Prehistoric female hunters

[FindTheTruth]

Females were hunters 9000 years ago. I'm not surprised. Men are surprised. Knowing what we know about ourselves, of course women were hunters. www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/11/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions/

researchers gathered around the excavated burial of an individual lain to rest in the Andes Mountains of Peru some 9,000 years ago. Along with the bones of what appeared to be a human adult was an impressive—and extensive—kit of stone tools an ancient hunter would need to take down big game, from engaging the hunt to preparing the hide.

The remains found alongside the toolkit were from a biological female.

When archaeologists excavated the burial, they found a colorful array of 24 stone tools. Among them: projectile points for taking down a large mammal; hefty rocks likely for cracking bones or stripping hides; small, rounded stony bits for scraping fat from pelts; tiny flakes with extra sharp edges that could have chopped the meat; and nodules of red ocher that could help preserve the hides. Scattered around the site were fragments of the bones of animals including ancient llama relatives and deer

of the 27 of 429 burials with individuals of known sex who are were buried with hunting tools, 11 are female—including the newly identified remains—while 16 are male

“These patterns are not at all what you would expect in a population if males were [the only] hunters,”

an abundance of females now found to have been buried with tools throughout the Americas

If there are fewer similar hunter gatherer societies where women hunt now, I suppose it might be down to increasing specialisation of roles.

It's an interesting question though, in most very primitive societies, populations could be very marginal and reproduction was an imperative, and childbirth was dangerous. So women would be encumbered by babies and pregnancy, and many would die young. So you'd think it would be less worthwhile to spend time teaching girls hunting skills, when they'd be unlikely to use them to full advantage.

OTOH, in a marginal society, maybe there are real advantages to flexibility of role.

Or, maybe there is some other reason for burying those items with the dead.

In many temperate climate HG groups, women bring in a lot of the food, even though they don't hunt. So it's not like there is nothing to do except hunt or have babies.

I'm surprised by it, and I studied this at university (although so long ago it's almost prehistory itself!).

are the men surprised about this imagining that every female in those times just sat there looking worried if there were no men around to hunt for them?

The thinking at the time was that men would go out for the "glory" hunting, which wasn't always successful, while women would do the gathering, and were generally better nourished for it, because it was more reliable. Also observed in modern tribal communities.

deydododatdodontdeydo, I recall reading (not an expert in the field) that when a really big hunting chance happened (like a herd of large animals was migrating through the area) it was most likely that almost all adults would participate in some capacity in the hunt.

I also recall reading that most calories came from the gathering activity because plants are more reliable, and that in the relatively recently still nomadic tribes the women did routinely fish and hunt small game though not large game.

So who knows? It's hard to get sociological evidence about long-gone communities.

But there is another theory, specifically about the equality or inequality of the sexes which suggests that things got much more unequal with agriculture as it allows for the creation of stored wealth (in food etc.) and that allowed hierarchies to be built, specialisation to flourish, and some men became more powerful (with multiple wives etc.)

Extra food due to agriculture also kept women more fertile which meant longer periods of time for women to be tied to children and that made it less likely that they would share in the power of the community.

I don't see how we could get real evidence on any of the various theories that exist.

Isn't there research to show that historically - and indeed contemporary - in hunter-gatherer societies it's actually the women that provide the bulk of the nutrition ?

Yes, that's what I alluded to above. Because hunts are very hit and miss, and provide a lot of calories in one go, but take time to obtain.
Whereas gathering is a more sure and steady supply.

I'm actually quite disappointed when I find out about cases of women involved in warfare historically, apart from the odd case. I always think of women as being less violent historically, and it's men who start and fight wars. I don't like to think women were doing it too!

I'm actually quite disappointed when I find out about cases of women involved in warfare historically, apart from the odd case. I always think of women as being less violent historically, and it's men who start and fight wars. I don't like to think women were doing it too!

It does rather question the nature of equality doesn't it ? Are two half-kilo weights the same as a single kilo weight ? They're equal. But not identical.

And with that, the shadows beckon ... not getting dragged into that. Again.

I think all this proves is that evolutionary theory is a load of BS. I studied evolutionary psychology and it is all based on the same BS that all men in psychology have propagated for as long as the subject has existed (not long BTW!!) ie - sexism disguised as scientific fact.

Why would women not have been hunters? The patriarchy developed with the advent of agriculture, and specialism. Read Sapians for more in depth look at how the advancement of agriculture destroyed society and encouraged the concept of "ownership" including ownership of women!! How charming.

There's not really much reason to suppose the 'hunter gatherer' societies which have survived to current times are particularly representative of those which existed in prehistory in a much more diverse range of habitats.

For scientists to not even consider that their inbuilt ideas about sex roles might not hold true all that time ago says something really not good about those scientists.

That seemed to me to be one of the things the current study was saying.

“Importantly, the team cannot know the individual’s gender identity, but rather only biological sex (which like gender doesn’t always exist on a binary). In other words, they can’t say whether the individual lived their life 9,000 years ago in a way that would identify them within their society as a woman”

My eyes have rolled back into my head. Ffs, how sexist.

Example ref gendered differences in food provision among Martu Australian aborigines (Results section gets to the point). Women provide about 65% of the calories. They also provide most of the protein calories because they do a lot of the fishing and small game hunting which provides reliable and consistent results.

That pattern is repeated with minor differences in calories provided across many forager societies. I saw somewhere (can't find the ref now, of course ) that it's only once you get above 42N latitude or so, ie the climate is severe enough, that big game hunting approaches providing half or even more of the calories.

The most important thing, to me, is that women were/are the major providers in foraging societies. But it's the men's work that gets the attention, and, worst of all, the women get recognition when their accomplishments are similar to men's.

But all the heavy lifting they do is still just a footnote!

@Annasgirl

I think all this proves is that evolutionary theory is a load of BS. I studied evolutionary psychology and it is all based on the same BS that all men in psychology have propagated for as long as the subject has existed (not long BTW!!) ie - sexism disguised as scientific fact.

Why would women not have been hunters? The patriarchy developed with the advent of agriculture, and specialism. Read Sapians for more in depth look at how the advancement of agriculture destroyed society and encouraged the concept of "ownership" including ownership of women!! How charming.

OK, I am not surprised that some women would hunt in such societies, or even that most women might hunt sometimes.

But it seems pretty obvious to me why women would not be hunters to the same degree as men in many societies, and maybe not at all in some.

Hunting is dangerous, in many cases it takes speed and strength, and also time spent away from children. Sexually active adult women in hunter gatherer societies are often pregnant, or recovering from pregnancy, or attached to small children.

Not only would they have real physical barriers to many types of hunting, reproduction in humans is a huge commitment of resources. Endangering a woman who could be pregnant would be pretty risky. Women are more valuable than men in that sense, because they limit reproduction. Too few women and your population crashes and you cease to exist in short order.

Men are a lot more expendable so far as reproduction goes. In any case, there is plenty of other work that needs to be done for the group to survive, so some level of division of tasks makes sense.

I mean, is it really reasonable to think that among the Inuit, men hunt and women don't because some other cultures developed specialisation due to agriculture? They passed the patriarchy on somehow?

I'm actually quite disappointed when I find out about cases of women involved in warfare historically, apart from the odd case. I always think of women as being less violent historically, and it's men who start and fight wars. I don't like to think women were doing it too!

It's always seemed to me that culture is more unifying than sex, so women will side with their own tribe before their own sex. We certainly have many examples of this like the holocaust, and indeed many female Nazis like Irma Grese were as violent and sexually sadistic as any of the men.

But I do think that testosterone plays a significant part in men waging war against each other as it's pretty much the essence of competitiveness and affects fight/flight impulses etc.

Of course we were! I think men have a very strange and misogynistic view that women were somehow docile, compliant, baby makinh automatons until Emmeline Pankhurst showed up with her dangerous ideas

I think it may also depend what is being hunted, as I doubt anyone would say hunting rabbit is dangerous and hugely physical work

The degree to which women have to be occupied by reproduction and child rearing of course also depends on the type of society.

Of course we were!

It's not that obvious, for many reasons, hence the studying.

In addition, trapping is a very common way of catching animals, and isn't at all dangerous. I'm sure women would have been involved with that, but finding any evidence would be difficult.

Being simplistic, the ability to have children is a function of nutrition. Less nutrition results in lower (or no fertility) ?

Is it possible in societies that weren't flush with food more women were able to hunt - or engage in hunting ?

Part of humankinds development has been to make hunting less dangerous by application of intelligence - maybe that has a bearing too ?

I guess there is an assumption that prehistoric societies needed lots of breeding to either remain stable or grow , meaning women would have better things to do than hunt

It's also possible that growing the population base wasn't always a goal or necessary

@midgebabe

I guess there is an assumption that prehistoric societies needed lots of breeding to either remain stable or grow , meaning women would have better things to do than hunt

It's also possible that growing the population base wasn't always a goal or necessary

Well we know over history that the size of the entire human population has varied dramatically - possibly dropping to a few thousand ? Presumably the varying pressures and constraints drove varying social behaviours ?

The human population of the planet didn't grow for tens of thousands of years beyond a few million. I guess famine and plague kept the population in check, along with the ability to feed everyone until agriculture was widespread.
I doubt growing the population was ever a specific goal beyond having children who wurvive to adult hood.

It's obvious if you understand women are diverse human beings with a vast range of personalities and aptitudes rather than docile homogenous baby making machines @deydododatdodontdeydo

@midgebabe

I guess there is an assumption that prehistoric societies needed lots of breeding to either remain stable or grow , meaning women would have better things to do than hunt

It's also possible that growing the population base wasn't always a goal or necessary

Agriculture and settlement led to being able to support a larger population, but also required labour and - quite soon - fighting men to defend tracts of land. And greater population densities are often associated with more infectious illnesses.

Pre-agriculture, wouldn't there have been more somewhat scattered tribes who might do better with sustainable replacement levels rather than any particular need to increase numbers beyond a certain point?

Agree completely @themarzipandildo. What idiot would honestly believe that sexist drivel in 2020?! Has Trump got so much time on his hands now that he's hanging out on Mumsnet?