- The authors argue that sexual equality may have proved an evolutionary advantage for early human societies, as it would have fostered wider-ranging social networks and closer cooperation between unrelated individuals. “It gives you a far more expansive social network with a wider choice of mates, so inbreeding would be less of an issue,”
- “Chimpanzees live in quite aggressive, male-dominated societies with clear hierarchies,” he said. “As a result, they just don’t see enough adults in their lifetime for technologies to be sustained.”
Link to the actual study (Full text requires free registration, but abstract is viewable without it). This is neat, but worth noting that it seems to be based purely on mathematical modelling, rather than any actual archaeological evidence, so the study's title of "Sex equality can explain the unique social structure of hunter-gatherer bands" (emphasis added) seems like a more apt title than the Guardian headline (which is pretty much par for the course when it comes to Science reporting, sadly).
I lack any expertise to judge how accurate, trustworthy the study is. What I really like about it, is that it give an explanation on why human reached intelligence and not chimps. And the explanation is super neat: sex equality. True or false it is still a pretty good narrative.
Due to time and proximity from my work on past studies, I can't post for reference the studies done as of yet. Unfortunately, my impromptu search on the web for the theory isn't proving helpful at the moment... That said, as with many things in human history, there are many facets to historic changes. The sex equality is a compelling argument, and not what I'd subscribe to as the major facet. From what I studied, with the rise of agriculture and sedentary populations, humanity also experienced many more strifes as consequence. Conflict over land, chronic disease, nutrient deficiencies - the last couple of which can be easily expounded upon here. In fact, once I get back home I hope to post a bit more on that, too. The whole subject is very interesting on what agriculture did to our bodies themselves, but I digress. The main focus here that was touched upon in lecture was the emergence of war and competition for land and resources during the Neolithic era (around the time of agriculture showing up). As you can read at the wiki site in the previous paragraph, you can see that agriculture was shitty with regard to nutrition. Furthermore, agriculturists can work for longer hours with not only less results, but sometimes for naught. Those tied to the now profession of farming allows others free time to fill alternative roles in their society as populations grow; whereas populations grow, families become larger and allow for offspring to contribute to farming. I would interpret that this implies agriculturists are not (which, of course, being my interpretation seems to further the theory taught) . Hence, a social stratification ensues - I believe it fits well with the theory that sex equality shifts at this point. All of this serves the base for war as a tool to usurp others' resources (food, land, workers) for another's gain and survival. Enter: the natural law, to some level, the amassing of power to some form of leadership to in a form of security contract in order to ensure the well-being of both the lands and farmers working the land ... not to mention the villagers/peoples themselves. Populations rise, social stratifications increase (due to wealth, less social mobility due to specialized roles), and soon fiefdom doesn't look to shabby. It irks me to no end that I can't find the evidence that I'm searching for on the web right now. I'll reply to this comment once I get back home with the sources. I hope some of this is good food for thought, and I'd love to read of other theories or ideas!The study, published in the journal Science, set out to investigate the apparent paradox that while people in hunter-gatherer societies show strong preferences for living with family members, in practice the groups they live in tend to comprise few closely related individuals.
The social organization of mobile hunter-gatherers has several derived features, including low within-camp relatedness and fluid meta-groups.
I dont doubt the switch from Hunter to farmer was traumatic. It gave birth to the Abel (hunter) and Cain (farmer) story. And it is not a nice portrayal of farmers. The chimps told us, that male dominance dont need farming to occur. The article pretend we are intelligent because we were a sex-equal species (less inbreeding) The probelm with the study reside in the way they mesured sex-equality: Why using the dispersion of family member? That sound like a second level indicator prone to be influenced by other factors (not only sex-equality, but wealth, heat, culture, whatever in fact) I'd rather have the hunter gathere society being ask question about gender role, and compare that to a poll in a male dominated society, or in Danemark, and see how their responses mesure up. But I like to believe we are intelligent because we're the only species with a natural sex-equalty.. and a white sclera
Why using the dispersion of family member? That sound like a second level indicator prone to be influenced by other factors (not only sex-equality, but wealth, heat, culture, whatever in fact) I'd rather have the hunter gathere society being ask question about gender role, and compare that to a poll in a male dominated society, or in Danemark, and see how their responses mesure up. Ah, I think I see your point. That's something I'd be interested in as well. I can only assume the hunter-gatherer societies left are isolated to Central/South America now-a-days, but what do I know. Definitely a cool article. I'd like to point out that modern humans and neanderthals (along with many others in genus Homo) seemed to interbreed quite a bit when cultures met. Anyways, I thought you may be interested in this article which is about an emerging theory that certain breed of dog willingly domesticated themselves for their own benefit. Interesting stuff, all of this. :)The probelm with the study reside in the way they mesured sex-equality: