As the age of hunter-gatherer societies drew to an end around the world and the human population began to increase, a somewhat counter-intuitive consequence could be observed among the now isolated communities. Although their permenant settlements were often in contact with one another via-trade, they began to deviate from one another culturally and linguistically. Small groups had less reliance on trade hubs and larger villages. Regular communication lessened over time as agriculture and husbandry enabled small groups to sustain life without the need for outside support. What occurred at the beginning of the Holocene can be likened to the opposite of modern day "globalisation".

The further back in the archaeological record we look, the more similar are the symbols, icons, tools, and technologies among distant populations. Linguistically, the same effect can be observed. It's likely that the Homo Sapiens in Africa possessed language. As groups migrated across the planet they may well have initially spoken the same or very similar languages. However, over the long course of time, isolated settlements each developed their own distinct dialect. By the time the last ice age had ended, populations of humans which had been isolated geographically were no longer capable of understanding one another in speech. It's clear that for most of the present age, groups of humans separated geographically have been growing further apart - becoming more different in time.

Whether or not cultural similarities are coincidental, negligible, or altogether inaccurate is the topic of heated debate among anthropologists from every discipline today. Some researchers dismiss cultural similarities outright. In their view, early civilizations emerged without any pre-existing framework to build upon. Early human progress occurred, more or less, in a regional vacuum in every case. As humans migrated and settled outside of Africa during the Pleistocene they possessed no blueprint for progress - they inherited little to no information from their ancestors in Africa or elsewhere. Around the world, human civilization began with a "blank slate". In this view, any similarity between isolated populations had arisen organically - asserting that progress must have an inherent pattern of organization as it occurs in time.

The ideological opposite to this view is less accepted in academia, but is nonetheless present. Conceptually, there are a great variety of possible scenarios which could be put forward as a thesis. On the more conservative end of the spectrum, similarities in distant cultures may be explained through shared observation. Perhaps groups of humans migrating along the same path may have encountered civilizations who shared information and offered a model, which was then put into practice once they had arrived at their destination. A more aggressive explanation is that a well organized culture existed within Africa throughout the Pleistocene. This hypothetical culture could have played an integral role in the migrations out of Africa around the world as they occurred. Things such as language, caste, religion, agriculture, animal husbandry, taboo, and astrology in this view were not local achievements by disparate groups of humans around the world occurring throughout the Holocene.

In any case, there were apparent similarities between isolated groups. The only thing we know for sure is that if the similarities were more than coincidence, early humans failed to provide us with an overt explanation. On the contrary, in almost every case a historical record of the origin of things like language, writing, or early technologies (fire) was veiled in mythology, providing only a cursory or misleading account.

As previously outlined, social organization seems to have existed deep into prehistory. Neanderthals occupied a vast territory in Europe and the Middle East for millenia. We have almost no way of knowing what the structure of their early culture was. Similarly, Homo Sapiens occupied Africa for 300,000 years before the end of the ice age. Their culture spanned the globe - including the Americas, prior to the end of the last ice age. We know for certain that these primitive cultures possesed religion, language, and art. It may well be the case that an established form of governance and social order may have been in use during the Pleistocene, having left no material evidence. What we can be certain of is that as more advanced cultures begin to appear, they organized themselves according to a strikingly similar pattern.

At every stage of social development, groups of early humans organized themselves into a roughly 3-fold hierarchical system. The castes equated to the first three "professions" or "specializations" that appeared after the most primitive hunter-gatherer stage. First, the ruler - early priest-kings were responsible for determining law, overseeing public dispute (judging), and interpretting signs (divination). Next were the warrior class. In the most primitive societies, the warrior class inherited heavily from the earlier hunter class in "hunter-gatherer" societies. Last were the tradesmen and craftsmen who produced trade goods which were often used to barter with neighboring communities.

The three-fold organization of early societies is ubiquitous throughout the planet. As population grew, the basic three tiered system was expanded to meet local needs. The ruling class was the first expand to include its own sub-hierarchy with a single king and several subordinate priests or a pupils. Many cultures over time developed a royal "court". The other castes did in time come to develop a more detailed sub-structure to suit their needs, but not to the same extent as the ruling class in the early days of civilization.