There was a lot of insistence that the indigenous method was better, but no actual evidence that it was, nor even arguments as to why it would be (besides some vague allusions to it being “more flexible”).
A lot of these noble savage narratives emerge from Latin American studies (history, archaeology, literature, etc.), particularly among Mexican and American-educated academics. There is truth to the idea that the complexity of indigenous systems is unappreciated by the general public, but there’s always this underlying fetishization of a pseudo-magical indigenous “way of knowing” contrasted with the (historically far-better performing) European scientific method. Indigenous cultures are redeemed from European military conquests by insisting that the European way of knowing is myopic and selfish (being focused on profit over sustainability, the individual over the community, etc.) in contrast to the indigenous way of knowing, which is holistic and communitarian.
The author does have publications related to these irrigation systems, though, so maybe she has a valid point to make and the article just didn’t land for me.
If you study this stuff in the americas it’s depressing as the Spanish in particular slaughtered people and culture so completely and unimpeded for so long. The evil and barbarism of this colonial episode is difficult to fathom. The 20th century horror show of slaughter ran in relatively short episodes… this imperial era ran for hundreds of years.
Because you’re left with archeological evidence, whose interpretation is always very conservative, and limited oral tradition, it’s easy to veer into legend, because honestly that’s that who have to work with.
I imagine this is just a symptom of infallible argument/humanities departments rewarding group think narratives (colonialism = definionally ultimate evil) with grant money. Doesn't take long for academics to understand the game.
Same thing with climate change, i've come across a pile of random definitely-not-climate-science papers (macre econ development divergence in hipanola, property rights in subsaharan africa, unrelated culutral anthropoly etc) that allude to climate change as the key driver for the phenomenon observed. Clearly NSF and NIH wanted a very certain set of content published.
I think that most people that are "scientific" are unable (because of our education) to _try_ to think about the validity of this way of _understanding_.
I like to think that societies in Latin America (and, importantly, all around the world) survived thousands of years not because of luck, but because the cultures (language, traditions) they developed had ingrained the "scientific knowledge" necessary to survive in the conditions that lived in. An important part of it was that they did not see only as rulers and owners of the world, but only as one part of it. That is one of the basis of what people call magical thinking, but it is sound once you stop disqualifying it just because the word "magical" is in it.
And, I mean, literally, only those who could adapt and understand their world to survive, survived. The knowledge maybe was not as fast evolving as the scientific methods allows to be, but it is, ultimately, the same method. Try, fail, and repeat. Those who were successful survived.
The knowledge ingrained in the culture, traditions and understanding accompanying it was, and _is_, a fundamental part of the solutions that allowed them not to only survive, but to thrive in their environments.
The first comment in this post says that you do not need the culture to carry out the solutions. That may be true, but it does miss that our culture is the strongest (after "basic necessities") incentives we have to choose some things over others. Or understanding of the world is our culture, and our understanding of the world is what makes us take some actions instead of others. You might be able to mimic technical solutions, but to fully understand them, you need the culture that developed them, as it is _literally_ the understanding of the world that allowed the solutions to exist.
The claim actually made was that culture, not just technology, is what made these irrigation systems successful. It's an interesting insight.
Perhaps we can learn lessons from ancient cultures about how we might be able to efficiently manage our resources and achieve more with what is available. Is that so far fetched an idea?
It's really weird to come across such articles, because they always add this mystic to these cultures that actually ends up coming across as the generic "in touch with nature" noble savage archetype
That single sentence, which is the totality of the description given in the long and winding article, doesn't actually explain anything - the efficient use of water is the obvious goal of any irrigation system, especially in a desert. But how did it efficiently use water? The only hint of information is "synchronized cleaning and maintenance", and not a word on synchronized how or with what, or why this should help.
It's like describing how a car works with just "it is efficiently designed to help you travel faster, and uses skilled maintenance workers".
lurk2|10 months ago
A lot of these noble savage narratives emerge from Latin American studies (history, archaeology, literature, etc.), particularly among Mexican and American-educated academics. There is truth to the idea that the complexity of indigenous systems is unappreciated by the general public, but there’s always this underlying fetishization of a pseudo-magical indigenous “way of knowing” contrasted with the (historically far-better performing) European scientific method. Indigenous cultures are redeemed from European military conquests by insisting that the European way of knowing is myopic and selfish (being focused on profit over sustainability, the individual over the community, etc.) in contrast to the indigenous way of knowing, which is holistic and communitarian.
The author does have publications related to these irrigation systems, though, so maybe she has a valid point to make and the article just didn’t land for me.
Spooky23|10 months ago
Because you’re left with archeological evidence, whose interpretation is always very conservative, and limited oral tradition, it’s easy to veer into legend, because honestly that’s that who have to work with.
pxmpxm|10 months ago
Same thing with climate change, i've come across a pile of random definitely-not-climate-science papers (macre econ development divergence in hipanola, property rights in subsaharan africa, unrelated culutral anthropoly etc) that allude to climate change as the key driver for the phenomenon observed. Clearly NSF and NIH wanted a very certain set of content published.
elif|10 months ago
Even if academia is swinging to a "too respectful" position (which I would dispute), the lack of respect in your position is certain.
dopidopHN|10 months ago
That being said : there is something to be said about the Spanish cargo culting those canals in that specific plain… and failing to maintain it.
While we know it was fertile for generation before.
The article hint at private ownership being a factor? I could see that.
But 100% agree : I spend the article asking “ok, what is the culture then”
But it looks like it happen: irrigation work Spanish take over irrigation it stop working
I suspect sabotage was a bit factor, too.
suavesito|10 months ago
I like to think that societies in Latin America (and, importantly, all around the world) survived thousands of years not because of luck, but because the cultures (language, traditions) they developed had ingrained the "scientific knowledge" necessary to survive in the conditions that lived in. An important part of it was that they did not see only as rulers and owners of the world, but only as one part of it. That is one of the basis of what people call magical thinking, but it is sound once you stop disqualifying it just because the word "magical" is in it.
And, I mean, literally, only those who could adapt and understand their world to survive, survived. The knowledge maybe was not as fast evolving as the scientific methods allows to be, but it is, ultimately, the same method. Try, fail, and repeat. Those who were successful survived.
The knowledge ingrained in the culture, traditions and understanding accompanying it was, and _is_, a fundamental part of the solutions that allowed them not to only survive, but to thrive in their environments.
The first comment in this post says that you do not need the culture to carry out the solutions. That may be true, but it does miss that our culture is the strongest (after "basic necessities") incentives we have to choose some things over others. Or understanding of the world is our culture, and our understanding of the world is what makes us take some actions instead of others. You might be able to mimic technical solutions, but to fully understand them, you need the culture that developed them, as it is _literally_ the understanding of the world that allowed the solutions to exist.
notarobot123|10 months ago
Perhaps we can learn lessons from ancient cultures about how we might be able to efficiently manage our resources and achieve more with what is available. Is that so far fetched an idea?
BlueTemplar|10 months ago
https://samzdat.com/2017/05/22/man-as-a-rationalist-animal/
(The free market does sound closer to metis... but is also EXTREMELY focused on the short term, see : negative externalities. )
syspec|10 months ago
It's really weird to come across such articles, because they always add this mystic to these cultures that actually ends up coming across as the generic "in touch with nature" noble savage archetype
notarobot123|10 months ago
There's also a link which points to more details but it doesn't look to be accessible: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/a...
like_any_other|10 months ago
It's like describing how a car works with just "it is efficiently designed to help you travel faster, and uses skilled maintenance workers".
selfselfgo|10 months ago
[deleted]