They would have seen other people's buildings and items and wanted those things too, they would have seen armies with better weapons and wanted to know how to make it, leading them to learn about better technology. I think wars and trade, made people realise the other things they could build and make. They also may not have had many wars and didn't feel any need to advance at the time. The other reason is maybe some cultures just couldn't be bothered advancing and were happy as they were, or just maybe it just didn't occur to them as a possibility or requirement. I mean there's so many variables, one could be, perhaps the area was ok for crops but there was no contact with anyone to trade, or perhaps there was no other materials other than wood or rock in their local area, which limited their tools and trades to a certain age of technology. Something of a town to city scale, rather than just people congregated in camps.Īs far as reasons for not advancing further than just agriculture. much more than just hunting and gathering societies, there has to be agriculture, different structures for different types of trades/crafts/services, and a temple / political area. It is true, as you say, that once there were "cities" specialization did become more necessary, more varied, and increasingly complex and hierarchical.įor civilisation, personally I think of large scale, i.e. Even in Native American tribal life these specializations were observed. So those best suited would likely make the contribution they could do best, whether that was fashioning tools or preserving or cooking food. But there would be children to take care of shelters to build, water to carry, clothes of some sort to make, etc. Yet not everyone would be good at handcrafts (any more than we'd see today) nor would everyone be a good hunter. It's unlikely groups tolerated anyone who showed up to eat and did nothing in return. There would be an obvious benefit to alignment with a group, and individuals would have to "earn their keep" to stay. While roving bands might cause trouble, it's likely that many early groups came together for mutual welfare in sparsely populated areas. I also suspect that life (for the most part) wasn't constant conflict or war, either. Some individuals might have better aim with a bow or spear, while others came up with a better method for planting or a sturdier version of a water vessel. There will be stronger or smarter individuals. It's reasonable, for example, to assume that there were differing talents in any group. You're right, Wolfgang, it IS a guess, but it's supported by known history from later societies, aboriginal tribes that survive, and straightforward logic. What was the extent of medical knowledge or care? Did civilizations have a healer who would provide the sick or injured with a medicine of some kind such as specific herbs or plants? Were wounds cared for or treated? What were they treated with? In short, if you fell behind, you were left behind. Were physically smaller or weaker people given jobs that would fit into their physical capabilities, or were they pushed to the side, even banished? In that time period, the strong survived. Would the leader make the call as to adopt agriculture or pastoralism for the village? How strong of an authority would a leader have? The rights to banish people from the village? To assign jobs? Even to take wives, assuming the leader is male. Much like a herd of wild horses, people look to a strong leader to trust and make decisions for the whole herd. Were jobs determined by gender, the physically stronger or weaker, the oldest or youngest? What defined the leader or head of the group-the person at the top of the pecking order? Could it have been determined by the elder in the group? The strongest? The most experienced? Is there any way for us to know how these civilizations functioned? It is safe to make educated guesses that there was a social hierarchy and roles that were carried out by the more capable and suited for individual tasks, but how do we know for sure?Īn interesting question would be how these social hierarchies worked.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |