You Guys Are All Neanderthals

[Bud Struggle]

And so am I!

This is pretty interesting:

Neanderthal genes 'survive in us'

Many people alive today possess some Neanderthal ancestry, according to a landmark scientific study.

The finding has surprised many experts, as previous genetic evidence suggested the Neanderthals made little or no contribution to our inheritance.

The result comes from analysis of the Neanderthal genome - the "instruction manual" describing how these ancient humans were put together.

Between 1% and 4% of the Eurasian human genome seems to come from Neanderthals.

But the study confirms living humans overwhelmingly trace their ancestry to a small population of Africans who later spread out across the world.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifThe most widely-accepted theory of modern human origins - known as Out of Africa - holds that the ancestors of living humans (Homo sapiens) originated in Africa some 200,000 years ago.

A relatively small group of people then left the continent to populate the rest of the world between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago.

While the Neanderthal genetic contribution - found in people from Europe, Asia and Oceania - appears to be small, this figure is higher than previous genetic analyses have suggested.

"They are not totally extinct. In some of us they live on, a little bit," said Professor Svante Paabo, from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

It seems the genome is especially prevalent in Europeans and seems to be absent in most Africans.

You have to think our "friends" over at StormFront are going to hate this news. :D

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The neanderthals must have originated in Africa too though, just coming out as a different branch.

[Havet]

I looked at the title of the thread

I lol'd :lol:

[Dimentio]

I sorta knew wherefrom Black Metal originated :laugh:

[Havet]

I sorta knew wherefrom Black Metal originated :laugh:

Come on now, be polite to our long haired comrades

[Grozny]

While the Neanderthal genetic contribution - found in people from Europe, Asia and Oceania - appears to be small, this figure is higher than previous genetic analyses have suggested.

I'm no expert on this, but I couldn't help but notice that the map of the Neanderthal's range coincides almost exactly with that of Caucasians. Also, there is some evidence that the Neanderthals had red hair, which is found only in people with very pale skin today. We even use the phrase "red-headed Eskimo" to denote any classification of people that does not exist. This would help explain why people in other northern latitudes have dark skin. The cold alone certainly cannot cause the lack of pigmentation in places like Sweden since it is every bit as cold in Siberia, Alaska and Canada and the natives there are as dark as people from tropical climes.

Incidentally, being descended from Neanderthals is nothing to be ashamed of. It is only in popular culture that the term denotes a hulking, stupid race. There is no anthropological evidence that Neanderthals were stupid. In fact, their brains were about 10% bigger than Homo Sapiens. The reason that there are so few Neanderthal artifacts can probably be explained by the fact that their jaws and teeth were strong enough to tear hides, so they did not need the knives and other implements that Homo Sapeins used for butchering animals and making clothes.

[Dimentio]

Neanderthals did have knives actually, which were quite much sharper than steel. Their spears were also impressive examples of technology. Their main weakness was their sturdiness, which in open terrain meant that they couldn't throw things as effective as homo sapiens. They were thrusters, not throwers, and also had a smaller inner ear, which probably meant that they were less agile.

[Blake's Baby]

I fucking hate the way this forum works. It just ate about 9 paragraphs of text.

yes neanderthals had knives.

Howerver the 'spears' are disputed. I think they're spears, some respected archaeologists don't.

There were no neanderthals in Sweden, northern England, Scotland or Ireland, which are the places where red hair is most common. Unlikely then to be a neanderthal genetic trait. The last known neanderthals died out c25,000 years ago in southern Spain. That's where the most genetic mixing is likely to have occurred.

Incidently 6 months ago at a lecture I was told by a world authority on Neanderthals that the last 15 years of research had demolished the idea that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans. Funny how archaeological theories change.

[Dimentio]

I fucking hate the way this forum works. It just ate about 9 paragraphs of text.

yes neanderthals had knives.

Howerver the 'spears' are disputed. I think they're spears, some respected archaeologists don't.

There were no neanderthals in Sweden, northern England, Scotland or Ireland, which are the places where red hair is most common. Unlikely then to be a neanderthal genetic trait. The last known neanderthals died out c25,000 years ago in southern Spain. That's where the most genetic mixing is likely to have occurred.

Incidently 6 months ago at a lecture I was told by a world authority on Neanderthals that the last 15 years of research had demolished the idea that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans. Funny how archaeological theories change.

1. The mixing should have happened in the Middle East, not Europe, and affected basically everyone except those who were smart enough to stay in Africa.

2. They have found some traces of a kind of melanin which is causing red hair. Not the same as in modern humans, but with similar characteristics.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm amazed that people have problems with this.

[Blake's Baby]

The way the forum works? Or neanderthal DNA?

[Dimentio]

I'm amazed that people have problems with this.

I don't.

What I don't like though is that some of the more "clean" racists, like that creepy spider Steve Sailer, is emphasising this in order to attack black people or support their general attacks on black people.

[Bud Struggle]

Look the jist of this is the idea that ANYTHING defines what is human. Go over to Stormfront and they have a FAQ on who is WHITE. If you are 10% Amindian--sorry you aren't white--close but no cigar.

The interesting things is--what is a human being? If Europeans are 4% Neanderthals does that negate White racists from being human beings?

Are White Europeans REAL human being? It seems that only Africans are actualy Homo Sapien human beings without having the dreaded mixed Neanderthal blood! That seems pretty definite by Storm Front standards. These guys are defining who is white and by their own standards they aren't even Human Beings.

Maybe it's just me, but I see this as hilarious.

[Blake's Baby]

I think you're missing one or more important points about the definition of 'human'. Tool use goes back 2.6 million years or there abouts - stone tools that have survived. That's where we date the bewginnings of humanity - with archaeologically identifiable human-like behaviour.

But chimps and orang utans use tools too, so perhaps tool use goes back to the time before African apes (humans, gorillas and chimps) diverged from Asian apes (orang utans and gibbons).

The idea that europeans have neanderthal DNA is dangerous (I'm not saying it's wrong, but it can be dangerous) because it means either there is a seperate 'European' genetics that can be regarded as superior. You can say it's 'less' human if you like but the White Power movement won't. It'll be proof that blacks are less developed (or more developed, which ever is the bad thing of the moment).

The history of racial theories demonstrates already that when a new fact is discovered or a new paradigm of human development is advanced, it's prety much always recuperated for the benefit of racist white superiority theories.

[Bud Struggle]

I think you're missing one or more important points about the definition of 'human'. Tool use goes back 2.6 million years or there abouts - stone tools that have survived. That's where we date the bewginnings of humanity - with archaeologically identifiable human-like behaviour.

But chimps and orang utans use tools too, so perhaps tool use goes back to the time before African apes (humans, gorillas and chimps) diverged from Asian apes (orang utans and gibbons).

The idea that europeans have neanderthal DNA is dangerous (I'm not saying it's wrong, but it can be dangerous) because it means either there is a seperate 'European' genetics that can be regarded as superior. You can say it's 'less' human if you like but the White Power movement won't. It'll be proof that blacks are less developed (or more developed, which ever is the bad thing of the moment).

The history of racial theories demonstrates already that when a new fact is discovered or a new paradigm of human development is advanced, it's prety much always recuperated for the benefit of racist white superiority theories.

Good point. Though I'd like to see that ad campaign that highlights the % of Neanderthal blood in ones veins.

[Cal Engime]

I think you're missing one or more important points about the definition of 'human'. Tool use goes back 2.6 million years or there abouts - stone tools that have survived. That's where we date the bewginnings of humanity - with archaeologically identifiable human-like behaviour.

But chimps and orang utans use tools too, so perhaps tool use goes back to the time before African apes (humans, gorillas and chimps) diverged from Asian apes (orang utans and gibbons).Doesn't human history begin with class struggle? I don't think chimpanzees have class struggle.

[Blake's Baby]

No. There was an awful lot of stuff before there was class struggle. As afar as we know, there was no class system until about 5,000BC and then only in certain parts of the world. As far as we can tell, 99.5% of human existence has been communist.

What you're thinking of is 'history' (ie, written doen stuff) and 'human societies' - ie centralised political and cultural groups. When Marx and Engles wrote that the history of humanity was the history of class struggle, there had been no scientific work done on prehistory, as Engels later noted.

[Havet]

No. There was an awful lot of stuff before there was class struggle. As afar as we know, there was no class system until about 5,000BC and then only in certain parts of the world. As far as we can tell, 99.5% of human existence has been communist.

Really? Do you actually believe what you're saying?!

Thank God we've evolved then!

[Blake's Baby]

Really? Do you actually believe what you're saying?!

Thank God we've evolved then!

Of course I believe it. Humans were communist until the invention of class society. Do you think we had 2.6 million years of invisible class society?

PS - 'thank God we've evolved' - priceless. You win the prize for religious satire there.

Also, you seem to have missed what 'evolution' is. Modern humans (from 250,000 years ago) were communist to. We haven't 'evolved' in any really significant way from them, just changed our social organisation. That's not 'evolution'. Not in a biological sense anyway. So proto-humans and homonids were communists, and so were modern humans for the vast majorirt of their existence, and indeed up to historical times parts of the world still peracticed primitive communism. That doesn't make the west 'more evolved', just 'more repressed'.

[Havet]

Of course I believe it. Humans were communist until the invention of class society. Do you think we had 2.6 million years of invisible class society?

Just because there weren't any classes DOESN'T mean humans were communist. If I recall correctly, communism also implies DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Do you have evidence that this was the norm, everywhere?


PS - 'thank God we've evolved' - priceless. You win the prize for religious satire there.

Yes; too bad i'm not religious.

[Blake's Baby]

Communism is 'social control of the means of production'. Which you might think of as being 'democratic'. When a tribe of hunter-gatherers is exploiting a resource, my understanding is that generally it's collectively exploited, therefore, 'social control', yes.

As there is no evidence in pre-history for social heirarchy before, approximately, 5000BC, I think it;'s easier to believe that social heirarchy wasn't a factor in society. Easier to believe it wasn't there than to invent it and decide it must be invisible for 250,000 years - or 2.6 million years.

[Havet]

Communism is 'social control of the means of production'. Which you might think of as being 'democratic'. When a tribe of hunter-gatherers is exploiting a resource, my understanding is that generally it's collectively exploited, therefore, 'social control', yes.

But a trible also usually operates under an hierarchy, which from my understanding of communism, is unfair, because it derives from bloodlines not from democratic decision. (and even if it came from democratic decision, isn't that representative democracy instead of direct democracy?)

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not sure wher you get your information on tribal bloodlines from. Some do, some don't, you never can tell with tribes. I never claimed all existing tribes now were communist.

[Havet]

I'm not sure wher you get your information on tribal bloodlines from. Some do, some don't, you never can tell with tribes. I never claimed all existing tribes now were communist.

Well what evidence are you basing yourself upon to support your statements that all tribes operated under a communist principle?

[Blake's Baby]

Not aware of where I said 'all tribes operated under a communist principle'.

Social heirarchy is detectable from around 5000BC in certain parts of the world, then in other parts of the world from later periods. It is not detectable before that. That doesn't mean it isn't there in any society ever that doesn't show it; but it makes it extremely likely that it isn't there. Just as it's impossible to disprove the existence of invisible unicorns, it's impossible to disprove the existence of invisible social heirarchy. But most societies that we know of have modes of expressing or displaying social heirarchy that we are comfortable about recognising.

However, we know that some tribes that have existed into historic times have pactised communism. So social heirarchy is not inevitable in human society. Therefore it is inherently more likely that social groups that do not display social heirarchy do so because they don't have social heirarchy than because their social heirarchy is invisible.

Not believing in social heirarchy before 5000BC is easier and more logical than believing that every social group that existed from 250,000 years ago decided to keep their social heirarchy 'hidden' until some rather gauche incipient aristocracy decided to 'go public' 7,000 years ago.

[Havet]

That doesn't mean it isn't there in any society ever that doesn't show it; but it makes it extremely likely that it isn't there.

How do you know that? Where's the evidence


Just as it's impossible to disprove the existence of invisible unicorns, it's impossible to disprove the existence of invisible social heirarchy.

lol


However, we know that some tribes that have existed into historic times have pactised communism. So social heirarchy is not inevitable in human society. Therefore it is inherently more likely that social groups that do not display social heirarchy do so because they don't have social heirarchy than because their social heirarchy is invisible.

While the assumptions may be reasonable, they still require evidence.


Not believing in social heirarchy before 5000BC is easier and more logical than believing that every social group that existed from 250,000 years ago decided to keep their social heirarchy 'hidden' until some rather gauche incipient aristocracy decided to 'go public' 7,000 years ago.

Where are you basing all of these assumptions from? What data?

[Blake's Baby]

No, you have to make your questions more concrete than that.

"Where's the evidence?" you ask. Where's the evidence that not finding something means it's probably not there, rather than it was there but is invisible? There isn't any. But if I don't find evidence of aircraft in 5000BC I think it's easier to believe it's because they weren't there than that they were but left no trace.

Some things don't leave a trace, whether they're there or not; language, let's say. Without writing, language leaves no trace. But I believe that language existed before 3000BC. But comparison between societies without social heirarchies that leave no trace of social heirarchy in the record and societies with social heirarchies that leave evidence of social heirarchies suggests that heirarchies tend to leave evidence. There is none, therefore more likely that there are no heirarchies.

[Havet]

Where's the evidence that not finding something means it's probably not there, rather than it was there but is invisible?

After you prove to me that it was there, although "invisible" (whatever the fuck that means), then i'll believe you.


But I believe that language existed before 3000BC.

I have beliefs and opinions too. They mean a flying fuck unless I can support them with evidence, reason and logic.

[Dimentio]

But a trible also usually operates under an hierarchy, which from my understanding of communism, is unfair, because it derives from bloodlines not from democratic decision. (and even if it came from democratic decision, isn't that representative democracy instead of direct democracy?)

Most tribes are/were only groups of about 20-100 people. In such communities, it is not necessary for formal hierarchies to arise.

[Bud Struggle]

I have beliefs and opinions too. They mean a flying fuck unless I can support them with evidence, reason and logic.

And that has definitely been a problem with all that mutualism stuff you've been espousing. :D

[Havet]

And that has definitely been a problem with all that mutualism stuff you've been espousing. :D

Not to mention with inga

[Raúl Duke]

There were no neanderthals in Sweden, northern England, Scotland or Ireland, which are the places where red hair is most common. Unlikely then to be a neanderthal genetic trait. The last known neanderthals died out c25,000 years ago in southern Spain. That's where the most genetic mixing is likely to have occurred.
The Celts, which are the people in North England, Scotland, and Ireland related/descended from ...came from Continental Europe and migrated to the British Islands later on. For some time, a section of Celts lived in Spain.

Although...perhaps they're not related to the Neanderthals but it's still a possibility I guess.

IDK, I'm not an expert

[Dimentio]

The Celts, which are the people in North England, Scotland, and Ireland related/descended from ...came from Continental Europe and migrated to the British Islands later on. For some time, a section of Celts lived in Spain.

Although...perhaps they're not related to the Neanderthals but it's still a possibility I guess.

IDK, I'm not an expert

The Celts are fairly new in Europe. They originally migrated from Siberia like other Indo-Europeans. The traces of "original" Europeans are most visible in the Atlas Mountains, the Basque Region, The British isles and Finland.

[Blake's Baby]

After you prove to me that it was there, although "invisible" (whatever the fuck that means), then i'll believe you.




OK, so you don't know what invisible means. It means it can't be seen. Language is invisible to archaeology because it leaves no trace, until it is written down on something that survives for hundreds or thousands of years. We start to see written texts from about 3000BC. We don't before that. Archaeologists don't think that's a problem of survival particularly, we think that's because writing was invented c3000BC. But spoken language must precede writing - only, we don't have any direct evidence for it.

As for social heirarchy, that too is invisible, before 5000BC in this case. Again, probably (an opinion, based on looking at evidence) not because it exists but leaves no trace, like spoken language, but because, like written language, it is invented at a particular time and place. So I have no intention of 'proving' it was there, as I'm busy arguing it wasn't.

Lack of evidence for a social system can be interpreted two ways - it's not there, or it is there but you can't see it for whatever reason. If that same system shows abundant evidence at other times and places, then the likelihood become stronger that the reason for the lack of evidence before 5000BC, and over much of the world even after 5000BC, is that there was no social heirarchy.


I have beliefs and opinions too. They mean a flying fuck unless I can support them with evidence, reason and logic.

Yes. We call those 'flying fuck beliefs' prejudice. I have offered evidence, reason and logic to sustain my case. Ergo, not prejudice, but quite obviously looking at evidence and using reason and logic to evaluate it.

The difference is new evidence can change my beliefs. Eg the Neanderthal DNA that is the point of this thread. Honestly, that's a paradigm-shift that archaeology is curretly absorbing - we've literally had days to start to get to grips with something that overturns the last 15 years of research. I'm sure people more involved with Middle Palaeolithic studies than I am have been aware for a little while what was going to be said, but really, six months ago this was an old theory that was discredited. Now it's a stunning revelation.

So if evidence for social heirarchy emerges from 25,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago, I'll revise my considered opinion. In the mewantime, I'll conclude that the most likely reason for the total lack of evidence for social heirarchy before 5000BC is that there was no social heirarchy before 5000BC.

[Blake's Baby]

The Celts, which are the people in North England, Scotland, and Ireland related/descended from ...came from Continental Europe and migrated to the British Islands later on. For some time, a section of Celts lived in Spain.

Although...perhaps they're not related to the Neanderthals but it's still a possibility I guess.

IDK, I'm not an expert

Well, some of that is archaeologically supportable.

The inhabitants of the British Islaes were probably not generally 'ethnically' Celtic - not descended from Austrians, in other words. They spoke a Celtic language and used art-forms that were part of a European style but there is actually very little evidence for a 'Celtic invasion' - much of Iron Age culture can instead to have developed from Neolithic and Bronze Age roots in Britain.

Unless the Celts came here in 3000BC - in which case, what does 'Celt' mean? If the Celts are only identified in Europe in about 800BC, they can hardly have conquered Britain 2,200 years earlier.

If instead of thinking of 'Celts' as an ethnic group we think of them as a component of a broad cultural group, I think it makes more sense. If most of western Europe was 'proto-Celtic' by 3000BC then we can posit close links, but not necessarily shared genetics, between different west European groups.

But the problem of the Neanderthals remains. If we suspect they interbred with Modern Humans in the Middle East, that is before about 60,000 years ago. If it's in Ukraine, that's about 45,000 years ago. If it's France, that's about 34,000 years ago. Spain, 27,000 years ago. That leaves at least 22,000 years between the last Neanderthals and the 'proto-Celtic' culture that isn't ethnically (genetically) constituted anyway.

I'm not saying it can't be true; just that it doesn't look like it is. The last Neanderthals lived in Spain; to find the 'least diluted' vestiges of Neanderthal descendents, I'd start there.

[Bud Struggle]

Still they found the genome.

[Havet]

OK, so you don't know what invisible means. It means it can't be seen. Language is invisible to archaeology because it leaves no trace, until it is written down on something that survives for hundreds or thousands of years. We start to see written texts from about 3000BC. We don't before that. Archaeologists don't think that's a problem of survival particularly, we think that's because writing was invented c3000BC. But spoken language must precede writing - only, we don't have any direct evidence for it.

As for social heirarchy, that too is invisible, before 5000BC in this case. Again, probably (an opinion, based on looking at evidence) not because it exists but leaves no trace, like spoken language, but because, like written language, it is invented at a particular time and place. So I have no intention of 'proving' it was there, as I'm busy arguing it wasn't.

Lack of evidence for a social system can be interpreted two ways - it's not there, or it is there but you can't see it for whatever reason. If that same system shows abundant evidence at other times and places, then the likelihood become stronger that the reason for the lack of evidence before 5000BC, and over much of the world even after 5000BC, is that there was no social heirarchy.



Yes. We call those 'flying fuck beliefs' prejudice. I have offered evidence, reason and logic to sustain my case. Ergo, not prejudice, but quite obviously looking at evidence and using reason and logic to evaluate it.

The difference is new evidence can change my beliefs. Eg the Neanderthal DNA that is the point of this thread. Honestly, that's a paradigm-shift that archaeology is curretly absorbing - we've literally had days to start to get to grips with something that overturns the last 15 years of research. I'm sure people more involved with Middle Palaeolithic studies than I am have been aware for a little while what was going to be said, but really, six months ago this was an old theory that was discredited. Now it's a stunning revelation.

So if evidence for social heirarchy emerges from 25,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago, I'll revise my considered opinion. In the mewantime, I'll conclude that the most likely reason for the total lack of evidence for social heirarchy before 5000BC is that there was no social heirarchy before 5000BC.

I like your explanations, but you must understand that in order for them to be correct, the evidence you must present is not only your words, but external links or an annex you might have linking to where you found that knowledge. Otherwise it's still just opinion, no matter how reasonable.

[Blake's Baby]

'Correct' is a dodgy term. I don't claim that my 'opinions' are right, just that they seem (to me) to be more likely to be right than the alternative. And all I could give you as evidence (in terms of theorising what pre-historic societies were like) would be other people's opinions.

However, most knowledge is like that, especially in history.

To the best of my knowledge (which is only a partial reflection of all data gathered about pre-historic societies, which is in itself only a partial reflection of all data generated by said societies), which consists of reading archaeology and history books for more than 30 years, and debating with archaeologists and historians for nearly as long, there are no examples of societies before c5000BC that show signs that are generally considered to show social differentiation.

I can't show you where that non-evidence is. There is no 'evidence for the non-existence of classes'; there is merely non-existence of evidence for classes. Crucially, and logically, class societies that are known generally produce evidence of classes. Therefore, it can only be a logical deduction that the most likely explanation is that these societies lack classes.

Where can you find this information, or rather the data that *should* demonstrate the existence of social classes, if they're there? Anything on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, or Neolithic pre-history. It is generally in the Neolithic that social differentiation emerges in the archaeological record - even the early settlement at Catal Huyuk was apprently prety socially undifferentiated it seems - and it's at this sort of time (c5000BC) that towns, and elites, begin to emerge.

A rather 'stagist' view of this whole process is summarised in for example Renfrew and Bahn, 'Archaeology: Theory, Method, Practice' which is a standard undergrad text that you should be able to find pretty cheaply (especially any edition before the current one) in any second-hand bookshop in a university town, perhaps through your local library or through Amazon or otherwise on the web.

Happy reading (not just Renfrew and Bahn, I advise you to read anything you can about pre-history and anthropology)

[Blake's Baby]

Having tried to get more info about this, it seems that it's not just Europeans that have Neanderthal DNA (which, sadly, dispenses with the 'red hair theory' that never looked right, but was at least interesting).

It seems everyone except sub-Saharan Africans has Neanderthal DNA; this obviously implies that contact was at a very early stage of homo sapiens' journey out of Africa, so it probably was in the Middle East.


1. The mixing should have happened in the Middle East, not Europe, and affected basically everyone except those who were smart enough to stay in Africa.

2. They have found some traces of a kind of melanin which is causing red hair. Not the same as in modern humans, but with similar characteristics.

[Blake's Baby]

The neanderthals must have originated in Africa too though, just coming out as a different branch.

According to lately-evolved theories (over the last 15 years or so), no, neanderthals actually evolved in the European-Western Asian area after some members of homo heidelbergensis emigrated from Africa. Homo spaiens had a different evolution in Africa for about 150-200,000 years before it too had an 'Out of Africa' expansion (maybe 50,000 years ago).

[LebenIstKrieg]

why is Bud struggle restricted?

[Bud Struggle]

why is Bud struggle restricted?

A Communist plot!

:D

[ChrisK]

why is Bud struggle restricted?

Because it has always been that way. And he's a neaderthal.

[Bud Struggle]

[[Edit]

[ChrisK]

Free Struggle! :lol:

[Blake's Baby]

... with every 10 litres of petrol!

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I have beliefs and opinions too. They mean a flying fuck unless I can support them with evidence, reason and logic.


:laugh:

[synthesis]

It actually seems to me that the preponderance of evidence, though necessarily circumstantial and also inconvenient, is in favor of social stratification having existed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy) long before the emergence of what we call "class society." The idea that the emergence of stratification somehow happened to magically coincide with the surviving evidence of such - that seems pedantic, don't you think?

Contrary to the argument that stratification is a development of relatively recent history, social animals are almost always "stratified" between the alphas and non-alphas, as the former eats and mates before the latter, sometimes exclusively. Much like prejudice and territoriality, stratification is not a development of the highest evolutionary capacities of the human brain, but rather a purely animal behavior that must be overcome as we try to create a more human society.

[Blake's Baby]

Fine as a theory, only there's no evidence for it. As there is evidence that appears for stratification in the archaeological record, and then appears pretty consistently, it's easier to believe that the lack of evidence = lack of social stratification rather than 243,000 years of human 'elites' managing somehow and for some reason to keep their existence undetectable.

[synthesis]

Fine as a theory, only there's no evidence for it. As there is evidence that appears for stratification in the archaeological record, and then appears pretty consistently, it's easier to believe that the lack of evidence = lack of social stratification rather than 243,000 years of human 'elites' managing somehow and for some reason to keep their existence undetectable.

Have you ever heard of the "fallacy of silent evidence"?

When all the circumstantial evidence supports one line of thinking, it is fallacious to argue that "absence of direct evidence automatically equals direct evidence of absence."

In this case, the most likely possibility is that evidence exists, but either 1. we haven't found it yet, 2. it disintegrated before we came across it, or 3. it exists and we just don't know about it.

When all other social animals display tendencies towards primitive stratification, it would be pure sophistry to argue that if such stratification existed, then the lack of direct evidence is a result of a "conspiracy by primitive human elites."

It seems that you simply wish to ignore arguments which contradict the unproven (at best) thesis of "primitive communism" being the universal condition of prehistoric humans. Again, when all other social animals have a dominance hierarchy then it should be fairly obvious that it existed in prehistoric humans as well.

[Blake's Baby]

Show me any eidence from the 243,000 years of homo sapien existence where social stratification doesn't appear, and I'l believe you. Just like I'll believe in unicorns, prehistoric aeroplanes and men from Mars if you show me the evidence for them. Sometimes, absence of evidence is because there is no evidence.

On the other hand, if I can demonstrate that any societies have existed without social classes, your theory that humans necessarily form classes falls down, doesn't it?

[synthesis]

OK, so what kind of evidence would I have to produce in order to satisfy your request?

This isn't Wikipedia, BTW; we can actually use logic and reason, not just evidence, to support our claims.

With the logic I've provided, it seems fairly obvious to me:

1. Social animals have dominance hierarchies;
2. Since dominant animals have first dibs on resources, then:
3. Dominance hierarchies are examples of primitive stratification;
4. Humans are social animals, and therefore
5. Primitive humans unwittingly participated in primitive stratification.

Seems like QED to me. Where's my logic wrong?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It actually seems to me that the preponderance of evidence, though necessarily circumstantial and also inconvenient, is in favor of social stratification having existed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy) long before the emergence of what we call "class society." The idea that the emergence of stratification somehow happened to magically coincide with the surviving evidence of such - that seems pedantic, don't you think?

Contrary to the argument that stratification is a development of relatively recent history, social animals are almost always "stratified" between the alphas and non-alphas, as the former eats and mates before the latter, sometimes exclusively. Much like prejudice and territoriality, stratification is not a development of the highest evolutionary capacities of the human brain, but rather a purely animal behavior that must be overcome as we try to create a more human society.

None of these existed for most of the "purely" nomadic societies that have come into contact with more modern societies. A nomadic people have very little surplus and rarely fight over territory because they never settle anywhere for more than a few weeks anyway. The is evidence and theories that this changes based only on nomadic people coming into contact with early agricultural societies.

Even the early European accounts of Native Americas talk about their openness and lack hierarchy, freely giving and receiving things, and so on. Columbus described the Arawaks as dupes that are so friendly and trusting that 50 soldiers could make slaves of the entire island. I don't think all of human pre-history was singing around a fire, but I do think that when people have a niche where they can develop a decent standard of living (as the studies of the few remaining isolated tribal groups shows is possible) then there is no reason to fight over resources and so on. If a band of people is starving, then yes, people probably fought for their own survival or even tried to raid other bands... but even then, if a hunter-gatherer society was starving, their nearest neighbors probably were too.

The idea that class or hierarchy just comes out of individual desires or a couple of "alpha" asshole wanting to boss people around for no apparent reason is the traditional idealist approach to this question. In my view, there is no social need for a ruler if there is no surplus to be controlled and ruled over - if some guy barged into your social group while you were having lunch and started eating all your food, what would you do? Walked away or beat the crap out of him and I think this is how pre-agricultural people would have done it too. However, when you are settled, then you can not just pack up and move to a new hunting ground. What's more is now you have extra stocks of food that you need to keep and protect and so it's useful to have a couple of tough guys and women with weapons to protect it... this, crudely described, is the start of classes in my understanding.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's difficult to make any hard pronouncements about what life was like for pre-history cultures. Not only do we not have much hard evidence but we are talking about 10s of thousands of years and an area covering the livable spots on the planet. Complicating this issue for us, is that a lot of anthropology is tied up and influenced by ruling class ideology.

In modern times, anthropology has been used to justify imperialism and the removal of native people all over the world - the imperial argument about "civilizing" people doesn't do much if the people you are "saving" generally already live in small peaceful communities that don't bother anyone else and where collected food is shared equally.

Also arguments about violent tribal life, cavemen raping their mates, competition for alpha-male slot in the tribe do not accurately describe tribal life in the recorded encounter we do have. Instead, these descriptions are much more accurate when applied to modern life... in fact these myths about early man are used to justify our own fucked up society. If cavemen raped women, then misogyny and male dominance aren't due to the way our society is set up, it's due to something internal to all humans. If tribes were in constant war over resources in ancient tribal bands, then the Iraq war is merely the latest expression in that ancient biological urge. If everyone in a tribal band was beating their chests to become top dog in the tribe, then the cut-throat competition of capitalism is not due that that system, but a natural part of human interaction.

[synthesis]

None of these existed for most of the "purely" nomadic societies that have come into contact with more modern societies.

So nomadic societies don't have dominance hierarchies? Source?


The idea that class or hierarchy just comes out of individual desires or a couple of "alpha" asshole wanting to boss people around for no apparent reason is the traditional idealist approach to this question.

I don't agree with how you've characterized my position, but even so, how is that idealist? It's simple biology. I'm saying it's natural, not that it's right, and I would never venture to conflate the two; in most cases they are mutually exclusive.

[Jimmie Higgins]

OK, so what kind of evidence would I have to produce in order to satisfy your request?

This isn't Wikipedia, BTW; we can actually use logic and reason, not just evidence, to support our claims.

With the logic I've provided, it seems fairly obvious to me:

1. Social animals have dominance hierarchies;
2. Since dominant animals have first dibs on resources, then:
3. Dominance hierarchies are examples of primitive stratification;
4. Humans are social animals, and therefore
5. Primitive humans unwittingly participated in primitive stratification.

Seems like QED to me. Where's my logic wrong?

Well first of all, human social interaction is much more dynamic than that of most other animals in the sense that we can actually restructure both our relation to the environment more than most animals as well as restructure our own social organization more than any animal. We can also make these changes consciously rather than merely than changing behavior because of environmental factors. Our flexibility is why humans have spread everywhere and adapted to an endless range of social arrangements as well as climates and environments. Most animals however, because they can not consciously change these things are much less dynamic this way - if they are in an ecological niche and can not adapt to changes, they die - humans have been able to just move on and learn new ways to feed themselves. This is why chimps are stuck in very small areas whereas humans live everywhere and developed fishing, agriculture, different methods for hunting and so on.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So nomadic societies don't have dominance hierarchies? Source?

Unfortunately I have not read academic works on this for about 10 years and so I have to speak about it in generalities and I have forgotten the names of specific tribes or anthropologists.

For the theories, you should check out Engels on "Origin of the State..." - much of his theories are nicely backed up by modern anthropology and "Guns Germs and Steel" echoes Engels' study as well.

But you can always check out wikipedia if you don't believe me:

Social and economic structure

Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have relatively non-hierarchical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hierarchy), egalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarian) social structures. This might have been more pronounced in the more mobile societies, which generally are not able to store surplus food. Thus, full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by these societies.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gather#cite_note-gawdy-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gather#cite_note-Dahlberg-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gather#cite_note-8) In addition to social and economic equality in hunter-gatherer societies there is often, though not always, sexual parity (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/parity) as well.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gather#cite_note-Kiefer-9)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gather#cite_note-gawdy-6) Hunter-gatherers are often grouped together based on kinship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship)band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_society) (or tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe)) membership. and [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gather#cite_note-Kiefer-9)
Others, such as the Haida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haida) of present-day British Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia), lived in such a rich environment that they could remain sedentary, like many other Native Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas) of the Pacific Northwest coast. These groups demonstrate more hierarchical social organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification).
Violence in hunter-gatherer societies is usually caused by grudges and vendettas rather than for territory or economic benefit.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gather#cite_note-Kiefer-9)
A vast amount of ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the sexual division of labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labor) in which men hunt and women gather wild fruits and vegetables is an extremely common phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide, but there are a few number of documented exceptions to this general pattern. A study done on the Aeta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeta) people of the Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines) states: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gather#cite_note-Dahlberg-7) It was also found among the Ju'/hoansi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ju%27/hoansi) people of Namibia that women helped the men during hunting by helping them track (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_%28hunting%29) down quarry.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gather#cite_note-biesele_and_barclay-10) Moreover, recent archaeological research done by the anthropologist and archaeologist Steven Kuhn from the University of Arizona suggests that the sexual division of labor did not exist prior to the Upper Paleolithic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Paleolithic) and developed relatively recently in human history. The sexual division of labor may have arisen to allow humans to acquire food and other resources more efficiently.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gather#cite_note-11) It would, therefore, be an over-generalization to say that men always hunt and women always gather.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Indig1.jpg/250px-Indig1.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indig1.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indig1.jpg)
A 19th century engraving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engraving) of an Indigenous Australian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians) encampment.


At the 1966 "Man the Hunter" conference, anthropologists Richard Borshay Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Borshay_Lee) and Irven DeVore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irven_DeVore) suggested that egalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism) was one of several central characteristics of nomadic hunting and gathering societies because mobility requires minimization of material possessions throughout a population; therefore, there was no surplus of resources to be accumulated by any single member. Other characteristics Lee and DeVore proposed were flux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux) in territorial boundaries as well as in demographic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography) composition. At the same conference, Marshall Sahlins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Sahlins) presented a paper entitled, "Notes on the Original Affluent Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society)", in which he challenged the popular view of hunter-gatherers living lives "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," as Thomas Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes) had put it in 1651. According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisure) than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well. Their "affluence" came from the idea that they are satisfied with very little in the material sense. This, he said, constituted a Zen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen) economy.
Mutual exchange and sharing of resources (i.e., meat gained from hunting) are important in the economic systems of hunter-gatherer societies.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gather#cite_note-Kiefer-9)



I don't agree with how you've characterized my position, but even so, how is that idealist? It's simple biology. I'm saying it's natural, not that it's right, and I would never venture to conflate the two; in most cases they are mutually exclusive.I'm sorry if I am mis-representing your argument - I was arguing against the explanations as they are often given in bourgeois sociology and anthropology textbooks. These arguments are often idealist because, rather than explaining human behavior as it relates to material circumstances, they explain behavior as somehow being innate through genetics or instincts or whatnot.

[synthesis]

I think this is an important argument, and I'd like to write a thorough response to the points you've raised, but since my time is somewhat limited at the moment, I'll just make a few random observations:


Complicating this issue for us, is that a lot of anthropology is tied up and influenced by ruling class ideology.Anthropology is, IMHO, the Yugoslavia of academic disciplines. Within its self-defined boundaries, it makes some reasonable distinctions, but when "anthropology" is viewed holistically as a signifier, the term is almost entirely meaningless. Anthropologists can rarely define exactly what it is they are studying, except "culture," which is itself an extremely nebulous and ill-defined signifier.



Also arguments about violent tribal life, cavemen raping their mates, competition for alpha-male slot in the tribe do not accurately describe tribal life in the recorded encounter we do have. Instead, these descriptions are much more accurate when applied to modern life... in fact these myths about early man are used to justify our own fucked up society. If cavemen raped women, then misogyny and male dominance aren't due to the way our society is set up, it's due to something internal to all humans. If tribes were in constant war over resources in ancient tribal bands, then the Iraq war is merely the latest expression in that ancient biological urge. If everyone in a tribal band was beating their chests to become top dog in the tribe, then the cut-throat competition of capitalism is not due that that system, but a natural part of human interaction.The point is not that all cavemen raped women, or that all tribal people jockeyed for alpha status, or that all tribes warred amongst each other for dominance over resources and territory, but that some did, many did, and so, yes, it is a natural part of human interaction, but just a part, not the whole, and that part which is natural often remains that which must be overcome in order to plant the seeds for a better society.

Here's an analogy. I've heard a lot of ex-drug addicts say that Portland has a worse problem with heroin addiction than Seattle or the Bay, not because we have more addicts per capita but because we are in utter denial about the extent of our problem. A truth might be inconvenient, but just because people have used that truth to serve their own agenda, exaggerating its influence in the process, we can't simply ignore it and hope it goes away on its own.

As we all know, even committed communists and socialists have evinced strong dominance hierarchies within movements, parties, governments, and communities. If a problem is entrenched, deeply rooted, it means that it will take that much more effort to dig it up and dispose of it properly; if we pretend it's not there, let it sit and fester like industrial waste, not only will it not go away on its own, but furthermore it will poison everything around it - as we've repeatedly seen throughout the 20th century.