Consider the following passage:
For decades, Neolithic archaeology operated on the premise that plant and animal domestication in the Levant was an emergency response to environmental desiccation during the Younger Dryas. Under this resource-stress model, foraging communities were forced to intensify plant cultivation to stave off starvation as wild game depleted. However, recent microbotanical analysis of phytolith residue from epipalaeolithic hearth sites challenges this consensus. Researchers discovered that early cultivation was dominated not by high-yield staple grains, but by low-yield, labor-intensive species primarily utilized in fermented beverages and ceremonial feasting.
Proponents of the alternative 'social prestige' model argue that domestication was driven by competitive inter-group displays rather than subsistence pressure. They contend that ambitious lineage leaders cultivated rare crops to produce surplus alcohol and elite foods, thereby securing political alliances and social dominance. Opponents of the prestige model counter that evidence of social stratification, such as differential grave goods or architectural hierarchy, is largely absent from early Neolithic settlements, suggesting an egalitarian social structure incompatible with elite-driven feasting economies.
Nevertheless, advocates of the prestige hypothesis maintain that competitive feasting can occur in transegalitarian societies long before permanent institutional hierarchies manifest. They assert that temporary status accrued through hospitality does not require durable material markers of wealth. Consequently, the absence of elite burials does not inherently undermine the social prestige model.
Statement: Based on the passage, the opponents' rejection of the social prestige model relies on the unstated assumption that competitive feasting cannot occur in the absence of established, durable physical markers of social hierarchy.
Answer: Answer