I hope in the end, we find out it was embarrassing for everyone. Like, “Researchers discover that early humans were all thieves. No one hunted or gathered. We evolved distance running from stealing eggs and getting chased around by pissed off birds. Our ability to throw came from throwing rocks at the birds. We mastered tool use and harnessed fire when we got bored eating raw eggs and started experimenting. And then somebody realized with all these thieving skills, there were way bigger scores than bird eggs. And that’s when we started doing gang heists on lions and wolves for whole gazelles. Later, we bribed some wolves to help us rob Neanderthals. Thus began the human - dog alliance and the greatest crime spree since the Dinosaur Gang was at its peak.”
But the emus – they never forgot.
I mean, it’s already pretty much canon if you think about it.
From the article, given it seems most people commenting aren’t bothering to read it:
“When we take a deeper look at the anatomy and the modern physiology and then actually look at the skeletal remains of ancient people, there’s no difference in trauma patterns between males and females, because they’re doing the same activities,” Lacy said.
Effectively around 60 years ago anthropologists just extended assumptions from antiquity around early gender roles in their analysis, gendering hunting tools and activities as male, and it wasn’t broadly questioned because it fit in the pattern of expectations for the time (again, largely influenced from patriarchal misinformation in antiquity which had extensive impact on Western thought over the past few millennia).
Women did raise objections given the actual evidence over the past few decades, but it was allegedly dismissed as a feminist counter-narrative. The work here is attempting to more comprehensively demonstrate the case by showing that both physical markers of hunting injuries exist for both sexes and that the physiological capabilities to successfully hunt was present for both sexes.
This claim comes from 2 people, I would be a little more cautious about broadly embracing there claims of systemic discrimination, without actually knowing the corpus of research on the topic.
Also there claim of endurance being an important factor is suspect. Women have better endurance in that there performance drops more slowly than men, however the drop isn’t significant enough to result in any total advantage. Which is why women still lose in endurance competitions.
It’s fair to say that women probably weren’t significantly disadvantaged in hunting (especially smaller animals), but it’s quite misleading to argue that their endurance added some additional advantage.
This claim comes from 2 people
You do realize that their papers are linked in the article and have references, correct?
If you actually have doubts about their underlying claims, I’d encourage taking a look at those.
Here’s an anecdote from a peer anthropologist who was a fan of their work and interviewed for a different story on it:
In 2018 Haas was part of a team in Peru that found a 9,000-year-old person buried with an unusually large number of hunting tools. “We all just assumed this individual was a male,” he recalls. "Everybody is sitting around, saying things like, ‘Wow! This is amazing. He must have been a great hunter, a great warrior. Maybe he was a chief!’ "
Haas didn’t even think to question the person’s gender until about a week later, when a colleague who specialized in analyzing bone structure arrived and delivered a bombshell assessment: The remains seemed to be female.
The team then used a technology newly available to the field. Scraping the enamel from the teeth found in the grave, they found proteins that confirmed it unequivocally: This apparent master hunter was female.
These kinds of “oops, it turns out someone assumed male was female/intersex” finds have been happening quite frequently over the past few years if you’ve been following the field at all.
The, “Everyone assumed roles were 100% different, but they were 100% the same, which really says something about you western people.” is distasteful to me and factually incorrect. We can see what people who live and lived without technology and access to shared culture do. Generally, men hunted more and women cared for children more. The observation has been that women spend a portion of their lives pregnant and nursing, so men go out and do things that require them to be away. We haven’t documented gender roles because preconceptions or because we’re western, but through direct observation. Those observations of how people lived could be combined with our knowledge of wear patterns on bones to construct a better understanding of how roles may have been less distinct and how bones wear. The assertion that we have 100% confidence in perceiving people’s entire lives by looking at bones and we can’t trust anything anyone said before because they were all sexist… excuse me… had preconceptions is unhelpful.
I mean, if you and your little group of people are struggling to eat, yeah Bertha Strongarm better be puttin up them Mammoth numbers; iun care you got titties, we need to eat!
Chimp empire on Netflix studies two chimp communities. One the females hunted and the other they didn’t. They one that the females hunted in had fewer males and population overall, so it was done out of necessity.
It could be the same in this situation where women hunted but it wasn’t necessarily the norm compared with men and depended on the situation. Not sure of course just pointing out the possibility.
Survival isn’t social norm, it’s ultimatively pragmatic: you du what works. And if Ugharia is a better hunter than Ugh, that means, Ugh is a stay-at-cave dad, cooks the mammoth, cleans the stones and brings little Ughie in the kindergarten.
Wonderful news! I have so many “I told you so’s” to catch up on from all these years of having this disagreement
This wasn’t exactly new though lol?
Humans have always worked in groups. It’s one of those weird things that get taught which have always been suspect when you give more than two seconds to think about it lol.
Sadly most of my googlefu only pulls articles from 2020 or later.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/nov/analysis-did-prehistoric-women-hunt-new-research-suggests-so
https://theconversation.com/did-prehistoric-women-hunt-new-research-suggests-so-149477
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-prehistoric-women-successful-big-game-hunters.html
I would imagine there was some prehistoric version of “You like to eat? Learn to cook.” Only with hunting.
Most of the prehistoric world was based around genuine ability instead of weird gender opinions.
You can run fast and throw good? Great, you’re with us hunting. Can’t do that but you can pick up stuff and carry it long distances? Great, we need you with the gathering team. Can’t do that but you can still move around and do stuff? Great, you can watch the kids and injured while we’re gone. In none of these cases does gender play a role. And this is really all you need to maintain a small group of humans in the wild.
this makes having autism/adhd/etc in the modern day even more miserable, knowing that for most of humanity’s existence there were a bunch of tasks i would specifically excel at.
but nope, now we must all be wage slaves and if we can’t do something that generates profit for rich people we have to fight for welfare to be able to buy food with.
I would think the hyperfixations high-functioning people on the spectrum often have would be of great benefit in a society where you do what you’re best able to do.
hell we’re still a great benefit, it’s just that we’re not given the help we need to find the right occupation and then when we can’t find it on our own we’re looked down upon as societal leeches.
This is why UBI should be a no-brainer, it would enable so many people to do good work that they’re currently unable to because society actively hinders them.
I don’t disagree with you. I was just talking about it in the context of prehistoric hunter-gatherers.
If you want consolation, you would more than likely be left to die. Children were extremely disposable up until the last few thousand years. Often subjects of cannibalism.
there’s clear evidence that hunter-gatherers would straight up carry people who were unable to walk, but pop off with your doomer fantasies
I see no reason why high-functioning neurodivergent children would be left to die. A lot of ND people aren’t even clearly ND until they’re older. They’re just ‘different.’
You can still go and live that life. Even at the difficulty of your choice! It’s just that you prefer to be a “wage slave” instead.
That life requires a community working together, they can but they need to join a community like that. We’re social creatures we need each other.
Even so there was lots of disease and injury. The structure of society was probably better, but that doesn’t mean it’s good on the whole.
oh wow really? can you please tell me what i should do in order to choose that life?
Find like minded people, go away from civilization. That’s basically it! If you want that, you will find a way.
Most people still live in a state close to that. And unlike us, who can freely choose how much civilization we want, they cannot.
Most people also prefer to have civilization, with some hygiene, security and comfort. But if you really want a simple life, it’s basically free.
I really think it’s worthwhile pursuing if it’s a dream of yours. You either manage to live a happier life, or learn to appreciate what you have.
and where do i find like-minded people? you make this seem incredibly trivial but in fact that one step is basically impossible.
Yes it is. Search the internet, ask people, go to suitable places. Or lower your expectations. These things only seem appealing until you confront them with reality.
And because men were hunters, they drove human evolution
Wait what?
From the article:
“anthropologists Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore published “Man the Hunter,” a collection of scholarly papers presented at a symposium in 1966. The authors made the case that hunting advanced human evolution by adding meat to prehistoric diets, contributing to the growth of bigger brains, compared to our primate cousins.”
Take that, Patriarchy!
Around the world you find many examples of matriarchies along the history. Men were still the principal hunters in many of such matriarcal societies (probably even all…). And women were main responsible for children, and leaders.
Roles and societal organizations have been different across tribes and civilizations.
Jordan Peterson is convulsing somewhere
I don’t know who he is, sorry
You’re better off keeping it that way.
God, I wish that was me.
That happens on the reg since he went to that all meat diet or whatever
Buh-buh-buh patriarchy make the lobster happy!
Summary seems designed to be contentious: I never heard that
men were hunters and women were gatherers
Yup, common story
Women were not physically capable
Wtf, even in less woke times, it might have been “less suited to”, rather than a bogus absolute
men … drove human evolution.
As an old white guy, card carrying misogynists, wtf are you smoking?
I see it more like that meme floating around “this is why women live longer” …
Ugharia: look, we can feed ourselves by picking this off bushes and we can take care of the bushes to give us more
Ugh: hold my beer, imma gonna run into this herd of wildebeests with a sharp stick
such a headass take from the author. nothing drives evolution except being able to have a kid before you die.
a species through no fault of its own to evolve itself to extinction by Hyper specializing in a specific function that either a biome changes renders useless or else becomes so good it becomes dominant and wipes out the food supply.
It’s a familiar story to many of us: In prehistoric times, men were hunters and women were gatherers. Women were not physically capable of hunting because their anatomy was different from men.
It seems that this article is arguing against a strawman. The common understanding is not that women never hunted, it’s just that it was less common than men hunting.
And because men were hunters, they drove human evolution.
What does that even mean? 🤔
The team also looked at female physiology and found that women were not only physically capable of being hunters, but that there is little evidence to support that they were not hunting.
Well, there is a long list of sex differences that sure look like adaptations to different roles. Do the authors have alternative explanations for them? Do they see them as contradictions to their findings?
I’d like to read the paper to understand what their actual findings and methodolgy was, but I couldn’t find it anywhere.
To give a brief run of what stuck in my head, reading about it. Essentially the common day beliefs were projected when examining the past findings, so when they found a man buried with an arrow head = hunter. A woman buried with an arrow… Not. They found women hunted differently, in packs and with dogs. And now thought to be just as frequently, if not, possibly, more frequently than men.
And because men were hunters, they drove human evolution.
And now we’re stuck here because they refused to ask for directions.
“but that women have an advantage over men in activities requiring endurance, such as running” is about where I found out that this was complete horseshit lmao. Like I was following along and suspending my disbelief until this line. Unless somewhere along the line human physiology experienced a truly dramatic paradyme shift this is simply false.
Makes perfect sense when you think of how human’s hunted. Why not let women come along on our leisurely walk after these tracks?
