5 ms·

For a while now, I've been working on a theory that these mega-sites emerged for matchmaking purposes. Basically, I see it most men and women had a bad deal in

by mihaic 2y ago

For a while now, I've been working on a theory that these mega-sites emerged for matchmaking purposes. Basically, I see it most men and women had a bad deal in choosing their mate in inegalitarian villages, some temporary festivals were held where an example of more fairness being possible was shown and then these mega-sites merged festivals and village in a location that now had hundreds of potential matches for everyone.

seper8 2y ago
So what facts do you have to support this theory? My man, it's time to lay off the dating apps ;)
- mihaic 2y ago
  There are almost no archeological records for social dynamics, so they usually get ignored, or you're forced to base theories on some exercises of imagination. If you were to discover in 1000 years a smartphone without data on it, I doubt you could infer modern social media without some guesswork. You'd get photos, calls, navigation from it having GPS, but not endless hours scrolling feeds. For this matter, what's the point in having a huge village? I can only see protection against warfare and forcing fairness in social interactions and on the matchmaking market. Other things seem to get worse, since increased density makes extracting food from your environment harder. Adult humans have three basic goals: food, shelter, reproduction. They spend most of their energy on these, and any explanation of a society that ignores one of these has to be incomplete. Maybe the fact that we've moved one of these from the social plane onto the virtual makes that harder to see. I've been off the dating apps for some years by the way. :)
  - logicchains 2y ago
    >For this matter, what's the point in having a huge village? I can only see protection against warfare and forcing fairness in social interactions and on the matchmaking market. Division of labour/economies of scale are fundamental to human quality of life improvements. Even without much technology/industry, there's still a lot to gain from division of labour.
    - mihaic 2y ago
      This was a very egalitarian society, with basic needs. All the benefits from division of labour and trade you already get when your society has a few hundred individuals, and it doesn't give you any incentive to grow as large as these mega-sites were.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
    Isn't trade more efficient in larger villages, too? Like economics in general
    - mihaic 2y ago
      Given how basic their lifestyle was, I'd say you hit marginal returns at tens of individuals. Like I said in another comment, a stronger reason would be required for people to want this scale, and I can only see warfare/peacekeeping and matchmaking as reasons.
      - flir 2y ago
        > Given how basic their lifestyle was, I'd say you hit marginal returns at tens of individuals. You might have a circular argument there.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      Trading seems a good explanation, yes. A trading expedition is a big deal, you probably want cram a ship-ton of resources together and exchange all your obsidian for salt, or grain for copper, or whatever, in one go. You don't want to mess around making massive journeys between hundreds of little villages. You want a large, famous, easily-spotted trading destination that has all the goods ready in a big convenient pile.
      - detourdog 2y ago
        Most of these sites have astronomical/calendrical orientation. I would say the definition of trade has to include knowledge and techniques. I can imagine a culture developing a steady state around the seemingly consistent movement of celestial objects and slowly losing it’s cultural center has things shifted. I find interesting that astrology is based on the rising of the sun in position of the planets which is distinct from a lunar calendar. What sort of cultural shift would that change create?
- poulpy123 2y ago
  when tinder becomes tinder
lukan 2y ago
Not sure if I understand you right, but neolithic villages were likely way, way more egalitarian than anything we have today. When you have no material wealth (as a status indicator) that can be passed on that divides people by birth and no formal power system, then the status will be the deeds of the people. And people are not that different on average. Inbreeding would be rather a strong motivation to get fresh blood and have regular festivals to achieve that. But trading, and general coordination and communication to fight of bigger threats were likely a strong motivator as well.
- throwaway11460 2y ago
  Neolithic communities had both a power and status system, as well as material wealth that couldn't be easily replicated and ensured one's place in society.
- bazoom42 2y ago
  Are you suggesting disparities in material wealth did not exist in neolithic times? Why would you think that?
  - Retric 2y ago
    No, it’s suggesting the orders of magnitude were smaller. Bill gates has what 1 million times more wealth than the average person his age, more? There’s no way someone in a Neolithic village could get that kind of advantage over the average person in a neolithic village. Someone having 10x the productivity/wealth/etc sure, but 10,000x just isn’t on the table at least as considered by the time period. We place extreme value on gold where a shiny stone might be worth thousands of tons of food, but nobody back then would make such an exchange. Extreme wealth takes social structures to support it. People 2,000 years ago had less wealth than today on average but you could still have some guy with more concubines in their haram than existed in a Neolithic village.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      The average person is very unlikely to meet somebody like Bill Gates. For most practical intents and purposes inequality is much smaller than that.
aramattamara 2y ago
War was way more abundant and routine in those days. To the east of the study area, there was constant presence of nomadic tribes. I guess it's easier to defend in large groups. The other way to deter invaders is to not have anything to eat yourself (hence frequent fires when settlers burned their own settlements ahead of enemy).
- dimitar 2y ago
  the horse wasn't domesticated yet, this is a really old archaeological culture

by mihaic 2y ago

seper8 2y ago

So what facts do you have to support this theory? My man, it's time to lay off the dating apps ;)

mihaic 2y ago
There are almost no archeological records for social dynamics, so they usually get ignored, or you're forced to base theories on some exercises of imagination. If you were to discover in 1000 years a smartphone without data on it, I doubt you could infer modern social media without some guesswork. You'd get photos, calls, navigation from it having GPS, but not endless hours scrolling feeds. For this matter, what's the point in having a huge village? I can only see protection against warfare and forcing fairness in social interactions and on the matchmaking market. Other things seem to get worse, since increased density makes extracting food from your environment harder. Adult humans have three basic goals: food, shelter, reproduction. They spend most of their energy on these, and any explanation of a society that ignores one of these has to be incomplete. Maybe the fact that we've moved one of these from the social plane onto the virtual makes that harder to see. I've been off the dating apps for some years by the way. :)
- logicchains 2y ago
  >For this matter, what's the point in having a huge village? I can only see protection against warfare and forcing fairness in social interactions and on the matchmaking market. Division of labour/economies of scale are fundamental to human quality of life improvements. Even without much technology/industry, there's still a lot to gain from division of labour.
  - mihaic 2y ago
    This was a very egalitarian society, with basic needs. All the benefits from division of labour and trade you already get when your society has a few hundred individuals, and it doesn't give you any incentive to grow as large as these mega-sites were.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  Isn't trade more efficient in larger villages, too? Like economics in general
  - mihaic 2y ago
    Given how basic their lifestyle was, I'd say you hit marginal returns at tens of individuals. Like I said in another comment, a stronger reason would be required for people to want this scale, and I can only see warfare/peacekeeping and matchmaking as reasons.
    - flir 2y ago
      > Given how basic their lifestyle was, I'd say you hit marginal returns at tens of individuals. You might have a circular argument there.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    Trading seems a good explanation, yes. A trading expedition is a big deal, you probably want cram a ship-ton of resources together and exchange all your obsidian for salt, or grain for copper, or whatever, in one go. You don't want to mess around making massive journeys between hundreds of little villages. You want a large, famous, easily-spotted trading destination that has all the goods ready in a big convenient pile.
    - detourdog 2y ago
      Most of these sites have astronomical/calendrical orientation. I would say the definition of trade has to include knowledge and techniques. I can imagine a culture developing a steady state around the seemingly consistent movement of celestial objects and slowly losing it’s cultural center has things shifted. I find interesting that astrology is based on the rising of the sun in position of the planets which is distinct from a lunar calendar. What sort of cultural shift would that change create?
poulpy123 2y ago
when tinder becomes tinder

lukan 2y ago

Not sure if I understand you right, but neolithic villages were likely way, way more egalitarian than anything we have today. When you have no material wealth (as a status indicator) that can be passed on that divides people by birth and no formal power system, then the status will be the deeds of the people. And people are not that different on average. Inbreeding would be rather a strong motivation to get fresh blood and have regular festivals to achieve that. But trading, and general coordination and communication to fight of bigger threats were likely a strong motivator as well.

throwaway11460 2y ago
Neolithic communities had both a power and status system, as well as material wealth that couldn't be easily replicated and ensured one's place in society.
bazoom42 2y ago
Are you suggesting disparities in material wealth did not exist in neolithic times? Why would you think that?
- Retric 2y ago
  No, it’s suggesting the orders of magnitude were smaller. Bill gates has what 1 million times more wealth than the average person his age, more? There’s no way someone in a Neolithic village could get that kind of advantage over the average person in a neolithic village. Someone having 10x the productivity/wealth/etc sure, but 10,000x just isn’t on the table at least as considered by the time period. We place extreme value on gold where a shiny stone might be worth thousands of tons of food, but nobody back then would make such an exchange. Extreme wealth takes social structures to support it. People 2,000 years ago had less wealth than today on average but you could still have some guy with more concubines in their haram than existed in a Neolithic village.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    The average person is very unlikely to meet somebody like Bill Gates. For most practical intents and purposes inequality is much smaller than that.

aramattamara 2y ago

War was way more abundant and routine in those days. To the east of the study area, there was constant presence of nomadic tribes. I guess it's easier to defend in large groups. The other way to deter invaders is to not have anything to eat yourself (hence frequent fires when settlers burned their own settlements ahead of enemy).

dimitar 2y ago
the horse wasn't domesticated yet, this is a really old archaeological culture