Hi, Doug:
OK, I overstated a bit, because I like the resounding ring of emphatic
language. More modestly put, archaeologists seem to feel that centralized
social authority is prerequisite to collective efforts such as large-scale
engineering. The prevailing view is expressed time and again in reference particularly to early constructions, that they could not have been done until
heirarchical social structure was established. This view was what I called
into question, as though people had to be compelled into cooperation.

The alternative I would espouse is that an actual dominance relationship was
not necessary, much less coercion. Cooperative effort can be produced whenever
the folk who have the imagination to visualize the project and its benefits,
can get enough people's attention. That shifts the threshold from a
consideration of power, over to a question of communication. The political presumption, whether a particular culture had reached the level of a
chieftanship, or whether a community had regional political dominance, or
whatever, is therefore not required. All you need to know is whether people
got together to talk sometimes, which put them in range of the smooth talking persuaders who had these great ideas for building mounds or canals or erecting
dolmens or menhirs. Applying the principle of parsimony means that the
presumption of bossism, something we can't know about early cultures, isn't
necessary to explain spontaneous cooperation.

We do know that people are willing to put a lot of unrequited effort into
something they think is a neat idea, even if it's just piling dirt. But after
you say you're their boss, and they have to pile that dirt, or your boys with
the spears will show them the reason why, the people in your crew will want to
fade away and go fishing. IMHO this makes it questionable that political
heirarchy preceded the earliest construction projects.

> In any case, this thread started as a creationist dig at evolution.

Now that you mention it, that makes sense. I hadn't seen it so clearly before.
I just thought it was somebody who saw sex as nasty, brutish and short, but
that kind of describes creationists, doesn't it?
> --
> Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
New NG?

Bonobo primates, live like them!
Johnny Thunderbird
heavyLight Books http://www.oocities.org/~jthunderbird
Re: Bonobo Primates -- Evolutionary Enigma sci.archaelogy 980527