They aren’t today, either.
It seems like people are always trying to use hunter gatherers to further some wacky theory or other. The Paleo Diet isn’t too bad; it is at least a reasonably accurate representation of what hunter-gatherers actually eat, though your chances of replicating hunter-gather food at home are slim–which is why we end up with things like “Paleo Bread.” But then you have the far less accurate theories, often pushed by people who really ought to know better. Like the theory that hunter gatherers had no wars, or that they were all gender egalitarians. Or that there was once a global civilization of feminist goddess-worshipers who were wiped out by evil agriculturalists.
Oh, those evil, evil agriculturalists:
But let’s backtrack a minute. Where do these wacky theories come from?
The short answer is that they come from Marxists. You may laugh or roll your eyes, but I was actually assigned Das Kapital twice in college–once in my major, political science, and once in my minor, anthropology. I was also assigned explicitly Marxist papers in my Feminism class. This was a reputable university where many of my professors were identifiably conservative, not an obvious liberal bastion like Berkley or Reed.
Marx is deep in academia.
You do not have to be explicitly citing Marx or realize that you are using theories of the world derived from Marx to be using one of Marx’s theories, anymore than you have to have studied the Chicago School of Economics or the Austrian School to pick up one of their theories and start using it. But most academics of the past 100 years or so have known the intellectual provenance of their ideas, because like me, they were assigned it in class and no one in academia is shy about explicitly citing Marx.
To be honest, I don’t hate Marx’s theories. I enjoy Bakunin better than Marx, but I understand Marx’s attempt at making a science out of economic history. Not a terribly rigorous science, unfortunately.
This isn’t the time or place for a full explanation of where exactly Marx went wrong–there are far better authors than me who have spilled plenty of ink on the subject if you want to take a look. But suffice to say, real-life experience has not been terribly kind to Marx’s theories. Nonetheless, they still undergird a great deal of academic thinking and were formative in the educations of many, many anthropologists.
And the basic thought process went like this:
Jesus Effin’ Christ, WWII was the most awful, worst thing ever. Nazis are horrifying, racist scum. We need different theories.
Marxism explains human behavior through entirely environmental means, namely the means of production (ie, whether you live in a hunter-gatherer, agricultural, industrial, etc., kind of society.)
Marxism says that humans have wars because capitalists make them–that is, war is a side effect of capitalist society.
Therefore, in the pre-capitalist society, people didn’t have wars.
And then academics went and wrote a lot of things about how they now realized that pre-state people didn’t have wars or violence or were ever mean to each other.
Alas, many a beautiful theory has been destroyed by an ugly fact, and the ugly fact in this case is that pre-state people killed each other all the damn time. Take the Dorset, completely wiped out by the Thule (Inuit) about 700 years ago:
Science 29 August 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6200 DOI: 10.1126/science.125583, Maanasa Raghavan et al.
Those blue bars represent Dorset DNA found in ancient gravesites around the arctic. The red guys represent Thule (Inuit) DNA. The Dorset are gone; their DNA did not make it into the Thule.
Anthropologists and archaeologists have spent the last 70 years or so arguing that if you find one kind of pots in one layer of your excavation, and radically different pots in the next layer, all it means is that people traded for some different pots. In the case of the Dorset, it means the Thule killed them all, a good 200 years before Columbus even set foot anywhere near Cuba.
Speaking of Columbus, he wrote of the Indians he met in the Bahamas, “Many of the men I have seen have scars on their bodies, and when I made signs to them to find out how this happened, they indicated that people from other nearby islands come to San Salvador to capture them; they defend themselves the best they can. I believe that people from the mainland come here to take them as slaves.”
But what of other hunter-gatherers?
According to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica,
“[The Bushman’s] courage is remarkable, and Fritsch was told by residents who were well qualified to speak that supported by a dozen Bushmen they would not be afraid of a hundred Kaffirs. The terror inspired by the Bushmen has indeed had an effect in the deforestation of parts of Cape Colony, for the colonists, to guard against stealthy attacks, cut down all the bush far round their holdings.
Marriage is a matter merely of offer and acceptance ratified by a feast. Among some tribes the youth must prove himself an expert hunter. Nothing is known of the laws of inheritance. … As among other African tribes the social position of the women is low. They are beasts of burden, carrying the children and the family property on the journeys, and doing all the work at the halting-place. It is their duty also to keep the encampment supplied with water, no matter how far it has to be carried.”
Yes, clearly they are bastions of peaceful gender egalitarianism!
“A recent study… gave some astonishing cross-cultural figures. The homicide rate in modern Britain is roughly 0.5/100,000; in the USA it is about 20 times as high, at about 10.5. The highest death rate recorded in a nation, as opposed to a tribe, is 34 / 100,000, in Colombia. Though it is difficult to calculate exact correspondences for much smaller populations, about whom much less is known, it is still clear that Stone Age tribes make up in enthusiasm what they lack in the technology of murder. Even the !Kung bushmen, popularised as “The Harmless People”, had a had a homicide rate of 41.9 on this scale; the Yanomamo come in at 165. The record appears to be held by the Hewa people of New Guinea, with a score of 778. … the Murngin hunter-gatherer aborigines of Northern Australia come in with a score of 330.” –from The Darwin Wars, by Andrew Brown, (you can find excerpts on Brown’s promotional website for the book.)
Of the Yanomamo, Brown notes, ” There are fashions in noble savages as in other things, and the Yanomamo, a warlike and intermittently cannibal tribe living on the borders of Brazil and Venezuela, are one of the most heavily studied and nastiest in their habits of all the unspoiled people in the Seventies and Eighties. …
The tribes are quite exceptionally violent and sexist. The Yanomamo term for marriage translates literally as “dragging something away”; their term for divorce is “throwing something away.” [My emphasis, not Brown’s.] Villages war with villages; villagers with each other. They use poisoned arrows, spears and wooden clubs. When nothing much seems to be happening in the world outside, villagers will fight with long poles: two men will stand facing each other, and exchange insults. Then they will take turns to punch each other in the chest as hard as possible. Finally they take up long flexible poles, and — once more taking turns — smash each other around the head with them until the loser is felled, unconscious and bleeding all over his head. To quote one lurid description: “A man with a special grudge against another challenges his adversary to hit him on the head with an eight foot long pole shaped like a pool cue. The challenger sticks his own pole in the ground, leans on it, and bows his head. His adversary holds his pole by the thin end, whipping the heavy end down on the proffered pate with bone-crushing force. Having sustained one blow, the recipient is entitled to an immediate opportunity to wallop his opponent in the same manner.”
And if we go back to the data cited at the top of the post, Steven Pinker estimates, in The Better Angels of our Nature, that about 15% of people died of violence–murder or warfare–in pre-state societies.
This is about the same % as the Russians lost in WWII, if we go with the high estimate of Soviet casualties–about half that if we take the low estimate. Of course, hunter gatherers live to be about 45, while WWII was compressed into 6 years, so the death rate was rather faster during WWII, but if you did manage to survive, you lived the rest of your 60 or 70 years in relative peace.
In short, Marx obviously missed some major factors that lead people to kill each other, and anthropologists, not necessarily trained in things like analyzing crime statistics, ran with the idea, producing books with titles like “The Harmless People” about the Bushmen.
Unfortunately, wanting something to be true is not the same as it being true.
So what’s the real story?
Put yourself in the bare feet of a hunter-gatherer, unfettered by the rules and oppressions of the modern state. You meet a random stranger. Kill him, and you can take his pile of nuts, his gourd of water, and his wife. Don’t kill him, and he can kill you and take your nuts, water, and wife. There are no police in your society, so who’s going to stop you?
Throughout pre-history, the men who killed their neighbors and took their wives became your ancestors, and the men who didn’t got killed.
“Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.”–Is There Anything Good About Men?
1 in 200 people today is descended from Genghis Khan’s immediate family, or perhaps the Great Khan himself. (I challenge you to tell the difference between Genghis’s Y chromosome and his brother’s.)
This is, literally, evolution in action. This is survival of the fittest, the struggle to reproduce and pass your genes on to the next generation.
Interestingly, Genghis Khan’s empire, after the massacres, was supposedly very safe–it was said that a woman carrying a bag of gold could walk unmolested, alone, from one end of the empire to the other. Probably an exaggeration, but in general, you did not mess with Genghis Khan’s money-making trade routes unless you wanted to be dead.
As has been said many times, the State demands a monopoly on the use of violence, punishing–often killing–those who would take the ancestral route to paternity. This is a novel evolutionary pressure–the collective pressure of the state against the violent.
Thus violent crime rates have plummeted in state-societies over the past 5,000 years or so:
(Look, if you find a better graph, let me know.)
Peter Frost lays out this argument excellently in his post, “The Genetic Pacification of Europe“–basically the idea that European governments have been executing their violent criminals (or otherwise letting them die in jail) for centuries, resulting in a drastic reduction in the prevalence of genes coding for violence in areas with long histories of strong, organized state rule.
According to Wikipedia, monoamine oxidase A, also known as the “warrior gene”, is associated with several types of antisocial behavior. “…individuals with the low activity MAO-A gene, when faced with social exclusion or ostracism showed higher levels of aggression than individuals with the high activity MAO-A gene. Low activity MAO-A could significantly predict aggressive behaviour in a high provocation situation, but was less associated with aggression in a low provocation situation. Individuals with the low activity variant of the MAO-A gene were just as likely as participants with the high activity variant to retaliate when the loss was small. However, they were more likely to retaliate and with greater force when the loss was large.”
Also, “The frequency distribution of variants of the MAO-A gene differs between ethnic groups. 59% of Black men, 54% of Chinese men, 56% of Maori men, and 34% of Caucasian men carry the 3R allele. 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carry the 2R allele.”
Now, as HBD Chick has pointed out, we aren’t just looking at states at agents of pacification, we’re looking especially at a specific sub-set of states. Like those inside the Hajnal Line, where the Catholic church forbade cousin marriage (one of the preferred forms of marriage throughout the rest of the world, actually,) a thousand and a half or so years ago, leading to the breakup of the barbarian tribal/clan systems and the genetic prerequisites for living in modern states (I assume something functionally kinda similar has happened in China and Japan, since they also have low crime rates, but that requires more research.)
One final point on gender equality, again from Peter Frost:
“According to a survey of 93 nonindustrial cultures, men were expected to dominate their wives in 67% of them, the sexes were expected to be about equal in 30%, and women were expected to dominate their husbands in 3% (Whyte, 1978). Sex roles differ to varying degrees even among hunter-gatherers, who correspond to the earliest stage of cultural evolution. In the tropics, women provide more food through gathering than men do through hunting. The reverse is true beyond the tropics, where women have few opportunities to gather food in winter (Kelly, 1995, pp. 128-132; Martin, 1974, pp. 16-18).”
“English psychologist John T. Manning has pioneered the use of this digit ratio as a way to measure how prenatal male and female hormones influence various behavioral traits. In a recent study, he looked at how prenatal hormones might influence gender equality in different populations. After measuring the digit ratios of participants from 29 countries, his research team averaged the score for each country and compared it with indices of gender equality: women’s share of parliamentary seats; women’s participation in the labor force, women’s education attainment level; maternal mortality rates; and juvenile pregnancy rates. To ensure comparability, all of the participants were of European descent.
… the more similar the two sexes were in 2D:4D, the more equal were the two sexes in parliamentary and labor force participation. The other variables were not as strongly correlated. (Manning et al., 2014)
In general, women from Northwest Europe have more masculine digit ratios, whereas women from farther east and south have more feminine digit ratios. This geographical trend is more pronounced for the right hand than for the left hand. Since the right-hand digit ratio is associated with social dominance, Northwest Europeans may be less sexually differentiated for that particular trait, as opposed to being less sexually differentiated in general.
Presumably, this isn’t a new tendency. Women must have been more socially dominant among Northwest Europeans even before the late 19th century and the earliest movements for women’s suffrage. So how far back does the tendency go? To medieval times? To pre-Christian times? It seems to go back at least to medieval times and, as such, forms part of the Western European Marriage Pattern:
‘The status of women differed immensely by region. In western Europe, later marriage and higher rates of definitive celibacy (the so-called “European marriage pattern”) helped to constrain patriarchy at its most extreme level.
[…] In eastern Europe however, the tradition of early and universal marriage (usually of a bride aged 12-15 years, with menarche occurring on average at 14) as well as traditional Slavic patrilocal customs led to a greatly inferior status of women at all levels of society. (Women in the Middle Ages, 2014)’ ”
If you’re looking for a peaceful, gender-egalitarian society, don’t look to prehistory, hunter gatherers, or non-state societies. Look at your own country. It’s probably pretty good.
44 thoughts on “No, hunter gatherers were not peaceful paragons of gender equality”
This is an excellent post.
[…] See also my post, “No, Hunter Gatherers were not Peaceful Paragons of Gender Egalitarianism.“ […]
I think the selection pressures of today will somewhat decrease gender equality in western europe at least:
Given also is the relative infertility of ambitious career women which will likely have high masculinity digit ratios
Anecdotal observation suggests that people who don’t believe in gender equality have more children than those who do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Modernity exacerbates the difference. If current selection pressure continues expect possible immunity to leftist ideology.
Can the same be said of homosexuality though?
That depends at least partially on what causes homosexuality, but certainly gay people don’t have a lot of kids. People who don’t like gay people are breeding at a massively faster rate than people who do, so I would not be surprised to see a massive reversal of the current cultural pattern in which homosexuality becomes taboo again, but it could take 50 years.
[…] The Harmless People before; it’s an ethnography of the Bushmen. It has the whole, “primitive people have so much less crime than we do” thing going on, (hence the title,) but it’s still an interesting account of a […]
[…] Review: Decoding Neanderthals on PBS (Nova), When Enthusiasm was a Dirty Word, No, hunter gatherers were not peaceful paragons of gender equality, The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people, Human Admixture Chart, The Khazar Theory, […]
[…] whole myth about hunter-gatherers being peaceful and non-violent probably got its start because hunter-gatherers tend not to be as good at organized […]
[…] the narrative that non-whites are morally superior than whites, generally by claiming that they are peaceful paragons of gender equality, which turns out to be factually untrue in a lot of ways, especially homicide rates. Conservative […]
[…] As I’ve said before, hunter-gatherers (and low-scale agriculturalists) were not peaceful paragons of gender equality. […]
[…] hear it for the Aztecs, one of those peaceful wonderful indigenous cultures Columbus’s Spanish employers went and conquered as a result of his […]
[…] began promoting the idea that war and violence were modern, Western aberrations, and that primitive peoples were all peaceful, nature-loving paragons of gender equality. Much of the accumulated evidence for prehistoric human migrations was dismissed under the slogan, […]
[…] some background on his family and their life in the forest. (And in case you were wondering about homicide among pre-agricultural peoples, it looks like they Pygmy-on-Pygmy murder rate is pretty high, which fits pretty well with the […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steven Pinker has been proven to be full of it though. His approach is anything but scientific and a lot of this data is based on bad science.
Such an enthralling argument with evidence backing it up.
Really though, Pinker is hardly the only authority to take on the noble savage myth. Napoleon Chagnon and Lawrence H. Keeley (who Pinker cites for his claims of the lethality of primitive warfare) both did work that tackled this subject (with Chagnon getting a dose of “progressive” character assassination).
Also Johan van der Dennen.
Most if not all of the peoples you cite here aren’t even hunter gatherers, i.e. the Yanomamo are fairly settled farmers
Limiting it exclusively to pure hunter gatherers doesn’t change matters.
The jackassery is strong with this article. Anthropologists around the world have shown for decades now that gender equality is quite common in many hunter gatherer societies. In fact, it’s one of the hallmarks of foragers, when compared to say, horticultural groups. Too many studies to list, so I’ll just pick a recent one published in Science: http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-social-structure-modern-hunter-gatherer-tribes-02809.html
And no, the authors are not Marxist, and neither is the journal Science. And the evil Marxists did not invent gender equality, nor is evil Marxism responsible for the ethnographies compiled by field researchers. There is no world-wide evil Marxism conspiracy involved.
In Isaac Bacirongo’s memoir, “Still a Pygmy,” he recounts how his mother sold his pre-pubertal little sister to a local witch doctor in exchange for a magic spell. We’d call this “human trafficking” and “pedophile sex-slavery.” There, it’s just a thing that happens.
Hunter-gatherers are mobile and willing to live with both maternal and paternal relatives. Does not imply that they are gender egalitarians.
Lefty academics have been desperate to show that We Wuz Egalitarians.
[…] This is a myth I have been roundly trying to fight since about day one on this blog: No, hunter-gatherers were not peaceful paragons of gender equality. […]
“Marxism says that humans have wars because capitalists make them–that is, war is a side effect of capitalist society.”
I mean….. This is right to a point. All wars are banker’s wars, after all.
Great post. Violence has decreased. Pinker has destroyed the noble savage myth once (and hopefully) for all.
Noble savage myth is probably stronger than Pinker, but we can always hope.
Hmm the fact that hunter gatherers were very warlike is pretty well established, but as for gender equality (although men and women did have seperate roles there) it is widly believed that there was quiet a lot of it in some tribes. A friend of mine who studied archeology from South africa told me that while the San did wage a lot of war they were quiet gender egalitarian. Also Razib Khan does claim that modern western genderrelations are similar to that of hunter gatherers (including serial monogamy). So I wanted to ask you were you get the idea from that they did have a strict gender hirarchy?
In Thomas’s account of the Bushmen (https://www.amazon.com/Harmless-People-Elizabeth-Marshall-Thomas-ebook/dp/B004BXA372/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482105320&sr=8-1&keywords=harmless+people+bushmen) she notes that when her team of anthropologists first arrived in the Bushmen’s camp, they stayed in their trucks because no one was there at the time. Some Bushmen have a custom that one side of the fire is for women and one side is for men, so if a female anthropologist accidentally sat on the wrong side of the firepit while waiting for the Bushmen to return, they might just pack up all of their belongings, abandon the camp, and set up an entire new one (complete with huts) because she’d defiled the men’s side.
Bushmen practice arranged marriage between female children and grown men. Ostensibly these marriages are not consumated until the girls begin menstruating. Sometimes attractive girls are straight-up kidnapped for marriage.
And of course the men are the hunters, (Bushmen have gender roles, too) and the amount of meat a woman (and her children) get to eat is dependent on her relationship with the hunters, who distribute the meat according to tribal customs. A woman whose husband is a talented hunter eats well; a woman whose husband is a bad hunter does not.
They are not evil patriarchs out to oppress women, nor are they glorious gender egalitarians. Their gender relations may be more similar to western relations than, say, Islamic ones, but I’ve never heard of a westerner moving just because a woman sat in his chair.
must not live in southern united states.
[…] See also my post, “No, Hunter Gatherers were not Peaceful Paragons of Gender Egalitarianism.” […]
[…] evidence. Hunter-gatherer societies were more violent than even the State societies in recent […]
Stopped taking you seriously when you conflated “non-industrial” with “hunter gatherer”. Non-industrial societies, include agriculturalists, who are not hunter-gatherers. There are very very few true hunter-gatherer societies left in the world, even tribes who do hunt and gather, may also still farm and garden. Additionally, no one has ever advocated that hunter gatherers were “champions of women’s rights”, just that the leadership roles as well as the overall value of both sexes were equal, despite what evolutionary/biological roles have been established, such as men hunting, and women gathering and minding the children.
I ask what you make of the following evolutiontheorist:
Also, here’s a bunch of articles by one SJW called John Horgan:
I’ll take a look, but it’ll take a few days.
[…] fight wars. Neanderthals were cannibals. Homicide in primitive tribes was sky-high. You have twice as many female as male ancestors because the majority of men never […]
[…] See also my post, “No, Hunter Gatherers were not Peaceful Paragons of Gender Egalitarianism.” […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
The evidence is not established that hunter gatherers were violent or non-egalitarian. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways
I’m not saying HGs were not violent just that the evidence is not ‘established’ as the author claims
Steven Pinker is not a good source since he is not an anthropologist and relied on cherrry picking archaeologist findings. He has no evidence past 10,000 years
[…] peoples are NOT peaceful, matriarchal paragons of virtue; they had much higher homicide rates than we […]
PERCENT ON DEATH ON
PERCENT ON ”VIOLENT DEATHS” [PRESUMABLY, ON WARFARE]
Do you analyse domestic violence too**
Reblogged this on Quaerere Propter Vērum.
As in so many cases they probably hate it because capitalism made it possible.