For decades, many researchers believed that traditional hunter-gatherer societies were built on principles of altruism and equality, and that these values shaped their behavior. It was thought that such societies promoted egalitarianism, where all members had equal opportunities and access to resources. However, new research challenges this long-standing view, revealing that beneath the surface of equality lies a complex interplay of personal interests, social pressure, and hidden competition. Scientists have concluded that true egalitarianism does not exist in any of the human societies studied.

The Origin of the “Noble Savage” Myth

During the Enlightenment, European philosophy and literature developed the idea of the “natural man,” someone living closer to nature, free and “untainted” by the vices of civilization. This archetype became known as the “noble savage.” In the 19th century, as the first scientific descriptions of “primitive” peoples appeared, this image was quickly projected onto real hunter-gatherer groups. It was believed that they lived in harmony with nature and shared their catch equally.

For example, German philosopher Friedrich Engels, a close associate of Karl Marx, viewed hunter-gatherer societies as a form of primitive communism. He relied on the then-popular hypothesis that in early stages of human development, means of production (land, hunting, gathering) were collective, and the products of labor were distributed within the group without private “wealth.” Engels believed that under such conditions, there was relative economic, gender, and social equality: there was no division into rich and poor, no classes or subordination to the state, and important decisions were made based on kinship ties and mutual support.

Over time, this narrative became firmly rooted in academia. Observations of resource distribution in small hunter-gatherer societies reinforced the belief that altruism and equality were the natural, “default” state of humanity. Hunting and gathering dominated most of human history until the transition to agriculture about 10,000 years ago, so anthropologists long considered such societies a window into the past, helping us understand the lives of our ancestors.

New Research: Behind the Facade of Equality

However, an analysis of ethnographic and anthropological data conducted by Duncan Stibbard-Hawkes of Durham University (UK) and Chris von Rueden of the University of Richmond (USA) paints a very different picture. The researchers concluded that genuine egalitarianism was absent in all the human societies they studied. They discussed their findings in an article published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

Stibbard-Hawkes and von Rueden believe that their colleagues often made a fundamental mistake by taking observed equality in wealth distribution as evidence of an internal ethical norm governing society. This misinterpretation led to the creation of an inaccurate, oversimplified model of modern hunter-gatherer societies. In reality, apparent equality often resulted from practical considerations and even outright self-interest.

According to the authors, equality among hunter-gatherers did not arise from a love of justice, but as a side effect of each member’s struggle for personal freedom.

Examples from Hunter-Gatherer Life

A vivid example is the Mbenjele people of Congo. Their culture includes a practice of public complaints called mosambo. If someone feels their rights are being infringed upon, they gather the entire tribe and loudly voice their grievance. This practice is not meant to establish equality, but to prevent the emergence of “big men”—leaders who might try to impose their will on others.

Another pillar of supposed egalitarianism is pragmatism. In academic circles, it is commonly believed that a hunter shares meat with fellow tribespeople out of kindness. But Stibbard-Hawkes and von Rueden offer another explanation: the hunter may distribute the catch to avoid endless and persistent requests, accusations of greed, and social pressure.

In many hunter-gatherer societies, there are documented cases where people loudly and persistently demand to be given food. Requests, reproaches, and complaints become part of everyday life.

A good example is the !Kung people living in Angola, Botswana, and Namibia. Anthropologists have noted that about 34% of their daily conversations are complaints about neighbors’ stinginess. In such an environment, a hunter gives away meat not out of generosity, but to avoid accusations of greed and irritated neighbors.

Hierarchy and Status in the Tribe

This does not mean that in groups where complaints and reproaches force some to share with others, there is no hierarchy. Stibbard-Hawkes and von Rueden found that status in the tribe is often awarded according to unique but very strict criteria. High status is not given to those with the most wealth, but to those who are seen as the most cooperative, helpful, and impartial members of the community.

For example, the Tsimane people of Bolivia consider displays of humility and willingness to help as the main signs of a worthy person. Thus, what anthropologists outwardly perceive as equality may actually be the result of an unspoken and intense competition—a struggle for the title of the most just and balanced person in the group. This competition creates its own “respect scale”: at the top are not the best warriors, but those regarded as moral authorities.

Rethinking the Image of the “Noble Savage”

The new research has received positive feedback. British anthropologist Jerome Lewis of University College London called it an important contribution that “brings together a range of ethnographic examples to show the diversity and range of egalitarianism.” The scholar stated directly that the 19th-century image of the “noble savage” now appears outdated and needs to be reconsidered.