Study shows Stoneage inequality!!

[hellheaven1987]

So social inequality is an old human tradition; screw you socialists.

A study of more than 300 Neolithic skeletons suggests evidence of "hereditary inequality" among farmers 7,000 years ago, researchers claim.

Archaeologists from Cardiff University led a team who studied the skeletons from across Europe.

They say evidence suggests farmers buried with tools had access to better land than those buried without.

Dr Penny Bickle, of Cardiff University, said community diversity "probably occurred through inheritance".

The research was conducted by archaeologists from Cardiff, Bristol and Oxford universities, and others across Europe.

The project was led by professor Alasdair Whittle from Cardiff University's school of history, archaeology and religion, and involved studying more than 300 skeletons across central Europe.

The researchers claim to have evidence which suggests "differential land use among the first farmers of Europe, called the Neolithic period".

The skeletons' teeth were analysed for strontium isotopes, and results differed between those who were buried with tools called adzes, and those who were not.

Source

An interesting but not surprised discover, but the desire to have better life is also why Earthlings continue evolve.

[Angrychris]

Helped give a better reason for the have nots to war against the haves. farming = communities = resources.

[John Doe]

And why should have stoneage been a socialist utopia instead?

[Claudius Gothicus]

Seriously... what serious sociologist or anthropologist ever tought that Human Communities worked like a communist utopia?

Social Hierarchies do have a function(or more): for starters Goal-Attaintment and later Social Cohesiveness.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

It should be obvious that there'd be stratification based on strength to a lesser extent intelligence.

[Phier]

It should be obvious that there'd be stratification based on strength to a lesser extent intelligence.

[Claudius Gothicus]

It should be obvious that there'd be stratification based on strength to a lesser extent intelligence.

I wouldn't be to on eager classifying the origin of stratification solely on the basis of physical strength(force and endurance) or mental ability(cunningness and knowledge).

The size(this would include a possible political ability to form the stronger clannish alliances?) and ''particular role''(can we assume there would be basic forms of spiritualism and it's practitioners?) of the family within the community could pretty much decide the social position as well, specially when we start talking about early ''sedentary'' regimes of human life.

Just speculating in here though

[Col. Tartleton]

I think it's quite obvious that even the most tiny tribes were led by chieftains.

[Phier]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Obviously a tool that could only be fashioned by the wealthy

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Obviously a tool that could only be fashioned by the wealthy

Well, at least one component of that tool is very hard to attain. Sure, wood is easy to get and a bad stone head could proably be made with sufficient time by anyone. But the string would be very hard to attain. Two sources are either animal ligaments/tendons, or plant fibres. It's still a terrific amount of work to make even small amounts of string. Here's how many people were involved in rope manufacture in Egypt:


And other ways of binding the stone and wood would be far worse.

[John I Tzimisces]

Interesting but not really revolutionary, and really, if you'd ask me, just confirms what we already we aware of, which is that craft specialization, enabled by the advent of agriculture (and the ensuing shift to sedentary and semi-sedentary settlements), is tied to social stratification.

Possibly the most revealing thing about this study, rather than the issue of social stratification, is the possible direct evidence for inheritance as a means of preserving social status, which is really not something I've seen discussed (while we've been aware of ornate burials containing all sorts of grave goods accompanying bodies that were in much better shape, asides from the fact they were dead, than other burials).

[John Doe]

Two sources are either animal ligaments/tendons, or plant fibres. It's still a terrific amount of work to make even small amounts of string.

making small strings is quite easy if you have the proper raw material link, long ropes for heavy duty do need greater efforts.

[Col. Tartleton]

Leadership in prehistory was a blend of heredity, common sense, size, and fighting prowess.

[John I Tzimisces]

Leadership in prehistory was a blend of heredity, common sense, size, and fighting prowess.

Just so we're clear 10000 BC was not a documentary.

[Col. Tartleton]

Just so we're clear 10000 BC was not a documentary.

So when you're picking leaders you wouldn't want the big tough smart guy who happens to be the son of and share the values of the last big tough smart guy who was in charge?

[John I Tzimisces]

So when you're picking leaders you wouldn't want the big tough smart guy who happens to be the son of and share the values of the last big tough smart guy who was in charge?

we have very little to no idea what physical or personal traits were appreciated in people who have been for 10 thousand years or usually more, and it's frankly best we don't try to color our impressions of them by applying our "common sense" (which as you can see isn't really the same from person to person NOW) to the issue.

So if you don't mind, in the absence of much if any evidence other than the existence of social stratification after the advent of agriculture, I'm not going to invent ideas about what they thought and did.

[Phier]

we have very little to no idea what physical or personal traits were appreciated in people who have been for 10 thousand years or usually more, and it's frankly best we don't try to color our impressions of them by applying our "common sense" (which as you can see isn't really the same from person to person NOW) to the issue.

So if you don't mind, in the absence of much if any evidence other than the existence of social stratification after the advent of agriculture, I'm not going to invent ideas about what they thought and did.

To add I would guess people would pick their leaders much like they do now, especially in that it was smaller groups. It would be politicking, intelligence, wealth etc that would influence opinion and loyalty. Sure a guy might be big and strong but so what, its not like everything would be a 1-1 battle to determine the leader. Being they were in small groups, and would all know each other very well, odds are it was a rather efficient system. It wasn't until agriculture large scale that we started to see kings etc.

[VALIS]

So social inequality is an old human tradition; screw you socialists.



Source

An interesting but not surprised discover, but the desire to have better life is also why Earthlings continue evolve.

Ha, yes, take that anarcho-primitivists and marxist-feminists.
Down with the noble savage theory nonsense.

[John I Tzimisces]

Ha, yes, take that anarcho-primitivists and marxist-feminists.
Down with the noble savage theory nonsense.

Just to clarify, neolithic folks weren't cavemen IE candidates for being "noble savages"

[Voodo chile]

Stone tools are acutally incredebly difficult to manufacture well.
Try finding and carcing a handle without metal.
Then finding the right type of rock and then shaping it into a decent head.
Then getting sinew/rope and glue to attatch it to the handle.

I'll be honest and say that the adze in teh picture looks
You want stone tools which look like this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: