Guillaume Raynal and the Eighteenth-Century Cult of the Noble Savage

1972 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 98
Author(s):  
William Womack
2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-130
Author(s):  
Pieter Van de Velde

Although the title of Pluciennik's essay refers to hunter-gatherers, his description of thegenealogyof that concept hardly mentions them in these terms; rather, seventeenth and eighteenth century European perceptions of non-peasant pursuits and primitive societies are discussed. Certainly, the labels themselves are unimportant, it is their meaning that matters, in this case the Image of the Other. Pluciennik avoids the noble savage strand of European thinking, and instead emphasises the primitive, un-civilized counterstrand. He must have had a great time in the amassing of seventeenth century quotes on the forests and wildernesses and their most profitable use in the eyes of European merchants and their grooms. Yet most of this ground has been covered previously with a balanced account of especially thenobleand theprimitiveaspects in Adam Kuper's 1988 essay subtitledThe transformation of an illusionwith a title almost identical to that of the present paper:The invention of primitive society.


2019 ◽  
pp. 122-143
Author(s):  
D. W. Harding

The assumption that warfare was endemic to prehistoric societies was based in part upon classical references to the Gauls, notoriously aggressive, drunken, boastful headhunters, the so-called ‘Celtic paradigm’. An alternative view, characterized as the ‘pacification of prehistory’, and derived ultimately from the eighteenth-century idealization of the noble savage, saw prehistoric societies as peaceful and egalitarian farming communities. The archaeological evidence in terms of artefacts leaves little doubt that from the later Bronze Age swords and spears were manufactured on an industrial scale, though there has been debate regarding the degree to which these were practical weapons as opposed to status symbols or even ritual objects. Structures are more difficult to interpret, though enclosures on the scale of Iron Age hillforts were surely designed to be defensive as well as serving as community centres. Some certainly from the Neolithic show evidence of assault, while osteological evidence supports the belief that violence was endemic, whether interpersonal, communal, ritual, or judicial.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document