The palaeolithic humans did not seem to do any really insane religious stuff
Why? The first thing I checked has one anthropologist speculating cannibalism might have occurred during the paleolithic for religious reasons, and on the whole doesn’t look very encouraging.
The real argument against cannibalism seems to be easy transmission of infection, not held back by species boundary. If this risk is comparatively sufficiently low, I’d say not eating your fellow humans who died anyway when the food is scarce is a failure mode (famine seems to be convincing enough, and probably occurred often in the prehistoric past).
Excarnation of bodies seems to have been common in some paleolithic populations; it’s unknown whether cannibalism was involved (ritual flensing or excarnation of dead bodies has precedents in other human cultures that don’t habitually practice cannibalism) but it certainly could have been. Mortuary cannibalism is one of the more widespread exceptions—many cultures have or once had mostly-symbolic forms of it (some forms don’t closely resemble modern flesh-eating—Yanomamo consumption of ground bones and ashes as a funerary gesture, for example), and it may also have emerged as a means of predator regulation—don’t leave around bodies that could attract something big and nasty.
A further quote from the same paragraph, emphasis mine:
Nonetheless, it remains possible that Paleolithic societies never practiced cannibalism, and that the damage to recovered human bones was either the result of ritual post-mortem bone cleaning or predation by carnivores such as saber tooth cats, lions and hyenas.
Just for kicks, I might also assume the (contrarian?) position that cannibalism is by no means unconditionally “really insane,” which seems to be what you’re holding it out as an example of. Sure, it has its (ups and) downs, but I’m not on board for really insane. Killing someone à la Mayan human sacrifice seems to me crazier and more harmful than eating someone’s body as a burial rite at a time when food may well be scarce.
That said, I agree with your thrust; namely, that we have no good reason to believe the paleolithic folks were anyhow significantly smarter or more moral than us.
That said, I agree with your thrust; namely, that we have no good reason to believe the paleolithic folks were anyhow significantly smarter or more moral than us.
Depending of what one’s opinion of violence is there may be god reason to think they where significantly worse. Guess what is the most common cause of death among males in hunter gather societies?
Violent death at the hands of another man.
Also there is the general reason to think we are more moral according to our standards than they where, because they where probably trying to live up to a different set of standards than we are.
Actually, causes and rates of mortality for hunter-gatherers vary widely. What you say is true for, say, the Hiwi of Venezuala but not for the !Kung. For some groups, social mortality (cannibalism, war, etc) is high. For others disease is the primary cause of death. Malnutrition is rare, but accidental/occupational deaths are a primary cause for some groups.
According to the data presented by Steven Pinker In all such groups murder rates are vastly higher than in modern developed countries. Though you are right it is not always the number one cause of death.
“Low-tech” and “forager” aren’t the same thing. The Yanomamo aren’t hunter-gatherers. It’s not splitting hairs—this distinction makes a huge difference.
That’s interesting, this reduces my opinion of Pinker’s argument quite a bit. But do we have good data on any group that supposedly has lower murder rates than modern developed countries?
In a harsh environment where humans barely survive, ritual cannibalism would stay just long enough until someone’s protein mis-folded and the stupid practice got the well deserved handicap. You need some sort of tropical paradise isolated from competition to sustain Kuru-afflicted population for any time.
Why? The first thing I checked has one anthropologist speculating cannibalism might have occurred during the paleolithic for religious reasons, and on the whole doesn’t look very encouraging.
The real argument against cannibalism seems to be easy transmission of infection, not held back by species boundary. If this risk is comparatively sufficiently low, I’d say not eating your fellow humans who died anyway when the food is scarce is a failure mode (famine seems to be convincing enough, and probably occurred often in the prehistoric past).
Excarnation of bodies seems to have been common in some paleolithic populations; it’s unknown whether cannibalism was involved (ritual flensing or excarnation of dead bodies has precedents in other human cultures that don’t habitually practice cannibalism) but it certainly could have been. Mortuary cannibalism is one of the more widespread exceptions—many cultures have or once had mostly-symbolic forms of it (some forms don’t closely resemble modern flesh-eating—Yanomamo consumption of ground bones and ashes as a funerary gesture, for example), and it may also have emerged as a means of predator regulation—don’t leave around bodies that could attract something big and nasty.
A further quote from the same paragraph, emphasis mine:
Just for kicks, I might also assume the (contrarian?) position that cannibalism is by no means unconditionally “really insane,” which seems to be what you’re holding it out as an example of. Sure, it has its (ups and) downs, but I’m not on board for really insane. Killing someone à la Mayan human sacrifice seems to me crazier and more harmful than eating someone’s body as a burial rite at a time when food may well be scarce.
That said, I agree with your thrust; namely, that we have no good reason to believe the paleolithic folks were anyhow significantly smarter or more moral than us.
Depending of what one’s opinion of violence is there may be god reason to think they where significantly worse. Guess what is the most common cause of death among males in hunter gather societies?
Violent death at the hands of another man.
Also there is the general reason to think we are more moral according to our standards than they where, because they where probably trying to live up to a different set of standards than we are.
Actually, causes and rates of mortality for hunter-gatherers vary widely. What you say is true for, say, the Hiwi of Venezuala but not for the !Kung. For some groups, social mortality (cannibalism, war, etc) is high. For others disease is the primary cause of death. Malnutrition is rare, but accidental/occupational deaths are a primary cause for some groups.
According to the data presented by Steven Pinker In all such groups murder rates are vastly higher than in modern developed countries. Though you are right it is not always the number one cause of death.
Stephen Pinker’s selected examples weren’t actually foragers. See here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201103/steven-pinkers-stinker-the-origins-war
“Low-tech” and “forager” aren’t the same thing. The Yanomamo aren’t hunter-gatherers. It’s not splitting hairs—this distinction makes a huge difference.
That’s interesting, this reduces my opinion of Pinker’s argument quite a bit. But do we have good data on any group that supposedly has lower murder rates than modern developed countries?
Here’s 25. http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/index.html
Speculating is the key word.
In a harsh environment where humans barely survive, ritual cannibalism would stay just long enough until someone’s protein mis-folded and the stupid practice got the well deserved handicap. You need some sort of tropical paradise isolated from competition to sustain Kuru-afflicted population for any time.
There are plenty of highly-competitive, agricultural civilizations in the tropics.