We do not accept the unscientific notion of the tabula rasa in social theory. Unless you are social theorists and literary critics blinded by the cul-de-sac of French jargon erroneously described as philosophy. Yet, this does not lead to a blind acceptance of a theory that draws upon natural selection as the basis of its narrative.
Professor Gerald Crabtree of Stanford University has stressed that natural selection in humanity was driven by a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Intelligence was enhanced by the need to avoid large predators and harmful mutations were weeded out as their owners were eaten. Civilisation arrives and we all become prone to harmful mutations diminishing our capacity for intelligence and emotion.
"I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues," he said.
Crabtree's confidence in the ability of some savage to understand our civilisation is quite breathtaking. Perhaps this can be viewed as the Robert Howard view. Certainly, the echoes of genetic superiority embodied in the barbarian pervade his stories of Conan, King Kull and Brak Man Morn. Literary devices aside, theories that rely upon fanciful and ahistorical anecdotes pay lipservice to the empirical complexities attendant upon all history and archaeology.