Now that we have modern archeology and anthropology, and aren't going off of pure speculation, who's ideas on the state of nature were more accurate?

Hobbes and it's not even close

>>17847177 (OP)
They both were wrong, it turned out. Primitive societies have laws and customs and they teach their children how to do stuff.
They were neither savage brutals nor did they live in a state where everything a person knew they learned through being enlightened by their own intelligence.

>>17847177 (OP)
>modern archeology and anthropology
>not pure speculation

>>17847177 (OP)
Hobbes was definitely more right, but you don't even need archaeology, you can just read firsthand accounts of explorers in savage lands to understand that the state of nature is pure savagery.

Neither we're right. Both are wrong because they suppose that humans are individuals dropped into the world like food supplies in wartime and a human meeting another human is almost accidental for them. The thing is, that humans always evolved and developed themselves within a community, within a group. Therefore the 'state of nature' is an completely irrelevant concept to use when studying evolution of human conscience and its relation towards the world. The evolution of human conscience is always related with the relation they have with the outside world.