Interesting. I think our interpretation of the work has been very different.
Very likely. Also, I will admit it has been many years since I last read the book so I might be mistaken in some of my views on the ideas Quinn put forward.
I know it's not fashionable but I see foragers' ecological perfection as a mostly-true approximation. I don't know that it's because of foragers beliefs rather than the systems that come with the territory of foraging, and it's certainly not 100% right, but it's a pretty good approximation for a work in the popular sphere.
I don't agree.
There are two primary reasons foragers must move around to sustain their lifestyle.
1: To follow the migration patterns of the animals they are hunting
2: Because they have hunted the animals in their area to the point where there are so few they can't sustain their population
Reason 2 is entirely at odds with the idea foragers are virtually ecologically perfect. If there was a reason they could not move to a new hunting ground, ie: they are surrounded by hostile tribes, they would hunt the animals to extinction, as has been the case in some areas.
Such as? Are you referring to the pleistocene megafauna in the Americas, which have no generally agreed cause of extinction and may have been going extinct even before humans arrived into the hemisphere?
No I am not referring to megafauna.
Examples include the Maoris arriving in New Zealand and hunting many species of animals to extinction. The Aboriginals of Australia using bushfire to flush out prey which had the consequence over time of completely changing the environment and is thought to very like have led to the extinction of some species. Many Polynesian cultures hunting species of seaside crustaceans to extinction.
I thought that the thesis of the book was that taker culture was a single cultural innovation like monotheism, which Quinn believed he nailed down to a specific time and place (fertile crescent, 10,000 BP). Then what distinguished taker and leaver cultures was which group a people descended from, not a fixed trait or some part of human nature that every member of the society had or lacked.
I think you are probably right here but it just sort of proves my point. He is suggesting that a trait of "taker" culture spread around the world and those cultures not exposed to this trait developed along completely different lines. As if somehow any culture left alone would naturally end up a "leaver" culture.
Firstly, current research leads to the conclusion that language played a fundamental role in the development of what we generally call "civilization" and certainly what Quinn would describe as "taker" culture. Without language, civilization just isn't possible. Current research shows that language seems to have sprung into existence in many parts of the world at almost exactly the same time and without the cross pollination that was once thought to be necessary.
Along with language, greater control of the food supply is also a necessary component. This is the part that Quinn focuses on. It is commonly accepted that what we term the agricultural revolution started around 10,000 BCE in the fertile crescent. So from that point of view Quinn is correct. However, recent evidence shows that many other areas of the world were developing primitive forms of agriculture at around the same time. Who is to say they would not have, in time, gone down the same path even if never exposed to "taker" culture.
For Quinn's version to be correct you must first completely ignore the role language plays in civilization and the fact it developed around the world at roughly the same time. You must then ignore that agriculture was being developed around the world at about the same time as it was in the fertile crescent. Lastly a situation must take place in which a single cultural trait spread throughout the world and it was this trait and not the language/agriculture equation that led to all "taker" cultures developing. It seems a bit of a stretch to me.
On a separate note, one thing that really annoyed me about the book even on first reading. The terms "taker" and "leaver". Quinn puts forward that these terms be used instead of the loaded terms "civilized" and "primitive". He contends taker and leaver are neutral and not loaded terms. Now I totally agree that civilized and primitive are loaded. However I don't think taker and leaver are any less loaded or emotional. It's a small thing but those two terms just never sat well with me.