Who did the hunting in the stone age?

[Mercedes519]

So DD (8) today learnt that men did the hunting in the stone age.

Keen to knock down the patriarchy one brick at a time we talked about the fact that the person who decided that men hunted in the stone age was a man. And therefore could have been biased.

But before I get all exercised on the subject I shall ask the wisdom of Mumsnet - is there any evidence for the male hunter and female gatherer we all learnt at school or is it just bullshit?

Weird to summarise that as such a bald statement about boys not being "better at math". When what the book actually says is the complete opposite!

So these differences are here now but did they evolve because of the split of tasks or did the better skills drive the split?

We're talking a huge span of time so you can't assume that men had better spacial awareness and women had better vision to start with can you?

Weird to summarise that as such a bald statement about boys not being "better at math". When what the book actually says is the complete opposite!

I'm not 'summarising' anything. The book comes to the conclusion, after citing a large amount of research, that are genuine differences in spatial abilities between boys and girls, which to some extent at least appear to be innate. However, these differences are neither universal nor enormous. But they do exist.

How do you know the book says the 'opposite' if you haven't read it?

We're talking a huge span of time so you can't assume that men had better spacial awareness and women had better vision to start with can you?

No indeed. That's why I'm not 'assuming' that at all.

Did anyone catch the Hannah Fry documentary about Maths (well, the first part) ?

It showed some research (with some adorable munchable babies ) that showed there appears to be some innate understanding of numbers in the human brain - even a 6 month old seems to know the difference between 2 and 3 ...

(Mind you some birds can also count ...)

The summarising quote is from the authors website for the book, from your link, and is part of her summary of the contents of the book.

Then you replied, stating that "if you read the book, those average better abilities in spatial reasoning often translate into higher scores on maths tests.". Which seemed like you were saying that the book actually concludes that boys are better at maths (on average). Just seems an odd way for the author to summarise her own book, when you're telling me that the conclusion is the opposite and boys are innately better at maths (on average).

May have been said, but please don't devalue the work of women - pregnancy, childbirth, nursing an infant, etc. While the women were busy with all these physically demanding activities (and, imagine life without tampons!) men didn't have so much to do so they went out hunting once they'd checked that they weren't needed back at base camp to help support the child-rearing, gathering, cooking, etc.

Also, the rather unusual fact that human females tend to live on well past their fertile years ... suggesting that grandmothers taking on a share of child rearing and food gathering/preparing played a significant role in the development of human societies. Making men slightly more expendable ....

Which seemed like you were saying that the book actually concludes that boys are better at maths (on average).

It does conclude that boys are better at maths on average.

However, what the author says that since 'maths' is a relatively new skill in evolutionary terms - it's not like people in prehistoric societies did trigonometry or long division - the reason boys tend to be better is that over the course of evolution, they developed stronger spatial abilities, likely linked to the fact that it was mostly males who went hunting. These skills formed the basis of the (relatively) modern discipline known as mathematics.

These aren't my arguments. They are the arguments of the author, based on her years of studying the relevant research. If you're interested in her arguments, I suggest reading the book. It's a good read.

Making men slightly more expendable ....

Men are surely much more expendable.

If there were only 10 people left on earth, and if 9 were male and 1 female, the species would be in deep trouble. However, if we had 9 females and 1 male, the species would survive quite well.

Goodness knows why the author decided to summarise her conclusions by stating that boys are not better at math.

The Guilty Feminist covered this in the recent episode about jealousy

They claimed their theory was backed up by anthropologists' studies, but didn't cite any so I don't know how true it is

But it is very interesting and well worth a listen - they talk about how men were hunters and women were gatherers, and they co-evolved different social structures to succeed at both
The success of gathering depended on being part of a group and for that group to involve you in their gathering, and that's why women tend to feel more hurt when they are left out of social groups - we are apparently hard wired this way in order to have survived our cave days

Goodness knows why the author decided to summarise her conclusions by stating that boys are not better at math.

This is getting silly. You seem to be looking for an argument for the sake of it. I explained the reasoning above: "maths" (and notice the scare quotes in the part you cited) is not an innate ability, since humans have only practiced it for a few thousand years. However, better spatial reasoning can translate into better ability in the modern skill of maths.

And btw the author did not write that summary. She is described in the 3rd person. As I say, if you're genuinely interested in what she has to say, I suggest reading her book.

The success of gathering depended on being part of a group and for that group to involve you in their gathering

But so did hunting. It's not like men went out in search of wild prey on their own. And the consequences of not working as a team would have presumably been a lot more lethal for hunters than for gatherers.

and that's why women tend to feel more hurt when they are left out of social groups

Do they though? What evidence is there for this?

You can gather meat too, don't forget - even young children can collect invertebrates and catch mice.

I'm just puzzled by your original claim that the difference in maths/spatial awareness between girls and boys is one of the largest cognitive differences. Enough to confidently state that boys are better at maths/spatial awareness as an innate unarguable fact.

This book that you cite seems to me, from the information available on the author's website, to be saying that the differences are initially very small and then greatly increased by socialisation. I don't see that as justification for stating that boys are better than girls at maths.

I am fed up of this damaging narrative that girls are less good, innately, at maths/science/spatial awareness/map reading/computer science/whatever. Differences, where they exist, start off as very small and are then massively exacerbated by society. Let's address that as much as we possibly can, and then see how significant any differences that remain are between men and women.

This example of the role of women in Stone Age society being totally ignored in favour of men being discussed as important hunters is exactly the problem.

Just to say with the brain stuff -
There are larger differences between brains of people who live in different environments, than between women and men brought up in the same kind of environment. That is because our brains develop in relation to our environments. So it is impossible to say that any differences in brains between women and men are inevitable.

Also most tribes seemed to have spent a lot of time in a state of low level war. Lots of male skeletons show signs of weapons injuries.

I'm just puzzled by your original claim that the difference in maths/spatial awareness between girls and boys is one of the largest cognitive differences. Enough to confidently state that boys are better at maths/spatial awareness as an innate unarguable fact.

To repeat: It's not my claim. It's the claim made by Lise Eliot, based on her analysis of numerous studies. And like most scientists, she would never use a phrase like "unarguable fact", but she would say that the body of research strongly supports this conclusion.

This book that you cite seems to me, from the information available on the author's website, to be saying that the differences are initially very small and then greatly increased by socialisation. I don't see that as justification for stating that boys are better than girls at maths.

Again to repeat: If you're interested in the relevant research and the author's conclusions, read the book instead of forming your opinion based on promotional blurb.

I am fed up of this damaging narrative that girls are less good, innately, at maths/science/spatial awareness/map reading/computer science/whatever. Differences, where they exist, start off as very small and are then massively exacerbated by society.

That may very often be true, but I don't see it as sufficient reason to deny that there may be some innate differences when the evidence points in that direction.

I think humans do whatever they need to do to survive.

However, women's contribution to the reproductive process - pregnancy, child birth and breastfeeding is rather more time consuming than men's.

Men are surely much more expendable.

Well, I didn't want to say ... recent experiments with mice suggests that men are surplus to requirements anyway

Also most tribes seemed to have spent a lot of time in a state of low level war. Lots of male skeletons show signs of weapons injuries.

Arguably using that intelligence again. After all the most efficient way to survive, is to get other animals (men included) to do all the hard and dangerous work of actually hunting, and then step in and overpower them to relieve them of the goodies ... you can see how in time this would lead to a necessity to defend the stores as well as going out hunting ...

I've nothing to add, but am marking place. This topic is endlessly fascinating.

There may be some very small innate differences, on average. Not enough to make statements such as "boys are better at maths", without some detailed explanation of exactly what is meant by this. It damages girls/women to be repeatedly told this, when any differences are likely very small and exacerbated by this very kind of socialisation. The narrative we give to girls/women should be that any individual's ability at maths cannot be predicted by their sex.

Iced
If you read my post, it very clearly says the podcast didn't cite studies to back it up
But it is worth a listen (as is the podcast series in general) as it raises some interesting topics, including this one) but I'm sure there is some comedic licence in there

The bit I'm talking about starts at 9mins25
[[http://guiltyfeminist.libsyn.com/116-jealousy-with-grace-petrie-and-special-guest-sammy-t-dobson}}

Link fail
guiltyfeminist.libsyn.com/116-jealousy-with-grace-petrie-and-special-guest-sammy-t-dobson

Not read the book but just done some research on l. Eliot.

Btw- it’s always worth reading widely on a subject. Reading one book you are only getting one person’s slant on events. And just because it’s in a book doesn’t make it good research. There are plenty of scientist with fancy educations and titles who’s research doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Fwiw- look for peer reviewed publication rather than a book. Which is published on the basis of whether it will sell, not whether the content is any good.

Cordelia Fine’s book was published at the same time and has been cited far more times. Has Eliot published anything further? I couldn’t find anything.

Erstwhile student of human sciences (incl human evolution) here...

First off, the premise of "the stone age" being a monolithic entity is a bit nonsensical (not having a pop at the OP, it's presumably how her kid's school phrased it). It covers millions of years, several species, eleventy billions cultures, and every climate/ecosystem in the world. (Oh yes, and for the animal-raising part of the Neolithic, the whole point was that people mostly spent their animal time raising them, not hunting them.) Which is one reason why the cliched view of "paleo" being eating a load of steak and berries, is bollox. Things would have varied hugely.

Second, it is very likely that hominid meat-eating was a matter at least as much about catching small critters, and scavenging larger carcasses, as hunting big game (another reason why the "me paleo caveman eating steak" thing is bollox--most meat meals would have been things like half-rancid liver).

Third, there are very few groups who can even remotely be called pure, untouched hunter-gatherers. The few that remain are in the most marginal of environments, and have all had extensive contact with outsiders. It's massively dodgy to generalise their ways of life.

Fourth, it's a bit of a myth that HGs prized women having kids and wanted them popping out sprogs as soon as their periods started. Too many people on your land as a HG affects everyone's survival. In the Bushmen, infanticide was fairly common. Girls tended to reach puberty mid-teens, but would not be expected to marry for a few years. In any group, there would always have been women without young children (ie not (yet) married, widowed, they or husband infertile) who would have had no barrier to hunting.

OK, I'll stop the lecture now I think it's generally recognised now that it's more nuanced than was thought 40-60 years ago. One book that made a big impression on me was "Reindeer Moon", by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas. It's set 20000 years ago--she wrote it having spent time in various close-to-the-earth cultures. The thing that overwhelmingly comes through is that while there are a few principles of life the people have along gendered lines, overwhelmingly their lives were scrappy struggles for survival where everyone just did whatever they could. (Warning: it's pretty grim reading if you are contemplating having children, though!)