Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Of course . Why not ?

It may not have been as common as a couple of centuries ago or today , for the obvious reasons , age of death being younger , recognition , avoidance of some of the contemporary environmental factors etc . But it has been discovered much earlier than the example linked and even earlier in the neolithic and also much earlier than that e.g. The Neandethal cancer found at Krapina is at least 100,000 YA .The genetic propensity was around a long time ago .

The reasons why it doesn't get mentioned too often might be interesting .

Do you mean because of the shattering of an illusion of a golden age, or do you mean there was a bias towards a particular sex or age-group that perhaps we might find very unpleasant to imagine?

There is a book by rick schulting, I'd like to get a copy.

Of course . Why not ?

It may not have been as common as a couple of centuries ago or today , for the obvious reasons , age of death being younger , recognition , avoidance of some of the contemporary environmental factors etc . But it has been discovered much earlier than the example linked and even earlier in the neolithic and also much earlier than that e.g. The Neandethal cancer found at Krapina is at least 100,000 YA .The genetic propensity was around a long time ago .

Was wondering what they may have used as a 'cure' in those days other than our friend the shaman and was it any good.
Berries came to mind for some reason and when I checked out the possibilities this popped up, albeit in Oz and much more recent!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/08/cancer-tumours-destroyed-by-berry-queensland-rainforest

Steven Pinker has an interesting theory in a couple of his books, particularly 'The Blank Slate'. His claim is that people in the humanities (including archaeology but in particular anthropology) tend to be more left/liberal and are slow to recognise or even flat out deny that prehistory was violent and chaotic. He cites instances of where funding for excavations or publications were threatened unless defensive features or evidence of conflict were re-interpreted as ritual or more non-descript features.

According to his theory, people on the left and on the right have two very different origin stories. The right/conservatives generally subscribe to what he calls the 'Tragic Vision', people are, and always have been, born with flaws and selfish motives that society has to counter with strict traditions, strong institutions and socialisation that values restraint and public duty.

The left/liberals have a different origin story, which he calls the 'Utopian Vision'. According to this view people are naturally born good and selfless, it is modern society and the inequalities of civilisation that are the cause of violence and social problems. Traditions, institutions and religions are actually the problem, not the solution.

Obviously, if Pinker is right, progressives that lean left will be slow to accept that violence could be as old as the most simple human groups. It doesn't fit with the story of violence and social problems arriving only after inequality, organised religions and exploitation become rigid and inescapable.

I think maybe as post-modern thought has seeped in to the general consciousness this is beginning to be less relevant in actually interpreting the past, if society can take any form and patterns of development or theories of evolving cultures are rejected outright then it matters less what was actually going on in the past.