Elaine

Kristin,
Yes, it seems that in Mark’s opinion (or he would like us to buy into the notion), everything else in society would automatically revert in exact parallel fashion. Apparently Mark has studied enough sociology to note the link made between the beginnings of horse/plow agriculture and more complex less egalitarian societies. By contrast, in the previous hunter/gatherer foraging societal systems there is so much interdependence, these families/societies have a centralized sharing of resources and consensus is needed for major decisions. As a result, they are highly egalitarian with substantial cross-over among duties (women often hunt small game and men gather foods). Whereas, in agrarian society women’s status dropped because their work became less visible, thus less valued, and foraging is compatible with pregnancy/caring for infants but operating plows and controlling draft animals is not.
Frankly, I think he shoots himself in the foot with this one. He is trying to use early agrarian societal norms to defend authoritarian structures.
Sheeesh, isn’t capitulating to culture what comps accuse egalitarians of doing? And I wonder why Mark didn’t go further back in history to base his claim? To whom does he think the hunter/gatherers were capitulating? Or maybe concensus is not a concept he favors?