Keith: > In the case of Michael Prowse's article, although he was quite right to say > that the earliest human groups were egalitarian to a considerable extent > (such as sharing food), he was wrong to suggest that there would have been > no rank orderings and thus little stress. But strict rank order has been > found in all primate groups with consequent stress levels in all ranks > below the top one. What's important is not to try and dissolve rank order > in some egalitarian nirvana -- because that's impossible -- but to organise > our institutions with as few levels as possible.
But surely Keith, not as we construct rank, in terms of hierarchy and inheritance. I recall hearing testimony from the Dene (Athapaskan) people before the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry that suggested that rank depended on skill and knowledge. People would follow the best hunter because he could help them provide the most food, or they would rely on the man or woman who could provide the best medicine or resolve difficult problems in the community. There was no sense of "king" or "prince" or even of "chief". People were followed only because they could do things better than others. Ed
