>[WS:] I fully agree. The myths of idyllic bucolic societies of the past are
>just that - myths. AFIK, the indirect archaeological evidence suggests the
>contrary: harsh, brutal and miserable living conditions, disease, short life
>span, infanticide, inequality. It is possible to infer the existence of
>inequality from the analysis of the bone structure, which in turn reflects
>dietary intake. If some people ate better than other, that strongly suggest
>social stratification - and that is still true today!
>
>
>
This is a claim completely inconsistent with the available data. What
we know from human remains of hunting and gathering societies is that
there were not massive differences in the bone structure of adults in
these societies; there were not some malnourished people and others who
were well fed. This even extends to gender dimorphism: the size
difference between men and women in these societies was smaller than the
size difference in modern societies. Woj is perpetuating a Hobbesian
myth that has no basis in the fossil or archaeological record. There is
nothing natural and necessary about political and economic inequality.
>In my view, the "noble savage" mythology glorifying primitive societies is a
>misguided effort to counter the triumphalist ethnocentrism and jingoism
>found in abundance in modern states (and ancient ones too) by simply
>reversing the "moral sign:" what is positive in ethnocentric jingoism
>becomes negative in noble savagery myths, and vice versa. At the end of the
>day, however, both attempts are simply two competing ideologies that
>selectively pick facts to support their positions, and rejecting those facts
>that do not fit the narrative.
>
>
>
It's interesting to me that when people provide facts to correct your
misinformation, you assume they're making a moral argument. Most of us
understand the distinction between is and ought; I encourage you to try
it out.
Miles