Primitive Communism Did Not Exist: Anthropologists Debunk the Myth of the 'Noble Savage' 0 11

Many researchers have believed for decades that traditional hunter-gatherer societies operate on principles of altruism and equality, which define their behavior. In other words, specialists thought that members of such societies preach egalitarianism, where people have equal opportunities and access to resources. However, the authors of a new study have disproved this established view. They found that behind the apparent equality lies a complex interplay of personal interests, social pressure, and implicit competition. The scientists concluded that genuine egalitarianism does not exist in any of the studied human societies.

During the Enlightenment, there was an idea in European philosophy and literature about the 'natural man,' living closer to nature, free and 'pure' from the vices of civilization. This archetype was called the 'noble savage.'

In the 19th century, when the first descriptions of 'primitive' people emerged from scientific expeditions, this image quickly 'overlaid' real groups of hunter-gatherers. It was believed that they lived in harmony with nature and shared their catch equally.

For example, German philosopher Friedrich Engels, a companion of Karl Marx, believed that hunter-gatherer societies represented a form of primitive communism. The scholar followed a then-popular hypothesis that in the earliest stages of human societies, the means of production (land, hunting, gathering) were collective, and consumption was carried out 'according to need' — that is, the products of labor were distributed within the group without private 'wealth.'

Engels believed that under such conditions, relative economic, gender, and social egalitarianism prevailed. In other words, hunter-gatherers lived almost equally: they did not divide into rich and poor, did not form classes, and were not subject to the state. According to Engels, all important decisions were made based on kinship ties and mutual support.

Over time, this narrative completely migrated into the academic environment. Observations of resource distribution in small hunter-gatherer societies led scientists to think that altruism and equality are the natural, 'default' state of humanity. Hunting and gathering as a way of life dominated for the overwhelming majority of our history — until the transition to agriculture about 10,000 years ago. Therefore, anthropologists long viewed such societies as a kind of window into the past, allowing us to understand how our ancestors lived.

However, a new analysis of ethnographic and anthropological data conducted by anthropologists Duncan Stibbeard-Hawkes from Durham University in the UK and Chris von Rueden from the University of Richmond in the USA showed a completely different image of hunter-gatherers. The researchers concluded that there was no true egalitarianism in any of the studied human societies. They reported this in an article published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

Stibbeard-Hawkes and von Rueden believe that their colleagues often made a fundamental mistake when they took the observed equality in wealth distribution as evidence of an internal ethical norm driving society. The misinterpretation of data led to the creation of an incorrect, simplified model of modern hunter-gatherer societies. In reality, the apparent equality often resulted from practical considerations and even outright selfishness.

According to the authors of the scientific work, equality among hunter-gatherers arose not from a love of justice but as a byproduct of each member's struggle for personal freedom. A vivid example is the Mbenjele people from the Congo. In their culture, there is a practice of public complaints called mosambo. When a person feels that their rights are being violated, they gather all the tribe members and loudly announce it. This order is necessary not to assert equality but to prevent the emergence of 'big people' — leaders who could start dictating their will to others.

Another pillar of the illusory egalitarianism among hunter-gatherers is calculated pragmatism. In the scientific community, there is an opinion that a hunter shares meat with fellow tribesmen out of pure kindness. But Stibbeard-Hawkes and von Rueden proposed another explanation: they may distribute the catch to avoid endless and annoying requests, accusations of greed, and social pressure.

In many hunter-gatherer societies, there are documented cases where people loudly and insistently demand to share food with them. Requests, reproaches, and complaints become part of everyday life.

A good example is the Kung people living in Angola, Botswana, and Namibia. Anthropologists noted that about 34 percent of their daily conversations involve complaints about the stinginess of neighbors. In such an environment, a hunter distributes meat not out of generosity but to avoid hearing accusations of greed and facing irritated neighbors.