I've never once claimed that it didn't arise independently in different locations. Never-the-less, the fact that it was highly disruptive was a part of why it did spread. Whether population growth drove agriculture or the other way around is pretty incidental to this discussion.
The quote from Woodburn doesn't make sense. He says in "certain" foraging societies and then goes on to explain how they are assertively egalitarian and other mechanisms for maintaining just that. Other than the the ill conceived use of the term "certain" he's essentially making my point. Where is the information about the ones who do not meet his well laid-out metrics of egalitarianism?
And the Aeon article is also making a fundamental error — mobility matters. Sedentary cultures are much more likely to become hierarchical, it's true but there is little evidence of these in the Pleistocene. Mobile foragers are uniformly egalitarian. And many of the cultures identified in that story were not even true H/Gs. They had fish traps, and such, making them not pure foragers.
I do love that you are quoting to me The Dawn of Everything though. Certainly, there were many forms of social organization before dominance hierarchies took root - but they were all pretty firmly rooted in various forms of personal autonomy meets egalitarianism. And that book will introduce you to many, many of them. Below is something that I wrote in my story about what I learned from that book:
"What this same sort of freedom looked like pre-patriarchy certainly differed in specifics from culture to culture and from era to era. In some cultures, it even shifted with the seasons, where the structures of winter villages stood in steep contrast with the greater freedoms of the rest of the year. Times of congregation were often the season for rituals, and temporary kings or ritual police who did have actually coercive power might be appointed for those events."
No, dominance hierarchies have not always existed and you have absolutely no evidence to warrant saying that or to base that on. You are just being obstinate. Most anthropologists believe that putting in check the dominance hiararchies that our primate cousins routinely have was a central element of human evolution and without it we would have died out. None of this speaks to "human nature" which I agree is complex and nuanced. It speaks to social organization which was actively and purposely opposed to hierarchy, particulary coercive hierarchy (which is a central aspect of a dominance hierarchy). As noted by James Woodburn, "Equality is achieved through direct, individual access to resources; through direct, individual access to means coercion and means of mobility which prevent saving and accumulation and impose sharing." That's a complete and total antithetical description of a dominance hierarchy. There is no centralized power and decision making is communal, as is every other aspect of life. Those who do not abide by the mores of the group may find themselves shunned or otherwise coerced to behave through group pressure but that's where it ends.
I know I've already quoted this to you at least once before, but the child-rearing practices of hunter-gatherers are notable for their lack of coercion, punishment, etc.
"Ju/'hoan children very rarely cried, probably because they had little to cry about. No child was ever yelled at or slapped or physically punished, and few were even scolded. Most never heard a discouraging word until they were approaching adolescence, and even then the reprimand, if it really was a reprimand, was delivered in a soft voice. ... We are sometimes told that children who are treated so kindly become spoiled, but this is because those who hold that opinion have no idea how successful such measures can be. Free from frustration or anxiety, sunny and cooperative, the children were every parent's dream. No culture can ever have raised better, more intelligent, more likable, more confident children."[4]
The pressures favoring cooperating did not abate until about 5k years ago. Our ancient ancestors cultivated and maintained huge and far-reaching networks of mutual support and cooperation. It's something that I've been meaning to write more about because it's really astounding. And it is further noted and spoken about in The Dawn of Everything. You said that you read my story on autonomy but you apparently missed this part:
According to The Dawn of Everything, there are, however, three main components of historical autonomy:
The freedom to leave one’s community, knowing one will be welcomed in faraway lands;
The freedom to shift back and forth between social structures, depending on the time of year;and
The freedom to disobey authorities without consequence
This are all hallmarks of cultures that are not dominance hierarchies. That do not have all the same social structures as mobile hunter-gatherers but they are none-the-less antithetical to the elements of dominance hierarchies. All true H/Gs were egalitarian but not all egalitarian cultures were H/Gs.
Yes, all actual foragers who were mobile were egalitarian (and even some protoagricultural societies were) and no, dominance hierarchies have only existed in the past 5k years or so. And I've given you evidence of all this up onside and down the other over the course of several years. It pains me to have to keep saying the same things over and over again - particularly because I feel you are purposely refusing to listen to what I'm actually saying out of curmugeonness. (Is that a word? If not, I’ve just coined it for you!) 😸
Egalitarian doesn't mean Utopian and a dominance hierarchy has particular characteristics. You can't just say, well people are complex and have selfish natures as well as benevolent ones.... because that isn't what is at issue. Of course they do, but that's not what defines an egalitarian culture and the fact that people have some selfish impulses is not what makes for a dominance hierarchy. These terms mean something and trying to move the ball on what they mean in order to invalidate them is just kind of ridiculous. It’s like me trying to talk to you about the properties of oranges and how those differ from the properties of plums, and you’re saying “You can’t claim all citrus fruits are exactly alike” when I’ve never done any such thing.
