Here is a thought exercise:
Has it occurred to you that that the human baby is probably the most defenseless animal on the planet? It can't even hold its own head up steadily until it is about five months old.
If we were to put a newborn human baby and, say, a newborn horse, in a barn together, which one would have the better chance at survival? Most animals are on their feet and running around within days, if not hours, of being born. The human baby, however, can hardly move at all for at least several weeks, and can't roll over until six months. How can it possibly survive alone?
When we look at animals that tend to produce litters (dogs, cats, pigs, etc.), that is, animals with multiple pairs of teats, they have an instinctual behavior to nurture their young until their offspring are capable of fending for themselves.
Since you mentioned neanderthals, I wonder how the first human babies were able to survive in the wild without being slaughtered by other animals because of their early weakened state? Did human females, just like their counterparts in the animal kingdom, also have an instinctual desire to nurture their young? Their bodies were also built for nursing, but for just one offspring at a time.
What was the religion that drove the ancient neanderthal women to care for their young and not leave them in the wild to be preyed upon?
Is this "science?"
Now suppose we move past the ancient neanderthals a bit. Let's move the thought experiment ahead a few millennia.
Humanity has matured beyond the Neanderthal to the Cro-Magnon to the Homo Sapiens. The brain has evolved, the body has evolved, but the female still nurtures their young. Now, however, people live in clans for mutual protection. In order for the clan to survive and perpetuate, the males hunt and gather while the females nurture the young and ready the water and fire.
Is this "gender roles" or "imposed societal values" or just practical distribution of chores to keep the clan alive?
Now let's move the thought experiment ahead a few more millennia.
The clans have combined and spread. Over the generations, some gene lines have produced strong men and women, others have produced smart men and women, and still others have produced weak men and women. And some gene lines can even produce a "runt" of the litter, too, amongst their strong or smart siblings.
Families organize around their best traits. The quick and agile become hunters, the strong and large become laborers, the smart become planners and organizers, and the weaker become cooks or artisans or watchers who man the homestead. The son of the hunter becomes a Hunter or a Fisher; the son of a smith becomes a Smith or a Cooper, the son of a cook or a baker becomes the Cook or the Baker.
Before we know it, we have a village filled with families named Baker, Brewer, Butcher, Carpenter, Cook, Cooper, Farmer, Fisher, Fletcher, Gardner, Hunter, Mason, Miller, Potter, Tailor, Weaver, and so on.
To prevent the strong from dominating the weak, to prevent the smart from cheating the dumb, to prevent the old and incapable from suffering amongst the rest, rules of order are formed. To protect the standings and accumulations of families, rules of inheritance are formed. To protect the claims of lineage and descendant wealth, rules of marriage are formed. To protect marriages from corrupting the ancestral line, religions are formed.
Finally, let's move the thought experiment ahead one more time to today.
Is this still an "ancient idea" or a definition of a civilization that arose because the human baby is the most defenseless animal on the planet?
-PJ
-PJ