What are gender relations like in the remaining hunter-gatherer tribes?

There are many kinds of hunter/gatherers. Woodburn in “Egalitarian Societies” (in Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Reader On Hunter-Gatherer Economics And The Environment)  divides them into immediate return and delayed return hunter/gatherers.  In immediate return H/G societies gender relations are egalitarian.

Now  that doesn’t mean that all people do the same things. But women do  hunt, men to take care of babies and most importantly all people have  autonomy.

Leacock in “Women’s Status in Egalitarian Society: Implications for Social Evolution” (also in Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Reader On Hunter-Gatherer Economics And The Environment)  has pointed out that the measure of egalitarianism is actually  autonomy, not similarity. Even in our culture, we don’t want to be the  same as our neighbor; we want to have the same opportunity to make our  own decisions for our own lives – we want autonomy. She writes:

“Hunter/gatherer  women and men make their decisions about their lives with great  autonomy and even children have far more autonomy than we would think is  proper.”

This is illustrated by Nissa, a !Kung women who went to  live with her grandmother when she was about 5 years old. This is far  more autonomy that we would allow.

For more please see:  Chapter I – The Original Information Culture – Hunter/Gatherers (full text) from my upcoming book, “Hunter/Gatherers to Digital Natives: Six Information Revolutions.

See Questions On Quora

Could someone simplify local administration in the middle ages for me?

As Stephen Tempest says, "The Catholic Church was the only institution with a relatively stable and rational system of administration at all levels."

This is a major factor explaining the amazing wealth of the West. The other is that the Roman Catholic Church had the right of direct taxation – the tithe – which made them independent of any secular power.

This was a novelty. Since the first kingships, people had been governed by a tri-part elite consisting of the priesthood, the king, and the military. Sometimes one was more dominant and at other times another but they worked together to collect taxes, wage war (internal or external), and mediate with the god(s). The priesthood was usually the controller of education and information, and the recorder of history.

The fall of Rome broke the tripartite elite in the West. The Church was still the controller of information and education. But for the first time in history, the information controller was economically free of the other two elites. As we see in Stephen Tempest’s post, the secular and military were small, disorganized, varied, and local.

The Church, therefore, had a vested interest in the wealth of the commons. It was to the Church’s advantage for farmers to adopt new technologies that would increase their yield per acre, because the church was entitled to 10% of that yield.

The Church actively fostered technology. We see that in the pictures of God and Saints with technology.

We know that many things were invented in the East before they were either invented or discovered by the West. But, in traditionally organized cultures – those ruled by the tri-part elites – inventions were given to the state, or the church, or the military – in short, to the elite. The elite could use them in a way that did not threaten the power of the elite.

In the West, because of the Church’s teaching, individuals used inventions to produce, and sell more, thereby enriching the Church. This all fostered a spirit of individualism that in turn, fostered the scientific and economic growth of the West.

When Gutenberg introduced the press with movable type it didn’t occur to him to give it to the secular ruler. To him it seemed natural to print Bibles and sell them and since there was no such thing as patent law, others soon followed suit paving the way for secular education. Which eventually led to the invention of capitalism, The reformation, the enlightenment, modern science and the world we know today.

But it all started with the Church in the Middle Ages.

See Questions On Quora

Are there cultures where the concept of paternity has not been discovered?

Hung Lee quotes Malinowski.
Lee says:

Bronislaw Malinowski’s 1922 study of the Trobriand Islands, Argonauts of the Western Pacific, described a culture that seemed to be ignorant of physiological paternity. His earlier research amongst certain Australian Aboriginal tribes described similar beliefs in the disconnect between sexual intercourse and procreation.


When I was an undergrad in Anthro. it was pointed out that:

1) Malinowski, though a pioneer in participant observation, actually spent most of his time in his tent and asked the headman his questions, so his participation was actually minimal by today’s standards, and it was biased.

2) If  you are a 50 year old headman and a 30 year old man, from a different culture, asks a lot of questions about what things are and what they mean and how one does things here, you don’t assume that he means you to tell him about sex. You assume that he wants the stork story, or the cabbage patch story, in short, you want the folk tale. The headman assumes that the anthropologist knows about sex.

See Questions On Quora

What were the greatest events of medieval history? What created the greatest socioeconomic impact?

One of my favorite information revolutions is the Fall of Rome and how that changed almost everything in history and continues to have impact today:

Agreed: The cultural heart of the Roman Empire was the East and not its poorer Western counterpart.” And especially, “Inquiry in the sciences thrived and the Islamic world built upon the cultural inheritance of the Greeks to produce its own advances.”
So why was it true that “By the end of the Middle Ages Western Europe – for better and for worse – had not just recovered from the fall of Rome but was well on the path to world domination.”

The tripartite elite
The standard governing structure of the Roman Empire, and for much of the world up to and including the present day, was a tripartite elite consisting of the executive (king, Tsar, emperor, pharaoh etc), the military (with its control of violence interior and exterior), and the priesthood (with its control of information, myth, and salvation). At one time or another one or another of the arms was dominant but together they all kept the people suppressed through their control of sanctioned violence, taxation, and information.

The fall of Rome changed it all.
Much was lost with the fall of Rome, though the common folk, freed from the burden of taxation, were better fed, and lived longer.

At first the upper classes tried to maintain the Roman was of life but over time the former Roman Empire became more and more ‘barbarian’ and more and more local. Literacy declined amongst the elite classes. The use of money declined in favor of barter, and payment in goods and labor. Roads were no longer maintained by any central authority, travel became dangerous so long distance trade declined. Churchmen were hired by small secular courts to attend to the spiritual welfare of the court and act as scribes. By the eighth century there were few traces of Rome in the provincial capitals or the manors.

Literacy was left to the Church.
Financially, the Church was independent because it had the right to tax the populace directly through tithes. It didn’t need political or military authority. The combination of economic independence and learning broke the link between the control of information and the secular power structure – information was freed from the tripartite elite.

For example, if a weaver made more from his labor or if the weaver’s shop made more because it used a new technology, the Church was a beneficiary. So the Church had a vested interest in encouraging commerce, and encouraging innovation to create an increase in wealth. Monasteries and abbeys acted the way an agricultural extension services do today – carry out experiments and pass the results along to the populace.

This changed the way people in the West viewed learning – it was no longer the sole prerogative of the upper classes and scholars supported by the governing powers. It was something that ordinary people could use to make themselves a better life.
This world view meant that by the time the press was introduced it produced books for purchase that were used to enhance the learning of the common folk.

This is contrary to what happened when it was invented in the East where it was given to the Emperor (China) or King (Korea) and used solely for the benefit of the governing classes; it didn’t enhance the learning of the common folk.

That capitalism was invented in the Protestant countries is not because of the Protestant work ethic, it is because the press was suppressed in the Roman Catholic countries; common folk had more access to learning in Protestant countries and so learned, innovated, and prospered.

But that’s another story.

The key to the wealth of the West was the liberation of information and it was due to the Medieval Catholic Church.

For more see: Hunter/Gatherers to Digital Natives: Six Information Revbolutions: Chapter VI – The Middle Ages – The Church and Information (full text)

See Questions On Quora

Why was Elizabethan England so violent?

Here’s an answer that talks about the impact of information technology on the way people perceive their world:

Part of the reason it seems more violent is that we know more about the time period. The press made it easier for things to be chronicled and so news of violence has come down to us. In each information revolution (press, telegraph and telephone, digital) people have been given access to more information and so perceive their world differently. When all you know about is your small village it doesn’t seem scary but when you know all about violence everywhere it seems much worse.

If you ask people today if they feel safer than they did 10 or 15 years ago they will say no they feel less safe. Yet crime and violence have declined and continue to do so. The reason they feel less safe is that now news reports violence around the world, and people see it in their living rooms.

If you feel unsafe stop watching TV.

See Questions On Quora

What can the modern West learn from “primitive” cultures?

I re-read this post and so posted it as a Holiday message. To this I would echo Mbuti Pygmy Moke’s statement about god. We may not know what god is, but we know god is good, and we want god to be happy because people are singing. Happy Holidays!

We can learn: 1. Recognition that there is enough for all, if we share, 2. Peace, 3. Concern for the environment, 4. Egalitarianism, 5. Acceptance of others. 6. How to live in an information-based culture rather than a material-goods based culture.

1. Sharing:
Lorna Marshall, an anthropologist who worked many years amongst the !Kung in the Kalahari Desert in Africa, asked what happens if someone kills an animal and eats it without sharing. They respond that it could never happen. She says of their reaction when she pushed them to imagine such a situation:
“The idea of eating alone and not sharing is shocking to the !Kung. It makes them shriek with uneasy laughter. “Lions could do that,” they say, “not men.http://amzn.to/18dVCTu

Similarly, Turnbull writes about food sharing amongst the Mbuti Pygmies:
“In a small and tightly knit hunting band, survival can be achieved only by the closest co-operation and by an elaborate system of reciprocal obligations which insures that everyone has some share in the day’s catch. Some days one gets more than others, but nobody ever goes without. There is, as often as not, a great deal of squabbling over the division of the game, but that is expected and nobody tries to take what is not his due.” http://amzn.to/17zbZ9b

2.  Peace:
Kirk Endicott writes of the Batek – hunter/gathers of Malaysia
…the Batek abhor interpersonal violence and have generally fled from their enemies rather than fighting back. I once asked a Batek man why their ancestors had not shot the Malay slave-raiders, who plagued them until the 1920s with poisoned blowpipe darts. His shocked answer was: ‘Because it would kill them!’ (Endicott, K. L.1981. “The Conditions of Egalitarian Male-Female Relationships in Foraging Societies,” Canberra Anthropology4(2): 1-10)

Children are taught from a very young age about the value of sharing, there are no competitive games, and there is no value put on competition or on violence as a way of getting what one wants.

Amongst the Inuet hunter/gatherers of the High Arctic, violence is seen as childish, and any kind of confrontation is avoided. Children who fight are laughed at, teased, and ridiculed for such silly behavior. When adults lose their tempers with children or with each other they are also teased and perceived as childish.
(Briggs, J. L. 1994. “’Why Don’t You Kill Your Baby Brother?’ The Dynamics of Peace in Canadian Inuit Camps” in: The Anthropology of Peace and Nonviolence, L. E. Sponsel and T. Gregor, (eds) Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, p.155-181)

Not surprisingly, if you perceive that there is enough for everyone, and your social system is based on sharing, there is little reason to fight. People who have studied hunter/gatherers have discovered that hunter/gatherers don’t practice war and abhor violence. Chapter I – The Original Information Culture – Hunter/Gatherers (full text)and Chapter II – The Invention of Scarcity (full text)
3.  Concern for the environment:
Turnbull gives us the the Mbuti Pygmies’ world view
“”The forest is father and mother to us,”      Moke showed me this when he said, “Normally everything goes well in our world. But at night when we are sleeping, sometimes things go wrong, because we are not awake to stop them from going wrong. Army ants invade the camp; leopards may come in and steal a hunting dog or even a child. If we were awake these things would not happen. So when something big goes wrong, like illness or bad hunting or death, it must be because the forest is sleeping and not looking after its children. So what do we do? We wake it up. We wake it up by singing to it, and we do this because we want it to awaken happy. Then everything will be well and good.”” (see Turnbull above)

Hunter/gatherer groups believe they are children of the environment in which they live. Australian aborigines believe they are descended from their totem animals from the dream time. They reverence all the aspects of their surroundings because it is father and mother to them. As they move through the land they “sing up the land” because they are in a reciprocal relationship with the world. It creates them and they create the land. http://amzn.to/1aKodMg

4.  Egalitarianism:
Eleanor Leacock has pointed out that the measure of egalitarianism is actually autonomy, not similarity. Even in our culture, we don’t want to be the same as our neighbor; we want to have the same opportunity to make our own decisions for our own lives – we want autonomy. She writes:
Hunter/gatherer women and men make their decisions about their lives with great autonomy and even children have far more autonomy than we would think is proper. http://amzn.to/18dVCTu
Nisa was about 5 years old when her baby brother was born. One evening, Nisa snuck into bed with her mother, moved her baby brother away and nursed, for which she was punished so she decided to go to live with her Grandmother. She apparently made this decision on her own and throughout her childhood she moved away fairly frequently. http://amzn.to/1hOtVXm

Again Leacock quoting LeJune’s attitude toward gender when he encountered Native Americans in the 17th century:
Disputes and quarrels among spouses were virtually nonexistent, Le Jeune reported, since each sex carried out its own activities without “meddling” in those of the other… Noting that women had “great power,” he expressed his disapproval of the fact that men had no apparent inclination to make their wives “obey” them or to enjoin sexual fidelity upon them. He lectured the Indians on this failing, reporting in one instance, “I told him that he was the master, and that in France women do not rule their husbands. http://amzn.to/18dVCTu

5.  Acceptance of others
Respect for the autonomy of each person’s beliefs is also part of the view of god held by the Pygmies, as explained by Turnbull.
He told me how all Pygmies have different names for their god, but how they all know that it is really the same one. Just what it is of course, they don’t know, and that is why the name really does not matter very much. “How can we know?” he asked. “We can’t see him; perhaps only when we die will we know and then we can’t tell anyone. So how can we say what he is like or what his name is? But he must be good to give us so many things. He must be of the forest. So when we sing, we sing to the forest. (see Turnbull above)

6.  How to live in an information-based culture rather than a material-goods based culture
Hunter/gatherers live by what they know rather than what they own. They have been described as immediate gratification cultures – everything is there for the taking.
Information obeys different rules than material-goods do. If I have a material thing and you take it I no longer have it. On the other hand if I have a good story, or song, or idea and I give it to you I still have it and you have it too. In addition, you may actually add to the story, song, or idea and we will both have ‘more’. This validates a certain world view – the world view that to know is cool, to demonstrate that you know is to share. Chapter I – The Original Information Culture – Hunter/Gatherers (full text)and Chapter II – The Invention of Scarcity (full text)

From these two things: the way of life of hunter/gatherers and the world view that information validates we can generalize the characteristics of an information culture. People living in an information culture have no sense of scarcity. They regard getting a living as an enjoyable social activity. They share everything. Their attitude is that if there is food, there is no reason for anyone to go hungry. Even those who do little work are useful, so there is little concern about the “free rider” problem. To be ‘cool’, in an information culture, is to have good stories, songs, and dances rather than to have material wealth or power. People move because they want to know what is happening in other places, not because they need more material goods. They value exploration for its own sake. People perceive their world and their god(s) to be benign and an intimate part of their environment.

For more go to: Hunter/Gatherers to Digital Natives: and visit my author page on Amazon Elin Whitney-Smith the two most relevant publications are:
Push: Information Revolution Dynamics http://bit.ly/DynamicsInfoRev, and
Cain and Abel: Information and the Invention of WAR http://bit.ly/CainAndAbel

See Questions On Quora

Bison free at last!

Free at last, Free at lasst, OMG I’m free at last.

The argument is about brucellosis, the “contagious abortion” disease of ungulates. It is is transmitted by contact with the afterbirth. Yellowstone bison do test positive for brucellosis but they only roam outside of Yellowstone during the winter and calves are born in the spring, by which time, the bison have returned to their lush stomping grounds in Yellowstone.

Cattle catch brucellosis from elk. But cattle ranchers are generally hunters and often make money by letting people hunt elk on their land. So cattle ranchers don’t object to elk they hunt them and blame the brucellosis on bison. Sheesh!

Montana Governor sets bison free
Bison grazing in Yellowstone

How might human behaviour throughout history have been different if there had never been any concept of an afterlife?

A shift away from Hunter/Gatherers to theology as befits the season:

The concept of an afterlife is relatively recent. During the Roman Empire there was discussion amongst the Jews as to whether or not there was an afterlife.

The Pharisees believed there was an afterlife and they believed in the Oral Torah. There were Pharaisees amongst the Sadducees since the definition of the Sadducees is mostly a class and legal definition.

However, for the most part the Sadducees didn’t believe in the Oral Torah therefore they didn’t believe in the resurrection of the dead since it is not in the written Torah. The main focus of Sadducee life was rituals associated with the Temple.

Some Roman religions had an afterlife others didn’t.

That suggests that life would probably not have been that different. People as a whole don’t believe or disbelieve any one thing. They have always picked amongst teachings.

See Questions On Quora