Ppl often assume that stone-age cultures must have maintained very simple social organisation, living only in small, nomadic family-tribes. This idea is based in part on actual archaeology, and in part on comparison with modern hunter-gatherers, who largely share this lifestyle.
(2) The logic here seems straight-forward enough - social complexity is a function of resource availability & economic complexity. Hunter-gatherers can only gather small amounts of food, and so can only support small populations. Furthermore, they have to keep moving restock game
(3) The main issue with this conception is that it is wrong.
Most modern-day hunter-gatherers inhabit extremely marginal land - their inability to form and feed complex social structures is just as much a consequence of the land they inhabit as it is of their lifestyle.
(4) This, in turn, is a consequence of the systematic expulsion of hunter-gatherers from more fertile, desirable land by farming peoples, which has been ongoing for millennia.
Most hunter-gatherers for most of history have inhabited substantially better land.
(5) Enter the Calusa. Pre-Columbian inhabitants of what is now southern Florida, the Calusa were a powerful, comparatively centralised kingdom, ruled from their capital of Mound Key near what is now the town of Estero. They were also entirely non-agricultural.
(6) The Calusa defy nearly all our stereotypes about hunter-gatherer peoples. They were socially organised, highly hierarchal, builders of monumental structures and with a unified monarchy and institutional priesthood. All of this maintained almost entirely by fishing.
(7) Well, you may say, surely we would expect substantial archaeological evidence if comparable societies existed in the Palaeolithic?
The answer here, again, is to look at the Calusa. Their kingdom collapsed a scant 300 years ago, yet nearly all material evidence has vanished.
(8) Were we not to know of Mound Key, nor the historical reports by early Spanish travelers, what little came down to us of material artifacts - stone spearheads, fishing-instruments, moss skirts - would paint an incredibly simple material culture. Yet they built megastructures.
(9) What, then, if anything, does this tell us about the Stone Age? Should we envision ice-age kingdoms, organised around artificial islands and mounds by estuaries and lakesides? Maybe. Probably most tribes really were socially simple, but all? It cannot be taken for granted.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A striking takeaway of the last 10 years of the aDNA revolution - from the Indo-Europeans, to the Bantu, to the Swahili, to the Japanese - is that you might sooner trust a toddler to pick out a 50-meter target with a revolver than an archaeologist to identify an ancient migration
It should be self-evident that we cannot simply derive from this a reverse principle, and conclude that wherever contemporary archaeologists denied a purported migration, it really did take place - yet the scope of the discrediting is remarkable.
What are we to make of as-yet unresolved fine-grained questions, such as the Dorian invasion, the Hebrew conquest of Canaan or other traditional narratives long contested by the now-dubious consensus? Again, we cannot simply default to the inverse conclusion, but one wonders.
"Real, unembellished history" according to quite a number of historians seems to consist largely of ppl sitting around, munching bread and porridge, between periodic bursts of fighting over miscellaneous economic factors.
>Knight is recorded as composing a poem to persuade his captor lord to free him:
"Bet that happened lol"
>King gives a stirring speech before battle:
"Sure that happened"
>Viking is heads out to Constantinople, motivated by a dream:
"Definitely not embellished mhm"
Never underestimate a dusty historian's ability to regard as improbable literally any display of human spontaneity, whimsy or unconditioned willpower.
This is only half true. Rwanda is a cohesive, fairly well-run and (by regional standards) prosperous and stable country. The Congo, it is true, is essentially not a real state, hence why the massive size disparity between it and Rwanda confers no military advantage.
It is an interesting quirk of the global export of the nation state system that we aren't really able to account for "unorganized regions" anymore. With the exception of Antarctica, every plot of land *must* be attached to a specific polity with a government and a flag.
This works well enough in some parts of the world, but it obviously fails elsewhere, where the reality on the ground simply fails to match the internationally recognised construct. The Darién Gap is only "part" of Panama and Colombia in the most tenuously nominal sense.
There is a phenomenon I've noticed a lot in many contemporary walks of life - term it "introductionism": ppl never actually reading primary literature, or watching classical movies, or engaging directly with high art, but interacting with everything through "accessible" mediums
In a world of limited time, I've come around to the realisation that 8/10 times, instead of reading a book ABOUT Shakespeare, read Shakespeare. Read Plato. Just read that book you want to get to, don't read endless books ABOUT reading that book.
"You can just do things", but for literature and the other arts.
Sure, you might need some help to interpret, say, Aristotle or Hegel - so maybe get a complimentary book to help you, or read a brief introduction to the core concepts, but *do not* then stop there.
Unclear why so many seem to struggle to understand that just because the original speakers of Proto-Indo-European *were* a single, definable ethnogroup, that doesn't mean IE-speakers *today* are.
Obviously there's no such thing as an "Indo-European race" - Indians, Afghans, Kurds, Spaniards, Germans and Lithuanians are not all part of one esoteric, "hyperborean" identity. But the original PIE-speakers would indeed have been a particular tribe or cluster of related tribes.
"Indo-European-speaking peoples" is the correct term today, because thousands of years after the aboriginal PIE-speakers left their Urheimat, the correlation between steppe-ancestry and language is extremely small. But, again, that doesn't mean this retroactively applies as well.
One of the most frustrating tendencies in academic conversations around novel belief systems like Wicca or New Age spirituality is researchers caveating all their (invariably devastating) assessments of the historical claims with varieties of "-of course far be it from me to devalue people's deeply held beliefs, I don't want to say that anyone is wrong in their convictions..."
Rubbish. If somebody is claiming to be "reviving the authentic religious expression of the British Isles (or wherever)", and you are systematically demolishing every one of the assertions underpinning said religious system, then you patently ARE devaluing said misguided notions.
Truth claims are truth claims - it is not "kind" or "respectful" to treat these as ultimately irrelevant, and indeed doing so is ultimately a sign of supreme arrogance and contempt, since you don't even consider it worth *looking at* whether said beliefs are correct.
I ultimately have substantially more respect for both Richard Dawkins & Ray Comfort than I do for the dithering, obsequious academics who, in their attempts to be conscientious, end up treating ppl like you would a little girl being told that yes she is a princess.