Division of labor, which has had so much to do with bringing us to the present global crisis, works daily to prevent our understanding
the origins of this horrendous present. Mary Lecron Foster (1990) surely errs on the side of understatement in allowing that
anthropology is today "in danger of serious and damaging fragmentation." Shanks and Tilley (1987b) voice a rare,
related challenge: "The point of archaeology is not merely to interpret the past but to change the manner in which the
past is interpreted in the service of social reconstruction in the present." Of course, the social sciences themselves
work against the breadth and depth of vision necessary to such a reconstruction. In terms of human origins and development,
the array of splintered fields and sub-fields- anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, ethnology, paleobotany, ethnoanthropology,
etc., etc. - mirrors the narrowing, crippling effect that civilization has embodied from its very beginning.
Nonetheless, the literature can provide highly useful assistance, if approached with an appropriate method and awareness
and the desire to proceed past its limitations. In fact, the weakness of more or less orthodox modes of thinking can and does
yield to the demands of an increasingly dissatisfied society. Unhappiness with contemporary life becomes distrust with the
official lies that are told to legitimate that life, and a truer picture of human development emerges. Renunciation and subjugation
in modern life have long been explained as necessary concomitants of "human nature." After all, our pre-civilized
existence of deprivation, brutality, and ignorance made authority a benevolent gift that rescued us from savagery. "Cave
man" and `Neanderthal' are still invoked to remind us where we would be without religion, government, and toil.
This ideological view of our past has been radically overturned in recent decades, through the work of academics like
Richard Lee and Marshall Sahlins. A nearly complete reversal in anthropological orthodoxy has come about, with important implications.
Now we can see that life before domestication/agriculture was in fact largely one of leisure, intimacy with nature, sensual
wisdom, sexual equality, and health. This was our human nature, for a couple of million years, prior to enslavement by priests,
kings, and bosses.
And lately another stunning revelation has appeared, a related one that deepens the first and may be telling us something
equally important about who we were and what we might again become. The main line of attack against new descriptions of gatherer-hunter
life has been, though often indirect or not explicitly stated, to characterize that life, condescendingly, as the most an
evolving species could achieve at an early stage. Thus, the argument allows that there was a long period of apparent grace
and pacific existence, but says that humans simply didn't have the mental capacity to leave simple ways behind in favor of
complex social and technological achievement.