Topic – Social Formations of Ancient World

Neolithic Social Structure

The shift from hunter-gathering to regular and time-bound food collection techniques was accompanied by a silent change in the social structure. With the advent of agriculture, families must have emerged in the village as groups of working men and women or as residential units. Early farmers needed a more organised social structure than hunter-gatherers. Economic activities intensified in Neolithic villages. In the Upper Paleolithic period, the only specialist was the shaman (ritual performer) while other members of the community shared the work of making tools and other artefacts, hunting, fishing, etc. On the other hand, in Neolithic villages, many types of work such as agriculture, animal husbandry, pottery making, weaving, stone and metal work, carpentry, etc. began to take place, as a result of which a more strict division of labour between different people and between men and women became inevitable.

1. Role of Women in Agriculture
   • According to Gordon Childe, women were probably the first to select suitable plants and techniques for agriculture. In fact, according to him, pottery-making, spinning and weaving, and almost all other major inventions and discoveries were made by women.
   • Recent studies have shown that the question of whether agriculture in a region was invented by men or women is meaningless. Firstly, it ignores the fact that the breeding techniques of plants and animals were known to the people of the modern age. Secondly, every individual in society was responsible for the success and development of agriculture. But it is clear that with the adoption of agriculture, there was a dramatic change in the economic and social roles of men and women.
   • Women dug the fields with spades (before the use of the plough), made pottery, weaved, looked after the animals, collected ripe seeds, ground flour, cooked food and, in addition, did all the household work. In agricultural societies, the need for more children was felt to do agricultural work, which increased the responsibilities of women. Clark Larsen has shown in his study that men used to hunt, fish and women used to do all the household work along with agricultural work.
2. Establishment of systematic community organization
   • The way surplus has been obtained for storage in Jericho and Catal Huyuk, the need for land distribution and redistribution among each family of the large clan of Neolithic societies must have also been felt. Earlier these families were using the facilities jointly. Now they gradually started demanding these facilities individually. This gave rise to competition and a feeling of economic insecurity.
   • As mentioned earlier, in Jericho, the closely packed houses were surrounded by a stone wall. An 8-meter high stone tower was built outside the wall. This was probably the first architectural structure. A ditch was also dug around the wall. Such buildings would not have been built without the supervision and control of a group. In the PPNA phase, apart from Jericho, defensive walls were built around villages in the later Samaritan phase (6th millennium BC) in Iraq and early Meso-America.
   • In Merimde (Egypt), huts were built in straight lines along the streets. Looking at these architectural associations, it seems that by this time some kind of a body like an organized community association had been formed. In Catal Huyuk, much larger and well-equipped structures have been found than other structures. This suggests that these must have been religious places where people would have performed rituals etc.
3. Construction of Residential Buildings
   • The structure of the houses actually points to the social organisation of the people living in them. The earlier circular huts were small and date between 11000 and 8500 B.P. These houses were made of straw and could be easily carried anywhere. But the rectangular houses of the later Neolithic Age could have more rooms. Examples of this are found in early Meso-America and West Asia between 9000 and 7500 B.C.
   • These houses could accommodate more members. They had mud plastered walls around them. This was evidence of permanence. The presence of storage pits in each circular house rather than the usual storehouse or storage pits highlights the importance of families as a social unit. The presence of rectangular houses with many rooms among the Jarms between the 10th and 15th centuries shows that some families engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry wanted to keep large families so that all the family members could work together on various tasks related to farming.
4. Establishment of social rules
   • This also means that there was a need to establish some social rules to prevent tension and conflict. Hunter-gatherers, among whom kinship bonds were quite elastic, may have started living in small groups to avoid competition and mutual conflict. It is possible that some problems may have arisen from sedentary life in the early Neolithic village and then some special people may have come to mediate and solve these.
   • Now a new environment and with it new problems may have arisen in the village. Now more people would have to work together to build houses and storehouses. The community would have to face diseases related to crops and stagnant water. Grain would have to be protected from rotting and from insects and rats etc. and surplus would have to be preserved and decided on the ways of using it. Those who would have been successful in preserving it would have been the leaders or chieftains of the society.
   • Lava glass and some shells have been found in some of the caves of sites like Abu Huraira and Catal Huyuk, which also leads to the belief that in the Neolithic era, there was a tradition of placing such valuable objects in the graves of some important persons, which was indicative of their high social status.
5. Formation of beliefs
   • Along with the formation of Neolithic agriculture and social system, there was a need to accept some universally accepted and common beliefs in order to establish harmony among the people. Such mentioned laws of this period probably later became the basis of the historical period. The responsibility of enforcing these laws was of the village head or priest. Probably a common religion and common language kept the villagers of the Neolithic era bound together.
   • The physical environment in which they lived was a reflection of the life outlook and beliefs of the early farmers. The same relationship that existed between the hunter economy of the Paleolithic era and the symbolic expression of animals in the cave art of the Upper Paleolithic has also been expressed at the time of transition to agriculture. At this time the fertility of plants, animals and humans is given expression.
6. Beginning of fertility religion
   • A deep concern with fertility and fruitfulness was natural for an agricultural society. Neolithic religions were primarily fertility cults in which male (sky, sun, rain) and female (earth, moon) were the main symbols of religion. Female figurines made of clay, stone and bone have been found in all Neolithic societies. These are the ancestors of the later ‘mother goddess‘. This has led to the inference that the earth is female because it produces grain and can be influenced by prayers, sacrifices and rituals and magic.
   • The male in fertility has been represented by a phallus made of clay and other materials. According to some scholars, when it became too laborious for women to plough the fields, arrange for irrigation and make drains and it became difficult for them to control animals like bulls and buffaloes, then gradually the male principle became important in the religion of the agriculturists. Large murals on the walls of some buildings at Catal Huyuk feature protruding bulls’ heads, indicating religious art expression and symbolism that was becoming increasingly elaborate and complex.
7. Belief in the afterlife developed
   • Magic and rituals became an integral part of these societies. The dead were buried with more pomp and splendour than in the Palaeolithic cultures. In Jericho and Ain Ghazal in Jordan, people were beheaded and sometimes buried under the house itself. In both types of sites, figures of the dead have been found, which reveal a metaphor for the worship of the ancestor cult.
   • Archaeological remains show that those early farmers believed in some kind of life after death. The death cult also played an important role in these communities. Single graves and collective graves have also been found in Neolithic graves. As differences began to emerge in Neolithic societies on the basis of honour and power, differences began to emerge in the burial system of people of different status in society. Large and huge graves have been found in megalithic tombs in Europe.
   • Certainly, only privileged people of society must have been buried in them. Similarly, in the beginning of the Neolithic period, the things buried in the graves were very simple, but as social differences increased and stratification occurred in the society, the things kept in the graves also changed. Very luxurious tombs built for some special members have been found in the city of Varna in Bulgaria and in Catal Huyuk in Anatolia.

During the Neolithic Revolution, new types of tools were invented. It is necessary to mention here that Neolithic is a long and sequential process which began around 15700 years ago, gained momentum around 12750 years ago and was fully developed around 11000 years ago with the planting of trees and animal husbandry in West Asia. Radical social changes took place in the Neolithic Age. The human community established a new system to control land, labour and capital which created differences in society. Apart from this, social, economic and political complexities arose and alliances were created. Certainly, in the absence of agriculture and animal husbandry, such a civilization would not have developed.

Bronze Age Society

Louis Virch defines a city on social basis as a relatively large, dense and permanent settlement inhabited by socially heterogeneous individuals. We must remember that people often migrated and came to live in the city. Looking at Adams’ theory of urbanisation in Mesopotamia, we see a lot of diversity in cities. These were the early cities where migration of people took place and we see a great movement of villagers and people who were nomads and now began to settle in towns. The movement of people to these early towns was due to a number of reasons. This created a situation where not everybody knew each other or people and communities were separate. Possibly the townspeople now experienced anonymity and stranger relationships that came face to face within the city limits.

Trigger points out that the main basis of social relations was not blood relations and kinship but a hierarchy of social divisions that ran horizontally across all societies and were unequal in power, wealth and social status. It cannot be said clearly that these categories represented classes. But it seems that in these societies there was a close relationship between wealth, property and status. We do know that there were individuals and families who had political power and there were some who had ceremonial roles, both of which denoted high status and wealth. It is also possible that those who worked permanently in large institutions such as the temple or palace had great power and prestige as well as access to wealth.

The question about the source of wealth is whether wealth was seen as land and ownership of it. It is quite possible that land was controlled by kinship groups, but it also seems that high-status individuals began to own large tracts of land. In contrast, there were many individuals who had no land rights but participated in the economy through their labour. Trigger points out that the main basis of social relations was not blood relations and kinship but a hierarchy of social divisions that ran horizontally across all societies and were unequal in power, wealth and social status. It cannot be said clearly that these categories represented classes. But it seems that in these societies there was a close relationship between wealth, property and status. We do know that there were individuals and families who had political power and there were some who had ceremonial roles, both of which denoted high status and wealth. It is also possible that those who worked permanently in large institutions such as the temple or palace had great power and prestige as well as access to wealth.

The question about the source of wealth is whether wealth was seen as land and ownership of it. It is quite possible that land was controlled by kinship groups, but it also seems that high-status individuals began to own large tracts of land. In contrast, there were many individuals who had no land rights but participated in the economy through their labour. These people were often dependent members of a ‘great household’ (oikos). On the other hand, the completely dependent and low-status people, especially women and children, were probably prisoners of war.Trigger points out that the main basis of social relations was not blood relations and kinship but a hierarchy of social divisions that ran horizontally across all societies and were unequal in power, wealth and social status. It cannot be said clearly that these categories represented classes. But it seems that in these societies there was a close relationship between wealth, property and status. We do know that there were individuals and families who had political power and there were some who had ceremonial roles, both of which denoted high status and wealth. It is also possible that those who worked permanently in large institutions such as the temple or palace had great power and prestige as well as access to wealth.

The question about the source of wealth is whether wealth was seen as land and ownership of it. It is quite possible that land was controlled by kinship groups, but it also seems that high-status individuals began to own large tracts of land. In contrast, there were many individuals who had no land rights but participated in the economy through their labour. These people were often dependent members of a ‘great household’ (oikos). On the other hand, the completely dependent and low-status people, especially women and children, were probably prisoners of war.

Despite the social hierarchy, Bronze Age societies were also characterised by an earlier tradition based on kinship. Kinship communities continued to exist in the context of land ownership. Early Mesopotamian societies practiced collective ownership, which was probably more practical because private ownership tended to fragment land holdings. Joint control of land also meant that the best land (such as that near a river or irrigation canal) could not be cultivated by a single family, and was constantly in rotation. In Egypt, communities of people made short-term contributions of labour to large state building projects, such as the building of the pyramids. The state may well have provided for their housing and food by allocating daily rations. Bronze Age societies were also heavily influenced by religion. Bruce Trigger points out that the Egyptians had no word for “religion”. Religion was integral to daily life. In ancient Egypt, all aspects of state affairs, everyday life and material culture were coloured by religious beliefs and symbolism.

The importance of religion can be seen in the emphasis on divination, belief in multiple gods and the central location of temples to presiding deities in the city. Temples were also the heart of the city and the lives of the townspeople revolved largely around temples. There seems to have been a belief in multiple gods and each city had its own presiding god or goddess, but there were temples dedicated to other gods as well. A great deal of prestige was attached to the temple and materials for the construction and building of places of worship were brought from great distances.

The great temples of Mesopotamia were institutions in themselves. Power was most likely concentrated in the hands of the temple and its staff and the gods were regarded as the owners of all lands and farms and offerings of grain, curd, fish and other foodstuffs were made to them. Thus the temple also served as the community granary. By the middle of the third millennium, the temple’s authority was threatened by the rise of the dynasties of the Mesopotamian city-states.

Because it was said that monarchy had descended from heaven. Power, which had previously been concentrated in the hands of specific individuals and families, both supernatural and temporal power, was now divided into two parts. The relentless regional wars of the city-states and the rise of warrior-chiefs are facts that paved the way for power centers separate from religion.

We can also see the king performing religious rites of invocation on certain occasions, at the inauguration of a temple building, or at the beginning and end of the cropping seasons, sowing and harvesting. This was a remnant of the ancient past when a single person performed both secular and religious roles, which gradually became divided over time and then began to be performed by different individuals. It is very likely that the king was considered a human form of God on earth.

Apart from religious practices, social rituals related to death were also important. Research on these is possible through archaeology because the people of the Bronze Age followed the custom of burying the dead. Burial practices are useful not only in understanding ritual aspects but also in showing how social hierarchy worked. For example, the Egyptian pyramids reflect the ceremonial sites where the higher echelons of society were buried, as opposed to the simple graves of commoners wrapped in shrouds. The construction of the pyramids and the wealth stored in them show the enormous wealth that the higher echelons of society had in their hands, which could be passed on to the dead. The royal cemetery at Ur similarly reflects the descent of enormous wealth with the dead.

Nomadic Society

There is very limited evidence and data available for the late primitive period (after the Palaeolithic period). Archaeological evidence of the material culture of this period is also very weak. Anthropological studies conducted in the modern era among pastoral nomadic groups and some statements of observers of settled civilizations of the first millennium BC throw some light on this. But more detailed information about the nomads of the Eurasian steppes begins to be available from the Middle Ages. According to Dani and Jean Pierre, “The nomadic groups established relations not only among themselves but also between men and animals. They adapted themselves to the natural environment and the interaction between man and animal led to a better management and knowledge of the possibilities of animal power and the use of this power and thus the pastoralists took a step forward towards progressive civilization. Oxen and horses were used for agriculture and horses and camels for rapid crossing of the grasslands of the steppes or the sandy deserts.

Characteristics of nomadic society

In simple words, we can say that in almost all societies, the pastoral nomads had two main characteristics –

• First, animal husbandry was the main basis of their economy, on the basis of which they lived, their lifestyle and social structure were also affected by it
• Second, unlike the sedentary life of agriculturalists, they always kept moving from one place to another. If we look at these two elements separately, we will find that there are some such pastoralists whose basis of livelihood is animal husbandry but they live a sedentary life.
• On the other hand, apart from this, there are some nomadic groups who are engaged in occupations like trade or craft production, yet their life is not sedentary and they keep moving here and there and they do not do animal husbandry.
• One thing is also to be kept in mind that even in the nomadic animal husbandry group, there are some who also do farming and do other occupations along with animal husbandry. Therefore, to classify a livestock farmer into a group, it is very important to have both the above mentioned elements.

Khazanov summarizes the economy of pastoral nomads by describing five characteristics of the nomads –

1. First, Animal husbandry was their main economic activity.
2. Second, They moved with their animals throughout the year in search of pasture. Their animals did not live in stables.
3. Third, they moved from time to time within a specific pastoral area or between different areas according to the needs of the pastoral economy.
4. Fourth, almost all people or most people were involved in animal grazing activity and they went out together to graze the animals (there was no specific shepherd or shepherd who was responsible for grazing the animals and only he would move around with the animals).
5. Fifth, production was done for livelihood and to fulfill one’s basic needs (it was not like today’s dairy production or animal husbandry industry based on profit).

Apart from these basic characteristics, various pastoral nomad groups also had some characteristics that gave them a special identity. The nomadic mode of production, lifestyle, social structure and economy were not the same across regions and periods. It was shaped by the geography, environment, available animals, available technology, neighbouring settled and permanent societies and the resources available to the nomadic group.

Origin of Nomadic Society

There is disagreement among scholars regarding the origin of pastoral nomadism. One view is that the origin of pastoral nomadism can be traced back to the Paleolithic era because at that time hunters used to chase groups of large animals and over time were able to capture and domesticate them. Such groups never did farming. The first example of animal husbandry is found in the rearing of reindeer. According to this view, animal husbandry as a mode of production came before agriculture and many of these pastoral groups started farming later while some groups continued to live the life of pastoral nomads.

The second view is that agriculture and animal husbandry started simultaneously and scholars who believe in this view also believe that the domestication of large animals started in permanent agricultural communities. They believe that as the number of animals increased, it became difficult for these agricultural communities to arrange food for their animals and pastures nearby, so some of these people would set out with their animals in search of pastures and then return after a few days. Gradually, due to certain circumstances, some of these groups completely adopted animal husbandry and nomadism as their lifestyle. Many scholars do not accept this theory of the expansion of animal herders that they were farmers first and later became nomads.

Two more different aspects of this idea were also put forward. One of these ideas is that due to climate change, people in many places became completely pastoralists. In the areas where farming became difficult due to climate change, the farmers there abandoned farming and went out with their animals and started living a nomadic life. These climate-related changes also include natural disasters due to which farmers of some areas must have been forced to leave their homes and run away. Thus, after leaving their homes, they were forced to become pastoralists.

Another idea is that they were forcibly displaced. According to this idea, invaders or powerful people from the neighbourhood must have driven them away from their places of residence and homes and forced them to leave their farms and homes and run away. Such groups adopted the lifestyle of pastoral nomads for their livelihood.

While analysing the origin of pastoral nomadism, two more points should be kept in mind; first, anthropological studies on pastoral nomadism and sedentary agriculturalists reveal that there were a lot of similarities in the culture of both groups of a particular region. This means that the links between nomads and agricultural communities living in the same region were closer and stronger than those between two nomadic groups living in distant regions. Secondly, the pastoral nomadic lifestyle developed in different regions at different times. Therefore, it is difficult to say with certainty in which environment the pastoral nomadic lifestyle originated and whether the conditions were the same in all periods and in all regions. The continuous decline in the number of pastoral nomadic groups in different periods of history proves that gradually these groups abandoned the pastoral nomadic lifestyle and adopted a settled lifestyle.

Nomadic Society and Economy

In the pages of history, the nomadic lifestyle has been notorious for its barbarism and their arrival was no less than a natural disaster for the settled societies and civilizations. During the Middle Ages, the Mongols and Huns invaded various cities of Europe and Asia and by destroying all the symbols of civilization, these nomads sealed their image of barbarism. Very little and scattered information is available about nomads in prehistoric and ancient history. Despite these limited sources, anthropologists, archaeologists, prehistorians and scholars working on nomadic groups have done research and tried to say something different from the concept of barbarism associated with nomads and have tried to establish that they too had a culture and they should not be seen only as plundering and barbaric violent groups. As a result of these researches, we now have a much clearer picture of the lifestyle, social and political structure and economy of the pastoral nomads. Apart from the study of archaeological evidence and historical evidence, efforts have also been made to study the living cultures of the nomadic groups living today. Scholars have used all these sources to understand the nomadic culture properly.

Nature of Nomadic Society

The basic unit of almost all nomadic pastoral communities was the family, consisting of husband, wife and children. These families formed a small group which lived together and travelled together. Many such groups were descended from common ancestors and were considered to be of a lineage or clan.

• In all cases, the animals were owned by different families, but the rights to pastures were not equal. In some places, each family had a separate area in the common pasture of the community. In some communities, all families used the pasture together. But a certain amount of pasture was fixed for each community. The Mongol aristocracy reserved pastures for itself and no one else could use it. The same was true for the use of water. It was the right of each family to raise and domesticate animals and to use their products.
• Dahl and Hjort, on the basis of their study of nomadic families, have described the characteristics of a family as Estimates of the needs required for sustenance have been presented. According to them, a family needed to keep 50-64 large animals or 28 camels or more than 100 small animals. There was some social differentiation among the nomads but in some places it was very clear; for example, among the nomads of the steppes.
• Different customs and beliefs were prevalent for marriage in these cultures. The practice of monogamy was prevalent but in some communities polyandry and polygamy were also found.
• Animals played an important role in the customs and rituals of these nomads. To connect themselves with the animals, they used to wear horns, tails and leather on these occasions. Animals were also sacrificed in religious rituals.
• Apart from vegetables, meat, milk and other milk products were their main food. In many communities, there was also a practice of drinking animal blood. They had transactions with the sedentary neighboring agricultural communities.
• In exchange for animals and animal products, they used to take grains and vegetables from them. They made blankets from the hair of sheep and other animals and traded such goods or raw wool between communities that raised wool-producing animals.
• Their material culture was simple and modest, befitting their nomadic lifestyle. They used mainly wood and leather, and acquired pottery and other artisan products from settled communities.
• In the nomadic and semi-nomadic economy, a new type of house was built which could be easily erected and dismantled and carried from one place to another.
• Utensils and other household articles were also such that they could be easily carried with them. These items were mostly made of wood and leather. They used light and soft clothes, flat shoes, long and wide trousers and decorated belts which were tied around their waist and this indicated their status and prestige. This mobile and inventive society also developed a new aesthetics called the so-called Scytho-Siberian animal style in which animals were shown fighting or running.”

Nature of Economy

While analysing the stability and efficiency of their economy, it comes to light that the early nomadic system used those ecological zones which were not suitable for agriculture and other economic activities. This was a new economic system of food production in arid, semi-arid and tundra regions. It survived because it was suitable and profitable for these regions. However, its possibilities of development into complex economies were limited and it was mainly dependent on breeding of the same type of animal species.

Although there was some change in it by keeping different types of animals and exchange of food and goods, but its limitation to increase productivity was clear. They had to face natural calamities like drought, excessive rainfall, lack of rain or diseases spreading among animals. This economy was dependent on other economies for exchange and sale of food grains, crafts and its goods. Despite these limitations, many scholars believe that the pastoral nomadic economy was better able to take care of itself than its contemporary settled societies and therefore believed it was able to survive in various regions. Another view is that the pastoral nomadic economy was stagnant and lacked self-sufficiency. It was therefore doomed to collapse.

Conclusion

According to Khazanov, “The most important thing is that without the help of the outside world, nomads could not survive and they were dependent on non-nomadic societies and their economies. In fact, without this outside world, nomadic society cannot exist. It survives only by interaction with its contemporary society. Such interactions take place in the economic, social, political and cultural spheres which imply that nomads remain nomads. Thus, in my opinion, the main characteristic of the nomadic system was that it was an integral part of the outside world, which was separate from it, but there was also an indestructible essential relationship between them, that is, they kept on exchanging with economic and social systems different from their own.”

Origin of kinship or family relations

All human groups marry and form kinship relations with other communities. The relations formed on the basis of lineage and marriage are defined as kinship. Brother and sister relations existed among primitive primates. According to the famous scholar R. Fox, ‘alliance’ and ‘lineage tradition’ were unique discoveries of man. In simple words, there was no practice of relations formed on the basis of marriage among other species. This discovery enabled man to establish contact and friendship with other communities. By maintaining alliances with sons or daughters who would go to other groups after marriage, man also established relations with those other communities.

An important aspect of kinship is that it was not only a blood relation but it also included social relations. Blood relations are very limited. On the other hand, the concept of kinship also includes local customs and practices. In many human communities, every person known to a person is considered a kin or kin and this relation is strengthened by marriage. All the members of a family can rely on each other while collecting food or when attacked by an enemy group. Knowledge is also exchanged in a large community. This leads to the flow of genes in a wide area and thus blood relations flourish and lineage and generation develop.

R. Fox believes that the emergence of kinship was related to the gradual inclination towards non-vegetarian food. This tendency of transition towards hunting can be seen from the time of early Homo erectus.

These relationships were of special importance in early humans. Large scale hunting of big animals would have led to a complete division of labour between men and women. This type of hunting would have involved a lot of running around and women would not have been involved in it and they would have taken care of young children at home. Food gathering would have been a community gathering and people would have come together to sing music and songs, talk and take care of children and other group activities. Hunting, on the other hand, would have been done stealthily and silently and would have been done by physically fit men.

Men would have gone out to hunt and women to gather food. Earlier, each person would gather food for himself. This new gender-based division of labour led to the need for food exchange between men and women. This changed their relationship with each other. Earlier, men lived together (as in chimpanzees) and all the women lived together with their children. After the division of labour on the basis of sex, men and women became dependent on each other in a completely new way for sharing food, i.e. vegetables and meat. According to Fox, this trade “probably proved to be the root of the origin of human society in the true sense.” This encouraged the formation of domestic units, which eventually led to adult men, women and their children living together.

Human kinship has two special characteristics. In most human societies, matrimonial relations between blood relatives are prohibited. Therefore, man also established the practice of exogamy, under which it was made a rule that a person must marry into another group. Exogamy helped people to establish relations with other groups. If a group prohibited marriage within its own group, then it became necessary or a compulsion for its members to marry into other groups. By doing this, harmony was established between different communities and this relationship was strengthened by the dependence of husband and wife on each other. This was very important for primitive humans armed with deadly weapons. As groups expanded and competition for resources increased, kinship became increasingly important because it helped reduce mutual hostility. Modern anthropology shows that kinship was closely linked to economy, politics and religion.

Writing the history of kinship is a difficult task. Amazing evidence of kinship has been found in 17000 year old settlements in the plains of Kom Ombo on the banks of the Nile in Egypt. A group of settlements of 25 to 30 people have been found in it. Each group used to make a special type of tools and their techniques of food collection were also specific. These groups lived with each other for a long time and it is possible that they must have been connected to each other through kinship.

Anthropology also tells that along with the exchange of humans, exchange of goods is also a major function of kinship. In the context of prehistoric past, this evidence of exchange can be considered as evidence of the existence of kinship.