|
The MoA Week In Review – Open Thread 2018-36
Last week's posts on Moon of Alabama:
Charlie Rowley, allegedly poisoned by a 'Novichok', has been released from hospital. There is no word of his whereabout.
[Meta remark: 519 comments – are you nuts? When am I supposed to read those?]
Adding;
A nice history piece with some surprising insights: Why Did the Dutch Give Up Manhattan for Nutmeg? Because the spice must flow …
Use as open thread …
Guerrero |@44
“Is there an archeological reading of any society not based on greed?”
There is, though not much after the rise of “civilization,” I’m afraid. That is, almost all pre-agrarian societies seem to have been quite egalitarian (as in fact, are most non-agrarian societies today). In most cases I know of, signs of significant differences in wealth (seen in burial goods, architecture and often even skeletal morphology) start to show up not long after societies begin accumulating food surpluses that are then distributed over the course of the year.
The bullies get control over the surpluses, and greed becomes a fundamental aspect of the society.
Now, all of this sort of stuff is open for debate. Despite the “Positivist” school of thought, the archaeological record does not “speak for itself.” We are still interpreting what we find, and so our biases leak through. As regards your question, how can we look at artifacts and measure “greed?” Generally, differences in material wealth within a society would suggest something like greed, so let’s just go on that. But, it’s still open for misinterpretation.
ie. I was part of a team that excavated a large Indian (Ohlone) village in the San Francisco Bay Area. Not only did the archaeology generally suggest there was no great difference in individual wealth, but the historical record from the European interlopers did as well. Sites like this that straddle the “pre-historic” and “historic” periods are great opportunities to test different ways to assess archaeological records (and the validity of both the oral histories and written records. Sometimes, we find the oral histories are much more representative of the “facts in the ground’ than the written records which are often not just biased, but plainly false. Sometimes the opposite).
At any rate, some burials in that village showed signs of very high status people, which could have been interpreted as wealth disparity. But other evidence shows something else. Respected elders were given nice things. That doesn’t imply greed, but rather, generosity.
Conversely even if we don’t see variations in material wealth at an archaeological site, that doesn’t mean greed was not a major factor. Maybe the society just didn’t produce the material items that we examine to determine something like greed. 🙂
Anyway, some examples of “civilized” societies that appear through archaeology to have been egalitarian:
One of the most ancient cities is Çatalhöyük in present-day Turkey. It dates to ca. 9,500 BP to 7,500 BP. The housing shows little to no social stratification by wealth. Archaeologists argue that social status can be found in some variation in artifacts found in different housing units, but there doesn’t seem to be much difference in wealth, which would suggest a minimum of greed.
The Minoan Civilization of Crete and environs (5,000 BP to 3,500 BP) seems to have been quite egalitarian. Also, like the above two, there were no signs of organized violence either, until the very collapse. And the Minoans were exceptional in that this egalitarianism seems to have included gender. All societies had some different roles ascribed by sex, but the Minoans had female fishers and farmers, bull-jumpers and musicians. Pretty unique.
And considering that the Minoans lived during the time of, and traded with some very violent, patriarchal and “greedy” societies, they’re a really fascinating case study.
The Harappan civilization of the Indus Valley (present day Pakistan) – best known by the city of Mohenjo-Daro seems to have been quite egalitarian, at least in its first many hundreds of years. Recently, some archaeologists suggest that different levels of wealth between settlements (not within any) suggest that there was some form of competition/exploitation between population centers. Certainly, as this amazing civilization collapsed, signs of violence become apparent.
And as I’m sure you must know, several of the earlier MesoAmerican and South American civilizations seem to have started as very egalitarian, and often non-violent societies.
But almost universally, these peaceful, egalitarian societies either evolved into more violent, stratified ones, or were conquered by other, more violent and greedy ones. Now I don’t buy into any of the “end of history” ideologies. I’m actually quite confident that we 99%ers can retake and reshape our violent societies, currently controlled by the greedy.
Just because the bullies took over the playground doesn’t mean the neighborhood kids can’t take the baseball field back and enjoy their shared “common wealth.”
Posted by: Daniel | Jul 23 2018 21:15 utc | 98
|