Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Al_Gore_Rhythm420 t1_j1bn5j0 wrote

“You’re a hunter gatherer I studied you in social studies”

5

DamonFields t1_j1brfc6 wrote

Obviously, this was before the invention of billionaires.

3

AutoModerator t1_j1a26ph wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

l397flake t1_j1bhe90 wrote

Do we really need a scientific study to tell us that?

−1

cvntis4 t1_j1d9w66 wrote

well there is "what we think probably happened thousands of years ago" and then there is "scientific evidence that this was likely to have happened"

6

Freadus t1_j1bi0l4 wrote

Exactly what I was about to say "Knowledge of how to make and use pottery was shared between hunter-gatherer communities in Europe via kinship-driven, regional communication networks"......or...."hey nice thing how did you make that?"......what the hell else did they think was an alternative? I guess there is a chance that people independently discovered stuff but that's the only thing I can think of.

1

DuncanYoudaho t1_j1blt3i wrote

They could have kidnapped potters.

They could have stolen pre-made pottery exclusively.

They could have solely bartered instead of learning to make their own without kinship being involved.

They could have developed it independently in multiple areas because local soil conditions make clay easily accessible and almost effortless to make.

13

Freadus t1_j1bp2xa wrote

I guess my point is that kinships networks and communcation should surely be the norm in terms of theories about the spread of knowledge. A newsworthy article WOULD be "prehistoric Humans spread knowledge and advancement usually through the kidnapping of superior members of other tribes." People spread knowledge through communication....I dunno seems a bit obvious doesnt it?

4

DuncanYoudaho t1_j1bpuwq wrote

How does China get a lot of its advances these days? Maybe guilds weren’t a purely medieval phenomenon? Maybe it was through religious ceremonies and a controlling priest class that was skilled because people supported them with offerings but celibate to control their generational power? Maybe familial relationships are a modern invention post-agriculture?

The obvious is not really obvious. But it’s nice when it lines up.

5

jupitaur9 t1_j1ehrep wrote

>The speed of the spread suggests potterymaking knowledge passed from group to group, rather than being introduced by new people migrating into the region. “There’s no way a population could grow that fast,” McLaughlin says.

>Lucy Kubiak-Martens, an archaeobotanist at BIAX Consult, a commercial archaeology company in the Netherlands who was not involved with the paper, agrees with that interpretation. “It seems the knowledge traveled, not people,” she says.

https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-hunter-gatherers-were-potters-too

1

-_kevin_- t1_j1dmajv wrote

…is a strange thing to say in a science subreddit.

1