What do you think?
Rate this book
Caníbales y reyes
¿Por qué tantas culturas han permitido el asesinato de las niñas recién nacidas? ¿Por qué los hombres se creen superiores a las mujeres? Marvin Harris responde a estas y muchas otras preguntas demostrando que Caníbales y reyes, esclavos y ciudadanos, madres e hijas, padres e hijos -las culturas a que todos ellos pertenecen- han de asumir en cada caso sus pautas culturales dentro de un proceso global de adaptación de las sociedades a su entorno.
355 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1977
169 people are currently reading
5314 people want to read
About the author
Marvin Harris
44 books239 followersAmerican anthropologist Marvin Harris was born in Brooklyn, New York. A prolific writer, he was highly influential in the development of cultural materialism. In his work he combined Karl Marx's emphasis on the forces of production with Malthus's insights on the impact of demographic factors on other parts of the sociocultural system. Labeling demographic and production factors as infrastructure, Harris posited these factors as key in determining a society's social structure and culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews
January 10, 2011
super fucking brilliant, amazing and fascinating in every way imaginable. our anthropologist lays down his facts steadily, and builds to these assertions- theories, i suppose- which when they come are as astounding as they are seemingly self-evident. 'man was free until the formation of the state', for example, totally blew my mind, and yet don't we all kind of suspect that, in the backs of our minds?? the chapters on aztec cannibalism and hindu vegetarianism were probably my favorites, because they really drive home the point that mankind and his cultures are driven far more by literal hunger- and usually hunger for protein- than any high-falutin' moral or spiritual imperatives. harris in fact reserves a special disdain for the idea of 'moral progress' and its many advocates, which has opportunity to rear its head frequently as he takes on his peers' morality-and-progress dominated theories of cultural evolution. amazing. the man is often accused of determinism, but i find his theories to be solidly based on facts- far less on mere speculation than one would assume- and the causal relationships between things and people (most often ecological pressures and people, to be specific). he also clearly and frequently asserts that just because things are so- sexism, for example, or capitalism- does not mean they had to be or must continue to be so, and in order to change our future we must work as a species towards a consciousness of the world as it truly is. i can get behind that one hundred percent, and feel everyone should read this book at least twice. if it doesn't change the way we live, at least it makes for some damned smart entertainment. enough to counter the detrimental effects of the popularity of 'the jersey shore'? quite possibly.
November 19, 2020
-Fenómenos como el de Harari no son nuevos.-
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. El libro Caníbales y reyes (publicación original: Cannibals and Kings. The Origins of Cultures, 1977), con el subtítulo Los orígenes de la cultura, ofrece explicaciones basadas en disponibilidad de recursos y densidad poblacional a las peculiaridades y evoluciones socioculturales a lo largo de la historia y a lo ancho del planeta.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. El libro Caníbales y reyes (publicación original: Cannibals and Kings. The Origins of Cultures, 1977), con el subtítulo Los orígenes de la cultura, ofrece explicaciones basadas en disponibilidad de recursos y densidad poblacional a las peculiaridades y evoluciones socioculturales a lo largo de la historia y a lo ancho del planeta.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
August 13, 2022
في هذا الكتاب، يقوم هاريس بإحالة تغيّر الثقافات الانسانيّة إلى أسباب تُعزى إلى ظروف بيئيّة حتّمت الانسان على التكيّف معها بطريقةٍ ما. لا يوجد شكل ثقافيّ واحد قابل للديمومة والاستمرار التاريخي إذ أنّ كل تمظهر ثقافي منوطٌ بالنهاية بمصادر الطاقة المتاحة.
يجيب الكاتب - من وجهة نظر أنثروبولوجيّة - عن أسئلة من قبيل ما علاقة الثقافة بالطبيعة\الانتاج\التغذية بمجتمعات ما قبل الدولة؟ كيف انتقل اسلافنا من مرحلة الصيد وجمع الثمار إلى مرحلة الزراعة وما الّذي أدّى إلى هذا التحول؟ يتحدّث الكاتب عن أصل الزراعة وأصل الحرب وعن علاقة القيمة الغذائية (من البروتينات تحديدًا) بالعنف وقتل الأطفال، وكيف يفسّر كلّ ما سبق أصل التفوّق الذكوري في المجتمعات البدائيّة وعقدة أوديب. يشرح هاريس هذا الانتقال من مجتمعات ما قبل الدولة إلى أصل الدولة البدائية والأمريكتين ما قبل كولومبوس.
وجدت الفصل الّذي تحدّث فيه هاريس عن مجتمع الأزتك وأكلة لحوم البشر مثيرًا للاهتمام بشكل استثنائيّ. من الأسئلة الّتي يبحثها الانثروبولوجيّ هو أصل تحريم وتحليل أنواع غذائيّة بعينها في سياقات ثقافيّة محدّدة ويعزو ذلك إلى تمظهرات بيئيّة اقتضت تحريم لحم الخنزير مثلًا، وتقديس البقرة عند الهندوس من جهة أخرى.
الفصول الثلاثة الأخيرة كانت ممّا ابتهجت بقراءته على نحوٍ خاصّ؛ ننتقل معه من أصل الزراعة المائيّة ما قبل الصناعة والتي أدت إلى نشوء سلطات بيروقراطيّة متطرفة الاستبداد ونشوء فكرة الاستعباد العملي أو ما يسميه ماركس بدكتاتوريّة البوليتاريا، ومن ثمّ نشوء الرأسماليّة وأصلها وما الحاجة التي استدعت نشوء الراسمالية وتحكم الطبقة الأرستقراطيّة الإقطاعيّة بظروف بيئيّة حتّمت ظهور أشكال سياسية جديدة.
وأخيرًا ينتقل إلى العالم الصناعي اليوم ويربطه بكلّ التجليّات الثقافيّة التي أوعزت الوصول إلى هذه المرحلة من التاريخ التطوّري للثقافة الانسانيّة. في النهاية
يرى الكاتب بأن الثورة الصناعيّة هي الاخرى محتّم عليها الزوال والتحوّل كما في السابق إلى اسلوب أكثر ابتكارًا وملائمة للانتاج في ظلّ نفاد طاقة النفط والبترول التي تستهلك وتستنفد بلا رحمة.
ينتهي كل فصل من فصول الكتاب بقائمة مصادر للمزيد من الاستطلاع عن التفاصيل التي ذكرت في الفصل وهي مفيدة وعالية الجودة!
بقدر ما أمتعني هذا الكتاب وأضاء جوانب معتمة في وعيي بقدر ما أفزعني؛ ومن يقرأ الكتاب سيفهم لماذا. لقد تغيّر شعوري نحو العالم فأرى أنّني بتُّ - بعد قراءة مارفن هاريس - أنظر لنفسي في سياق تاريخيّ طويل الأمد وهو ما لم تعوّدنا عليه كتب التاريخ التي تجتثّ حقبة واحدة بعينها وتنقلنا إليها نقلًا لحظيًّا. مع دراسة الكتاب بتمعّن وتدوين ملاحظات ستتفاجأ بفهمك لبعض الظواهر الثقافيّة الموجودة حاليًّا وستدور بذهنك أسئلة كثيرة ما يلبث الكاتب أن يفتح قفلها. هذه هي قراءتي الأولى في علم الأنثروبولوجيا وربّما يكون هذا سببًا لدهشتي بهذا الكتاب لكنّه من الكتب السلسة والواضحة التي لا تستطرد وتشطّ عن الموضوع قيد الطرح. أسعى لاقتناء كتب أخرى من إصدار المركز العربي للابحاث ودراسة السياسات لأنّ اختياراتهم من وجهة نظري فذّة وترفع لها القبّعة مرّتين.
أنصح بالكتاب حتّى لمن لم يعتد قراءة هذا النوع من الكتب، لا أتفق بالضرورة مع كل ما جاء به هاريس ولا أعتقد بأن تفسيراته هي الوحيدة الصادقة وهو يعترف بذلك بلا شكّ، لكن الكتاب لا يخلو من الفائدة والمتعة معًا!
يجيب الكاتب - من وجهة نظر أنثروبولوجيّة - عن أسئلة من قبيل ما علاقة الثقافة بالطبيعة\الانتاج\التغذية بمجتمعات ما قبل الدولة؟ كيف انتقل اسلافنا من مرحلة الصيد وجمع الثمار إلى مرحلة الزراعة وما الّذي أدّى إلى هذا التحول؟ يتحدّث الكاتب عن أصل الزراعة وأصل الحرب وعن علاقة القيمة الغذائية (من البروتينات تحديدًا) بالعنف وقتل الأطفال، وكيف يفسّر كلّ ما سبق أصل التفوّق الذكوري في المجتمعات البدائيّة وعقدة أوديب. يشرح هاريس هذا الانتقال من مجتمعات ما قبل الدولة إلى أصل الدولة البدائية والأمريكتين ما قبل كولومبوس.
وجدت الفصل الّذي تحدّث فيه هاريس عن مجتمع الأزتك وأكلة لحوم البشر مثيرًا للاهتمام بشكل استثنائيّ. من الأسئلة الّتي يبحثها الانثروبولوجيّ هو أصل تحريم وتحليل أنواع غذائيّة بعينها في سياقات ثقافيّة محدّدة ويعزو ذلك إلى تمظهرات بيئيّة اقتضت تحريم لحم الخنزير مثلًا، وتقديس البقرة عند الهندوس من جهة أخرى.
الفصول الثلاثة الأخيرة كانت ممّا ابتهجت بقراءته على نحوٍ خاصّ؛ ننتقل معه من أصل الزراعة المائيّة ما قبل الصناعة والتي أدت إلى نشوء سلطات بيروقراطيّة متطرفة الاستبداد ونشوء فكرة الاستعباد العملي أو ما يسميه ماركس بدكتاتوريّة البوليتاريا، ومن ثمّ نشوء الرأسماليّة وأصلها وما الحاجة التي استدعت نشوء الراسمالية وتحكم الطبقة الأرستقراطيّة الإقطاعيّة بظروف بيئيّة حتّمت ظهور أشكال سياسية جديدة.
وأخيرًا ينتقل إلى العالم الصناعي اليوم ويربطه بكلّ التجليّات الثقافيّة التي أوعزت الوصول إلى هذه المرحلة من التاريخ التطوّري للثقافة الانسانيّة. في النهاية
يرى الكاتب بأن الثورة الصناعيّة هي الاخرى محتّم عليها الزوال والتحوّل كما في السابق إلى اسلوب أكثر ابتكارًا وملائمة للانتاج في ظلّ نفاد طاقة النفط والبترول التي تستهلك وتستنفد بلا رحمة.
ينتهي كل فصل من فصول الكتاب بقائمة مصادر للمزيد من الاستطلاع عن التفاصيل التي ذكرت في الفصل وهي مفيدة وعالية الجودة!
بقدر ما أمتعني هذا الكتاب وأضاء جوانب معتمة في وعيي بقدر ما أفزعني؛ ومن يقرأ الكتاب سيفهم لماذا. لقد تغيّر شعوري نحو العالم فأرى أنّني بتُّ - بعد قراءة مارفن هاريس - أنظر لنفسي في سياق تاريخيّ طويل الأمد وهو ما لم تعوّدنا عليه كتب التاريخ التي تجتثّ حقبة واحدة بعينها وتنقلنا إليها نقلًا لحظيًّا. مع دراسة الكتاب بتمعّن وتدوين ملاحظات ستتفاجأ بفهمك لبعض الظواهر الثقافيّة الموجودة حاليًّا وستدور بذهنك أسئلة كثيرة ما يلبث الكاتب أن يفتح قفلها. هذه هي قراءتي الأولى في علم الأنثروبولوجيا وربّما يكون هذا سببًا لدهشتي بهذا الكتاب لكنّه من الكتب السلسة والواضحة التي لا تستطرد وتشطّ عن الموضوع قيد الطرح. أسعى لاقتناء كتب أخرى من إصدار المركز العربي للابحاث ودراسة السياسات لأنّ اختياراتهم من وجهة نظري فذّة وترفع لها القبّعة مرّتين.
أنصح بالكتاب حتّى لمن لم يعتد قراءة هذا النوع من الكتب، لا أتفق بالضرورة مع كل ما جاء به هاريس ولا أعتقد بأن تفسيراته هي الوحيدة الصادقة وهو يعترف بذلك بلا شكّ، لكن الكتاب لا يخلو من الفائدة والمتعة معًا!
December 8, 2021
Very interesting theory about how human cultures are heavily influenced and determined by ecological realities. I really enjoyed how the author methodically built up his theory, starting from the big-game/hunter-gatherer stage all the way to the age of capitalism. In line with his theory, here are three brief snippets (from more detailed chapters) on 1. How ecological realities spurred the agricultural evolution, and 2. how the agricultural revolution intensified human warfare:
1
"...what keeps hunter-collectors from switching over to agriculture is not ideas but cost/benefits. The idea of agriculture is useless when you can get all the meat and vegetables you want from a few hours of hunting and collecting per week."
"What I have shown so far is the emergence of village life was a response to the depletions brought about when the hunting-collecting mode of subsistence was intensified."
2
"Warfare after the development of agriculture probably became more frequent and more deadly. Certainly the scale of combat increased. Permanent houses, food-processing equipment, and crops growing in the fields sharpened the sense of territorial identity."
He attacks many commonly held views about human nature by mapping how they were adopted as a cultural response or adaptation to changing environmental and productive realities. In the example below, he disagrees with the Oedipus complex as a feature of human nature (after building from evidence and theory):
"All of this leads to but one conclusion: The Oedipus complex was not the cause of war; war was the cause of the Oedipus complex (keeping in mind that war itself was not a first cause but a derivative of the attempt to control ecological and reproductive pressures)."
That said, and contrary to the feeling people get after reading his theory, he doesn't diminish the power of people to change culture. As much he believes culture to be an adaptation to ecological realities, he also believes in individuals being a determining factor. In his opinion, understanding these ecological and productive factors equip us with more power to define culture moving forward.
"Since evolutionary changes are not completely predictable, it is obvious that there is room in the world for what we call free will. Each individual decision to accept, resist, or change the current order alters the probability that a particular evolutionary outcome will occur."
All in all, it's an interesting theory that I'll be thinking on for days to come.
1
"...what keeps hunter-collectors from switching over to agriculture is not ideas but cost/benefits. The idea of agriculture is useless when you can get all the meat and vegetables you want from a few hours of hunting and collecting per week."
"What I have shown so far is the emergence of village life was a response to the depletions brought about when the hunting-collecting mode of subsistence was intensified."
2
"Warfare after the development of agriculture probably became more frequent and more deadly. Certainly the scale of combat increased. Permanent houses, food-processing equipment, and crops growing in the fields sharpened the sense of territorial identity."
He attacks many commonly held views about human nature by mapping how they were adopted as a cultural response or adaptation to changing environmental and productive realities. In the example below, he disagrees with the Oedipus complex as a feature of human nature (after building from evidence and theory):
"All of this leads to but one conclusion: The Oedipus complex was not the cause of war; war was the cause of the Oedipus complex (keeping in mind that war itself was not a first cause but a derivative of the attempt to control ecological and reproductive pressures)."
That said, and contrary to the feeling people get after reading his theory, he doesn't diminish the power of people to change culture. As much he believes culture to be an adaptation to ecological realities, he also believes in individuals being a determining factor. In his opinion, understanding these ecological and productive factors equip us with more power to define culture moving forward.
"Since evolutionary changes are not completely predictable, it is obvious that there is room in the world for what we call free will. Each individual decision to accept, resist, or change the current order alters the probability that a particular evolutionary outcome will occur."
All in all, it's an interesting theory that I'll be thinking on for days to come.
August 4, 2018
Marvin Harris was my thesis adviser, back in the day.
This book is a presentation of some of his work, as on “sacred cows” and food taboos, and a presentation of his views on how to understand human history.
It was an easy read, because I still love this stuff. A few highlights and comments:
Harris’s view, which he calls “cultural materialism” is that how people meet their material needs constrains their social institutions and ideologies. Thus, for instance, the need for massive water management works in great river valleys gives rise to centralized bureaucratic despotisms.
Harris next regards demography as a kind of destiny. New production methods lead to population growth, reduced efficiency, pauperization, and crisis. This can lead to repeated cycles, as in the succession of Chinese dynasties, or to the emergence of new régimes of production, politics and thought.
There is no way Harris can have been right about all of this—he predicted peak oil, for instance, in 1995. Where the book is rich, is that he lays his hypotheses on the line. Go ahead and disprove them or come up with alternatives.
I will offer two critical comments. First, Harris’s approach is entirely cultural, except for his acknowledgement of the growth of lactose tolerance in certain dairying regions. By now we know that genetic change has been quite rapid in the last 10,000 years and is quite widespread. Any study of human history must take these factors, about which we are just beginning to learn, into account, to an unknown degree.
Second, Harris is an heir of the Enlightenment, and struggles with the desire to subject the world, and history, to the human will, to “immanentize the eschaton.” This urge contradicts his view that the general pattern of history is constrained. His making the unconscious conscious, he hopes In his final word, might enable us to take control of our history. This proposition, I doubt. Very problematic—I’ll leave it at that.
This book is a presentation of some of his work, as on “sacred cows” and food taboos, and a presentation of his views on how to understand human history.
It was an easy read, because I still love this stuff. A few highlights and comments:
Harris’s view, which he calls “cultural materialism” is that how people meet their material needs constrains their social institutions and ideologies. Thus, for instance, the need for massive water management works in great river valleys gives rise to centralized bureaucratic despotisms.
Harris next regards demography as a kind of destiny. New production methods lead to population growth, reduced efficiency, pauperization, and crisis. This can lead to repeated cycles, as in the succession of Chinese dynasties, or to the emergence of new régimes of production, politics and thought.
There is no way Harris can have been right about all of this—he predicted peak oil, for instance, in 1995. Where the book is rich, is that he lays his hypotheses on the line. Go ahead and disprove them or come up with alternatives.
I will offer two critical comments. First, Harris’s approach is entirely cultural, except for his acknowledgement of the growth of lactose tolerance in certain dairying regions. By now we know that genetic change has been quite rapid in the last 10,000 years and is quite widespread. Any study of human history must take these factors, about which we are just beginning to learn, into account, to an unknown degree.
Second, Harris is an heir of the Enlightenment, and struggles with the desire to subject the world, and history, to the human will, to “immanentize the eschaton.” This urge contradicts his view that the general pattern of history is constrained. His making the unconscious conscious, he hopes In his final word, might enable us to take control of our history. This proposition, I doubt. Very problematic—I’ll leave it at that.
May 31, 2024
أفضل ما قرأت في الأنثروبولوجيا.
September 5, 2021
Sfolgorante saggio di rara qualita'. A praticamente quarant'anni dalla sua pubblicazione conserva una freschezza e una carica innovativa che si fanno beffe delle inevitabili (e doverose) riformulazioni e critiche. Il punto fondamentale dell'analisi dell'evoluzione biologico-culturale e' quello materialistico. Non strettamente deterministico (Harris lo spiega bene) come vorrebbero tendenziosamente far credere i critici fautori dell'unicita' qualitativa del cervello umano. L'attenzione posta invece sul trinomio pressione demografica-intensificazione della produzione-esaurimento delle risorse, si rivela un'ottima sonda di analisi. Il corollario di religione, morale, psicologia, consuetudine, libero arbitrio, contribuisce si a vivificare e completare il quadro, ma non fa premio a mio parere su quello che rimane il vero architrave dello sviluppo. Siamo arrivati a un punto in cui si comincia sempre piu' spesso a parlare di decrescita virtuosa, di esaurimento delle risorse, di demografia esplosiva, di fine del capitalismo, sarebbe forse il caso di cominciare, partendo da quello che e' stato, a cercare di indirizzare quello che potrebbe essere il futuro sostenibile. Non in una salsa melensa alla Walt Disney o perbenisticamente ecologista del salviamo la balena nana dell'equatore o il radicchio argentato del Kilimangiaro (posto che esistano), ma una razionale progettazione atta a evitare i disastri che in passato l'umanita', tecnologicamente meno evoluta, ha dovuto superare con metodi molto spesso estremamente crudeli. La Vita sulla terra probabilmente ci sara' ancora per milioni di anni. Bombe atomiche, inquinamento, clima mutato, nulla potranno contro di essa. Diverso discorso per l'Uomo. Ha tutto da perdere.
April 1, 2025
في السنة الماضية، قرأت لمارفن هاريس كتاب "مقدسات ومحرمات وحروب". لم يعجبني كثيرا، وشعرت بالكثير من الملل أثناء قراءته. بينما في هذا الكتاب، تألق مارفن هاريس بشكل تجاوز توقعاتي بكثير. أحببت الكتاب كثيرا، وأضاف إليّ الكثير، وأثارتني من أطروحاته الكثير وأشعلت فيّ دافع البحث والتعمق أكثر، رغم أنه مضى على إصدار النسخة الأولى من الكتاب ما يعادل خمسين عاما! يا للروعة!
حتما سيكون هذا الكتاب من بين قائمة كتبي المفضلة لهذا العام.
حتما سيكون هذا الكتاب من بين قائمة كتبي المفضلة لهذا العام.
November 22, 2017
Leído hace mil años pero me cambió la idea de la cultura humana. O por lo menos, de sus causas.
January 2, 2025
An utterly fascinating and fundamental work of anthropology on the origins of culture and the flow of life. Granted, a bit too much theory and a bit dated, as this is a work from 1977. Therefore, some parts have surely been more extensively covered since then. Yet this has clearly been influential and left its marks on the field.
This is a fast (292 pages, the rest is bibliography) and easily digestible read with chapters being short and limited in terms of tangiality, and furthermore not too academic in its embrace of quotations and footnotes. (it's all there at the end) Yet it was presented in a thoughtful and structured way. It clearly shows that Harris was an expert in the field, the way he summarised literature and compares, sometimes refutes other theories, is seemingly done with ease yet inserted with care. Overall, this makes for a good introduction to the field and more popular readings such as Guns, Germs and Steel.
Some memorable quotes:
“My purpose in this book is to replace the old onwards-and-upwards Victorian view of progress with a more realistic account of cultural evolution” (Harris, p. x).
“The question uppermost in my mind is not whether the gains of the last 150 years are real, but whether they are permanent” (Harris, p. xi).
“Cultures on the whole have evolved along parallel and convergent paths which are highly predictable from a knowledge of the processes of production, reproduction, intensification and depletion” (Harris, p. xiv).
“The world is full of moralists insisting that they have freely willed what they were unwittingly forced to want, while by not understanding the odds against free choice, millions who would be free have delivered themselves into new forms of bondage. To change social life for the better, one must begin with the knowledge of why it usually changes for the worse. That is why I consider ignorance of the causal factors in cultural evolution and disregard of the odds against a desired outcome to be forms of moral duplicity” (Harris, p. xiv).
“Even if there was 50 percent infant mortality due to “natural” causes, another 23 to 35 percent of all potential offspring would have to be “removed” to achieve zero growth population” (Harris, p. 21).
“The best method of population control available to Stone Age hunter-collectors was to prolong the span of years during which a mother nursed her infant” (Harris, p. 23).
“Raids, routs, and the destruction of settlements tend to increase the average distance between settlements and thereby lower the overall regional density of population. One of the most important benefits of this dispersion - a benefit shared by both victor and vanquished - is the creation of “no man’s land” (Harris, p. 56).
“I propose that without reproductive pressure neither warfare nor female infanticide would have become widespread and that the conjunction of the two represents a savage but uniquely effective solution to the Malthusian dilemma” (Harris, p. 60).
“The Oedipus complex was not the cause of war; war was the cause of the Oedipus complex (keeping in mind that war itself was not a first cause but a derivative of the attempt to control ecological and reproductive pressures)” (Harris, p. 96).
“Once the prisoner has been brought back to the village, the treatment he can expect is determined largely by the capacity of his hosts to absorb and regulate servile labor, the decisive difference being that between pre- and post-state political systems. When prisoners are few and far between, their temporary treatment as honoured guests is not surprising. Whatever deep psychological ambivalences may exist in the minds of the captors, the prisoner is a valuable possession - one for whom his hosts have literally risked their lives. Yet there is usually no way to absorb him into the group; since he can’t be sent back to the enemy, he must be killed. And torture has its own gruesome economy. If to be tortured is, as we say, to die a thousand deaths, then to torture one poor captive is to kill a thousand enemies. Torture is also a spectacle - an entertainment - which has been time-tested for audience approval down through the ages” (Harris, p. 156).
"The trouble with dogs as a source of meat is not that they are contemptible but that they thrive best when they themselves are fed on meat" (Harris, p. 181).
"The great advantage of the Old World domesticated species is that they are herbivores and ruminants and thrive best when they feed on grass, stubble, leaves , and other plant foods which human beings cannot digest. Because of the Pleistocene extinctions, the Aztecs lacked such species. And it was this lack, together with the extra costs involved in using carnivores and birds as a source of animal protein, that tipped the balance in favour of cannibalism. Of course, the meat obtained from prisoners of war is also costly - it is very expensive to capture armed men. But if a society lacks other sources of animal protein, the benefits of cannibalism may outweigh these costs" (Harris, p. 182).
"Cultures tend to impose supernatural sanctions on the consumption of animal flesh when the ratio of communal benefits to costs associated with the use of a particular species deteriorates." (Harris, p. 196).
"Pig raising incurred costs that posed a threat to the entire substance system in the hot, semiarid lands of the ancient Middle East. And this threat increased sharply as a result of intensification, depletion and population growth" (Harris, p. 197).
"There is nothing about the list of species interdicted in Leviticus that runs counter to the ecological explanation of the pig taboo" (Harris, p. 203).
"The late Vedic-early Hindu Ganges Valley kingdoms had a priestly Caste analogous to the Levites among the ancient Israelites and the Druids among the Celts" (Harris, p. 213).
"I do not believe that we are endangered by despotic traditions that have acquired a life of their own and that are transferred from one mode of production to another or from one ecosystem to another" (Harris, p. 246).
"After a society has made its commitment to a particular technological and ecological strategy for solving the problem of declining efficiency, it may not be possible to do anything about the consequences of an unintelligent choice for a long time to come" (Harris, p. 247).
“I hold it perniciously false to teach that all cultural forms are equally probable and that by mere force of will an inspired individual can at any moment alter the trajectory of an entire cultural system in a direction convenient to any philosophy. Convergent and parallel trajectories far outnumber divergent trajectories in cultural evolution. Most people are conformists. History repeats itself in countless acts of individual obedience to cultural rule and pattern, and individual wills seldom prevail in matters requiring radical alterations of deeply conditioned beliefs and practices. At the same time, nothing I have written in this book supports the view that the individual is helpless before the implacable march of history or that resignation and despair are appropriate responses to the concentration of industrial managerial power. The determinism that has governed cultural evolution has never been the equivalent of the determinism that governs a closed physical system. Rather, it resembles the causal sequences that account for the evolution of plant and animal species.” (Harris, p. 290)
“While the course of cultural evolution is never free of systemic influence, some moments are probably more “open” than others. The most open moments, it appears to me, are those at which a mode of production reaches its limits of growth and a new mode of production must soon be adopted.” (Harris, p. 291)
This is a fast (292 pages, the rest is bibliography) and easily digestible read with chapters being short and limited in terms of tangiality, and furthermore not too academic in its embrace of quotations and footnotes. (it's all there at the end) Yet it was presented in a thoughtful and structured way. It clearly shows that Harris was an expert in the field, the way he summarised literature and compares, sometimes refutes other theories, is seemingly done with ease yet inserted with care. Overall, this makes for a good introduction to the field and more popular readings such as Guns, Germs and Steel.
Some memorable quotes:
“My purpose in this book is to replace the old onwards-and-upwards Victorian view of progress with a more realistic account of cultural evolution” (Harris, p. x).
“The question uppermost in my mind is not whether the gains of the last 150 years are real, but whether they are permanent” (Harris, p. xi).
“Cultures on the whole have evolved along parallel and convergent paths which are highly predictable from a knowledge of the processes of production, reproduction, intensification and depletion” (Harris, p. xiv).
“The world is full of moralists insisting that they have freely willed what they were unwittingly forced to want, while by not understanding the odds against free choice, millions who would be free have delivered themselves into new forms of bondage. To change social life for the better, one must begin with the knowledge of why it usually changes for the worse. That is why I consider ignorance of the causal factors in cultural evolution and disregard of the odds against a desired outcome to be forms of moral duplicity” (Harris, p. xiv).
“Even if there was 50 percent infant mortality due to “natural” causes, another 23 to 35 percent of all potential offspring would have to be “removed” to achieve zero growth population” (Harris, p. 21).
“The best method of population control available to Stone Age hunter-collectors was to prolong the span of years during which a mother nursed her infant” (Harris, p. 23).
“Raids, routs, and the destruction of settlements tend to increase the average distance between settlements and thereby lower the overall regional density of population. One of the most important benefits of this dispersion - a benefit shared by both victor and vanquished - is the creation of “no man’s land” (Harris, p. 56).
“I propose that without reproductive pressure neither warfare nor female infanticide would have become widespread and that the conjunction of the two represents a savage but uniquely effective solution to the Malthusian dilemma” (Harris, p. 60).
“The Oedipus complex was not the cause of war; war was the cause of the Oedipus complex (keeping in mind that war itself was not a first cause but a derivative of the attempt to control ecological and reproductive pressures)” (Harris, p. 96).
“Once the prisoner has been brought back to the village, the treatment he can expect is determined largely by the capacity of his hosts to absorb and regulate servile labor, the decisive difference being that between pre- and post-state political systems. When prisoners are few and far between, their temporary treatment as honoured guests is not surprising. Whatever deep psychological ambivalences may exist in the minds of the captors, the prisoner is a valuable possession - one for whom his hosts have literally risked their lives. Yet there is usually no way to absorb him into the group; since he can’t be sent back to the enemy, he must be killed. And torture has its own gruesome economy. If to be tortured is, as we say, to die a thousand deaths, then to torture one poor captive is to kill a thousand enemies. Torture is also a spectacle - an entertainment - which has been time-tested for audience approval down through the ages” (Harris, p. 156).
"The trouble with dogs as a source of meat is not that they are contemptible but that they thrive best when they themselves are fed on meat" (Harris, p. 181).
"The great advantage of the Old World domesticated species is that they are herbivores and ruminants and thrive best when they feed on grass, stubble, leaves , and other plant foods which human beings cannot digest. Because of the Pleistocene extinctions, the Aztecs lacked such species. And it was this lack, together with the extra costs involved in using carnivores and birds as a source of animal protein, that tipped the balance in favour of cannibalism. Of course, the meat obtained from prisoners of war is also costly - it is very expensive to capture armed men. But if a society lacks other sources of animal protein, the benefits of cannibalism may outweigh these costs" (Harris, p. 182).
"Cultures tend to impose supernatural sanctions on the consumption of animal flesh when the ratio of communal benefits to costs associated with the use of a particular species deteriorates." (Harris, p. 196).
"Pig raising incurred costs that posed a threat to the entire substance system in the hot, semiarid lands of the ancient Middle East. And this threat increased sharply as a result of intensification, depletion and population growth" (Harris, p. 197).
"There is nothing about the list of species interdicted in Leviticus that runs counter to the ecological explanation of the pig taboo" (Harris, p. 203).
"The late Vedic-early Hindu Ganges Valley kingdoms had a priestly Caste analogous to the Levites among the ancient Israelites and the Druids among the Celts" (Harris, p. 213).
"I do not believe that we are endangered by despotic traditions that have acquired a life of their own and that are transferred from one mode of production to another or from one ecosystem to another" (Harris, p. 246).
"After a society has made its commitment to a particular technological and ecological strategy for solving the problem of declining efficiency, it may not be possible to do anything about the consequences of an unintelligent choice for a long time to come" (Harris, p. 247).
“I hold it perniciously false to teach that all cultural forms are equally probable and that by mere force of will an inspired individual can at any moment alter the trajectory of an entire cultural system in a direction convenient to any philosophy. Convergent and parallel trajectories far outnumber divergent trajectories in cultural evolution. Most people are conformists. History repeats itself in countless acts of individual obedience to cultural rule and pattern, and individual wills seldom prevail in matters requiring radical alterations of deeply conditioned beliefs and practices. At the same time, nothing I have written in this book supports the view that the individual is helpless before the implacable march of history or that resignation and despair are appropriate responses to the concentration of industrial managerial power. The determinism that has governed cultural evolution has never been the equivalent of the determinism that governs a closed physical system. Rather, it resembles the causal sequences that account for the evolution of plant and animal species.” (Harris, p. 290)
“While the course of cultural evolution is never free of systemic influence, some moments are probably more “open” than others. The most open moments, it appears to me, are those at which a mode of production reaches its limits of growth and a new mode of production must soon be adopted.” (Harris, p. 291)
April 30, 2012
"Cannibals and Kings" is a sort of strange book. It tackles a variety of seemingly unrelated topics of popular interest in a sort of seamless flow, all through the lenses of environmentally-centered determinist forces. Harris has an authoritative authorial voice - there is always "no doubt" that the explanation he gives is The Explanation to this human mystery.
Harris is an environmental determinist, which I like, and his arguments often presage those of the later, more famous determinist Jared Diamond - for instance, regarding the lack of good domesticable animals in Mesoamerica and the role of environmental degradation in the Mayan collapse. He uses this nimble set of instruments to explain phenomena as varied as warfare, patriarchy, civilization, capitalism, the sacrality of cows in India, cannibalism in the Aztec empire, and vegetarianism.
In all cases, the evolutionary-environmental model claims that cultural choices can't "maintain [themselves] successfully for any material period of time counter to fundamental economic resistance." They seek adaptive explanations for everything. Harris applies this model adroitly and provides intuitive, satisfying explanations for all the phenomena examined. That said, however, it's been 35 years since this book was published, so I'm sure much of it has been proven overly facile or wholly false in the interim.
I read this as part of my Anthropology tutorial with Prof. Peregrine regarding the anthropological claims of Derrick Jensen. To that end, Harris' claim that "The majority of hunter-collectors known to modern observers carry out some sort of inter-group combat in which teams of warriors deliberately try to kill each other," swiftly refutes Jensen's claim that "even for many of the warlike indigenous peoples--that is, those who are ahistorical, uncivilized--to kill noncombatants was unthinkable, and even killing combatants was a rarity, an event." Jensen may be correct that some indigenous groups dealt with war in the way he claims, but portraying the whole thing as a matter of civilized v. indigenous conceals the diverse manifestations of war in indigenous peoples and the other factors that might be responsible for that diversity (e.g., certain manifestations of population pressure).
Harris explains war as a result of population pressure through a creative mechanism: he believes wars control population by encouraging families to keep male children (to raise as warriors) but to kill female babies. This creates a culture that values men over women, resulting in all sorts of patriarchal nastiness. However, he also advances the idea that war cultures favor male combatants over females (rather than simply choosing the strongest, bravest individuals regardless of sex) is because they need war to justify female infanticide. This seems like an untenably circular argument to me, but perhaps I don't understand it fully.
Harris is an environmental determinist, which I like, and his arguments often presage those of the later, more famous determinist Jared Diamond - for instance, regarding the lack of good domesticable animals in Mesoamerica and the role of environmental degradation in the Mayan collapse. He uses this nimble set of instruments to explain phenomena as varied as warfare, patriarchy, civilization, capitalism, the sacrality of cows in India, cannibalism in the Aztec empire, and vegetarianism.
In all cases, the evolutionary-environmental model claims that cultural choices can't "maintain [themselves] successfully for any material period of time counter to fundamental economic resistance." They seek adaptive explanations for everything. Harris applies this model adroitly and provides intuitive, satisfying explanations for all the phenomena examined. That said, however, it's been 35 years since this book was published, so I'm sure much of it has been proven overly facile or wholly false in the interim.
I read this as part of my Anthropology tutorial with Prof. Peregrine regarding the anthropological claims of Derrick Jensen. To that end, Harris' claim that "The majority of hunter-collectors known to modern observers carry out some sort of inter-group combat in which teams of warriors deliberately try to kill each other," swiftly refutes Jensen's claim that "even for many of the warlike indigenous peoples--that is, those who are ahistorical, uncivilized--to kill noncombatants was unthinkable, and even killing combatants was a rarity, an event." Jensen may be correct that some indigenous groups dealt with war in the way he claims, but portraying the whole thing as a matter of civilized v. indigenous conceals the diverse manifestations of war in indigenous peoples and the other factors that might be responsible for that diversity (e.g., certain manifestations of population pressure).
Harris explains war as a result of population pressure through a creative mechanism: he believes wars control population by encouraging families to keep male children (to raise as warriors) but to kill female babies. This creates a culture that values men over women, resulting in all sorts of patriarchal nastiness. However, he also advances the idea that war cultures favor male combatants over females (rather than simply choosing the strongest, bravest individuals regardless of sex) is because they need war to justify female infanticide. This seems like an untenably circular argument to me, but perhaps I don't understand it fully.
August 8, 2019
Harris is often imitated, but never equaled
Legendary anthropologist Marvin Harris is perhaps the most readable ethnological writer of all. I read his celebrated Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches years ago with delight. This volume, written in the mid seventies, is also delightful. It's a little dated in spots, of course, and Harris's opinions are sometimes just opinions; and in some cases he is clearly out of sync with the most recent discoveries, but all is forgiven because he is just so interesting to read.
Mainly Harris is marvelously satirical. The narrative sparkles with put downs of religiosity or any sort of sanctimonious BS. Harris pronounces from on high, however. He seems to believe that his speculations about how or why something happened are almost certainly going to be supported by the evidence (when the field work catches up with his theories!) He was the author that showed me that the prohibition against eating pork in the Middle East and beef in India was based not so much on religious scruples but on economic self-interest dressed up as prohibitions from the gods. In this book Harris leads me to believe that all human taboos even those against murder may be culturally derived, rather than instinctively based. The horror stories that he focuses on here, especially about the Aztec cannibals, seem to prove that if we want protein enough and can't get it, we will as a people set up a religion that makes it sacred to kill whatever is available, including prisoners of war, as the Aztecs did, to get that protein; after which, we will rationalize our actions as injunctions from the gods.
By the way, cows are sacred in India because if you kill your cow and eat it during the drought, you will have no cow to plow the land when the rains return and you will never be able to plow the land again. The cow (and ox of course) are doubly valuable because they eat grasses and weeds and other vegetable matter that we cannot digest. Consequently cattle and other ruminants increase our wealth by turning otherwise unavailable sun energy into protein and calories, or into energy to pull wagons and plows, etc. Other animals, pigs and dogs, chickens and turkeys, who eat some of the same things we do, are less valuable in this sense.
If you've never read Marvin Harris, do yourself a favor and buy this book. It's fascinating and reads as fast as a thriller.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
Legendary anthropologist Marvin Harris is perhaps the most readable ethnological writer of all. I read his celebrated Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches years ago with delight. This volume, written in the mid seventies, is also delightful. It's a little dated in spots, of course, and Harris's opinions are sometimes just opinions; and in some cases he is clearly out of sync with the most recent discoveries, but all is forgiven because he is just so interesting to read.
Mainly Harris is marvelously satirical. The narrative sparkles with put downs of religiosity or any sort of sanctimonious BS. Harris pronounces from on high, however. He seems to believe that his speculations about how or why something happened are almost certainly going to be supported by the evidence (when the field work catches up with his theories!) He was the author that showed me that the prohibition against eating pork in the Middle East and beef in India was based not so much on religious scruples but on economic self-interest dressed up as prohibitions from the gods. In this book Harris leads me to believe that all human taboos even those against murder may be culturally derived, rather than instinctively based. The horror stories that he focuses on here, especially about the Aztec cannibals, seem to prove that if we want protein enough and can't get it, we will as a people set up a religion that makes it sacred to kill whatever is available, including prisoners of war, as the Aztecs did, to get that protein; after which, we will rationalize our actions as injunctions from the gods.
By the way, cows are sacred in India because if you kill your cow and eat it during the drought, you will have no cow to plow the land when the rains return and you will never be able to plow the land again. The cow (and ox of course) are doubly valuable because they eat grasses and weeds and other vegetable matter that we cannot digest. Consequently cattle and other ruminants increase our wealth by turning otherwise unavailable sun energy into protein and calories, or into energy to pull wagons and plows, etc. Other animals, pigs and dogs, chickens and turkeys, who eat some of the same things we do, are less valuable in this sense.
If you've never read Marvin Harris, do yourself a favor and buy this book. It's fascinating and reads as fast as a thriller.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
May 28, 2015
Cannibals and Kings is an excellent anthropology primer. The jacket notes describe it as a "brilliant and profound study... of how the endless varieties of cultural behavior can be explained as adaptations to particular ecological conditions."
In his introduction to the book author Marvin Harris posits that "reproductive pressure, [resource] intensification, and environmental depletion appear to provide the key for understanding the evolution of family organization, property relations, political economy, and religious beliefs." According to this general theory the easiest way to accommodate the balance of resources and standard of living is to keep population under control however thinning the human crop is an uneasy task that generally incurs trauma for individuals or societies, hence intensification, depletion and lowered standards of living. Intensification, it seems, invariably leads to failed technologies.
For those of us who are not going to steep ourselves in an anthroplogical syllabus this book provides a concise and comprehensible summary of cultures and the forces that determine their organization.
In his introduction to the book author Marvin Harris posits that "reproductive pressure, [resource] intensification, and environmental depletion appear to provide the key for understanding the evolution of family organization, property relations, political economy, and religious beliefs." According to this general theory the easiest way to accommodate the balance of resources and standard of living is to keep population under control however thinning the human crop is an uneasy task that generally incurs trauma for individuals or societies, hence intensification, depletion and lowered standards of living. Intensification, it seems, invariably leads to failed technologies.
For those of us who are not going to steep ourselves in an anthroplogical syllabus this book provides a concise and comprehensible summary of cultures and the forces that determine their organization.
January 31, 2018
Libro Datato, superato, vituperato e quanto vorreste, ma dritto e schietto nella sua impostazione marxiana fine anni '70.
Checchè ne dica la costituzione americana l'uomo, evolvendosi dal Cacciatore-raccoglitore delle caverne è destinato ad essere sempre più infelice , ed a sudare sempre più per essere più infelice....
Ogni "Progresso" si è trasformato in realtà in un decadimento della qualità della vita... si lavora 11 mesi per 2 settima di ferie, mentre l'uomo del neolitico "faticava" si fa per dire, 3 ore al giorno per il cibo (peraltro di maggiore qualità !)
Una Toppa - Individua bene nella evoluzione tecnologica il "miglioramento" della vita della "classe media occidentale" , ma ne vede la fine toppando completamente la incipiente ricoluzione tecnologia (computer/Internet)
Non so Perchè ma la lettura mi ha rimandato alle Considerazioni sulla vita "media" che fa Bianciardi ne la Vita Agra
Checchè ne dica la costituzione americana l'uomo, evolvendosi dal Cacciatore-raccoglitore delle caverne è destinato ad essere sempre più infelice , ed a sudare sempre più per essere più infelice....
Ogni "Progresso" si è trasformato in realtà in un decadimento della qualità della vita... si lavora 11 mesi per 2 settima di ferie, mentre l'uomo del neolitico "faticava" si fa per dire, 3 ore al giorno per il cibo (peraltro di maggiore qualità !)
Una Toppa - Individua bene nella evoluzione tecnologica il "miglioramento" della vita della "classe media occidentale" , ma ne vede la fine toppando completamente la incipiente ricoluzione tecnologia (computer/Internet)
Non so Perchè ma la lettura mi ha rimandato alle Considerazioni sulla vita "media" che fa Bianciardi ne la Vita Agra
August 6, 2019
Un libro davvero interessante!
...Perchè gli indiani venerano le vacche mentre le popolazioni mediorientali considerano impuri i maiali? Perchè gli aztechi facevano sacrifici umani? E come è stato gestito il controllo delle nascite dal neolitico fino alla rivoluzione industriale?
Questi sono alcuni degli argomenti affrontati da Marvin Harris, il quale analizza le ragioni sociali, economiche e antropologiche che hanno portato le popolazioni di svariate parti del mondo a sviluppare determinate usanze.
Il libro mi è stato consigliato da una cara amica, e le sono veramente grata perchè, oltre ad essere molto interessante, questo libro mostra bene come, di fronte ad usanze lontanissime dalle nostre, dovremmo cercare di capire le culture altrui e le loro origini, anzichè bollarle semplicemente come strane o sbagliate.
...Perchè gli indiani venerano le vacche mentre le popolazioni mediorientali considerano impuri i maiali? Perchè gli aztechi facevano sacrifici umani? E come è stato gestito il controllo delle nascite dal neolitico fino alla rivoluzione industriale?
Questi sono alcuni degli argomenti affrontati da Marvin Harris, il quale analizza le ragioni sociali, economiche e antropologiche che hanno portato le popolazioni di svariate parti del mondo a sviluppare determinate usanze.
Il libro mi è stato consigliato da una cara amica, e le sono veramente grata perchè, oltre ad essere molto interessante, questo libro mostra bene come, di fronte ad usanze lontanissime dalle nostre, dovremmo cercare di capire le culture altrui e le loro origini, anzichè bollarle semplicemente come strane o sbagliate.
August 25, 2022
'Caníbales y reyes' es una aproximación rigurosa, bien documentada y sin escesos de academicismos del antrólogo norteamericano Marvin Harris. Me han gustado mucho los primeros capítulos, su tono y lo agradable de la explicación; podías imaginarte en clase, escuchado al profesor Harris impartiendo la lección.
Sin embargo, los últimos capítulos –sobre todo cuando expone el capitalismo– se nota que el autor no controla tanto del tema, crítica de forma bastante gratuita (en mi opinión) al pensamiento marxista y de forma velada, se defienden las bondades del capitalismo, no si exigir una crítica sobre el modo de producción o el exceso de dependencia del petróleo.
Sin embargo, los últimos capítulos –sobre todo cuando expone el capitalismo– se nota que el autor no controla tanto del tema, crítica de forma bastante gratuita (en mi opinión) al pensamiento marxista y de forma velada, se defienden las bondades del capitalismo, no si exigir una crítica sobre el modo de producción o el exceso de dependencia del petróleo.
August 10, 2012
I read cows, pigs, wars and witches first. I only read this because I respect Marvin Harris so much. Turns out that I got a lot more out of this book. It totally changed the way that I look at civilization.
January 22, 2022
Es muy interesante descubrir las raíces de la sociedad actual y hay mucha información que ni siquiera imaginamos. Pero no es una lectura fácil, es decir, me suena muy técnica. Aún que sea facilmente comprensible, hay que dispender de algún tiempo para leerlo con la atención necesaria.
January 27, 2015
Según entiendo, Marvin le hubiera contestado a Lucas:
(haciendo decir a Marvin un poco más de lo que en realidad dijo)
¿Por qué trabajamos mucho?
Por un lado está la cuestión de la distribución, si se distribuyera un poco mejor lo que se produce no sería necesario producir tanto, ni por lo tanto trabajar tanto. Pero también está la cuestión de mantener el nivel poblacional, frente al crecimiento demográfico que surge por si solo por las capacidades naturales, no hay muchas opciones: o maximizar la producción o ir a la guerra. La mayoría de las veces en ese orden: primero aumentar lo máximo posible la producción y cuando se alcanza el límite ecológico (por agotamiento, o por desastre natural provocado), matarnos entre nosotros para ser menos y que alcance para todos.
Marvin diría: por culpa del estado, que no es otra cosa que una organización de control de los excesos de producción agrícolas (administradores de alimentos) y organización de la guerra externa.
Pero siguiendo a Don Fariña, es posible cuestionarnos si realmente “trabajamos mucho”, lo que parece no haber advertido Don Harris. La aparición de nuevas tecnología podría ser no solo, el error Malthusiano y el fin del trabajo sino también el fin del estado. En tal caso habría que reformular la pregunta por algo más del tipo ¿Por qué en un momento hubo que aumentar drásticamente la cantidad de trabajo? Respuesta: Por crecimiento poblacional (presión ecológica).
¿Por qué comemos harina?
Bueno, esta pregunta tiene que ver con la anterior en cierto sentido. Comer basura es la respuesta a la falta de alimentos para todos (presiones reproductoras). Es como una encrucijada, o se seguía manteniendo un número reducido de población, o se empezaba a comer harina, se desarrollaba el estado, etc. Los grupos que eligieron el primer camino fueron siendo (siguen siendo) destruidos por los que eligieron el segundo.
En la religión de Marvin (me gusta imaginarme) el consumo de carne es un pecado, porque solo es posible comer carne cuando hay carne suficiente para todos. Cuando se terminó la carne para todos, el judaísmo se convirtió en cristianismo y surgieron el budismo y el islamismo (las religiones sin comida, al menos sin valor proteínico). Comemos harina porque no hay carne para todos. No hay carne para todos porque se extinguió la megafauna. Se extinguió la megafauna por una cuestión climática (aparentemente) aunque tal vez también por crecimiento demográfico y presión ecológica...
Es siempre una disputa entre costos y beneficios de los distintos tipos de alimentos. Conseguir proteínas a como dé lugar. Incluso la religión se adapta a este juego. Si no hay otros animales de donde sacar proteínas, nos comemos a otros humanos. Si hay un animal que ofrece proteínas, pero que provoca costos ecológicos por otro lado mayores a los beneficios, esto deviene en una prohibición religiosa de carácter moralista, y listo. Esto está relacionado con lo que pasó después con la harina: cuando se convirtió en la única (o la mejor) posibilidad, se empezó a comer eso, como se comió y se hubiera comido cualquier otra cosa.
¿Por qué tenemos sexo monógamo?
El problema está en que la probabilidad de nacer hombre, al igual que la de nacer mujer, es de aproximadamente un 50%.
La poligamia se da por ejemplo cuando al descender el número de hombres por la guerra (Yanomanos) hay más mujeres disponibles por hombre. Sin embargo, si hay guerra, hay regulación de la tasa de masculinidad por descuido de las niñas (infanticidio femenino), con lo que la poliginia se convierte en una anormalidad (si se te va la mano incluso podrías llegar a la poliandría, cosa más rara todavía).
La poliginia tiene mucha mayor capacidad reproductora, pero también hay que prestar atención a la cuestión de la crianza de los recién nacidos. No tendría sentido desperdiciar las energías de nueve meses de embarazo para después no poder criar al hijo, un hombre y una mujer tiene mayor probabilidad de lograr un adulto que una mujer sola.
La patrilinealidad es hija de la monogamia y la fidelidad. En un matrimonio poliginico es fácil saber quién es la madre, pero no tanto quien es el padre. En nuestra sociedad actual hay un retorno al matrilinaje porque con relaciones monogámicas sucesivas y aumento de poder por parte de la madre, el hombre pierde control sobre sus hijos.
En la religión de Marvin no hay ningún problema con abortar, genial forma de controlar el crecimiento demográfico desmedido (a un pasito de la Eugenesia).
¿Por qué usamos ropa?
Acá aventuro mi respuesta un poco más allá de lo que dice Marvin. Me imagino que está vinculado a la cuestión de la guerra y la caza, que tiene un origen como medio de protección frente a los golpes y flechazos, o como para atemorizar a los contrincantes. No mucho después, como cualquier adorno, se convierte en un diferenciador social.
Finalmente decir que me gustó mucho el libro. No estoy de acuerdo en algunas opiniones, pero valoro mucho su esfuerzo por dar una explicación más general. Me gusta eso. Creo que vale la pena hacer un esfuerzo por dar una explicación a todo el proceso histórico-cultural (no por eso mecanisista). Creo que esa mirada tiene que venir de la mano de un estudio interdisciplinario. Creo que Harris arma un modelito sencillo (bastante marxista para mi gusto) con el que da explicación a distintos eventos en la historia alrededor del globo. ¡Bravo!
“Considero que los momentos más abiertos son aquéllos en los que un modo de producción alcanza sus límites de crecimiento y pronto debe adoptarse un nuevo modo de producción. Estamos avanzando rápidamente hacia uno de esos momentos de apertura. Cuando lo hayamos atravesado, y sólo entonces, al mirar hacia atrás, sabremos por qué los seres humanos eligieron una opción y no otra. Entre tanto, la gente que tiene un profundo compromiso personal con una determinada visión del futuro está plenamente justificada en la lucha por sus objetivos, aunque hoy los resultados parezcan remotos e improbables. En la vida, como en cualquier partida cuyo resultado depende tanto de la suerte como de la habilidad, la respuesta racional en caso de desventaja consiste en luchar con más vehemencia.” P.247
(haciendo decir a Marvin un poco más de lo que en realidad dijo)
¿Por qué trabajamos mucho?
Por un lado está la cuestión de la distribución, si se distribuyera un poco mejor lo que se produce no sería necesario producir tanto, ni por lo tanto trabajar tanto. Pero también está la cuestión de mantener el nivel poblacional, frente al crecimiento demográfico que surge por si solo por las capacidades naturales, no hay muchas opciones: o maximizar la producción o ir a la guerra. La mayoría de las veces en ese orden: primero aumentar lo máximo posible la producción y cuando se alcanza el límite ecológico (por agotamiento, o por desastre natural provocado), matarnos entre nosotros para ser menos y que alcance para todos.
Marvin diría: por culpa del estado, que no es otra cosa que una organización de control de los excesos de producción agrícolas (administradores de alimentos) y organización de la guerra externa.
Pero siguiendo a Don Fariña, es posible cuestionarnos si realmente “trabajamos mucho”, lo que parece no haber advertido Don Harris. La aparición de nuevas tecnología podría ser no solo, el error Malthusiano y el fin del trabajo sino también el fin del estado. En tal caso habría que reformular la pregunta por algo más del tipo ¿Por qué en un momento hubo que aumentar drásticamente la cantidad de trabajo? Respuesta: Por crecimiento poblacional (presión ecológica).
¿Por qué comemos harina?
Bueno, esta pregunta tiene que ver con la anterior en cierto sentido. Comer basura es la respuesta a la falta de alimentos para todos (presiones reproductoras). Es como una encrucijada, o se seguía manteniendo un número reducido de población, o se empezaba a comer harina, se desarrollaba el estado, etc. Los grupos que eligieron el primer camino fueron siendo (siguen siendo) destruidos por los que eligieron el segundo.
En la religión de Marvin (me gusta imaginarme) el consumo de carne es un pecado, porque solo es posible comer carne cuando hay carne suficiente para todos. Cuando se terminó la carne para todos, el judaísmo se convirtió en cristianismo y surgieron el budismo y el islamismo (las religiones sin comida, al menos sin valor proteínico). Comemos harina porque no hay carne para todos. No hay carne para todos porque se extinguió la megafauna. Se extinguió la megafauna por una cuestión climática (aparentemente) aunque tal vez también por crecimiento demográfico y presión ecológica...
Es siempre una disputa entre costos y beneficios de los distintos tipos de alimentos. Conseguir proteínas a como dé lugar. Incluso la religión se adapta a este juego. Si no hay otros animales de donde sacar proteínas, nos comemos a otros humanos. Si hay un animal que ofrece proteínas, pero que provoca costos ecológicos por otro lado mayores a los beneficios, esto deviene en una prohibición religiosa de carácter moralista, y listo. Esto está relacionado con lo que pasó después con la harina: cuando se convirtió en la única (o la mejor) posibilidad, se empezó a comer eso, como se comió y se hubiera comido cualquier otra cosa.
¿Por qué tenemos sexo monógamo?
El problema está en que la probabilidad de nacer hombre, al igual que la de nacer mujer, es de aproximadamente un 50%.
La poligamia se da por ejemplo cuando al descender el número de hombres por la guerra (Yanomanos) hay más mujeres disponibles por hombre. Sin embargo, si hay guerra, hay regulación de la tasa de masculinidad por descuido de las niñas (infanticidio femenino), con lo que la poliginia se convierte en una anormalidad (si se te va la mano incluso podrías llegar a la poliandría, cosa más rara todavía).
La poliginia tiene mucha mayor capacidad reproductora, pero también hay que prestar atención a la cuestión de la crianza de los recién nacidos. No tendría sentido desperdiciar las energías de nueve meses de embarazo para después no poder criar al hijo, un hombre y una mujer tiene mayor probabilidad de lograr un adulto que una mujer sola.
La patrilinealidad es hija de la monogamia y la fidelidad. En un matrimonio poliginico es fácil saber quién es la madre, pero no tanto quien es el padre. En nuestra sociedad actual hay un retorno al matrilinaje porque con relaciones monogámicas sucesivas y aumento de poder por parte de la madre, el hombre pierde control sobre sus hijos.
En la religión de Marvin no hay ningún problema con abortar, genial forma de controlar el crecimiento demográfico desmedido (a un pasito de la Eugenesia).
¿Por qué usamos ropa?
Acá aventuro mi respuesta un poco más allá de lo que dice Marvin. Me imagino que está vinculado a la cuestión de la guerra y la caza, que tiene un origen como medio de protección frente a los golpes y flechazos, o como para atemorizar a los contrincantes. No mucho después, como cualquier adorno, se convierte en un diferenciador social.
Finalmente decir que me gustó mucho el libro. No estoy de acuerdo en algunas opiniones, pero valoro mucho su esfuerzo por dar una explicación más general. Me gusta eso. Creo que vale la pena hacer un esfuerzo por dar una explicación a todo el proceso histórico-cultural (no por eso mecanisista). Creo que esa mirada tiene que venir de la mano de un estudio interdisciplinario. Creo que Harris arma un modelito sencillo (bastante marxista para mi gusto) con el que da explicación a distintos eventos en la historia alrededor del globo. ¡Bravo!
“Considero que los momentos más abiertos son aquéllos en los que un modo de producción alcanza sus límites de crecimiento y pronto debe adoptarse un nuevo modo de producción. Estamos avanzando rápidamente hacia uno de esos momentos de apertura. Cuando lo hayamos atravesado, y sólo entonces, al mirar hacia atrás, sabremos por qué los seres humanos eligieron una opción y no otra. Entre tanto, la gente que tiene un profundo compromiso personal con una determinada visión del futuro está plenamente justificada en la lucha por sus objetivos, aunque hoy los resultados parezcan remotos e improbables. En la vida, como en cualquier partida cuyo resultado depende tanto de la suerte como de la habilidad, la respuesta racional en caso de desventaja consiste en luchar con más vehemencia.” P.247
November 28, 2022
This book got me in the first half and didn't let me go, not even during the capitalist arc (which I bet raised the worst peckish criticism! but to those I say... we live in a society). I didn't expect this could get better after the raise of cannibal empires (I mean who doesn't see morbidness as a final end), but I got real hooked at the christianic turn of events. Who would say I'm luckier to be here than to be there. It might have been the foreshadowing, during the lamb talking, which did the trick to these pagan eyes (which where glued to the word 'irrigation', I just KNEW it was that kind of story (and it was)). Such an introspective read.
Marvin Harris raptured my heart. Sometimes my stomach. Sometimes not really my stomach but what is taste but the remnant of the fight between our direct ecological pressures and the calibration of our group fitness? Yes, here we are not scared of going deep. Never again.
The title though, it's a bit clickbaity. They are not as many royals, and people are still left hungry at the end! boo?
Marvin Harris raptured my heart. Sometimes my stomach. Sometimes not really my stomach but what is taste but the remnant of the fight between our direct ecological pressures and the calibration of our group fitness? Yes, here we are not scared of going deep. Never again.
The title though, it's a bit clickbaity. They are not as many royals, and people are still left hungry at the end! boo?
July 9, 2021
This book provides great insight to the rise of various cultures, and taboos.
How our present belief system took it's shape, and how did we go from being happy hunter gatherer's to working in weekdays to live in weekends!
It explains various forces which eventually lead to the rise and downfall of a civilisation!
From rise of Agricultural age to the rise of capitalism and fall of feudalism, it covers it all!
I'd say it has a Sapien-esque touch to it, but far more detailed!
A good read if interested in Anthropology!
How our present belief system took it's shape, and how did we go from being happy hunter gatherer's to working in weekdays to live in weekends!
It explains various forces which eventually lead to the rise and downfall of a civilisation!
From rise of Agricultural age to the rise of capitalism and fall of feudalism, it covers it all!
I'd say it has a Sapien-esque touch to it, but far more detailed!
A good read if interested in Anthropology!
August 9, 2025
Muy interesante toda la perspectiva de Harris y del materialismo cultural. Creo que es especialmente adecuada para explicar las razones ecológicas detrás de ciertos ritos y comportamientos culturales. De todos modos, al tratar otras cuestiones puede resultar determinista (aunque él mismo avisa de que hay que tener en cuenta otros factores).
La verdad es que el materialismo cultural vende sólo y es siempre muy interesante para todo el mundo, aunque puede ser limitado para explicar cuestiones más complejas.
La verdad es que el materialismo cultural vende sólo y es siempre muy interesante para todo el mundo, aunque puede ser limitado para explicar cuestiones más complejas.
September 14, 2023
Pesimismo y optimismo sobre la civilización a partes iguales. Es el primer libro que leo sobre antropología así que muchas cosas me han parecido mágicas -la ignorancia?
Me he quedado con una sonrisa después de leer el epílogo, así que no puedo no darle cinco estrellas. Recomendado!
Me he quedado con una sonrisa después de leer el epílogo, así que no puedo no darle cinco estrellas. Recomendado!
April 4, 2018
Loved this one
August 22, 2021
Il problema di bilanciare i membri di una società e le risorse disponibili, dall'aborto selettivo delle femmine, al divieto di consumare carne di maiale, passando per la suprema dell'uomo sulla donna, il ruolo della guerra e il cannibalismo rituale. Un libro intelligente ed estremamente attuale che svela la strategia inconscia della nostra specie per prosperare in qualsiasi condizione. L'inespressa promessa che, anche stavolta, ce la caveremo.
July 1, 2021
A brilliant study on the theory that the massive variety of cultural behaviour seen across the globe can be attributed, in part, to adaptation towards ecological conditions.
My Favourite Chapter was "The Origin of The Sacred Cow", where the author claims that Ancient Indian Civilisation (i.e. Hindus primarily) used to gorge on Beef. With the advent of Jainism and Buddhism, and later incoming of Islam Rulers i.e. Mughals did we see rising abstinence towards cattle consumption among the Hindus.
Not just anthropology, Marvin Harris uses History, Economics, Political Science and Philosophy, of course, to support his arguments. The arguments presented are well researched with facts and figures. It is overall a very detailed study of changing cultures of Human Beings around the globe.
I especially liked the ending "Chapter" called the "Epilogue and Moral Soliloquy" where the author says and I quote, "evolutionary theory may make us aware of the “determined nature of the past,” but it does not provide the basis for the determination of the future." I really like this line.
Next in Line - The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Oh This is going to be gooood.
My Favourite Chapter was "The Origin of The Sacred Cow", where the author claims that Ancient Indian Civilisation (i.e. Hindus primarily) used to gorge on Beef. With the advent of Jainism and Buddhism, and later incoming of Islam Rulers i.e. Mughals did we see rising abstinence towards cattle consumption among the Hindus.
Not just anthropology, Marvin Harris uses History, Economics, Political Science and Philosophy, of course, to support his arguments. The arguments presented are well researched with facts and figures. It is overall a very detailed study of changing cultures of Human Beings around the globe.
I especially liked the ending "Chapter" called the "Epilogue and Moral Soliloquy" where the author says and I quote, "evolutionary theory may make us aware of the “determined nature of the past,” but it does not provide the basis for the determination of the future." I really like this line.
Next in Line - The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Oh This is going to be gooood.
November 15, 2025
incredible book. it’s a little technical if you don’t know much about anthropology, and it took me a long time. but wow, was it thought provoking!
November 26, 2021
Eleştirim kitabın kendisinden ziyâde çevirisine olacak. Askerî dememek için "askersel" kelimesine sarılmak, Türkiye'de neredeyse herkesin bildiği ve kullandığı "maddî" kelimesi yerine "özdeksel"i okuyucunun karşısına çıkarmak biraz enteresan.
March 6, 2024
Marvin Harris manages to outline both a compelling narrative and coherent argument for why cultures developed the way they did. The central premise of Cannibals and Kings is the proposal that the natural forces of population growth and reproductive pressure pushed societes to develop from simple and primitive ones into the extremely vast and complex versions we find ourselves in today. Compelling explanations for the origins of political hierarchies, warfare, patriarchy, religious practice and more are all eloquently layed out in this book. The title itself is just as gripping as the content as I found the topic of cannibalism to be specifically interesting and thought provoking.
Despite being a rather complex topic Harris does a fantastic job of making the material accessible to anyone, all well providing the perfect level of detail without getting lost in the weeds. Harris manages to evoke a lot of ponderance, despite delving far into what seems like a detached past.. I have a lot to think about now, namely the fact that many of the explanations Harris provides gives us a window into our own future as much as they do our past.
I would recommend this to anyone looking for a fun introduction to anthropology or those interested in understanding the natural forces that propelled our species to create the societies in which we currently live.
Despite being a rather complex topic Harris does a fantastic job of making the material accessible to anyone, all well providing the perfect level of detail without getting lost in the weeds. Harris manages to evoke a lot of ponderance, despite delving far into what seems like a detached past.. I have a lot to think about now, namely the fact that many of the explanations Harris provides gives us a window into our own future as much as they do our past.
I would recommend this to anyone looking for a fun introduction to anthropology or those interested in understanding the natural forces that propelled our species to create the societies in which we currently live.
April 23, 2010
I want to read anthropologists' responses to this book, or the author's notes. His conclusions are interesting and they all make at least some sense to me but causation is a problem; sometimes, he doesn't explain why the circumstances he describes in each of his case studies lead to his conclusions. I have no idea what to make of life-expectancy numbers from 30,000 BC. He says he does but I don't see how he arrived at the conclusions he has based on the speculative life-expectancies he chose.
Also, he uses case studies of large groups of humans, like Mesoamerican civilizations, that were wiped out by war, disease and famine but he doesn't use case studies of small tribes or hunting parties being wiped out by the same causes. He has plenty of evidence, established history, to show why Mesoamerican civilizations had problems.
He also describes the earliest people, who were organized into small tribes and even smaller hunting parties, as averages he's defined. He doesn't account for catastrophe for these people. He uses speculative data for these small groups of people, which leads him to describe their circumstances and ways of life based on averages. He does not have evidence to show how many variables exist for these small groups. The conclusion he reaches for these small groups of people was sort of "life wasn't so bad for them." This conclusion does not account for groups of people who did not fit within the average he defines for the smallest tribes and hunting parties. Isn't it possible that a substantial number of these small bands of people did not exist in this murky stasis he's defined?
Also, he uses case studies of large groups of humans, like Mesoamerican civilizations, that were wiped out by war, disease and famine but he doesn't use case studies of small tribes or hunting parties being wiped out by the same causes. He has plenty of evidence, established history, to show why Mesoamerican civilizations had problems.
He also describes the earliest people, who were organized into small tribes and even smaller hunting parties, as averages he's defined. He doesn't account for catastrophe for these people. He uses speculative data for these small groups of people, which leads him to describe their circumstances and ways of life based on averages. He does not have evidence to show how many variables exist for these small groups. The conclusion he reaches for these small groups of people was sort of "life wasn't so bad for them." This conclusion does not account for groups of people who did not fit within the average he defines for the smallest tribes and hunting parties. Isn't it possible that a substantial number of these small bands of people did not exist in this murky stasis he's defined?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews