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?

Not enough to make statements such as "boys are better at maths", without some detailed explanation of exactly what is meant by this.

Again and for the last time, if you're interested, read the book which is full of detailed explanations.

The narrative we give to girls/women should be that any individual's ability at maths cannot be predicted by their sex.

Well yes. That's why I have repeatedly said that any gender differences are average and that lots of girls are better at maths than lots of boys, just like lots of boys are better at languages than lots of girls. But that's a different thing from denying that there are any differences at all.

Also I have read an anthroplogists experience in a hunter gatherer tribe. He said officially the men hunted. But in practice if they managed to corner an animal such as a snake or animal, everyone joined in.

Also worth noting that some here are imagining that all meat consumption will be large animals. In reality people will have eaten insects and small animals as well.

"The Mbuti Pygmies of Zaire net hunt and the pace is so leisurely that old people, children, and nursing mothers take part. Between casts of the nets everyone gets together to share tobacco or fruit that has been gathered, exchange stories, gossip and flirt. And for the most part the meat people eat are things like small antelope that are relatively easy for a woman or child to kill.

Batek women in Indonesia go fishing with their children as a way of entertaining them. I the hill country of India the Nayaka, take leisurely walks with their families along the way they will gather or hunt up small animals"

Fwiw- look for peer reviewed publication rather than a book

Such publications tend to be written for an academic audience, and can be very difficult for general readers to engage with.

Cordelia Fine’s book was published at the same time and has been cited far more times.

I've read Cordelia Fine's books too and like them, but like all writers on 'gender science' she has her fair share of critics too.

Has Eliot published anything further? I couldn’t find anything.

You can't have looked that hard then!

www.liseeliot.com/books

Girls tended to reach puberty mid-teens, but would not be expected to marry for a few years.

Did people in pre-historic socities 'marry'? Surely marriage would have come in with the advent of farming, as a way for a man to protect his 'assets' (women and children)?

I'm talking about your statements that boys are better at maths, IcedPurple. You confidently asserted that earlier in the thread, saying that it's one of the largest cognitive differences between boys and girls. No explanation from you about it in fact being very small differences, magnified by socialisation and affected by stereotype threat and so on.

It's damaging to girls to present such a sweeping statement about their maths ability. What is the point of constantly raising the very small differences on average, and focusing on these very small innate differences as massively significant?

In modern-day hunter-gatherer societies hunting (especially of larger animals) is done primarily by men. Actually, I think that the "hunting is done mainly by men" may well be one of those human universals found in all societies. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that this was true in the stone age as well. Women do and did hunt certain animals and join in on some types of communal hunting. Then you have cross-over activities like gathering shellfish or insects (is it hunting or gathering? whichever one, women do this as well as men).

By the way, it is not necessarily true that "women provided most of the food"--the relative proportions of calories contributed by men and by women vary considerably according to the terrain in modern HG societies. In some societies, men provide most of the calories, in some it is women.

Yes, HG societies have marriage. It was not something invented with the advent of farming.

Going way back (and with the upfront caveat that I'm only an interested party, not an expert) isn't there a theory that the development of two distinct sexes in species arose as a result of evolutionary pressures ?

(I first read this in a heavy tome on plant genetics and the fact that some species of plants have distinct male and female individuals - Stinging Nettles being one)

what would be a good beginners guide book to this period? Something that would give me a starting point to finding out what we know about when and how we discovered that cooking meat make it taste better for eg? I'm going to have a browse on FutureLearn, to see if there are any likely looking courses, as, much as I'd love to study anthropolgy at degree level, cash and health prevent that . Any recommendations?

This is going to be my last response to you as you seem to keep ignoring what I've actually said and we're just going around in circles.

You confidently asserted that earlier in the thread, saying that it's one of the largest cognitive differences between boys and girls.

I know you keep ignoring this point, but it's not me 'confidently asserting' anything. The body of research seems to suggest this.

No explanation from you about it in fact being very small differences, magnified by socialisation and affected by stereotype threat and so on.

But like I said earlier - and you again ignore - these differences decline rather than increase with age. Is socialisation a factor? No doubt, and I never once declared otherwise. But that does not mean that there are NO innate differences. As I've - also - said previously, I'm sceptical about those who assume that all apparant gender differences are innate, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to the notion - if supported by research - that there are SOME innate differences.

It's damaging to girls to present such a sweeping statement about their maths ability.

Sigh...as I've said repeatedly these are just average differences. And I'm not walking up to girls and telling them they're going to be crap at maths, am I? I would never dream of doing such a thing. This was a discussion about gender division of work in prehistoric times, and I alluded to the theory that the fact that men did most of the hunting may have, over hundreds of thousands of years, led to their greater average spatial abilities. And it's not my theory btw. It's one widely - though certainly not universally held - by scientists.

What is the point of constantly raising the very small differences on average, and focusing on these very small innate differences as massively significant?

Who is doing this? Your posts seem to be a massive overreaction to, and indeed distortion of, my points, so as I say I think it's best to leave it at that.

kokeshi Reda my comments, what you say is not always the case.

Did people in pre-historic socities 'marry'? Surely marriage would have come in with the advent of farming, as a way for a man to protect his 'assets' (women and children)?

Not necessarily. Again, as we by definition don't know what people did in prehistory (what with history being from when people left written records), massive variation across space & time etc., things will have varied. We do know that marriage exists in current HG societies, so there is no reason to imagine it wouldn't.

Most of the arguments for why marriage would be useful in agrarian societies are just as true for HG ones. Marriage establishes the incomer as 'one of the group', for mutual aid, rather than just a casual visitor. It tells you who your children can't marry, so helps avoid inbreeding (in those societies that don't actively prefer it ). In relatively static HG societies (more often described as 'hunter-collector'), it would help establish rights to use the land.

Interestingly, ther's some recent-ish research that marriage may be particularly useful for mobile HGs as it helps establish connections between people in different groups. If your band is facing hard times where it is, it may disperse to other bands--and obviously, the more connections there are, the more likely everyone can be taken in somewhere.

(I read the above in "After the Ice"--there are a few too many lazy scenarios of 'the men did various stuff while the women sat around BF, while everyone was in awe of priests', but it's another interesting book drawing on the evidence to speculate about the past.)

Very interesting @WorldofTofuness

I have to say I gave up on 'After the Ice'! Maybe I should have persevered?

Interestingly, ther's some recent-ish research that marriage may be particularly useful for mobile HGs as it helps establish connections between people in different groups.

Genetically speaking, inbreeding isn't a good idea ...

isn't there a theory that the development of two distinct sexes in species arose as a result of evolutionary pressures ?

Heheh, looks like I'm not going to get much work done today...!

I think the theory might be that asexual reproduction is fine if your environment is relatively unchangingso that your offsprings' chances of viability stay the same. (Alternatively, if you have a high rate of spontaneous mutations, your offsprings' variation will be as high as the environmental fluctuationsso a chance of something matching. I'm not sure what the evidence is that this has ever been a feature of asexual organisms.)

You run into problems if you're churning out the same-old same-old, while the environment changes. If you could incorporate some characteristics in your offspring from an individual who is doing well in their environment, you'd do better. In fact, if you could incorporate several characteristics that seemed to do well in different environments, you've hedged your bets.

I guess 2 sexes arose because it's the minimum necessary for this to happen, and the maximum number that would work. (Note that my wording isn't meant to imply a 'purpose', and nothing about there being 2 sexes says anything about how it would relate to chromosomes, method of reproduction, ability to read maps etc.)

I don’t know how you determine innate differences when gender socialisation is said to start in utero.

Also with zero evidence or thought behind it, I’d have thought the patriarchy is exactly why it’s safe to assume men were the hunters. Are the hunters generally considered the top dogs of cultures? Surely if women hunted there would be a dadsnet with a load of men talking on meninist boards and giving out about women using their wealth and resources to avoid maintainence?

I'm sure women would have processed the meat and skins

Not read the full thread. But women hormones and menses smell enough that animals such as bears are aware. Not recommended now for women to go out into the bush during their period.

Hmmm, lost of 'girls are better than boys because...' posts on this thread. It feels like being in primary school all over again!

I don't think it makes any sense to try and impose modern social mores onto prehistoric humans. It's almost anthropomorphism to try and project modern obssessions onto what were pretty unsophisticated tribal societies. Maybe people did what worked?

Also, braing development is a dnyamic process. For example, black cab drivers have larger-than-average memory centres in their brains, thanks to their intensive 'Knowledge' training. Australian aborigines also have better long-distant eyesight, thanks to hunting. These are functions of both lived-development, and the result of heredity. There's no reason why this wouldn't also apply to predominantly male hunters.

nameless No. In many tribal societies it is the owner of the weapon that killed the animal that has higher status. And honey is often the real prized food, which those in the west do not often think about..

MyVisions--I'm now going to give a frivolous suggestion: the Earth's Children series, Jean M. Auel.

It's about a modern human-type woman in the Palaeolithic, brought up by Neanderthals. Subsequently, the (s)exploits of the people she meets travelling through Europe.

The first book aint bad, but the rest manage to be simultaneously un-put-down-able and unreadable. Auel knows many of the major Palaeo sites intimately, and has an eye for detailand boy, do we get it in the prose. You also get a sense of how people in societies relate to each otheralthough it's unduly sunny, and I'd say "Reindeer Moon" is more realistic.

Oh, and you get cringeily detailed sex scenes. I discovered a fellow 'aficionado' at a random works conference once, and we managed to perplex our colleagues as to how 2 respectable-looking middle-aged women could be in tears of laughter over "Jondalar's organ".

There are so many comments here that are people imposing their own world views on the past.

First of all no one knows the answer to this question.

Secondly in most existing tribal societies generally the animals caught are small - small deer, monkeys, snakes. It takes intelligence to catch and kill these, not large upper body strength.

I guess 2 sexes arose because it's the minimum necessary for this to happen, and the maximum number that would work.

Isaac Asimov postulates a parallel universe with 3 in "The Gods Themselves" ...

Why should it be sexist to say or believe that men did most or all of the hunting,,while women did the gathering?

If you think it's sexist, then you are implying that the gathering was an inferior or lesser occupation, which obviously it can't have been.