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?

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

Is that the one where mating is "melting"? I was actually thinking about that while I typed, but didn't want to turn my posts into a List of Everything I've Ever Read (I actually don't read that many books, but a few of the ones I have seem to be relevant today).

(I wasn't convinced by how the offspring only ever resembled one parent: the whole 'point' of sexual reproduction is that you get a mix of characteristics. Bit like how, contrary to the tabloid view of the Beckhams, his daughter might be an ace footballer and her sons might not be able to sing )

It is not sexist if it is based on evidence, rather than cultural assumptions. But most comments on this thread are based on the latter.

Is that the one where mating is "melting"?

Been a while since I read it, but rings a bell. ISTR that Asimov was insistent that the science in the story wasn't beyond what was known at the time ....

I wasn't convinced by how the offspring only ever resembled one parent: the whole 'point' of sexual reproduction is that you get a mix of characteristics.

Listening to an (as always) fascinating Infinite Monkey Cage a while back, I was struck by geneticists noting that it's unfortunate that the genes which express as skin colouration, hair, eyes and physiognomy in humans are the ones which seem to be subject to variation the most (if I understood correctly ). The conclusion being that "race" is a stupid idea, as is anything which tries to define "race". Like racists.

The Language Instinct (Stephen Pinker)

• men hunted. They had to keep quiet to as not to startle the game and therefore were verbally uncommunicative.

_ women gathered. They communicated A LOT to advise each other where the best fruits/ roots etc were to be found, warn each other about snakes, alert each other to predators, help each other with childcare, comfort/ assist each other when they/ their infants/ the clan males etc were injured or killed.

That is why men communicate in grunts and women never stop talking.

(Greatly simplified, obviously, and somewhat sweeping, but that's the gist.) And as others have said, gathering provided more regular calories than hunting, but hunting also provided skins etc for clothing and shelter, so was valuable.

Women's evolution by evelyn reed is quite interesting on this (Wikipedia)
The real proof though is that men can see a tiny ball moving across a field, but not a piece of cheese in the fridge in front of their nose

- men hunted. They had to keep quiet to as not to startle the game and therefore were verbally uncommunicative

also been cited as a reason why men "focus" on single tasks - watching game for hours, whereas:

_ women gathered. They communicated A LOT to advise each other where the best fruits/ roots etc were to be found, warn each other about snakes, alert each other to predators, help each other with childcare, comfort/ assist each other when they/ their infants/ the clan males etc were injured or killed.

Calls for a wide spread of attention "multi tasking" - (and better soft skills too).

It's interesting to consider whether these alleged differences are the result of gender or vice versa ?

Fwiw- look for peer reviewed publication rather than a book

Not that it matters, but books can be subject to peer review too, and plenty are. You're mistaking a difference between disciplines and between popular/academic presses for one between peer reviewed and not.

I'll go back to gathering my insects now. It'll take all of my stealthy stealthy skills, though, since I am female and Woman Make Much Noise (according to Pinker). I wonder, does Pinker think that violence against women (which appears to date at least to the stone age, looking at the forensic archaeology) wouldn't promote feminine silence? We just love being bashed over the heads by men, but being killed by mammoth is a bit shit?

Regarding evidence from contemporary HG societies hunting mostly small animals - I'm sure this was always a major part of HG diet back in the stone age, but it's probably much more so now as all the megafauna - mammoths, giant ground sloths, moa, woolly rhino, giant elk etc - are now extinct. Because we ate them all. So the balance between small and large game was probably tipped much more towards the latter than now.

I sometimes teach that age group about prehistory and try not to be specific about this. There does seem to be archaeological evidence that men wore more practical clothing, conducive to being outdoors and hunting, but it's never black and white, and I try to emphasise the guesswork involved ("probably", "we think") and say that we don't know for sure.

I love this thread.

Haven’t read any Asimov in years. I might have to pinch some from my mum.

DRG

The Waterside Ape theory is the same as the Aquatic Ape theory. The waterside is to emphasise that it isn’t though humans became fully aquatic. There’s been a fair bit of criticism of this theory as you can imagine, waterside is to emphasise that it is thought humans overt much lived on land but gained a huge amount of their nutriention from the water.

Isn't the defining characteristic of humans that they can use their brains to adapt to different situations?

Would skills that were needed so long ago really be so hard wired?

Isn't the defining characteristic of humans that they can use their brains to adapt to different situations. Would skills that were needed so long ago really be so hard wired

These debates get so polarised. It’s totally wrong to say “men did all the hunting”

But I find it pretty likely that dangerous hunts were done by more men than women.

These debates get so polarised. It’s totally wrong to say “men did all the hunting”

Surely in evolutionary terms, if a species were able to develop a system where men or women could add effort to the hunt, they'd have an edge over a species which was more rigidly delineated ?

That said, I wonder what the implications would be in situations where the odd male was left behind with all the females, while the stronger men went hunting ... spending long periods of time away from the tribe

HRTFT but I've always understood that - as with similar groups nowadays - the women provided most of the food. Hunting would provide extra protein now and again, but couldn't provide the bulk needed. Might have been different in the Ice Age, though...

Some fascinating archaeological discoveries in Russia in recent years, of Ice Age huts constructed using mammoth bones. I doubt women were involved in the hunting of mammoths.
www.thoughtco.com/mammoth-bone-dwellings-houses-169539

When we visited Uluru (Ayers Rock) etc they stated that the old cared for the children while the younger people went out to get food. Judging from methods of hunting I- its not just chasing & spear throwing its also about scaring smaller creatures & catching too - so who would do this??? the women & younger members - I have also read that women when gathering would catch (hunt!) smaller animals (rabbits etc) so it isn't that clear cut

I think recent evidence has pointed at men doing the majority of the hunting, but some tribes would need women involved for larger game.

Cave paintings and drawings depict male figures participating in hunting, and women depicted as the "givers of life" aka birthing offspring.

The women were also more involved in gathering, it was a constant and stable food source.

To be honest if I was producing and feeding offspring I couldn't be bothered to go off and chase animals. I'd be happy with my nuts and berries sat by a fire breastfeeding 😂

HRTFT but I've always understood that - as with similar groups nowadays - the women provided most of the food. Hunting would provide extra protein now and again, but couldn't provide the bulk needed. Might have been different in the Ice Age, though

So women provided most of the food, carried and raised the children.

What’s the point of men then? Did they sit around most of the time with the occasional jaunt out for a mammoth?

In which case why didn’t we evolve more like cats or elephants, a matriachal society where we keep one male around for breeding and showing off purposes against other males, and kick out our sons asap to go off and find their own tribe.

Again using cats as an example, isn’t it the females that do most of the hunting?

What’s the point of men then? Did they sit around most of the time with the occasional jaunt out for a mammoth?

More or less. Hunting trips were jollies, all boys together, much as they are nowadays in rural USa 😁 Meanwhile the women are slogging away digging up roots with sticks and smashing grain with stones, with babies tied to their backs.

What’s the point of men then?

To shake the genes up ?

www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/BooksOnline/He3-95.pdf

As stated above, it is not true that "women provide(d) most of the calories in HG societies." Rather, the proportions vary considerably depending on the terrain. In the Arctic, men provide nearly 100% of the calories (women play an important role in other ways, though). In the tropics, women usually provide more than men. Even in the tropics, fats and proteins tend to be provided predominantly by men.

You can't compare with cats. Human babies are very hard to give birth to and require intensive care for years on end (something which had to happen because our large brains and upright bodies mean babies have to be born when they are basically still fetuses), which makes it much harder for human women to hunt compared to, say, a female cat.

It's interesting to consider whether these alleged differences are the result of gender or vice versa ?

It is interesting Rosetti.

I love threads like this - always learn something.

What’s the point of men then?

Makes you wonder really

It's not as though they had bathrooms that needed tiling . . .

With respect to differences between the sexes for myself, I see a continuum. So you might have some women that are more "male" than some males, and some males that are more female than some females. There's an overlap in the middle.

In terms of evolutionary advantage, being able to draw on (for example) 75% of a population as opposed to 50% must have given that population an edge.

It's also worth remembering (as the book upthread is all about) that humans are true omnivores. Which is also a pretty neat trick to pull off when you are competing with the rest of the world for food. Moreover, that intelligence humans have has been put towards finding extra nutrition where other species might not. Preparing poisonous plants perhaps ?

Not historic, but amusing ... we were visiting some friends last year who "moved to the country" and decided that keeping chickens was an obligation. My friend is the DF, and he was telling us about how quickly he got used to it. Until his DD15 sashayed through, and told us what a wuss he had been when it was time to put a chicken on the table, and she ended up breaking it's neck. Seems there's only so much you can learn on YouTube.

We took some nice eggs home

Oh, and what was with the dogs?

Dogs, who?

Excellent help mates for hunting, and also warn of predators, other dangers and act as good guards at night.

I can only imagine that a wolf/jackal cub was found abandoned or something, and rather than eat it, they gave it to the kids to play with. When it grew up it became an invaluable team member.

Or perhaps wolves hung around when humans had a kill, or vice versa, and the two species learned to tolerate and finally adopt one another - and found that hunting together was more effective than not. A true symbiotic relationship.

Either way, it worked out very well for humankind - not so much for the dogs.