Caral- First Recorded Civilization

[Wolf Larson]

This was one of if not the first civilization and it has been found it was not based in war and conquest like most other subsequent civilizations. I just finished a documentary but there were many bourgeois archeologists projecting their hierarchical world view. First they thought it was a civilization based on war, then on greed and conquest and finally they proved themselves wrong.

It turns out the society was based on peaceful cooperation and the people of Caral put emphasis on leisure. Does anyone have a good source for information on Caral? I specifically want to know if they had a hierarchical structure of land or governance or if it's peaceful nature was due to equality.
It has mystified archaeologists because Caral existed for about 1,000 years with no war. I think studying the findings in Caral will be key in future socialist critiques of history.

Interested? What do you think?

[Andropov]

What era was this civilisation about and in which area did it inhabit?

[RedAnarchist]

What era was this civilisation about and in which area did it inhabit?

Peru.

http://www.philipcoppens.com/caral.html
http://archaeology.about.com/od/southamerica/a/caral.htm
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1269

[Dimentio]

It wasn't the oldest recorded civilisation except if one is talking in an American perspective. The oldest towns were probably in what later became Egypt, like Hierakonpolis.

[bcbm]

It wasn't the oldest recorded civilisation except if one is talking in an American perspective. The oldest towns were probably in what later became Egypt, like Hierakonpolis.

what about catal huyuk? it appears to have been an egalitarian society similar to the one described in the op.

[the last donut of the night]

what about catal huyuk? it appears to have been an egalitarian society similar to the one described in the op.

Well, if we're talking in terms of egalitarianism, one should check out Mohenjo-daro, a main city in the Harappan Culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohenjo_Daro

[Dimentio]

I have also heard, but not from any source which I could deem credible, that pre-bronze age Europe was a rather egalitarian society. It was also highly developed, show-cased by the fact that even stone age societies had advanced trade networks and large mines (one mine in what's today Turkey supplied Europe with quarry for example).

[which doctor]

How exactly did these so called 'scientists' reach these conclusions about the social structure of a civilization so old and which no written record of was left?

I'm not at all familiar with the methods of archeology, but I maintain serious doubts as to the validity of these claims and I can't imagine that they have much to work with besides lots of previous scholarship about other ancient civs, and some really rough archaeological ruins. I don't think you can really construct an accurate representation based off the remains a civilization leaves behind thousands of years after its long gone. What defines the human experience is less the physical objects they encounter and more the sum of the social relations they function within, things that leave behind almost no tangible traces, especially without written records.

The tendency to look at ancient, non-western cultures as being somehow more 'egalitarian' or 'communal' has a long history and even Marx & Engels were guilty of it in their concept of primitive communism, well before the modern discipline of archaelogy ever took shape. As I said before I don't know a whole lot about archaeology, but I'm skeptical it amounts to much more than a projection of your own beliefs onto really lose evidence that could really support almost any conclusion.

When I was in high school I really wanted to study anthropology, especially after reading Charles Mann's revisionist history account, 1491, of the pre-Columbian Americas, but luckily I ended up changing my mind before I wasted any credit hours studying it. It's not that the subject still fascinates me, but I don't hold any illusions about it being anymore than a pseudoscience, which also applies to the rest of the social sciences. Its not that I don't think these disciplines aren't ever useful at all, but when operating under a capitalist culture, I don't think they really go anywhere, and are often tempted into really reactionary assumptions that only function to confirm bourgeois ideology.

[Os Cangaceiros]

When I was in high school I really wanted to study anthropology, especially after reading Charles Mann's revisionist history account, 1491, of the pre-Columbian Americas, but luckily I ended up changing my mind before I wasted any credit hours studying it. It's not that the subject still fascinates me, but I don't hold any illusions about it being anymore than a pseudoscience, which also applies to the rest of the social sciences. Its not that I don't think these disciplines aren't ever useful at all, but when operating under a capitalist culture, I don't think they really go anywhere, and are often tempted into really reactionary assumptions that only function to confirm bourgeois ideology.

I took Anthropology in college. I didn't want to, but I had to fulfill that credit requirement, and I ended up with a "C+", which wasn't all that bad considering that I didn't read one of the books assigned for class, missed a test and generally had very little interest in the subject matter.

A lot of it was mind-numbing, but it also helped me reach some important conclusions in relation to my own beliefs. Particularly in relation to religion's place in human society, a subject that I've often felt that Marxism was a bit mechanistic on.

[Wolf Larson]

How exactly did these so called 'scientists' reach these conclusions about the social structure of a civilization so old and which no written record of was left?

I'm not at all familiar with the methods of archeology, but I maintain serious doubts as to the validity of these claims and I can't imagine that they have much to work with besides lots of previous scholarship about other ancient civs, and some really rough archaeological ruins. I don't think you can really construct an accurate representation based off the remains a civilization leaves behind thousands of years after its long gone. What defines the human experience is less the physical objects they encounter and more the sum of the social relations they function within, things that leave behind almost no tangible traces, especially without written records.

The tendency to look at ancient, non-western cultures as being somehow more 'egalitarian' or 'communal' has a long history and even Marx & Engels were guilty of it in their concept of primitive communism, well before the modern discipline of archaelogy ever took shape. As I said before I don't know a whole lot about archaeology, but I'm skeptical it amounts to much more than a projection of your own beliefs onto really lose evidence that could really support almost any conclusion.

When I was in high school I really wanted to study anthropology, especially after reading Charles Mann's revisionist history account, 1491, of the pre-Columbian Americas, but luckily I ended up changing my mind before I wasted any credit hours studying it. It's not that the subject still fascinates me, but I don't hold any illusions about it being anymore than a pseudoscience, which also applies to the rest of the social sciences. Its not that I don't think these disciplines aren't ever useful at all, but when operating under a capitalist culture, I don't think they really go anywhere, and are often tempted into really reactionary assumptions that only function to confirm bourgeois ideology.

It has been shown they were both a peaceful culture AND a culture based on mutual aid. I'll expand on this post in detail later when I have time. They found ZERO weapons or war/defense fortifications and no evidence of violence/sacrifice. They've found evidence of trade or mutual aid between fishermen and farmers and many leisure items not just concentrated in one area which suggests the entire community enjoyed much leisure time. They did try to project their bourgeois ideas onto Caral early on but eventually proved themselves wrong which is why Caral is important. It also deconstructs the myth that it is human nature to be violent. They lived in peace for 1,000 years. It was in fact an egalitarian culture and important for various reason I'll explain when I have time. You're right to a degree though- without written record we cannot figure out what sort of governance they had. How ,exactly, decisions were made. The most important thing coming from Caral is the FACT they lived in peace for 1,000 years. That goes against EVERYTHING bourgeois intellectuals have implied concerning so called human nature. Figure out WHY they lived in peace and one can empirically show what we must do in the future to attain peaceful civilization. They lived in peace because they were in fact an egalitarian culture. Whether or not they were non hierarchical may be conjecture.

[Wolf Larson]

Marx's materialist view of history explains how material production creates various social structures/conditions. Marx thought social change and social progress, the general conditions in our society, are determined by the ways in which human beings come together in order to provide sustenance.

Bourgeois historians have always implied civilization has been based on war and conquest. That abundance was provided by one group of people taking from another. We see the manifestations of their view today in America stealing the vast majority of the worlds resources via war and within our domestic economy the capitalist stealing the wealth from the masses.

Caral is important because they did not rely on war and it looks as if they had a mutual aid society. No minority class dominating and no war/plunder to attain resources/abundance. Caral flies in the face of bourgeois historians/sociologists/anthropologists. It shows us abundance can be created without war/exploitation and it also shows us so called human nature is not one of perpetual war.

[RedStarOverChina]

Does Caral have a centralized state?

There are plenty of examples of relatively peaceful, stateless societies.

But if this is a real city with a commanding structure then it would have to be a miracle.

Bourgeois historians dont always claim civilization is based on war and conquest. They argue that states emerge as result of war and conquest.

This me, this seem like a legitimate, materialist analysis.

[Dimentio]

Does Caral have a centralized state?

There are plenty of examples of relatively peaceful, stateless societies.

But if this is a real city with a commanding structure then it would have to be a miracle.

Bourgeois historians dont always claim civilization is based on war and conquest. They argue that states emerge as result of war and conquest.

This me, this seem like a legitimate, materialist analysis.

It is actually a myth that bourgeois historians claim so. Nowadays, they claim that the states are arising through trade.

[Martin Blank]

This was one of if not the first civilization and it has been found it was not based in war and conquest like most other subsequent civilizations. I just finished a documentary but there were many bourgeois archeologists projecting their hierarchical world view. First they thought it was a civilization based on war, then on greed and conquest and finally they proved themselves wrong.

It turns out the society was based on peaceful cooperation and the people of Caral put emphasis on leisure. Does anyone have a good source for information on Caral? I specifically want to know if they had a hierarchical structure of land or governance or if it's peaceful nature was due to equality.
It has mystified archaeologists because Caral existed for about 1,000 years with no war. I think studying the findings in Caral will be key in future socialist critiques of history.

Interested? What do you think?

I think that a lot of this confirms where Marx was going with his methodology in the Ethnological/Ethnographic Notebooks. As he studied Morgan and other ethnologists' writings on pre-class societies in the Americas, he started to turn away from his past Eurocentric view of "primitive communism" to a more nuanced analysis. Unfortunately, he never finished his analysis.

Caral looks like an interesting example of indigenous communism, the "higher" phase of pre-class society, which, like the Iroquois and other indigenous societies, could have absorbed more advanced means of production into its social system without the devastating effects of a class society -- much like how Marx saw the Russian peasant communes as a pre-capitalist formation that could have been absorbed into the lower phases of the communist mode of production.

Thanks for pointing this out. Could make an interesting analytical article.

[RedStarOverChina]

It is actually a myth that bourgeois historians claim so. Nowadays, they claim that the states are arising through trade.
Could you elaborate? How is it a myth? And how does a state arise through trade?

[Wolf Larson]

Does Caral have a centralized state?

There are plenty of examples of relatively peaceful, stateless societies.

But if this is a real city with a commanding structure then it would have to be a miracle.

Bourgeois historians dont always claim civilization is based on war and conquest. They argue that states emerge as result of war and conquest.

This me, this seem like a legitimate, materialist analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qG5kfootUM&feature=related

[RedStarOverChina]

Thanks.

I'm not entirely convinced as to why a central commanding structure is needed in trade.

This clearly illustrate the failings of the "conquest theory". It can't explain the origin of all states. However, I'm in no rush to discard the theory entirely, as it still explains the origin of many states. The Zulus, for example, has been observed to form a centralized state through warfare, so the theory isn't completely useless.