The claim at 17:21 that those elaborately buried children imply a social hierarchy is false. We would expect to have much more evidence of such a hierarchical society, not just none isolated case. My understanding is that the prevailing view is that they were regarded as special individuals for some reason, not that they were princes or similar.
Yeah, I should have been more precise. At least the society is no longer egalotarian if some people are singled out for such a lavish burial, associated with many hours of manpower + material wealth.
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World No, that doesn't follow at all. For one thing, this might have only been the case after death, not something that happened in daily life. But more importantly, it's only not egalitarian if it is imposed, the subordinates having no choice but to submit to extraction. There are too many possible alternative explanations for that to be assumed to be present here. For example, riffing on some Egyptian beliefs, those kids might have been buried in leather suits in a manner similar to us dressing astronauts in space suits. That it was functional gear rather than a symbol of status. These burials are so old, there is just too little evidence to make the claim you made. And it amounts to an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, because it is the opposite of what we think was going on generally in that period.
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World no that's not true. An egalitarian society can still have a lottery. As long as nobody is extorting others, it's all fair.
Hahaha that would make a capitalist system with free trade egalitarian. This is getting a bit silly. When we say small tribes are generally egalitarian, we mean all members are treated about the same. This is generally true for hunter gatherers - with not much difference in wealth, political status, and ceremonial status, before or after death. But not for Sungir and some other cases. And in a way the pharoah of Egypt was picked by (genetic) lottery.
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World Wrong. Nobody knows what those grotesque woman-esque statuettes were about. Every dumb mindless clone keeps repeating the same weak idea, as if they know something. Women = fertility and that's why we carve a woman nobody wants to screw. Totally wrong. She was food to get through the hard times, late winter/early spring. She was a sacrifice, who was fattened up to eat. This is before they had dogs, which replaced her as emergency rations. That's why she doesn't have a face. It's not about who she is, it's about what she is, face doesn't matter, better not to even know her. There are no cave paintings of women, was my point. The reason?
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
in the flickering light the paintings move
birth of our species, did you mean 300,000 years ago? you said 30,000
Ah, mistake
Yeah, felt like stopping watching at that point.. birth of homo sapiens was minimum 150k years ago, not 30
@@livrowland171 I think it was correct on the slide, but I misspoke.
Great video and a pleasant watch! Can you guess as to why the bear at 13:39 was portrayed with such animosity?
Thanks! No idea about the bear.
The earliest evidence of Homo sapiens found so far
No way the oldest find is anywhere near the oldest people
The claim at 17:21 that those elaborately buried children imply a social hierarchy is false. We would expect to have much more evidence of such a hierarchical society, not just none isolated case. My understanding is that the prevailing view is that they were regarded as special individuals for some reason, not that they were princes or similar.
Yeah, I should have been more precise. At least the society is no longer egalotarian if some people are singled out for such a lavish burial, associated with many hours of manpower + material wealth.
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World No, that doesn't follow at all. For one thing, this might have only been the case after death, not something that happened in daily life.
But more importantly, it's only not egalitarian if it is imposed, the subordinates having no choice but to submit to extraction. There are too many possible alternative explanations for that to be assumed to be present here.
For example, riffing on some Egyptian beliefs, those kids might have been buried in leather suits in a manner similar to us dressing astronauts in space suits. That it was functional gear rather than a symbol of status.
These burials are so old, there is just too little evidence to make the claim you made. And it amounts to an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, because it is the opposite of what we think was going on generally in that period.
@@garethmartin6522 Privileged burial = non-egalitarian
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World no that's not true. An egalitarian society can still have a lottery. As long as nobody is extorting others, it's all fair.
Hahaha that would make a capitalist system with free trade egalitarian. This is getting a bit silly. When we say small tribes are generally egalitarian, we mean all members are treated about the same. This is generally true for hunter gatherers - with not much difference in wealth, political status, and ceremonial status, before or after death. But not for Sungir and some other cases. And in a way the pharoah of Egypt was picked by (genetic) lottery.
Notice nobody carved or painted women. That says something important.
Women statuetes are covered near the end of the lecture. Males were associated with ritual and females with reproduction.
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World Wrong. Nobody knows what those grotesque woman-esque statuettes were about. Every dumb mindless clone keeps repeating the same weak idea, as if they know something. Women = fertility and that's why we carve a woman nobody wants to screw. Totally wrong. She was food to get through the hard times, late winter/early spring. She was a sacrifice, who was fattened up to eat. This is before they had dogs, which replaced her as emergency rations. That's why she doesn't have a face. It's not about who she is, it's about what she is, face doesn't matter, better not to even know her. There are no cave paintings of women, was my point. The reason?
No