Is Akhenaton the founder of monotheism?

Yes, thank you for your elaborate post, Brian. Great work, indeed. Yes, my story is nothing much complex and also the idea of Akhenaton as a founder of monotheism is nothing new — I know that. But after reading your post I realized that I did not explain the main idea behind my story. My fault. So:

1. As I already wrote, but maybe not stressed enough, I am great supporter of memetics. So I tried to apply memetic approach to our issue.
2. The basic idea of this approach is that sometimes only single meme can be passed between two memeplexes to alter entire system. In our case this meme is monotheism. Just that — belief in single God and rejection of every other god.
3. With this approach I do not need any other similarity between Atonism and Judaism.

I came to conclusion that there is at least high probability that monotheism was transferred to Judaism from Egypt after following considerations.

1. In school we were taught that monotheism is a result of logical development, the highest level of religion. Well, after I studied this matter, I came to quite different conclusion. I think that monotheism is in fact very illogical and abstract system.
2. In my opinion the only reason, why monotheism gained so much power, is that it makes such a perfect political tool .
3. Akhenaton was in perfect position to invent it, because he needed it.
4. On the other hand, even if my story is basically true, it would be kind of mystery why a culture with established polytheistic pantheon finally accepted monotheism. For many reasons. Let’s look at the psychological one. It is well known fact that some people have very deep personal relationship with their gods. So I think it is fair supposition that ancient (polytheistic Jews) had it too. So why were they willing to abandon them in favor of single and not very sympathetic god? According to meme theory people are able to accept new memes when their imunno-memes are weakened. You supplied to me the information about great collapse in Canaan aprox. 1200 BCE. If this collapse was caused by war, plague etc., than we have a imunno-depressant we are looking for.
5. But even than it would be very difficult to accept entirely new religion. The religion of Canaanites was very old one — it was inherited from Sumerians, it has creation story, many myths etc. It would be very difficult to just abandon all this. From this point of view, Atonism was perfect, because it did not have such things. So its contribution was relatively small and acceptable. The only problem was its hostility toward other gods, and we see that it really took many years before the idea of single god won.
6. But farther development of Judaism, Christianity and Islam supports my theory that monotheism is unnatural. History of all those three religions is full of schisms and heresies. The single God was not able to satisfy everybody’s needs. And finally it was proved that just one God is not sufficient. So Christianity introduced Jesus, Madonna and pleiade of saints to provide everybody someone to worship. The plurality of polytheism creates a balance and assures inner development. Polytheistic systems are naturally dynamic and therefore relatively stable. Monotheistic systems are static, but static system is unreal, therefore highly unstable. So dynamicity of static religious system is created by development of new schools, sects etc. In other words — monotheism is very convenient for autocratic systems, because both try to be static. So they help each other to maintain status quo.
7. The same as above in even more memetic terms: Polytheism is a memeplex, where every cult is a meme. Also the concept of many gods is a meme. Those memes cooperate and entire system flourishes. Monotheism is a situation when on of the memes turn wild — like cancerous cell. It grows uncontrollably and devours the whole system.
8. So — is it possible that such a pathological mutation occurred spontaneously? It certainly is, but the probability is rather low. But if we know that this wild meme was already around, the probability of mutation by infection is much higher.

1. Biblical connection between Israel and Egypt — why is it there?
2. Words like Adonai and Amen — are they just random similarities? I know that Amen is actually used as an argument against Akhenaton’s influence, because Akhenaton banned its usage, but — Amon was main Egyptian god for quite long time. In time of Akhenaton he was actually called Amon-Re. So it is quite possible that word Amon was used quite colloquially, without direct connection to Amon-Re (like nowadays many people use Jesus as exclamation without even slightly thinking about Jesus Christ) OR word amon was used instead of god (in similar manner like Isthar was once used as a synonym to godess) OR word amon became part of every religious ceremony.
3. I also think that it is not much probable that monotheism was carried from Egypt to Canaan by Jews. But, as it is in my story it could be carried there by Egyptians! (religious fugitives for instance)

How far into the past you want to go? We KNOW for sure that ancient Sumerian WERE POLYTHEISTS. The oldest culture we know about.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.[This message has been edited by Raha, 09-25-2003]

We do in fact know about cultures older than the Sumerians. What makes them special is a writing system by which we can learn about their daily lives and history.To the west we have The Levant and we know about them from their material remains. This is in fact where the first intentional sowing of grain is known. But they had no writing.We also have the Lungshan culture in China and Yangshao with both going back to the beginning of the Neolithic about 14,000 Before Present. They had no writing.We also know about Paleolithic cultures and their symbolic art. The Venus figurines that are scattered around Europe are examples of this. They too had no writing.Culture seems to have begun around 30,000 to 40,000 years ago and it was not restricted to Mesopotamia. Writing is not necesary for culture, as culture is often pre-literate.The idea is that the probablility of a monotheistic belief system occurring over that time frame and in the wide area of the world would be fairly high. It would be similar to the reasoning that intelligent life existed on planets other than Earth.I do not believe that monotheism inately lends itself to political control by a small group of elites. If anything it could be argued that it directly led to the downfall of the Roman Empire since central control would be more difficult with a population that was not inclined to blindly follow a non-divine ruler.Rather, polytheism can be used effectively to control people by declaring the ruler to be one of the gods themselves.I also don't think that any belief system need be rational in order for it to work well. It can be quite irrational in fact, but if it provides a central rallying point for large numbers of people, it will serve more like an extended kinship system.------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.

HI Raha,I just have a minute and I wil post more details soon, but what might help your hypothesis along is that it is well established that Canaanites interacted through trade routes with Egypt. Also, during times of famine Canaanite nomads settled in the Nile Delta for long periods. This is well documented in Egyptian sources and I can post specific manuscript catalogue names and numbers. It is nearly time for me to turn in but I will post more detailed information sometime over the weekend.Thanks for your post, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and it contains excellent information, first class.HolmesHi, I agree that I ddnt address all the issues in your post, I didn't have much time to reply but here are a few quick observations. I think that his religion was more of a personal one for him rather than a religion of the people, the Sun Disk did not interact with Akhenaten’s subjects. He saw the Sun Disk as his father, which means that he is the only one that could have him as a personal god. And hence maintain an esoteric monotheism? Possible I suppose, but maybe a bit complex for the time. But there still has to be a link to Moses from either Akhenaten or one of the remnants of his followers, I am not sure that can be achieved. Yes I agree, but the time scale involved, nearly 900 years seems a bit unbelievable, but I cannot dismiss this possibility, it does make sense, most of what you say makes sense in fact, the problem is confirming it historically. Its perfectly possible of course, it is also perfectly possible that Akhenaten got his monotheism from elsewhere, perhaps from a subjugated people? This is one of the things that Redford warns about, this is such a general concept that it may be a mistake to over emphasise the similarity. I would say it is possible, as plausible as any other suggestion. As I said though, and I know I differ from some other posters here, would be finding the evidence to historically verify these links. It is a tremendously interesting subject, even more so because there are so many possibilities and each one has its merits, I think if we all work together here, and lose the attitude of scoring points off each other (general comment), we could actually achieve an excellent thread and some excellent conclusions.It certainly looks like we all have something to contribute here, we all have obviously looked at some areas of this debate before, so lets keep working together and see what develops.Thanks to everyone who contribute here.Brian.

I was thinking in Czech, sorry. I wanted to say "the oldest culture about which religious system we have proper information" This is simply not true. Divinity of Roman emperors was never an important aspect of their power. It was more like personall quirk of only some of the emperors. Main motive for it was their pride and belief that it will asure them immortality. Quite a lot people in ancient Rome actually resented this relatively new habit and sometimes the moment when emperor proclaimed himself a god was the first step to his fall. Another proven historical fact is that Roman Empire was already in the phase of its decline. For centuries the only really important god of Romans was Rome itself - his power and glory (very similar to USA, actually). When the Empire started to crumble, people lost their faith. So Constantine cleverly picked up Christianity as his last hope and was able temporarily revive the Empire. Rome did not fell because of Christianity, but quite the contrary - it survived as a Roman Catholic Empire. I did not say it have to be...oh, I used the word "illogical" - my poor English, again. It is the reference to "logical development" above - so I meant that I see nothing logical in development from polytheism to monotheism, unless there is some need for it - like in Akhenaton's case.------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.[This message has been edited by Raha, 09-25-2003]

Just one more way how to look at polytheism and monotheism
We can even apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics here.
Let’s look at polytheistic system first. This system is heterogeneous. When we go one level down, we can see cults of different gods as subsystems. Some of them are prosperous, some of them not. In other words, the entropy of some subsystems goes down, but entropy of others goes up. Those fluctuations compensate for each other, so the entropy of entire system can be almost the same for very long time.
Now for the monotheistic system. We can see no subsystems here. This system is homogeneous. If we want to see other systems, we must go one level up. Over time, the entropy of this system grows, and there is nothing inside to compensate this. So the system deteriorates quite quickly. The only possible way for this system to compensate for growing entropy is to expand to surrounding systems. That’s why all monotheistic religions are so expansive. (Do you like this definition? )------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.[This message has been edited by Raha, 09-25-2003]

I do think this is the key connection that has to be made, and as you mention the devil is in the details. How can this be shown using historic evidence?And the next problem is one can't approach real historical research in this direct a fashion or one is likely to start picking and choosing the evidence one sifts through.I'm not too disturbed by the 900 year issue, as Judaism has survived as a central thread for much longer than that and warped into countless fragments of bizarre offshoots with very dissimilar practices.But the contact issue is sticky. And as you brought up (as well as speel), it is always possible Akhenaton may have had contact with someone else, pushing the "origination" back even further.Your point that it was such a personal religion for one man alone, also presents an interesting dilemma of if it could have even had adherents among any other Egyptians, much less adherents that would have hung on to its tenets.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Now for the monotheistic system. We can see no subsystems here. This system is homogeneous. If we want to see other systems, we must go one level up. Over time, the entropy of this system grows, and there is nothing inside to compensate this. So the system deteriorates quite quickly. The only possible way for this system to compensate for growing entropy is to expand to surrounding systems. That’s why all monotheistic religions are so expansive. (Do you like this definition? )

---

Although there is some debate about Zoroastrianism being monotheistic, it seems to have shrunk over the past 1000 years or so. Only 100k practitioners currently. Maybe it's the exception that proves the rule.Interesting notion anyway, but my line of thinking is along extending a kinship system. I'm thinking in terms of Hamilton's Kin Selection with an extension of Hamilton's rule going to all practitioners of monotheism being more or less in the same clan line while a polytheistic system keep kinship reduced to smaller kin units with each god being more or less the head of that kinship system. It's less likely that competing kin units will support each other in an expansionist agenda.India was first conquered by the Moguls and later by the English, both cultures were monotheistic and the Hindus lived in splintered groups that were easily absorbed by the unified monotheists.

Well, I know that Zoroastrism is often regarded as monotheistic religion, but that is something I just cannot agree with. In contrary to Christianity, Ahriman is not desribed as fallen angel or anything like that - he always refered to as "god", almost equaly powerful to Ohrmuzd. So we have two gods. That's not many, but two are definitely more than one. Also consider this: (taken from http://www.ahura.homestead.com/...minTwo/Jamshed_Choksey.htm)There are other supernatural beings with near-to-godly status. So I think we cannot regard Zoroastrism as monotheistic religion. It is close, but still pretty far away.But even if monotheistic religion is shrinking, it is nothing against my "2nd law of thermodynamic" metaphor. Quite the contrary - if the expansion is unsuccessful, the entropy grows, system deteriorates and more and more people are disappointed while the ability to attract new believers is low. So the religion shrinks. I am little bit confused about this, Brian - you regard Moses as undoubtely historical person?------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.[This message has been edited by Raha, 09-26-2003]

Hi Raha, I regard Moses as a purely fictional character. My reply was in the context that it is believed that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt complete with monotheism. My suggestion is that if anyone wants to maintain that Moses borrowed the idea from Akhenaten then they would have to prove a historical link between them and I don't think that can be done for two reasons.One: If we hypothetically accept a real Moses then by biblical chronology and the archaeological record, there could never have been any contact between these two people as there is too big a time gap.Two: Anyone positing that Moses was a real person has to provide good evidence for his existence.Brian.

quote:

---

Marvin Harris covered at least one of the reasons why it would be advantageaous to not eat pork.

---

Every culture will have elements that help it people adapt to their world, or to a recently inhabited environment-- vestiges. Leviticus is no different. But this is irrelevent. What you reference is cultural ecology, and it applies across the board, not just for Leviticus. All this does is prove that the Mosaic code is not unique. In retrospect, it is obvious that this has been your point from the first post,Post #18, you made in this thread. In that same post you stated your claim that polytheism is a control mechanism and intimated that monotheism was the origin of the masses. Neither claim you have supported, as Holmes Post #19 nicely noted, but it lets me trace the development of the discussion about matriarchy. Some folks have wondered about the connection.In Post #20, you again show your true motives for posting-- the trumpetting of Judeao-Christianity. Post #20, as well as your previous, is full of unsupported assertion and little else.In retrospect, considering your jibe that I cite new age web sites, I found your reference to Earth Crash Earth Spirit is Post #22 quite a hoot.You continue threw several posts equating polytheism with oppression but providing no proof, and redefining words to suit your ends. Others as well as myself have already challenged such things, and it would be too much work to rehash. And I am interested in tying this matriarchy to the thread.Finally, in Post #36 you allude to the idea that Judaism was egalitarian. In Post #44, you make this idea explicit. The argument, though spread over several posts, appears to be that Judaism is egalitarian. 'Simple' cultures are egalitarian. Thus, Judaism is closer to 'simple' cultures than was the religion/culture of Egypt. Since Judaism is closer to the 'simple' cultures, its religion must also be closer and so was not adopted from Egypt but inherited from the past.To your Post #44, I responded: Assuming the summary of your argument is correct, the idea that Judaism is egalitarian is fundamental to your refutation of Raha's Akhenaton/monotheism/Judaism idea. Kick out the first link in the chain and your refutation collapses.Rather than address the issue head-on, you strangely assert, in Post #47 that all societies are patriarchal. This is incorrect-- there are cultures which are not patriarchal. And, it is also undercuts your own hypothesis. Egalitarian and patriarchal are mutually exclusive. Patriarchal means rule by males, as you seem to realize. Egalitarian means no one group has special priviledge.In Post #50, you defend your position, or avoid defending your position, by asserting that there are no matriarchal societies. This is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. Neither patriarchal nor matriarchal qualify as egalitarian.And that brings us to this post.

quote:

---

You seem to see moral codes as restrictive to individual freedom and rights.

---

Moral codes are restrictive. There is no point to a having a code if it doesn't alter behavior, but you tend to take some big leaps. In this case, you interjected 'freedom and rights.' I haven't said anything about freedom and rights, nor have I said anything that should lead to this objection. In fact, Proofs of God and elswhere, actually, I have argued quite differently. You haven't been around long enough to have seen that thread, unless you went looking for it. It has been inactive for awhile.

quote:

---

But that does not matter in an evolutionary sense. I believe you are projecting your own values on a culture in the past.

---

I notice that in Post #24 you accuse Raha of something similar. Is this a favorite insult of your perhaps?

quote:

---

I read them, I find them agressive towards me because I have different point of view than you.

---

I am not hostile toward you because of what you believe. I am irritated with you because you argue like a creationist-- equivocating, redefining, ignoring most arguments against your theory ( in your case, I'm estimating that about 75% of what has been directed against your theory has been brushed aside without comment ), misdirecting, stubborn insistence upon 'facts' that run contrary to evidence, 'refutation' by introduction of irrelevant items...

quote:

---

Jewish people still observe many of the customs set forth all that long time ago.

---

You cannot select a few items from the Mosiac code and call that 'following the code.' That is silly. Even orthodox jews do not follow most of it. They'd be arrested if they did.

quote:

---

Enjoy your weekend and you can thank a Jew for it sometime.

---

Looks more to me like I should thank the Babylonians, from whom the Jews adopted the seven day week and its associated day of rest.

quote:

---

It is self-evident that as long as you continue to post anything at all on the subject of Mosaic Law (at least from your perspective), it is still relevant.

---

Are you insane? You claim the Mosaic code is unique. If I am to respond, I must talk about the Mosaic code. My talking about it does not make it unique. Again, are you insane?

quote:

---

I've read many ethnographs.

---

I so very doubt that.

quote:

---

You make the common mistake in believing that forager culture is simple, it is not.

---

You are projecting. I have made comparisons between western civilization and hunter/gatherers. Comparisons are relative. As one moves from hunter/gathering to tribal to civilizations such as the Egyptian, the work load on the individuals increases. There isn't an anthropologist alive who would deny that. I never said life was easy or that these people were stupid. Your objection to matriarchy was that women couldn't 'rule' because they'd be too busy raising kids. This is false. Work load is reduced in hunter/gathering cultures, and with it, the force of your argument is reduced. Your statement also displays a lack of knowledge of the many varieties of child-rearing behavior which humans practice. The job isn't universally female, nor is it universally the sole role of the child's mother.

quote:

---

If rearing large brained primates were easy, we would have seen many of them evolve over time.

---

Non sequitur.

quote:

---

Beyond reading about cultures, I actually do fieldwork and one of my objectives is to improve diets and cultural identity along with it.

---

For whom? In what capacity? What is your background and training? This statement is an argument from personnal authority. Support that authority. But that will get you only a silver star. To get a gold star, you have to support your arguments, and you have yet to even attempt that.I am betting you have no training in Anthropology. Your ideas are too scrambled. I wonder if you have any higher education at all. Certainly, you have no logic, or you slept through that class. A missionary, perhaps?

quote:

---

Few foragers make the transition to civilized living.

---

Look who is thinking linearly now.

quote:

---

Actually, the Aka have to carefully prepare their bugs since the catepillars they like to eat are full of tannins.

---

Thank you Capt. Literal! Do you not understand the concept of presenting a rough example? See, it should give you a general idea of what I mean. Certainly, for anything I name-- seeds, berries, whatever-- there is a case which requires extensive preparation. This does not change the fact that hunter/gatherers do not have to work 8 hours a day to survive, but somewhere around half that.

quote:

---

I believe that you are demeaning foragers by stating that it is easy to eat bugs.

---

That is your emotion, not mine. Don't attribute it to me. We've traded leisure for stuff-- plumbing, long life spans courtesy of modern medicine, etc. I sometimes wounder if it worth it.

quote:

---

It is not a common English phrase either, the very first time I have ever seen it is when it was posted here.

---

Your personal experience of English does not settle the issue. The usage is common enough to appear in every English dictionary I have checked, while your usage only appears in said dictionaries in a vague sense. "Pertaining to cities" is just wrong.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Ugh, I won't sink to your level, but this should be addressed.

quote:

---

We've traded leisure for stuff-- plumbing, long life spans courtesy of modern medicine, etc. I sometimes wounder if it worth it.

---

Foragers that continue foraging can continue to live long lives with the major cause of death being homicide in early life. Chagnon's exhaustive study of a horticultural group demonstrated the evolutionary advantage of warfare and I am well versed in the decades long debate between Marvin Harris and Napoleon Chagnon. Bottom line, people that kill other people have greater reproductive success than pacifists. (Women just go crazy over successful warriors.)Foragers have lower blood pressure with heart attacks, stroke and diabetes being unheard of in populations maintaining a traditional diet/lidestyle. Some of them live into their 80s and 90s with active lives for that entire span. Intensive agriculturalists have high blood pressure on the other hand. I refer you to Bindon's work:Page not found – AnthropologyYou are projecting what you see in your part of the world onto the rest of it. Your average child in India does not have good life expectancy. Life expectancy worldwide is not very good.You also claim that child care is not universally a womans job, again, this is not true. In his book, "Intimate Fathers" Hewlett details how the Aka men handle their children more than any other known culture in the world, yet the women still do the majority of work with children. We seem to be hardwired that way.

quote:

---

You continue threw several posts equating polytheism...

---

Sorry, had to point this out. I'm sure that you meant "through" although you should really work on some of your writing skills. At times you will use "there" when you should use "their" in a statement.I also notice that you are critical of at least one of my links. You failed apparently to actually read what Cohen had to say in that link. I may not buy what the entire site there says about some things, but the quote from Cohen is an accurate snippet from his book, "Health and The Rise of Civilization" about the costs of intensive agriculture.It is not a logical progression to go from foraging to agriculture in an evolutionary sense unless there was coercion invloved by which elites could control non-elites. (We know who the elites were by grave goods and physical stature as they were significantly larger than non-elites.)There is a puzzle here to be solved and the blaming of a monotheistic belief system for all the evils in the world is pretty simplistic.------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.

Come on, Speel-yi, nobody blames monotheism for all evil in the world. Monotheism only proved to be more efficient in doing "evil"....------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Nobody? You might wish to say most, many or some.It is also not true to assume that it is more efficient at anything. From your perspective it may appear to be so, but we know from history that nearly any belief system is capable of deplorable acts.------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.[This message has been edited by Speel-yi, 09-26-2003]

quote:

---

Ugh, I won't sink to your level, but this should be addressed.

---

Right. You've been asked to support your claims. This is sinking? Lol... And you wonder why I get irritated?

quote:

---

Foragers that continue foraging can continue to live long lives with the major cause of death being homicide in early life.

---

Is this a long life to you? Is even 40 years long compared to our 80?

quote:

---

Foragers have lower blood pressure with heart attacks, stroke and diabetes being unheard of in populations maintaining a traditional diet/lidestyle.

---

Indeed. The frequency of particular diseases does not reflect the average age of death. The conclusion does not follow.

quote:

---

Some of them live into their 80s and 90s with active lives for that entire span.

---

Sure some do. Some does not represent an average.

quote:

---

You are projecting what you see in your part of the world onto the rest of it.

---

I was, after all, talking about myself.

quote:

---

Your average child in India does not have good life expectancy. Life expectancy worldwide is not very good.

---

I believe that when making that comment I specified that my reference is 'western culture/society.' Why do you think citing a non-western culture is in any way a refutation?

quote:

---

You also claim that child care is not universally a womans job, again, this is not true.

---

Can't seem to avoid jumping to conclusions can you? Just as you jumped from 'patriarchal society' to 'there are no matriarchal societies' you've jumped from 'not univerally a woman's job' to 'in no culture is child-rearing an absolutely male occupation.' That isn't what I said. You made the claim that women couldn't 'rule' because they wouldn't have time, due to the duties of child rearing. My response, which you avoid addressing, is that 1)child rearing does not take the time you pretend it does and 2)women don't raise children alone. Often there is considerable community help-- other women, siblings, older children, cousins, fathers, etc.

quote:

---

Sorry, had to point this out. I'm sure that you meant "through" although you should really work on some of your writing skills. At times you will use "there" when you should use "their" in a statement.

---

Lol... Rather than address the issues, you get nit-picky. Typical.It is a web forum. I typically write in a hurry, and rarely proof-read. I usually write long posts in several sitting as well. Things get overlooked. But this is the best argument you've presented thus far. Congrats. Do you feel like a big boy now?

quote:

---

I also notice that you are critical of at least one of my links.

---

Just reflecting your own criticism back at you.

quote:

---

It is not a logical progression to go from foraging to agriculture in an evolutionary sense unless there was coercion invloved by which elites could control non-elites.

---

Sure it is. Agriculture may not increase one's health or happiness, but it does allow a larger population to live on a small plot of land, relative to the land needed by hunter/gatherers. It also provides some stability as humans have more control of the food supply. How can you have read Marvin Harris and not realize that agriculture has advantages?Oh... sorry to point this out. I'm pretty sure you meant 'involved' but you wrote 'invloved.' I've noticed you do that a lot. And your verb tenses in that sentence don't match and, really, they should. You really should work on your writing skills.

quote:

---

(We know who the elites were by grave goods and physical stature as they were significantly larger than non-elites.)

---

Since agriculture arose well before writing, we don't really know if there were elites, much less know who they were.[qutoe]There is a puzzle here to be solved and the blaming of a monotheistic belief system for all the evils in the world is pretty simplistic.[/quote]That came out of nowhere. No one is making this claim. You, it seems, are making the equally simplistic claim that polytheism was the source of all evil.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Sure some do. Some does not represent an average.

---

So let me get this straight, you think a life in Texas has more value than some 5 year old kid in Calcutta.Life is really a bit more dicey for most people living in agricultural societies. Every 3 seconds some kid somewhere dies from dyhydration due to diarhea due to dysentery or cholera. Foragers don't have this problem at all. Infectious diseases are rampant in tightly packed populations such as what you see in agricultural peoples. Early agriculturalists had very short life spans and fairly poor infant survival. Life is getting worse for some people today than it is for others.Page not found - David Suzuki FoundationThen you post stats without understnding what you are saying, foragers have a greater life expectancy than horticulturalist. Both of these groups have better health than early intensive agriculturalists.egyptLife expectancy in ancient Rome was also 25 years of age, a year behind the 26 your forager getsI don't think polytheism or monotheism are reasons why people are rotten to each other. It's part of the human condition, something we evolved into.There is a reason we don't talk about the moral codes of other ancient cultures and that's because they didn't work as well as the ones we have now.You can't argue with evolutionary success no matter how bizarre or unlikely or unhappy it makes you.