6 ms·

I’ve always found this notion strange: > overturning previous assumptions that competition and conflict were absent in hunter–gatherer societies Chimps have c

I’ve always found this notion strange: > overturning previous assumptions that competition and conflict were absent in hunter–gatherer societies Chimps have competition, conflict, some even call it ‘warfare’ between neighbouring troops. Groups of human teenagers in modern societies have conflict. But somehow Stone Age humans must’ve lived in some pre-historic la-la-land until some form of modernity spoiled us.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Might be motivated reasoning connected to the notion that European colonialism was unique in human history.
- SonicScrub 3y ago
  I don't think this is a serious position held by anyone with even a cursory understanding of history. Loud people on social media maybe.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    tbf, I think the position that hunter gatherer society was relatively idyllic and non-violent until the nasty proto-states came along and forced people into agriculture being argued against here is (whilst largely unrelated to colonial exceptionalism) also a niche one with significantly more currency amongst loud people on social media than in academia
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ch4s3 3y ago
It’s a little more complicated than that. Deeper in the past people could kind of just spread out, and there wasn’t much archeological evidence for conflict between groups. While chimp bands do engage in this behavior, bonobos do not.
- jgilias 3y ago
  I kind of get that reasoning. But then on the other hand, it’s just not well supported by the vast majority of societies actually observed. Everywhere we go or went to, people already had weapons, and knew how to use them against other humans. Everywhere the first thing to get their hands on were better weapons to gain the upper hand over some pre-existing enemies. With the exceptions, such as Moriori, being few and far between. And killed. The continuity of inter-group violence throughout pretty much any known culture is so strong, that I really find the notion that it somehow suddenly appeared out of nowhere because ‘farming’ really weird.
  - ajb 3y ago
    I can't find the reference right now, but one example is supposedly aboriginal Australian societies. I read somewhere that one thesis was the because those societies often lived in small groups which might not be genetically viable on their own, and they were widely separated due to the low carrying capacity of the land, when groups encountered each other they would be more interested in, ahem, exchanging genetic material, than fighting. And since they lived that way until recently (in historical terms) there is at least some memory of what happened. But personally I know nothing about Australian aboriginal societies and that might be complete rubbish. In any case of doesn't seem likely to be representative of cultures living in areas that would support a denser population.
    - throwaway4aday 3y ago
      "exchanging genetic material" is also a major motivation for violence. Kidnapping women as a way of obtaining a bride or brides has been practiced throughout history all over the world and is still practiced in some groups today. Living in a state of nature means no laws and the only restriction on your actions is the willingness and ability of others to physically stop you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I wonder if there was a similar phenomena in Australian to North America, where basically all observations were of cultures radically altered and depopulated by disease.
SonicScrub 3y ago
It seems it must be interpretation of the article rather than the position held by academia. Most of our earliest known cities had walls, suggesting that defensive fortifications were essentially a requirement for any large concentration of resources (cities) to exist. And we also know that wooden palisades were a common feature amongst North American indigenous villages, indicating that hunter gather societies thought a lot about defense.
- throwaway4aday 3y ago
  Napoleon Chagnon would beg to differ, he spent decades fighting the ingrained notion that hunter gatherers were inherently peaceful. Despite his first hand experience and evidence from modern day tribes still living in primitive conditions he faced a huge amount of resistance from the scientific community and barely gained recognition for his work a few years before his death at the age of 81. He still gets a lot of posthumous flak from people who refuse to believe that humans inherently use violence as a tool when not restricted by modern morals and societal structures even though that should be plainly evident from literally all of human history right up to this very second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Chagnon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Chagnon
- wharvle 3y ago
  I gather it was a trendy view in certain sectors of academia for some time, and possibly in parts of pop culture. In about '04 or '05 one of my poli sci classes assigned War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage (OUP, 1996, Keeley) and the professor spent much time debunking the notion of the peaceful savage or a time before war, but already then, almost two decades ago, it seemed like a weird thing to focus on because none of the students were aware this was a myth that needed debunking because we hadn't encountered it until that class. I assume it seemed important to the professor because some little academic war (ha, ha) over the issue had wrapped up in the recent past.
poszlem 3y ago
What you are seeing is Rousseau-ian philosophy in action, which is super prevelent in certain parts of the academia. The "noble savage" trope, the belief that it's the civilisation that made people violent.
danesparza 3y ago
If I have learned anything from Dan Carlin (and the excellent "Hardcore History" podcast), it's that the steppe people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians) were no joke -- so it doesn't surprise me that the oldest fortress would be located there.
- twelve40 3y ago
  steppe people's fortress located in the snow forest?
  - senderista 3y ago
    Some Indo-European cultures (e.g. Andronovo) did extend into forested and mountainous regions of Siberia, but not that far north AFAIK.
- senderista 3y ago
  While the Scythians did range into Siberia, Amnya is north of the steppe by something like 1500km, and I don't think even the Andronovo horizon ever extended that far north. Also, you're off by a few millenia: Indo-Europeans didn't emerge from the Pontic-Caspian steppe until the 4th millenium BCE.
throwup238 3y ago
> Chimps have competition, conflict, some even call it ‘warfare’ between neighbouring troops. Groups of human teenagers in modern societies have conflict. But somehow Stone Age humans must’ve lived in some pre-historic la-la-land until some form of modernity spoiled us. Chimp warfare isn't particularly well understood and looks most similar to the warfare that extant tribes participate in, which is symbolic tit-for-tat, not the societal warfare that reached its peak with the Ancient empires like Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. The conflict informs migration patterns but it doesn't lead to tribe-ending battles. Groups of human teenagers live and go to school with groups that are easily ten to a hundred times the size of an ancient tribe so it's not really comparable. It's like comparing the behavior of a wild wolf to a dozen held in a small cage in a zoo. They're going to behave completely differently in both scenarios.
- mannykannot 3y ago
  > ...doesn't lead to tribe-ending battles. Jane Goodall observed exactly that in Gombe, as described in 'Through a Window'. I believe it was something of an eye-opener for primatology at the time.
gradus_ad 3y ago
For those who believe human conflict is the product of certain social or economic conditions that prevail today, rather than inherent to the human condition, the idea that more primitive conditions were peaceful is an appealing one. You also see this line of thinking extend to the idea of hierarchy, with limited archaeological evidence for primitive hierarchies being taken to imply the absence of hierarchy, in spite of hierarchy and status existing among modern day hunter gatherers and other primitive groups.
- lainga 3y ago
  To complete the dance around the central message, there was once vigorous academic activity on this thesis in what are now Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    Tbf, wasn't all that an offshoot of German intellectual activity?
cf1241290841 3y ago
>Chimps have competition, conflict, some even call it ‘warfare’ between neighbouring troops. Worth mentioning "Chimp Empire" at Netflix. Interview with the director James Reed at Joe Rogan #1988 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab7j5Ffb4ZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab7j5Ffb4ZE
o11c 3y ago
That assumption derives from the assumption that capital is the only resource worth fighting for, and also assumptions about what forms capital can take. This article is an example of land capital (prime fishing spots) being useful for a non-agricultural society.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

Might be motivated reasoning connected to the notion that European colonialism was unique in human history.

SonicScrub 3y ago
I don't think this is a serious position held by anyone with even a cursory understanding of history. Loud people on social media maybe.
- notahacker 3y ago
  tbf, I think the position that hunter gatherer society was relatively idyllic and non-violent until the nasty proto-states came along and forced people into agriculture being argued against here is (whilst largely unrelated to colonial exceptionalism) also a niche one with significantly more currency amongst loud people on social media than in academia
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

ch4s3 3y ago

It’s a little more complicated than that. Deeper in the past people could kind of just spread out, and there wasn’t much archeological evidence for conflict between groups. While chimp bands do engage in this behavior, bonobos do not.

jgilias 3y ago
I kind of get that reasoning. But then on the other hand, it’s just not well supported by the vast majority of societies actually observed. Everywhere we go or went to, people already had weapons, and knew how to use them against other humans. Everywhere the first thing to get their hands on were better weapons to gain the upper hand over some pre-existing enemies. With the exceptions, such as Moriori, being few and far between. And killed. The continuity of inter-group violence throughout pretty much any known culture is so strong, that I really find the notion that it somehow suddenly appeared out of nowhere because ‘farming’ really weird.
- ajb 3y ago
  I can't find the reference right now, but one example is supposedly aboriginal Australian societies. I read somewhere that one thesis was the because those societies often lived in small groups which might not be genetically viable on their own, and they were widely separated due to the low carrying capacity of the land, when groups encountered each other they would be more interested in, ahem, exchanging genetic material, than fighting. And since they lived that way until recently (in historical terms) there is at least some memory of what happened. But personally I know nothing about Australian aboriginal societies and that might be complete rubbish. In any case of doesn't seem likely to be representative of cultures living in areas that would support a denser population.
  - throwaway4aday 3y ago
    "exchanging genetic material" is also a major motivation for violence. Kidnapping women as a way of obtaining a bride or brides has been practiced throughout history all over the world and is still practiced in some groups today. Living in a state of nature means no laws and the only restriction on your actions is the willingness and ability of others to physically stop you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I wonder if there was a similar phenomena in Australian to North America, where basically all observations were of cultures radically altered and depopulated by disease.

SonicScrub 3y ago

It seems it must be interpretation of the article rather than the position held by academia. Most of our earliest known cities had walls, suggesting that defensive fortifications were essentially a requirement for any large concentration of resources (cities) to exist. And we also know that wooden palisades were a common feature amongst North American indigenous villages, indicating that hunter gather societies thought a lot about defense.

throwaway4aday 3y ago
Napoleon Chagnon would beg to differ, he spent decades fighting the ingrained notion that hunter gatherers were inherently peaceful. Despite his first hand experience and evidence from modern day tribes still living in primitive conditions he faced a huge amount of resistance from the scientific community and barely gained recognition for his work a few years before his death at the age of 81. He still gets a lot of posthumous flak from people who refuse to believe that humans inherently use violence as a tool when not restricted by modern morals and societal structures even though that should be plainly evident from literally all of human history right up to this very second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Chagnon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Chagnon
wharvle 3y ago
I gather it was a trendy view in certain sectors of academia for some time, and possibly in parts of pop culture. In about '04 or '05 one of my poli sci classes assigned War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage (OUP, 1996, Keeley) and the professor spent much time debunking the notion of the peaceful savage or a time before war, but already then, almost two decades ago, it seemed like a weird thing to focus on because none of the students were aware this was a myth that needed debunking because we hadn't encountered it until that class. I assume it seemed important to the professor because some little academic war (ha, ha) over the issue had wrapped up in the recent past.

poszlem 3y ago

What you are seeing is Rousseau-ian philosophy in action, which is super prevelent in certain parts of the academia. The "noble savage" trope, the belief that it's the civilisation that made people violent.

danesparza 3y ago

If I have learned anything from Dan Carlin (and the excellent "Hardcore History" podcast), it's that the steppe people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians) were no joke -- so it doesn't surprise me that the oldest fortress would be located there.

twelve40 3y ago
steppe people's fortress located in the snow forest?
- senderista 3y ago
  Some Indo-European cultures (e.g. Andronovo) did extend into forested and mountainous regions of Siberia, but not that far north AFAIK.
senderista 3y ago
While the Scythians did range into Siberia, Amnya is north of the steppe by something like 1500km, and I don't think even the Andronovo horizon ever extended that far north. Also, you're off by a few millenia: Indo-Europeans didn't emerge from the Pontic-Caspian steppe until the 4th millenium BCE.

throwup238 3y ago

> Chimps have competition, conflict, some even call it ‘warfare’ between neighbouring troops. Groups of human teenagers in modern societies have conflict. But somehow Stone Age humans must’ve lived in some pre-historic la-la-land until some form of modernity spoiled us. Chimp warfare isn't particularly well understood and looks most similar to the warfare that extant tribes participate in, which is symbolic tit-for-tat, not the societal warfare that reached its peak with the Ancient empires like Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. The conflict informs migration patterns but it doesn't lead to tribe-ending battles. Groups of human teenagers live and go to school with groups that are easily ten to a hundred times the size of an ancient tribe so it's not really comparable. It's like comparing the behavior of a wild wolf to a dozen held in a small cage in a zoo. They're going to behave completely differently in both scenarios.

mannykannot 3y ago
> ...doesn't lead to tribe-ending battles. Jane Goodall observed exactly that in Gombe, as described in 'Through a Window'. I believe it was something of an eye-opener for primatology at the time.

gradus_ad 3y ago

For those who believe human conflict is the product of certain social or economic conditions that prevail today, rather than inherent to the human condition, the idea that more primitive conditions were peaceful is an appealing one. You also see this line of thinking extend to the idea of hierarchy, with limited archaeological evidence for primitive hierarchies being taken to imply the absence of hierarchy, in spite of hierarchy and status existing among modern day hunter gatherers and other primitive groups.

lainga 3y ago
To complete the dance around the central message, there was once vigorous academic activity on this thesis in what are now Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  Tbf, wasn't all that an offshoot of German intellectual activity?

cf1241290841 3y ago

>Chimps have competition, conflict, some even call it ‘warfare’ between neighbouring troops. Worth mentioning "Chimp Empire" at Netflix. Interview with the director James Reed at Joe Rogan #1988 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab7j5Ffb4ZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab7j5Ffb4ZE

o11c 3y ago

That assumption derives from the assumption that capital is the only resource worth fighting for, and also assumptions about what forms capital can take. This article is an example of land capital (prime fishing spots) being useful for a non-agricultural society.