New Scientist is featuring this article detailing a new hypothesis that attempts to explain when and how patrilineal (you take your father's name, and are part of his family) societies overtook matrilineal (you take your mother's name, and are part of her family) societies. The researcher's explaination? Cattle.

Using some clever linguistic methods and a new mathematical model, the researchers claim it was the domestication of cattle that lead to the patrilineal "takeover", at least in the African societies they studied. Suddenly families had real assets that could outlive an individual, and, because of cultural reasons, it made more sense to leave them to sons instead of daughters.

One caveat: The reporter makes the common mistake of confusing "patrilineal" and "matrilineal" with "male-dominated" and "female-dominated". On the face of it these may seem to go hand-in-hand, but more than a century of anthropological study has proven it just ain't so.

While there are many matrilineal societies, none are actually run by women. Yes, descent is reckoned through the female line, but power resides with the uncles. Further, investigations into various origin-myths that involve female-domination of a culture have found no actual evidence, cultural or archeological, that such societies ever really existed. The uncles have always held power in such societies. It would seem, from the evidence, that only with the rise of industrialization have women been given long-term access to real power.

Of course, any time you stray into such a sociological hallowed ground politics tends to bitch-slap evidence around and call it nasty names. Sociology and anthropology in particular tend to become "elephant graveyards"... places where old radicals wander off to die. I wouldn't be surprised at all if an unfortunate desciple of one of these professors called me on the carpet for my position.

I welcome them, and only ask they provide evidence.