By "egalitarian" the writers mean the practice of imposing inequality through forced redistribution. Seems like a good Saturday Digest ping topic, a day early. Thanks OK Sun.
Posted on 05/01/2015 1:33:33 PM PDT by OK Sun
The data obtained by Teresa Fernández-Crespo in seven megalithic graves in La Rioja and Araba-Álava suggest that certain individuals were excluded from burial on the basis of age and sex.
The research Demographic evidence of selective burial in megalithic graves of northern Spain by Teresa Fernández-Crespo and Concepción de la Rúa of the Department of Genetics, Physical Anthropology and Animal Physiology of the UPV/EHU-University of the Basque Country challenges the widely-held view that societies were egalitarian during the late Neolithic and Chalcolithic ages.
This work, published in the leading Journal of Archaeological Science, comes from Fernández-Crespo’s PhD thesis entitled Antropología y prácticas funerarias en las poblaciones neolíticas finales y calcolíticas de la región natural de La Rioja (Anthropology and funeral practices in late Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations in the natural region of La Rioja).
The data obtained by Teresa Fernández-Crespo in seven megalithic graves in La Rioja and Araba-Álava suggest that certain individuals were excluded from burial on the basis of “criteria relating to age and possibly sex”. So the existence of a funerary recruitment system that marginalised a considerable proportion of the population, according to the UPV/EHU researcher, could be pointing to the fact that the collective use of a shared burial area, which has often been understood as an egalitarian sign of megalithic societies, could in actual fact be masking the privileges of communities that were starting to become hierarchized. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at heritagedaily.com ...
I thought they were all pagans............
Yah, maybe because they ate them. I don't see how these "scientists" have enough info to deduce political structure from 40,000 years ago.
This reminds me of the discussions of interbreeding between Cro-Magnons and Neandertals. I think the right word is likely "rape." They didn't just meet at neighborhood mammoth BBQs.
I think they're hinting as racism. They usually are.
lol. meet at bbq. lol
either way, reparations must be paid, to somebody, somehow
Duh, of course they weren’t “egalitarian”. Only a liberal would be stupid enough to think that.
These people lived on the knife’s edge of life, one false move and their tribe was extinct forever. In that situation, the strongest and fittest would naturally be given privileges, in exchange for the benefits they provided to the society.
Og, do you even patriarchy?
By "egalitarian" the writers mean the practice of imposing inequality through forced redistribution. Seems like a good Saturday Digest ping topic, a day early. Thanks OK Sun.
“Stone age people were hierarchical?”
Of course they were. All peoples have been (whether they admit it or not).
Thanks for the ping.
That was my question as well. Who ever thought they were egalitarian? Rousseau?
Says here they were practicing Chalcolithics ...
Were the sodomites buried face down?
The people on the left idealize the hunter gather society. They often say that the men and women in these small bands were equal without class structure. It was only when they started to live in cities that the evil class structure developed, and we departed from these ideal origins. I have always thought that this was wrong, but they are very serious about rearranging history to meet a Marxist ideology.
Now you've done it. I'm going to have to go fix a big lunch.
There is always someone at the top and always someone at the bottom.
Certain scholars want it to be different but they keep on running into reality.
The guy, or gal, on top will have the best spot by the fire, the choicest piece of meat, the most finely crafted clothing, a trinket or two.
The scholars want to scream that these are just "little" things and that the society is really equal. But they are full of malarkey.
Sadly their obsession tends to spoil what could have been some really excellent work in their field.
My pleasure!
That’s rarely discussed but is a reasonable answer to the genetic data.
Why are there NO Neandertal Y chromosomes or Neandertal mitrochondrial DNA examples in the human population, while the DNA is clearly present?
One answer is that it was selected against, but this is unlikely given the one to three percent Neandertal DNA present in the population. SOMEONE would carry at least one of those if population mixing was going both ways or semi-fair.
An answer could be: Neandertal men saw the stronger neoteny traits in human women (lither bodies, large eyes in a flat face) as attractive and raped them, certainly possible given their greater physical strength. Humans had more variety in tools but were newcomers to the land; some women made it home, carrying a hybrid baby.
Genetic models show that just a few dozen times of this happening very early in the small population of humans who left Africa would account for the genetic distribution of Neandertal DNA.
So what explains the genetics we see, of no Neandertal mitrochondria or Y chromosomes?
The humans knew numbers were small. They killed the sons of Neandertal men, because they didn’t want to raise the rapist’s son. The hybrid daughters they kept, because they needed the breeders, keeping Neandertal DNA in the next generation but only hybrids with human mitrochondria.
In contrast, humans didn’t have a chance with Neandertal women who were far stronger, and/or the few hybrids that occurred that way weren’t cross-fertile or died out with the Neandertals.
Excellent definition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
