad conclusions. > ...the insights into how hunter-gatherer tribes live even today, and 100 years ago, are highly valuable to gaining insight into the human condition under similar constraints eons ago. Most researchers on this subject will tell you that it's unclear what similarities there are between modern foragers and ancient humans. The people in my social circle (unsuprisingly) mostly approach it the same way I do: modern foragers represent a small, limited subset of the available lifeways and probably differ a great deal from what foragers must have been like in a pre-agricultural world. They're studied because they're interesting in their own right, they're what we have for analogues, maybe optimal behavior constrains the possibilities somewhat, etc. > It is iterative, societies can regress or progress along this continuum. Progress is generally synonymous with advancement. The core issue is that progress isn't a linear scale. If everyone in X decides to go live in relatively peaceful communes and give up hierarchical class systems, is that progress? Star trek suggests it's pretty futuristic, but archaeologically we've labeled such things as "collapses". If a society is "neolithic", but has 20th century agricultural yields centuries before the west, is that more or less advanced? Both of these things are (heavily simplified) real examples.

aksss 6y ago
BTW, I appreciate everything you're saying, thanks for hanging in there with me. But aren't you ascribing some sort of qualitative value to these descriptions that is entirely unnecessary? I'm simply talking about comparative capabilities of energy sources and material science - e.g. this society was using horses to plow fields, this one used oxen, this one was doing it all by hand. There are implications to the net crop yields in each of these societies. This may in turn afford that society different modes of living, social structure, warfare, etc., but who am I to say one is better than another? Those evaluations are irrelevant to anything I believe I've said and frankly contrary to my stated fascination with and the value of societies in the pre-contact Americas a couple posts ago. To wit, in your example you talk about living in communes and giving up hierarchical systems as progress, which seems completely out of left field relative to the context in which I have used. Now, in Star Trek's world maybe society has developed capabilities that enable sustainable peaceful communes without hierarchy, I don't know, nor would the context of my point care (it's tough to even puzzle out what it implies). But Star Trek's ability to harness new energy sources and develop new materials (transparent aluminum) certainly is more advanced than where we are today (within the context I described, and have remained faithful to in these posts). > [inferences from modern hunter-gatherers must be carefully harvested, but they are what we have for analogues] agreed, was trying to point out the need to be careful with this, while preserving the value of what they can teach us. I'm interested in your statement that modern foragers probably differ a great deal from what foragers must have been like in a pre-agricultural world. That's an interesting statement that would be fun to unpack. First, what do we mean when we say "modern"? It's notable that until very recently, the horse represented the top speed any human could travel at. It was that way for eons. > unambiguous way to categorize and rank societies is fatally flawed Again, I can't help but think that you're ascribing a value system where I am not. Comparing societies by material science and energy source capabilities is pretty close to an objective way to talk about (categorize) differences between those societies, and it is a pretty linear progression forward or backward, and measured using things like energy inputs, energy outputs, and materials. There is no need to start saying "this one is better than that one", and I feel you're making an assumption that there is that kind of ranking going on. That is foreign to what I'm discussing, subjective, and I disclaim it. It chafes me to feel that's necessary to explain. Now, one could say that the ability of the Comanche to breed horses and employ them directly in combat made them "better" than the Tonkawas from an survivability or evolutionary standpoint. Or that insulation from the variability of hunting seasons made one society "better" in the same sense, but that's an entirely different discussion, and I'm not sure "better" has a place there either. Better equipped, better prepared, perhaps, but you can see how we're adding a different context in at that point.