My readings about history in various times/places, and the sense that it creates. Same as you, I suppose? Neither of us are citing our sources or writing a hist

My readings about history in various times/places, and the sense that it creates. Same as you, I suppose? Neither of us are citing our sources or writing a historical monograph here. One recent read was Graeber and Wengrow's _Dawn of Everything_, which suggested there was evidence of a culture of travel networks throughout much of North America during a significant (pre-Columbian) period, based on a sort of "clan" system calling for hospitality across geographic/culture/language-groups. And similar systems in other places. I just found an ebook copy public online, so could search to find this quote: > In earlier centuries, forms of regional organization might extend thousands of miles. Aboriginal Australians, for instance, could travel halfway across the continent, moving among people who spoke entirely different languages, and still find camps divided into the same kinds of totemic moieties that existed at home. What this means is that half the residents owed them hospitality, but had to be treated as ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ (so sexual relations were strictly prohibited); while another half were both potential enemies and marriage partners. Similarly, a North American 500 years ago could travel from the shores of the Great Lakes to the Louisiana bayous and still find settlements – speaking languages entirely unrelated to their own – with members of their own Bear, Elk or Beaver clans who were obliged to host and feed them. > It’s difficult enough to reconstruct how these forms of long-distance organization operated just a few centuries ago, before they were destroyed by the coming of European settlers. So we can really only guess how analogous systems might have worked some 40,000 years ago. But the striking material uniformities observed by archaeologists across very long distances attest to the existence of such systems. ‘Society’, insofar as we can comprehend it at that time, spanned continents. Hm, there's no page numbers on this PDF, but it's PDF page 132. (it has it's own footnote citations) https://docdrop.org/download_annotation_doc/The-Dawn-of-Everything-by-David-Graeber-David-Wengrow-z-lib.-zmbbo.pdf https://docdrop.org/download_annotation_doc/The-Dawn-of-Ever... Here's another passage: > Perhaps the most insightful contribution came from Marcel Mauss, who tackled the notion of ‘culture areas’ in a series of essays on nationalism and civilization written between 1910 and 1930.10 Mauss thought the idea of cultural ‘diffusion’ was mostly nonsense; not for the reasons most anthropologists do now (that it’s pointless and uninteresting),11 but because he felt it was based on a false assumption: that the movement of people, technologies and ideas was somehow unusual. > The exact opposite was true, Mauss argued. People in past times, he wrote, appear to have travelled a great deal – more than they do today – and it’s simply impossible to imagine that anyone back then would have been unaware of the existence of basketry, feather pillows, or the wheel if such objects were regularly employed a month or two’s journey away; the same could presumably be said of ancestor cults or syncopated drum rhythms. Mauss went further. He was convinced the entire Pacific Rim had once been a single realm of cultural exchange, with voyagers criss-crossing it at regular intervals. He too was interested in the distribution of games across the entire region… This just being a book I read recently so is in my mind, which touches on relevant things. Since you asked, I thought to look for passages from it, it's not alone supposed to answer all questions, and is not the only source on which i've based my view. What do you base your conclusions about most people throughout most of human history on?