Outstanding article. I was especially struck by the illustration of the Dolní Věstonice ceramic kilns. As a nipper in the 1960s, I lived near Coalbrookdale and can remember coming across the old and much neglected original furnace there. Never quite realised until now, how much the Darbys' innovations relied on our Palaeolithic ancestors.
Firstly, I should qualify what I wrote above by saying that one finds Hobbesian and Lockean ideas in the ancient Chinese texts. It would be a mistake to claim that philosopher X was an ancient Hobbes or Locke. Having thus hedged, try this:
“In antiquity, when people first arose, before there were punishments and government,. . . people deemed their norm right and by it deemed others’ norms wrong. . . The common people of the world all injured each other with water, fire or poison. . . . The disorder in the world was like that among the birds and the beasts.” (Mo 11.1)
Fraser 'The Essential Mòzĭ': 34.
Clearly, Mòzĭ (480-390 BC) is using a State of Nature argument similar to that of Hobbes in order to justify an all powerful State. Then, there is this:
“Now let someone try doing away with the authority of the ruler, ignoring the transforming power of ritual principles, rejecting the order that comes from laws and standards, and dispensing with the restrictive power of punishments, and then watch and see how the people of the world treat each other. He will find that the powerful impose upon the weak and rob them, the many terrorize the few and extort from them, and in no time the whole world will be given up to chaos and mutual destruction." (X 23.174)
Burton Watson 'Hsün Tzu Basic Writings': 163
Again, distinctly Hobbesian, except that as a Confucian, Xúnzǐ (310-235 BC) sees the State of Nature not as a war of 'every man against every man', but as a the 'powerful imposing upon the weak' and 'the many terrorizing the few' (something of Mill there, one might say).
The Legalist Han Feizi, a student of Xunzi, mocks Confucian ideas of the moral authority of parents, community, scholars and so on, as follows:
“Now there is a young man of bad character. His parents rail at him but he does not reform; the neighbours scold but he is unmoved; his teachers instruct him but he refuses to change his ways. Thus, although three fine influences are brought to bear on him – the love of his parents, the efforts of the neighbors, the wisdom of his teachers – yet he remains unmoved and refuses to change so much as a hair on his head. But let the local magistrate send out the government soldiers to enforce the law and search for evil-doers, and then he is filled with terror, reforms his conduct and changes his ways.” (HF 49.18)
As to Locke, we find his ideas on limited government, justified by its accountability and dedication to the public good most clearly in Mencius (372-289 BC):
“When [Yáo] put Shun in charge of the sacrifices, the spirits welcomed them. This is how Heaven accepted him. When he put Shun in charge of the nation’s affairs, they were well ordered and the people were at peace. This is how the people accepted him.” (M 5A:5.10a)
Hinton 'Mencius': 168
“The T’ai shih says, Heaven sees with the eyes of its people. Heaven hears with the ears of its people” (M 5A:5.10b)
Lau 'Mencius': 106
“The people are of greatest importance], the altars of the soil and grain are next, and the ruler is of least importance . This is why one who gains the allegiance of the tillers of the fields will become the Son of Heaven," (M 7B:14)
Bloom 'Mencius': 159
In the first passage the emperor Yao appointed Shun as his successor, in preference to his own son, because Shun brought peace to the people: he was dedicated to the public good. In the second passage, Mencius reminds rulers that all powerful Heaven watches with the eyes of the people and will authorise their overthrow if they fail to rule with humaneness. In the third, passage, he upholds a hierarchy which is the exact reverse of that which is normally associated, quite wrongly, with Confucianism. It is the duty of rulers to serve the people not the other way round.
‘. . every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no body has any right to but himself.’
Locke 'Two Treatises of Government': II.27
I've recently been looking at the work of Yangzi (440-360 BC), who is typically, and wrongly, regarded as an ethical egoist. He makes a claim to individual liberty very similar to Locke's:
"Nothing in the world counters him; The destiny which decides is within him.” (Yangzi 17)
Graham ‘Yang Chu’ in The Book of Lieh-tzŭ: 154
This is not some airy-fairy notion of inner spiritualism (Yangzi was an atheist) but a straightforward assertion of the right of every person to conduct their lives as they see fit:
“What is the purpose of life, then? What makes it pleasant? Comfort and elegance, music and beauty.” (Yangzi 3)
Brant (ed), Forke (tr) 'Yang Chu’s Garden of Pleasure': 49
As to good books, it would be immodest of me to say I'm writing one, but beyond reading the original texts, in both Western and Eastern traditions, I'm at a loss to make recommendations. Current Western philosophy, in my highly biased opinion, is at about the same point as Scholasticism in the 15th century. One prays that Renaissance and Enlightenment are somewhere just over the horizon.
You'll find Legge's 19th century translations of the Confucian texts in ctext.org, along with the (one hopes) the original Chinese. At least one modern translation of each is also a good idea. I'd recommend:
Analects: Chin; Mencius: Bloom; Xunzi: Burton Watson; Mozi ditto; Han Fei: ditto; Shang Yang: Pines; Yangzi (in The Book of Liezi): Graham. There' much more, of course, (!)
your mention that 'many [handaxes] display a pattern of scratches and striations which look very similar to flint tools striking against iron pyrites (‘fool’s gold’). This combination has been well documented ethnographically, which is not a surprise since pyrite striking on flint produces a visible spark.' Could the basic function of the handax have been as a firestarter?
Per my understanding no one has ever come up with a convincing explanation of the use of the handaxes. Since they are sharp along their entire edge, all 360 degrees, they obviously weren't optimized for use literally as a 'hand ax' despite their name. I believe some famous anthropologist/archeologist, I can't remember who right now, suggested decades ago that they were used somewhat like frisbees, to kill game. Have any new theories about their actual use emerged?
It's a great question. There's no consensus as to one particular use or function, esp since they were used for millions of years, we wouldn't expect to find just one purpose.
However, there's v little indication that they were hafted, and micro/macro wear points to many different uses, including:
- portable source of flakes
- fire lighting
- butchery
- woodworking
- scraping
- digging
- cutting and slicing
So most people I know think of them as an all-purpose tool kit, capable of doing many tasks reasonably well.
The other dominant theory, the 'sexy handaxe' idea, is that handaxes were a social marker of reproductive fitness. Ie if a man could successfully make them, he had mastered the desirable skill set in that community. Its not popular amongst many modern archaeologists, but its quite a fun theory imo.
Portable source of flakes also seems like a very clever explanation for the form of the handaxe.
But I don't understand how the handaxe could be used for 'butchery, woodworking, scraping, digging, cutting and slicing'. Handaxes are very sharp all the way around the entire edge. How could anyone even hold it in such a way as to do any 'butchery, woodworking, scraping, digging. cutting and slicing', etc, without injuring themselves?
Before reading on I have to type this comment I have changed my diet based on all things agribusiness, to one of growing more of the food I eat. I do cook most of it because of the information you cite. Imagine that, I am actually following along by rote. Yesterday I was chewing extensively on rutabaga stems, quite fibrous, I rather enjoyed the experience (of chewing before swallowing) Hahaha!
I feel great and have been spending a lot more time than normal hunting the forests (for meat), without being tired after a few hundred yards as was normal before the transition. One large meal a day the last 11 days, but not today... :-)
Came for the de-cancellation of the Anglo-Saxons. Staying for the delightfully accessible stories of ancestor ingenuity.
Welcome aboard Mike!
Outstanding article. I was especially struck by the illustration of the Dolní Věstonice ceramic kilns. As a nipper in the 1960s, I lived near Coalbrookdale and can remember coming across the old and much neglected original furnace there. Never quite realised until now, how much the Darbys' innovations relied on our Palaeolithic ancestors.
Thanks David, was an enjoyable article to write. I subscribe to the school of thought that says everything is much older than we realise
Indeed. Found much the same studying ancient Chinese philosophy. Hobbes and Locke in the first millennium BC rather than the Palaeolithic, though.
Interesting, can you say more on the ancient Chinese philosophers that were similar to Hobbes and Locke? Any good books that explore this?
Firstly, I should qualify what I wrote above by saying that one finds Hobbesian and Lockean ideas in the ancient Chinese texts. It would be a mistake to claim that philosopher X was an ancient Hobbes or Locke. Having thus hedged, try this:
“In antiquity, when people first arose, before there were punishments and government,. . . people deemed their norm right and by it deemed others’ norms wrong. . . The common people of the world all injured each other with water, fire or poison. . . . The disorder in the world was like that among the birds and the beasts.” (Mo 11.1)
Fraser 'The Essential Mòzĭ': 34.
Clearly, Mòzĭ (480-390 BC) is using a State of Nature argument similar to that of Hobbes in order to justify an all powerful State. Then, there is this:
“Now let someone try doing away with the authority of the ruler, ignoring the transforming power of ritual principles, rejecting the order that comes from laws and standards, and dispensing with the restrictive power of punishments, and then watch and see how the people of the world treat each other. He will find that the powerful impose upon the weak and rob them, the many terrorize the few and extort from them, and in no time the whole world will be given up to chaos and mutual destruction." (X 23.174)
Burton Watson 'Hsün Tzu Basic Writings': 163
Again, distinctly Hobbesian, except that as a Confucian, Xúnzǐ (310-235 BC) sees the State of Nature not as a war of 'every man against every man', but as a the 'powerful imposing upon the weak' and 'the many terrorizing the few' (something of Mill there, one might say).
The Legalist Han Feizi, a student of Xunzi, mocks Confucian ideas of the moral authority of parents, community, scholars and so on, as follows:
“Now there is a young man of bad character. His parents rail at him but he does not reform; the neighbours scold but he is unmoved; his teachers instruct him but he refuses to change his ways. Thus, although three fine influences are brought to bear on him – the love of his parents, the efforts of the neighbors, the wisdom of his teachers – yet he remains unmoved and refuses to change so much as a hair on his head. But let the local magistrate send out the government soldiers to enforce the law and search for evil-doers, and then he is filled with terror, reforms his conduct and changes his ways.” (HF 49.18)
Burton Watson 'Han Fei Tzu':103
As to Locke, we find his ideas on limited government, justified by its accountability and dedication to the public good most clearly in Mencius (372-289 BC):
“When [Yáo] put Shun in charge of the sacrifices, the spirits welcomed them. This is how Heaven accepted him. When he put Shun in charge of the nation’s affairs, they were well ordered and the people were at peace. This is how the people accepted him.” (M 5A:5.10a)
Hinton 'Mencius': 168
“The T’ai shih says, Heaven sees with the eyes of its people. Heaven hears with the ears of its people” (M 5A:5.10b)
Lau 'Mencius': 106
“The people are of greatest importance], the altars of the soil and grain are next, and the ruler is of least importance . This is why one who gains the allegiance of the tillers of the fields will become the Son of Heaven," (M 7B:14)
Bloom 'Mencius': 159
In the first passage the emperor Yao appointed Shun as his successor, in preference to his own son, because Shun brought peace to the people: he was dedicated to the public good. In the second passage, Mencius reminds rulers that all powerful Heaven watches with the eyes of the people and will authorise their overthrow if they fail to rule with humaneness. In the third, passage, he upholds a hierarchy which is the exact reverse of that which is normally associated, quite wrongly, with Confucianism. It is the duty of rulers to serve the people not the other way round.
‘. . every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no body has any right to but himself.’
Locke 'Two Treatises of Government': II.27
I've recently been looking at the work of Yangzi (440-360 BC), who is typically, and wrongly, regarded as an ethical egoist. He makes a claim to individual liberty very similar to Locke's:
"Nothing in the world counters him; The destiny which decides is within him.” (Yangzi 17)
Graham ‘Yang Chu’ in The Book of Lieh-tzŭ: 154
This is not some airy-fairy notion of inner spiritualism (Yangzi was an atheist) but a straightforward assertion of the right of every person to conduct their lives as they see fit:
“What is the purpose of life, then? What makes it pleasant? Comfort and elegance, music and beauty.” (Yangzi 3)
Brant (ed), Forke (tr) 'Yang Chu’s Garden of Pleasure': 49
As to good books, it would be immodest of me to say I'm writing one, but beyond reading the original texts, in both Western and Eastern traditions, I'm at a loss to make recommendations. Current Western philosophy, in my highly biased opinion, is at about the same point as Scholasticism in the 15th century. One prays that Renaissance and Enlightenment are somewhere just over the horizon.
You'll find Legge's 19th century translations of the Confucian texts in ctext.org, along with the (one hopes) the original Chinese. At least one modern translation of each is also a good idea. I'd recommend:
Analects: Chin; Mencius: Bloom; Xunzi: Burton Watson; Mozi ditto; Han Fei: ditto; Shang Yang: Pines; Yangzi (in The Book of Liezi): Graham. There' much more, of course, (!)
Sorry to go on, I should probably get out more.
your mention that 'many [handaxes] display a pattern of scratches and striations which look very similar to flint tools striking against iron pyrites (‘fool’s gold’). This combination has been well documented ethnographically, which is not a surprise since pyrite striking on flint produces a visible spark.' Could the basic function of the handax have been as a firestarter?
Per my understanding no one has ever come up with a convincing explanation of the use of the handaxes. Since they are sharp along their entire edge, all 360 degrees, they obviously weren't optimized for use literally as a 'hand ax' despite their name. I believe some famous anthropologist/archeologist, I can't remember who right now, suggested decades ago that they were used somewhat like frisbees, to kill game. Have any new theories about their actual use emerged?
It's a great question. There's no consensus as to one particular use or function, esp since they were used for millions of years, we wouldn't expect to find just one purpose.
However, there's v little indication that they were hafted, and micro/macro wear points to many different uses, including:
- portable source of flakes
- fire lighting
- butchery
- woodworking
- scraping
- digging
- cutting and slicing
So most people I know think of them as an all-purpose tool kit, capable of doing many tasks reasonably well.
The other dominant theory, the 'sexy handaxe' idea, is that handaxes were a social marker of reproductive fitness. Ie if a man could successfully make them, he had mastered the desirable skill set in that community. Its not popular amongst many modern archaeologists, but its quite a fun theory imo.
Portable source of flakes also seems like a very clever explanation for the form of the handaxe.
But I don't understand how the handaxe could be used for 'butchery, woodworking, scraping, digging, cutting and slicing'. Handaxes are very sharp all the way around the entire edge. How could anyone even hold it in such a way as to do any 'butchery, woodworking, scraping, digging. cutting and slicing', etc, without injuring themselves?
Before reading on I have to type this comment I have changed my diet based on all things agribusiness, to one of growing more of the food I eat. I do cook most of it because of the information you cite. Imagine that, I am actually following along by rote. Yesterday I was chewing extensively on rutabaga stems, quite fibrous, I rather enjoyed the experience (of chewing before swallowing) Hahaha!
I feel great and have been spending a lot more time than normal hunting the forests (for meat), without being tired after a few hundred yards as was normal before the transition. One large meal a day the last 11 days, but not today... :-)
Sounds like you're living the palaeolithic lifestyle, building up that ancestral jawline!
Ha! I like this idea. Its about becoming more healthy for me. However, I have more weight on the foot in this current culture, slowly shifting away.
Fascinating indeed! To the point now of technologizing ourselves out of existence. Hahahaha!