Дякую, я нажаль не маю багато часу для читання, через відсутність інтернету і перебої з електропостачанням, тут в Україні.
Дуже цікаві думки і репрезентація розділів і тем з книги!
Маю думку, що егалітарні та 'вільні' міжособистісні та міжгрупові зв'язки та питання щодо певних умінь, технологій, речей і знань були симбіотичними а не конкурентними. А мова, погляди і переконання не могли бути нав'язані великій кількості МИСЛЯЧИХ індивідуумів.
Грубо кажучи 'реклама' ріжучого інструменту спрацює, якщо ти покажеш його здатність, як ним користуватись, і як виготовити, але абсолютно не спрацює, якщо ти скажеш будувати земляні вали, в обмін на ріжучий інструмент. Це так не працює. Лише суспільна вигода чи прийняті переконання щодо чогось могли змусити фуражирів-інженерів будувати Стоунхендж чи інші монументальні споруди доісторії.
Це робить лише залучення людини до природнього циклу. Розуміння взаємопов'язаності між живим, між людьми в різних куточках регіону, пояснення сил природи і її магії, астрономії і т.д. Тонке відчуття рівноваги, геометрії, простору, часу, маси, контурів і матеріалів. Це можливе лише з передачею досвіду, традицій і знань тисячоліттями від незапам'ятних часів. Коли для всього є природнє пояснення і кожен цілісно бачить і репрезентує картину світу.
Це були часи розквіту людства.
Його золота доба. Яка, нажаль, безповоротно втрачена.
Great content, as always. If I understand "Dunbar's Number" correctly...Robin Dunbar wasn't postulating that the human brain wasn't capable of handling relationships over 150 individuals; 150 is simply the max number of people we can physically come into personal contact with on a daily basis when it come to forging relationships around us. Anything beyond that number, humans need more "bang for our social buck" to cement our relationships: language, art, culture, and other common experiences and characteristics.
I agree that shining a light on the complexity of "prehistoric" life is one of the best things about The Dawn of Everything, and it does give people a good idea of what life before civilization looks like (not the typical dumb brutes hitting each other over the head kind of story). The authors actually manage to make pre-civilization life sound *desirable*, a life worth living, and I think deep down a lot of people can instinctively identify with the kind of society described in The Dawn (and summarized by you in the above). Furthermore, I agree that the idea that those societies were *not* egalitarian seems far-fetched. You absolutely nailed when you wrote:
"While I wholeheartedly agree with that last point, I'm skeptical of the idea that widespread social networks and forager monumentality are evidence of hierarchical civilizations in prehistory. To me, this information seems to indicate precisely the opposite.
Rather than a 'carnival parade of political forms' which were the result of 'bold experimentation'; it is easier to imagine these kinds of continent-spanning social networks and cultural uniformity if people everywhere had more-or-less similar political systems—not radically different ones—and in all likelihood those political systems were far more likely to be egalitarian than hierarchical."
Arnold Schroeder from the Fight Like An Animal podcast had similar complains, as do I. I actually wrote a critique of the book a few months back, from an anarcho-primitivist perspective:
One thing that I think is important to point out is that a lot of plane-hopping rich kids ("travellers" and the like) that like to call themselves "cosmopolitans" now think they have indisputable proof that their wasteful, destructive and rootless globalist lifestyle has a precedent in prehistory. I've often heard techno-optimistic globalists like "digital nomads" say things like "well, it's human Nature to be nomadic" - yes, but that doesn't mean living on a different continent every few months while being part of an impersonal consumer society that you're 100 percent dependent on. From what the available evidence suggests, foragers usually stayed within the boundaries of a given bioregion (bioregions are usually quite large, often spanning areas that traverse several "countries"), sometimes visited relatives or friends in the adjacent one, and only occasionally did people traverse several bioregions - it took them months to travel that far.
Also, it seems pretty obvious that those "prehistoric cosmopolitans" were, like indigenous people everywhere, deeply and profoundly connected to the landscape they inhabited (spiritually and culturally), and knew every plant and animal they encountered.
I just feel it's important to point that out to clarify that those contemporary "cosmopolitan" trends have nothing to do with human Nature or our species' history. They are a symptom of alienation, of disconnection, and are ultimately unsatisfying when compared to nomadic foragers' lifestyles. We humans need to be connected to the land we inhabit.
Дякую, я нажаль не маю багато часу для читання, через відсутність інтернету і перебої з електропостачанням, тут в Україні.
Дуже цікаві думки і репрезентація розділів і тем з книги!
Маю думку, що егалітарні та 'вільні' міжособистісні та міжгрупові зв'язки та питання щодо певних умінь, технологій, речей і знань були симбіотичними а не конкурентними. А мова, погляди і переконання не могли бути нав'язані великій кількості МИСЛЯЧИХ індивідуумів.
Грубо кажучи 'реклама' ріжучого інструменту спрацює, якщо ти покажеш його здатність, як ним користуватись, і як виготовити, але абсолютно не спрацює, якщо ти скажеш будувати земляні вали, в обмін на ріжучий інструмент. Це так не працює. Лише суспільна вигода чи прийняті переконання щодо чогось могли змусити фуражирів-інженерів будувати Стоунхендж чи інші монументальні споруди доісторії.
Це робить лише залучення людини до природнього циклу. Розуміння взаємопов'язаності між живим, між людьми в різних куточках регіону, пояснення сил природи і її магії, астрономії і т.д. Тонке відчуття рівноваги, геометрії, простору, часу, маси, контурів і матеріалів. Це можливе лише з передачею досвіду, традицій і знань тисячоліттями від незапам'ятних часів. Коли для всього є природнє пояснення і кожен цілісно бачить і репрезентує картину світу.
Це були часи розквіту людства.
Його золота доба. Яка, нажаль, безповоротно втрачена.
Great content, as always. If I understand "Dunbar's Number" correctly...Robin Dunbar wasn't postulating that the human brain wasn't capable of handling relationships over 150 individuals; 150 is simply the max number of people we can physically come into personal contact with on a daily basis when it come to forging relationships around us. Anything beyond that number, humans need more "bang for our social buck" to cement our relationships: language, art, culture, and other common experiences and characteristics.
Excellent article, really great writing.
I agree that shining a light on the complexity of "prehistoric" life is one of the best things about The Dawn of Everything, and it does give people a good idea of what life before civilization looks like (not the typical dumb brutes hitting each other over the head kind of story). The authors actually manage to make pre-civilization life sound *desirable*, a life worth living, and I think deep down a lot of people can instinctively identify with the kind of society described in The Dawn (and summarized by you in the above). Furthermore, I agree that the idea that those societies were *not* egalitarian seems far-fetched. You absolutely nailed when you wrote:
"While I wholeheartedly agree with that last point, I'm skeptical of the idea that widespread social networks and forager monumentality are evidence of hierarchical civilizations in prehistory. To me, this information seems to indicate precisely the opposite.
Rather than a 'carnival parade of political forms' which were the result of 'bold experimentation'; it is easier to imagine these kinds of continent-spanning social networks and cultural uniformity if people everywhere had more-or-less similar political systems—not radically different ones—and in all likelihood those political systems were far more likely to be egalitarian than hierarchical."
Arnold Schroeder from the Fight Like An Animal podcast had similar complains, as do I. I actually wrote a critique of the book a few months back, from an anarcho-primitivist perspective:
https://animistsramblings.substack.com/p/primitivist-critique-dawn-of-everything
One thing that I think is important to point out is that a lot of plane-hopping rich kids ("travellers" and the like) that like to call themselves "cosmopolitans" now think they have indisputable proof that their wasteful, destructive and rootless globalist lifestyle has a precedent in prehistory. I've often heard techno-optimistic globalists like "digital nomads" say things like "well, it's human Nature to be nomadic" - yes, but that doesn't mean living on a different continent every few months while being part of an impersonal consumer society that you're 100 percent dependent on. From what the available evidence suggests, foragers usually stayed within the boundaries of a given bioregion (bioregions are usually quite large, often spanning areas that traverse several "countries"), sometimes visited relatives or friends in the adjacent one, and only occasionally did people traverse several bioregions - it took them months to travel that far.
Also, it seems pretty obvious that those "prehistoric cosmopolitans" were, like indigenous people everywhere, deeply and profoundly connected to the landscape they inhabited (spiritually and culturally), and knew every plant and animal they encountered.
I just feel it's important to point that out to clarify that those contemporary "cosmopolitan" trends have nothing to do with human Nature or our species' history. They are a symptom of alienation, of disconnection, and are ultimately unsatisfying when compared to nomadic foragers' lifestyles. We humans need to be connected to the land we inhabit.