Pseudoarchaeology and "Primitive" Reasoning

Kula exchange items (Malinowski)   

 Over in pseudoarchaeology land, mouthy Jimmy Corsetti over in Trump's  America has what-he-thinks-is a "@BrightInsight6":

The term “Hunter-gatherers” is inherently simple/primitive. Gobekli Tepe, which may be the worlds oldest Lunar-Solar calendar, is anything but that. It was clearly created by those with advanced knowledge and capability. Archaeologists cannot see the forest through the trees

First of all hunter-gatherer is a subsistence strategy such as cash grain farming, fruit farming, dairy cattle raising, beef cattle etc. None is inherently more of less 'primitive' than any other in terms of simplicity, backwardness, or a lack of sophistication. That is an indictment of Corsetti's own lack of knowledge in the area rather than archaeologists.

In fact applying a label "primitive" to hunter-gatherer societies overlooks the intricate knowledge, planning, and adaptability groups employing this manner of subsistence exhibit. Far from being rudimentary, hunter-gatherers rely on a deep understanding of their environment, accumulated and refined over generations, to sustain themselves. If we look at it with an informed eye, it isn’t merely survival it is a dynamic, skilled way of life that demands both intellectual and social complexity.

It requires detailed knowledge, hunter-gatherers must be able to identify edible plants, track animal migration patterns, predict seasonal changes, and understand ecological relationships to avoid overexploitation. This isn’t instinct; it is expertise, often encoded in oral traditions, stories, and practices—essentially a living database of environmental data. Anthropological studies, like those of the San people in southern Africa or the Inuit of the Arctic, reveal how such groups store and transmit detailed information about hundreds of species, weather patterns, and terrain, rivaling any modern field guide. I bet Jimmy Corsetti has only a fraction of such knowledge about the resources near his home.

Planning is equally critical to this lifestyle unless a group is not going to be highly mobile and moving from one destroyed ecosystem to the next (which would seem not to be an option at sites like Abu Hureyra and Gobekli Tepe. Sustainability isn’t accidental, it requires foresight. Hunter-gatherers often organize their movements around scattered resources, timing expeditions to coincide with peak abundance, such as fruit ripening or herd migrations. The !Kung of the Kalahari, for example, coordinate group hunts and gathering trips, balancing immediate needs with long-term resource preservation. This might involve leaving certain areas untouched for years or rotating hunting grounds, practices that reflect a strategic calculus akin to modern resource management.

Specialization and social organization further complicate the "primitive" stereotype of people like Corsetti. This also is covered in the anthropological literature - he should read some. While not as rigid as in industrial societies, roles often emerge: skilled hunters, expert gatherers, toolmakers, or healers. Among the Australian Aborigines, for instance, individuals might master specific techniques—like crafting boomerangs or reading subtle landscape cues and then sharing their expertise within the group. Expeditions to distant resources, such as ochre deposits or coastal shellfish beds, could require coordinated efforts, negotiation with neighbouring groups, and even some form of exchange networks, as seen in the exchange of goods across vast distances in prehistoric times. An analogy in recent times is the persistence of the Kula ring ceremonial exchange system of Papua New Guinea studied by the Polish ethnographer Bronisław Malinowski ("Argonauts of the Western Pacific" 1922).

I really think it is not the "archaeologists" (who HAVE read the abundant literature and are among those who are ACTIVELY creating the academic research on this) who have here got the wrong picture of hunter-gatherer subsistence. It most certainly is not the primitive stumble through nature that Corsetti seems mistakenly to have imagined it. It is instead a sophisticated, knowledge-driven system tailored to its context. The assumption of simplicity stems more from a bias inherent in our society towards technological complexity than from any lack of ingenuity on the part of the indigenous groups the pseudoscientists wish to accuse them of to bolster their own notions of superiority. The tools of past and recent hunter gatherers and marginalised indigenous communities (I bet most pseudoarchaeologists could not even name them and say how they were made and used) may differ from ours, but the mastery of their world by such groups is no less impressive.

See also: Nicoletta Maestrim 'Complex Hunter-Gatherers: Who Needs Agriculture?' Thought.co May 26, 2019.

.