The future is ancient! (What early humans teach us about a just future 🌏)

Hello deer, my name is Serina, aka Seri 🌸

I've always been fascinated by how early humans lived—free, equal, connected to each other and to nature.

There was a time, long before thrones and crowns, before concrete and clocks, when humans walked hand in hand with the earth.

In those ancient forests and soft meadows, no one ruled over another. People lived, gathered, laughed, and danced, not as kings and servants, not as men above women, but simply as souls, equal and entwined.

In the whisper of the leaves and the songs of old firelit nights, we can still hear echoes of those egalitarian days. What if we listened again?

Humans are egalitarians by nature 👫🏻

Hate it or not but anthropological and archaeological evidence strongly suggests that for the vast majority of human history, particularly during the hunter-gatherer era (roughly 95% of our existence), human societies were egalitarian in structure.

Why?

Small group size:

Early bands were small (20–150 people), so hierarchy and control were hard to maintain.

Mobility:

Being nomadic meant no accumulation of wealth or land, major sources of power today.

Shared resources:

Food was often shared communally; hoarding was discouraged.

Social pressure:

Group cohesion mattered, people who were too dominant or selfish were mocked, ignored, or excluded (“leveling mechanisms”).

Gender Roles in Early Societies 👫🏻

Roles were flexible and complementary, not hierarchical.

In most foraging societies studied today (like the !Kung or Hadza), women gather, men hunt, but both contribute substantially to the group’s survival and have influence in decisions.

Gathering was just as important as hunting, if not more.

No strong evidence of patriarchy or matriarchy in early humans, rather, a relative balance.

Were Early Societies Matrilineal or Patriarchal? 👫🏻

Likely neither, in the way we define them today.

Some early societies may have been matrilineal (inheritance through the mother), especially when paternity was uncertain.

But this doesn’t mean they were matriarchal (women dominating men).

Patriarchy as we know it likely arose with agriculture, when:

👉Land and animals could be owned.

👉Inheritance mattered (especially from fathers).

👉Women became more tied to domestic roles, men to ownership and politics.

👉Larger, more stratified societies formed (states, empires).

For most of our existence, humans lived egalitarians 👫🏻

When we look at human history in terms of time, about 95% of it was spent living in small, mobile, hunter-gatherer bands, where people tended to be egalitarian, especially compared to modern class- and gender-based hierarchies.

Homo sapiens have existed for about 300,000 years.

Agriculture (farming, herding, permanent settlements) began around 10,000 years ago.

That means:

👉~290,000 years = foraging, small bands, relative equality.

👉~10,000 years = agriculture, rising inequality, patriarchy, states.

So yes,, for most of our existence, humans lived in cooperative societies where:

👉Resources were shared

👉No one could hoard much

👉Leadership was informal or rotated

👉Men and women both contributed meaningfully

👉Status was based more on reputation than power

👉The hierarchical, patriarchal, state-based world we know today is a recent development, historically speaking.

How and Why Egalitarian Societies Became Hierarchical and Patriarchal 👬

1. The Agricultural Revolution (Neolithic Revolution)

Where it started: Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia), Nile Valley, China, Mesoamerica, etc.

When: Around 10,000 BCE

What Changed?

👉Farming created food surplus.

👉People could settle in one place.

👉Surplus led to property, inheritance, and competition over land and resources.

Impact:

Some individuals began to accumulate more resources (land, livestock, grain).

This created wealth differences and eventually classes.

Surplus also allowed the rise of non-producing elites (priests, rulers, warriors).

2. Emergence of Property and Inheritance

Once people owned land, inheritance rights became important especially paternal lineage.

Why patriarchy?

👉Men wanted to ensure their offspring inherited their property.

👉This led to control over women’s sexuality to guarantee paternity.

👉Women were increasingly tied to the household, and their roles were restricted to reproduction and domestic work.

> This is the root of patriarchy: not biology, but control of property, reproduction, and inheritance.

3. Rise of the State and Military Power

As societies grew:

👉Conflicts over land and resources increased.

Armies and centralized rulers emerged to control territory and enforce order.

👉Kings, chiefs, and male warriors took power.

👉Women were often excluded from these roles and decision-making.

Example:

In Mesopotamia, early city-states were led by priest-kings. Over time, laws (like Hammurabi’s Code) reduced women’s legal rights, making them subordinate to male authority.

4. Religion and Ideology

Religious systems started to justify inequality and male dominance:

👉Male gods replaced earlier goddesses.

👉Sacred texts and myths reinforced obedience to male figures (e.g., Genesis, Confucian texts, Greek epics).

👉Women were cast as morally weaker, needing control, or as symbols of purity/domesticity.

5. Urbanization and Labor Division

Cities needed specialized labor:

👉Men worked in trades, politics, public life.

👉Women were increasingly confined to private/domestic spheres.

Public = male / Private = female became a norm in many ancient societies.

6. Loss of Communal Life

In foraging societies:

👉People shared food, tools, and child-rearing.

👉There was no sharp divide between men's and women’s spaces or power.

In early states:

👉Private households replaced shared space.

👉Nuclear families replaced communal bands.

👉Isolation and dependence on male "heads of household" reinforced inequality.

Conclusion:

The rise of patriarchy and hierarchy was not “natural” or inevitable. It was the result of specific material and social changes — farming, property, state power, and control over reproduction.

These systems became entrenched, supported by ideology and laws, and have lasted for millennia. But remembering our egalitarian roots shows that human societies can and have worked very differently, and can again.

But : not all societies became patriarchal immediately after the Agricultural Revolution.

Are humans naturally male dominant? 👫🏻

No, sorry, humans are not naturally male dominant, and the idea that male dominance is "natural" is a myth rooted in selective interpretations of biology and history.

1. Human Evolution Favors Cooperation, Not Dominance

Humans evolved in highly cooperative social groups, not hierarchies based on brute strength.

Survival depended on sharing, collaboration, and mutual aid.

Even though males are, on average, physically stronger, early human societies valued generosity, social intelligence, and teamwork far more than dominance.

Alpha behavior (like in chimpanzees) was often punished or suppressed in early human bands through gossip, teasing, or group pushback (known as reverse dominance hierarchy).

> Source: Christopher Boehm – Hierarchy in the Forest (1999)

2. Modern Foraging Societies Are Not Male Dominant

Anthropologists studying contemporary hunter-gatherers (our best model for early human life) consistently find egalitarian or balanced gender roles:

👉Among the !Kung San, Hadza, and Aka Pygmies, women contribute significantly to food production and decision-making.

👉In some societies, like the Aka, men and women are equally involved in parenting.

👉Leadership tends to be informal, and both genders have influence.

> Conclusion: Male dominance is not universal, even today.

3. Biology Doesn’t Dictate Social Roles

Yes, men and women have biological differences but these do not determine fixed power hierarchies:

Physical strength matters less in cooperative societies.

Childbearing doesn’t require social subordination, in fact, it often gives women central status in foraging groups.

Human babies are born extremely dependent meaning both parents (and the whole group) must invest in care. That demands equality, not domination.

> Source: Sarah Hrdy – Mothers and Others (2009)

4. Male Dominance Is Cultural, Not Biological

Patriarchy arose not because it’s “natural,” but because of:

👉The need to control land, inheritance, and surplus (see earlier discussion).

👉Desire to control women’s reproduction for lineage and property transfer.

👉Cultural and religious systems that justified male rule after agriculture

> Source: Gerda Lerner – The Creation of Patriarchy (1986)

5. Other Primates Aren’t All Male Dominant

Even among our close relatives:

Bonobos, as closely related to humans as chimpanzees, live in female-centered, peaceful societies.

Females form coalitions and control mating, no male hierarchy like in chimps.

This shows that evolution does not require male dominance.

> Source: Frans de Waal – Our Inner Ape (2005)

6. Societies with Female Power Have Existed

Iroquois Confederacy (North America): Matrilineal, women chose male leaders, owned land.

Minangkabau (Indonesia): World’s largest matrilineal society — women own property, inheritance goes through daughters.

Mosuo (China): Matrilineal and matrifocal, women lead households and make major decisions.

> These show that human social structure is flexible, not biologically fixed.

Conclusion:

Humans are not "naturally" male dominant. Patriarchy is a historical development, not a biological destiny. Our species evolved for cooperation, mutual care, and flexible roles and numerous societies today (and in the past) show that gender equality or female leadership are just as viable and natural.

Are other primates male-dominant? 🦍

The answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no.

Some primates are male-dominant, but not all.

Human ancestors did not come from just one kind of primate behavior and the variety among primates shows that male dominance is not universal in our evolutionary relatives.

Types of Social Structures in Primates 🦍🦧

1. Chimpanzees – Male-Dominant

Strong male hierarchies; males compete for alpha status.

Males form coalitions and dominate access to females.

Can be aggressive and violent.

Some early theories (like “Man the Hunter”) wrongly assumed we evolved only from this model.

> But... humans are equally related to bonobos.

2. Bonobos – Female-Centered & Egalitarian

Matriarchal tendencies: Female bonobos form strong alliances that keep males in check.

Females often lead social groups and have mating choice.

Conflict is resolved through social bonding and sex, not violence.

Sharing and cooperation are core behaviors.

> Source: Frans de Waal – Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape (1997)

3. Gorillas – Male-Led, But Family-Oriented

Typically one dominant silverback male, who protects a group of females.

Less complex social coalitions than chimps or bonobos.

Male dominance is strong, but not based on aggression alone, males must also be nurturing to maintain group cohesion.

4. Orangutans – Mostly Solitary

Males and females live separately for the most part.

Some males develop large body size and dominance features, but actual social structure is minimal.

Occasional forced mating observed, but again, not a model of human social life.

5. Gibbons – Monogamous and Equal

Male and female gibbons form lifelong pair bonds.

Equal cooperation in territory defense and childcare.

No clear dominance hierarchy.

Very different from the chimpanzee model.

What This Means for Human Evolution:

Humans did not descend from one “type” of primate behavior.

Evolution gave us the capacity for both hierarchy and equality, aggression and empathy.

The fact that bonobos and gibbons show female-led or equal roles proves that male dominance is not hardwired.

> So when people say “male dominance is natural because of primates,” they’re usually only looking at chimpanzees, and ignoring the full picture.

Conclusion:

Some primates are male-dominant, like chimpanzees, but others, like bonobos and gibbons, are not. This variety shows that there is no single “natural” way for primates or humans to organize society. Human culture is incredibly flexible, and equality is just as natural a path as dominance.

Men are naturally stronger, does it mean they're intended to lead? 👬

It’s true that, on average, men are physically stronger than women, particularly in upper body strength. But strength alone does not mean someone is naturally meant to lead especially not in the complex, social, and moral sense of leadership that humans practice.

1. Leadership Is Not About Physical Strength in Humans

Human leadership is based more on communication, emotional intelligence, cooperation, and problem-solving than brute force.

In small-scale societies, the most respected leaders are often those who are generous, wise, good mediators, and skilled at building consensus.

Aggressive or dominating individuals are often avoided, mocked, or removed in egalitarian societies.

> Example: Among the !Kung San and Hadza foragers, leaders have little formal power, and being too bossy can get you ostracized.

2. History Shows Women Have Led Successfully

Many women leaders have ruled effectively across time and cultures, not through strength, but through strategy, diplomacy, charisma, and vision.

Cleopatra, Queen Nzinga, Empress Wu Zetian, Empress Suiko, etc.

In matrilineal or matrifocal societies, women often hold real social and political authority without being physically dominant.

> Leadership is about influence, not force.

3. Male Strength Was Useful in Specific Contexts, Not Universal Authority

Yes, in some warlike or physically demanding societies, men took on protective roles.

But that doesn’t mean they were “meant to rule.” It means roles were divided pragmatically, often with women leading in economy, family, spirituality, and diplomacy.

Physical strength may win battles, but lasting leadership depends on trust, fairness, and shared vision.

4. The Myth of Natural Male Leadership Was Culturally Constructed

Many patriarchal societies justified male rule by appealing to strength, but this was after property and inheritance systems were in place.

Religions, laws, and traditions then reinforced this idea, making it seem "natural" but it was historical, not biological.

5. Modern Leadership Success Isn’t About Strength

Today, the most effective leaders succeed through:

👉Emotional intelligence

👉Collaboration

👉Creativity

👉Strategic thinking

These are traits found in both men and women.

> If only physical strength were required, most CEOs, teachers, judges, presidents and even parents would fail.

Conclusion:

Yes, men are physically stronger on average. But that doesn’t mean they’re “naturally” made to lead. Human leadership depends on complex social, emotional, and moral skills and history, anthropology, and psychology all show that leadership is human, not male.

Are female co - leaders important? 🧍🏻‍♀️

It is important that women lead, not just for fairness, but because inclusive leadership creates better societies, better decisions, and a more just world.

1. Diversity in Leadership Leads to Better Decisions

Research consistently shows that diverse leadership teams — including women — make more balanced, creative, and effective decisions.

Women often bring different experiences, perspectives, and problem-solving approaches.

Organizations and governments with women leaders tend to be:

👉More collaborative

👉More socially responsible

👉Better at conflict resolution

> McKinsey & Harvard studies show companies with more women in leadership are more profitable and innovative.

2. Women Represent Half of Humanity

If leadership excludes women, it excludes half the population’s ideas, talents, and needs.

Women face unique social, health, and economic challenges, and their leadership ensures these are addressed in policy and practice.

Representation matters: young girls need to see women in power to believe it's possible for them too.

3. Female Leadership Benefits Everyone — Not Just Women

When women lead, they tend to prioritize education, healthcare, and family welfare, all of which benefit society as a whole.

Peace processes led by women are more likely to succeed and last longer.

In crises (like COVID-19), countries led by women (e.g., New Zealand under Jacinda Ardern) were often more effective in public health response.

4. Justice and Equality Demand It

Women have been excluded from leadership for thousands of years not because they were incapable, but because of systems of control (patriarchy).

Leadership is a right and a responsibility and denying it on the basis of gender is unjust.

True democracy and human progress require full gender equality in decision-making.

Conclusion:

Women’s leadership is not just about correcting a wrong, it’s about creating a better future. When women lead, societies become more just, resilient, empathetic, and effective. The question isn’t “why should women lead?” it’s why haven’t they been allowed to lead all along?

Note :

Japan has had some remarkable female leaders throughout its history, though their leadership roles were often shaped by specific historical contexts and social structures. While male dominance prevailed in many areas, there were notable women who held power both in politics and other fields.

How would an egalitarian society be today? 👫🏻

An egalitarian society today would be one where all individuals regardless of gender, class, race, or background have equal rights, responsibilities, and access to power and resources. It wouldn’t mean everyone is the same, but that no group is systematically privileged or oppressed.

1. Rights and Governance

Equal legal rights: Everyone would have the same rights under law equal pay, access to healthcare, education, safety, and representation.

Shared political power: Parliaments, leadership positions, and voting rights would reflect the population fairly (e.g. 50/50 gender balance).

Participatory democracy: Citizens would be deeply involved in decision-making through voting, councils, or digital platforms.

Decentralized power: Leadership would be accountable, rotating, and transparent minimizing long-term concentration of power.

> Example: Rojava in Northern Syria uses co-leadership models (1 man, 1 woman) at every level of governance.

2. Division of Labor

Flexible, voluntary labor roles: Jobs wouldn’t be assigned by gender; people would choose work based on interest and ability.

Care work valued and shared: Childcare, elder care, and domestic work would be paid fairly and shared between all genders.

Work-life balance prioritized: Policies like shorter work weeks, generous parental leave (for all genders), and cooperative workplaces would be standard.

Universal basic services: Healthcare, education, housing, and public transport would be publicly guaranteed, reducing dependence on private wealth.

> Example: Nordic countries already support gender-equal labor systems with strong social safety nets and work-life balance.

Skills-Based Division of Labor :

In any society, whether patriarchal, egalitarian, or otherwise, people often perform tasks they are best suited for, based on skills, strengths, or interests.

For instance, warfare and protection often require specific skills strategic thinking, physical fitness, coordination, etc. These skills are not inherently tied to gender.

In an egalitarian society, men might still participate in warfare or protection roles, not because of societal norms, but because of individual ability. Likewise, women could choose to participate in these roles too, if they have the physical, mental, or strategic skills for it.

Patriarchy often justifies gendered roles by saying that men naturally protect because they are physically stronger or more aggressive, but this isn't an absolute rule.

History shows that many societies have had women warriors or leaders (like Joan of Arc, Queen Boudica, or the Amazons of myth).

Even in patriarchal societies, women could and did fight, especially in specific contexts (e.g., defending home turf, leading armies).

In a true egalitarian society, men might still be involved in protection roles, but so would women if they were interested and able.

Even in egalitarian societies, men often did more of the hunting or combat-related tasks because of physical advantages (e.g., upper body strength, endurance under certain loads). That didn’t automatically mean men ruled or had authority over women, it just meant that roles were divided by ability, not hierarchy.

Example: In many foraging societies, men hunt, but women gather, which actually provides the bulk of the food supply. Neither role was "above" the other.

Even with men doing more warfare, women still had important, sometimes strategic, roles organizing defense, healing, logistics, or even joining in combat.

In some Indigenous North American societies (like the Iroquois), women could appoint or remove male leaders, even though men might have done the physical fighting.

Egalitarian means equal value and voice, not necessarily doing the exact same tasks.

So yes, men may have gone to war more often in such societies due to physical traits, but that didn’t mean dominance, just complementarity.

Parenthesis : Who Were the Onna-Bugeisha?

Onna-bugeisha were female warriors of the samurai class trained in combat, strategy, and weapons (especially the naginata, a long polearm suited to fighting larger or stronger opponents).

During wars or invasions, when men were away fighting, onna-bugeisha were often the first line of defense for castles and homes.

Their training ensured they could protect families, lands, and retainers.

Some fought directly in battle. Notable examples include:

Nakano Takeko (mid-19th century): Led a female unit during the Boshin War (1868) and died in combat. Her actions were so inspiring that she's honored annually in the Aizu Autumn Festival.

Some served as strategists, advisors, or symbols of clan resilience.

After the Edo period (1603–1868), Tokugawa rule emphasized Confucian gender roles, restricting women to more domestic, subordinate roles.

Female warriors faded from visibility, and their history was downplayed in favor of a more male-centric view of samurai culture.

Women have always participated in wars, just often in different roles, and not always the ones that get highlighted in history books. Their roles weren’t always on the front lines but they were often crucial to survival, morale, and victory.

So yes: warfare has never been exclusively male, even if traditional history tried to frame it that way.

3. Social Structures and Culture

Education for empathy and cooperation: From early childhood, education would teach equality, consent, emotional skills, and mutual respect.

No gendered expectations: Toys, clothes, careers, and behavior would not be labeled “for boys” or “for girls.”

Media and culture would showcase diverse leaders, bodies, relationships, and stories, not just dominant stereotypes.

🎀💙 Note : The idea that pink is for girls and blue is for boys is actually very recent, only about 100 years old.

In the early 1900s, pink was seen as a strong, bold color, often used for boys, and blue was seen as delicate and dainty, used for girls.

It wasn’t until after World War II especially in 1950s marketing in the U.S. that companies began pushing pink for girls and blue for boys to sell more products.

So: Ancient and pre-modern societies didn’t associate gender with specific colors at all.

So where did modern gendered expectations come from?

Mostly from industrialization, religious hierarchies, and modern consumer marketing.

The more a society became class- and gender-stratified, the more it pushed rigid roles and symbols including clothes, colors, jobs, and toys.

End of note.

Community-oriented living: More cooperative housing, food systems, and elder care less isolation, more shared responsibility.

> Example: Some Indigenous communities still organize around mutual aid and collective responsibility, not competition.

4. Economy and Class

Wealth redistribution: Progressive taxation, universal basic income, and public ownership of key industries would reduce inequality.

Worker cooperatives: Businesses would be owned and run by employees, not top-down bosses.

No extreme poverty or wealth: Limits on income disparities and guaranteed access to essentials for all.

5. Gender and Relationships

Full gender equality: All genders would have equal opportunities in every field tech, politics, art, care work, etc.

Freedom of identity and sexuality: LGBTQ+ rights would be fully protected and celebrated.

Non-patriarchal family structures: Families could be nuclear, extended, communal, single-parent, or chosen families, no one structure would dominate.

Shared parenting: Mothers, fathers, and others would have equal time off, support, and responsibility for raising children.

What Would Be Absent:

👉Gender-based violence and discrimination

👉Rigid hierarchies of race, wealth, or gender

Wage gaps

👉Inheritance-based dynasties

👉Over-policing and carceral punishment systems

👉Toxic masculinity or shaming of emotional expression.

Conclusion:

A modern egalitarian society would be built on mutual respect, shared power, and collective care.

It does sound utopian, and that’s natural, because we’re used to societies built on hierarchy, inequality, and competition. But here’s the key insight: many aspects of that “utopia” have already existed, do exist, or are emerging today in parts of the world.

Why It Feels Utopian:

We're surrounded by inequality and violence, so imagining fairness feels unrealistic.

Modern capitalism, patriarchy, and nationalism have trained us to see hierarchy as natural or necessary.

Media often portrays power as domination, not care, cooperation, or humility.

But egalitarianism isn’t fantasy, it’s part of human history and can guide realistic reforms today.

Where It's Already Happening (or Has Happened):

Indigenous Societies: Many Native American, African, and Pacific Islander cultures were traditionally egalitarian, matrilineal, or consensus-based.

Worker Cooperatives: Like Mondragon in Spain, where employees democratically run major businesses.

Nordic Countries: While not perfect, they offer models of strong public healthcare, parental leave, and gender equality in leadership.

Zapatista & Rojava Movements: Real-life communities practicing horizontal governance, gender parity, and collective care under difficult conditions.

These are not fantasies, they’re proofs of concept.

So Is It a Utopia?

Yes—and no.

Yes, in the sense that it's a vision to strive for. We may never reach “perfect” equality.

No, because many aspects are realistic, practical, and already working in parts of the world.

Yes, not all traditional or matrilineal cultures were truly egalitarian, and many did (and still do) have male authority figures even if descent was through women.

The Himba, for example, are a matrilineal people, but men still largely hold political and ritual authority, especially as elders. So inheritance may follow the mother’s line, but day-to-day power is male dominant.

How do we know what an egalitarian society looks like—or that it ever existed?

Here's how researchers know:

1. Anthropological Studies of Small-Scale Societies

Anthropologists have studied hundreds of hunter-gatherer and small-scale societies that existed before agriculture and state structures.

In some of these groups:

👉Men and women shared decision-making.

👉Labor was divided, but both roles were seen as equally essential.

👉There was little accumulation of wealth, so no one (man or woman) had economic power over others.

Examples:

!Kung San (Southern Africa): Women gathered most of the food; men hunted. Leadership was informal, and decision-making was consensus-based.

Hadza (Tanzania): Little gender-based authority; men and women have equal say in camp life.

Iroquois/Haudenosaunee (North America): Matrilineal society where clan mothers chose chiefs, and women held real political power.

2. Archaeological Evidence

In early Neolithic and pre-agricultural societies, burial sites show men and women were buried with similar items, suggesting equal status.

There are societies where no monumental palaces, temples, or war trophies existed, implying less hierarchy and domination, including between genders.

3. Absence of Strict Gender Norms

In societies with more gender flexibility, people could take on roles based on skill and personality, not sex.

For instance:

Agta women in the Philippines sometimes hunt just like men.

In some Indigenous American tribes, Two-Spirit people (those who didn’t conform to male/female roles) were accepted and respected.

But very important caveat:

Even in egalitarian-leaning societies, power was rarely 100% equal all the time.

Context matters:

In war? Men may lead.

In spiritual matters? Women may lead.

In family or clan decisions? Depends on the society.

Egalitarian doesn’t mean everyone is identical, it means power and value are shared, and no gender is inherently superior.

Summary:

Some matrilineal societies still gave men more authority. But anthropologists identify truly egalitarian cultures by:

👉Looking at how decisions are made

👉Examining who controls resources

👉Noting how gender roles are valued, not just divided

Conclusion:

Early human societies, especially hunter-gatherers, were often egalitarian with shared responsibilities, flexible gender roles, and little hierarchy.

Some societies were matrilineal (tracing descent through women), matrifocal (women-centered households), or had complementary roles where both genders had influence.

Patriarchy became more dominant with the rise of agriculture, private property, warfare, and state formation, as inheritance and control over land gained importance.

Cultural, religious, and colonial systems later reinforced male dominance, but it was not a universal or original human condition.

While no era or system has been perfect, we can learn from the balance, cooperation, and sustainability of early societies and combine that with the best of modern innovations.

👫🏻 Vocabulary :

Matrilineal = inheritance and lineage pass through the mother.

Matrifocal = the mother is the emotional and structural center of the household.

Matrilocal: couple lives near the wife’s kin.

Patrilocal: couple lives near the husband’s kin.

Neolocal: couple forms a new, separate household.

Matriarchal = women hold political/social power.

There is no solid historical evidence of a true matriarchy, meaning a society where women ruled over men in the same way patriarchy has historically placed men above women in law, power, and culture.

---

Here’s a list of reliable scholarly sources, archaeological findings, and anthropological studies that support the view that early human societies were largely egalitarian, and that patriarchy developed later with agriculture and complex societies.

1. Christopher Boehm – Hierarchy in the Forest (1999)

Argues that early human foragers lived in “reverse dominance hierarchies”, where strong social norms discouraged alpha behavior.

Forager groups practiced egalitarianism through social sanctions, gossip, ridicule, and exclusion.

> Evidence: Modern hunter-gatherers like the !Kung (Botswana) and Hadza (Tanzania) still display these patterns.

2. Sarah Hrdy – Mothers and Others (2009)

Proposes that human evolution depended on cooperative breeding, with both men and women investing in children.

Challenges the idea of strict male dominance in early human evolution.

> Evidence: Cross-cultural child-rearing, shared care roles, and female social networks.

---

3. James C. Scott – Against the Grain (2017)

Explains how hierarchy and state control arose after agriculture, not before.

Early sedentary villages may have been more gender-balanced, with patriarchy solidifying only with formalized inheritance, property, and the state.

> Evidence: Archaeological evidence from sites like Çatalhöyük (Turkey), where men and women were buried with similar grave goods, suggesting gender equality.

4. David Graeber & David Wengrow – The Dawn of Everything (2021)

Argues that pre-agricultural societies were far more varied and experimental than previously assumed.

Some were egalitarian, some hierarchical, and they often shifted seasonally.

There is no single “evolutionary” path to patriarchy or inequality.

> Evidence: Diverse burial customs, housing equality, and seasonal social structures (e.g., among early North American societies).

6. Ethnographic Studies of Modern Foragers

Anthropologists often look to modern hunter-gatherers as analogs for early humans:

!Kung San (Botswana/Namibia): Women gather ~60% of food, men hunt. Decision-making is communal.

Hadza (Tanzania): No formal leaders, flexible gender roles, shared childcare.

Aka Pygmies (Congo): Fathers are highly involved in childcare; gender roles are fluid.

> Source: Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore – Man the Hunter (1968)

7. Archaeological Case Study: Çatalhöyük (Turkey, ~7500 BCE)

Large Neolithic settlement with no clear evidence of social stratification.

Men and women buried equally, in the same types of graves, with similar possessions.

Art and domestic structures suggest shared space and power.

> Source: Ian Hodder’s excavation reports (Stanford archaeologist)