It is interesting to note that the evidence suggests that this difference in agricultural technology also leads to a different organization of marriage. In areas with shifting technologies women are an asset for men who pay a price for them. In fact polygamy is common since the first wife welcomes other helpers in the field and at home. In plough intensive cultivation instead the wife’s family pays a dowry to marry their daughter and polygamy is rare (Goody,and:
1976, Burton and Reitz, 1981).
We find a strong and robust negative relationship between the historic use of the plough and female labor force participation as well as gender role attitudes.posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:00 PM on December 1, 2010
So, if I'm following the researcher's logic correctly, modern females would also be more 'empowered' if their ancestors were polygamous. In hoe cultures, females are valued goods which males seek to amass and in plough cultures, they're kind of a drag.
I really think economists should get out more.
Truly outstanding and especially remarkable is the fact that women, too, received tools as burial objects, just as men did (Mellaart 1967: 209) (Footnote 6). In later class societies, men (of the "middle classes") received burial objects that allowed conclusions as to their profession but women's graves contained only jewellery: rich women were given rich jewellery, poor women poor jewellery. That these women worked just as hard - if not even harder - than men is not reflected in the burial objects. The tools in neolithic women graves illustrate that women were recognized as equals as a matter of course in the production of goods. This, in turn, supports the assumption that in this society the antagonism between production and reproduction was abolished. There are mural paintings in Çatalhöyük that complement and confirm this assumption; they show men dancing with children (Mellaart 1966: pl. LIV, LV, LIX, LXI), a motif that does not occur in class society until the 13th century B.C. and also later only led a shadowy existence. Also, in contrast to Mellaart's statement, not only women were buried with children but men also (Hamilton 1996: 253/1).posted by Abiezer at 1:42 PM on December 1, 2010 [2 favorites]
However, not only were women buried with tools but also men were buried with jewellery, partially with considerable amounts (Hamilton 1996: 262) (Fussnote 7). Naomi Hamilton who in Hodder's team is responsible for working with the graves and therefore for analyzing gender relations, doubts if the definition of a social gender apart from biological sex is at all helpful in the discussion on Çatalhöyük. She regards the concept of gender as bound to our times and their problems and considers the possibility that neolithic humans did not perceive man and woman as being a polarity (Hamilton 1996: 262). Indeed, already in 1990 Hodder developed the thought that the decisive polarity for neolithic perception may have been of a different nature (Hodder 1990). It is interesting that more recent considerations lead to an analogous assumption concerning the Palaeolithic (Heidefrau 2004). The author, Elke Heidefrau, writes: "Possibly, the discussion on gender ... mainly reveals something about our own culture: a culture in which it seems immensely important to know sex of another person (see the first question asked after the birth of a child). To us, a culture in which this is not the case seems almost unthinkable; therefore, such thoughts could open new horizons to us and thus enrich the current gender discussion!" (Heidefrau 2004: 148; translated). Obviously, at that time the real individuals were at the centre, and when they liked to adorn themselves their jewellery was not taken away from them when they died - regardless of their sex. And it was people who produced, possessed and used tools and therefore also kept them in their graves - again, regardless of their sex.
Men and women performed very similar tasks, as can be deduced from the abrasion of bones. Both sexes stayed in and outside the house equally long and were equally active in the kitchen as in tool production. There are no hints pointing to a gender-related division of labour.posted by Abiezer at 1:45 PM on December 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
« Older Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Wednesday... | back in October, when reddit w... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 11:14 AM on December 1, 2010