Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Man's early hunting role in doubt


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1    Althalus

Althalus

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,906 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2002
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 28 January 2003 - 10:52 PM

                                                Hunting skills may not after all have triggered the tremendous burst of human evolution at the beginning of the ice ages nearly two million years ago. Instead of man the hunter, the driving force behind this evolutionary surge may have been woman the gatherer, with both mother and grandmother playing a vital role.

For 40 years, anthropologists have leaned toward the notion that rich, nourishing meat - brought home by hunters and shared out - played a crucial role in human origins. This would explain why evolution selected for larger, smarter hunters with lighter jaws and teeth: precisely the changes seen as Homo erectus arose in eastern Africa.


user posted image View: Full Article | Source: Yahoo News                                                

"We make choices everyday, some of them good, some of them bad. And - if we are strong enough - we live with the consequences."
David Gemmell

#2    Bizarro

Bizarro

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2002
  • Location:USA

Posted 29 January 2003 - 12:39 AM

                                                a rather balsy assertion, dont ya think?

i bet its actually a combo of the two theories that is closer to the truth.  sure, men hunted but it probably was a bit of scavenging at first too.   i definitely cant see grandmother's playing such an important role though- people just didn't live that long back then.  not everyone grows up with grandparents now, much less in prehistoric times.                                                  

if there was a meteor,
adrift amongst space,
set about on a collision course
not with Earth, but my face...
i wonder if id even know,
at what time i might,
be passed off like an old style
and by the meteor be smite?

- me, 1997

#3    Magikman

Magikman

    Most Exalted member of the first 15

  • Member
  • 6,280 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Posted 29 January 2003 - 03:53 AM

QUOTE (DSchwartz @ Jan 29 2003, 12:39 AM)
i definitely cant see grandmother's playing such an important role though- people just didn't live that long back then.  not everyone grows up with grandparents now, much less in prehistoric times.

                                                That's because your interpretation of a 'grandmother' is based on today's standards. On average a woman in her late 40's and beyond. In primative times, a grandmother could have been a woman in her mid to late 20's, as there wouldn't have been any social mores or taboo's dictating childbirth, only the onset of puberty, which, according to the article, would have come earlier in a girls life than it does today. Life may have been woefully brief back then, but there's little doubt that breeding suffered from a lack of trying. A 'grandmother' probably would have been highly regarded, even if she lost the ability to produce offspring.                                                

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan

"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler

#4    Bizarro

Bizarro

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2002
  • Location:USA

Posted 29 January 2003 - 04:06 AM

                                                do you happen to know the life expectancy of someone in prehistoric times? i don't offhand, but im guessing it was very, very low.  how bout the life expectancy of an american in 1900- it was like 40.  that was only 100 years ago.  now, tell me that there wouldve been enough grandparents around in prehistoric times even if they were 25 years old?  people didnt live that long!

im glad you considered that i would be so naive as to need your asinine explanation, Magikman.  thank you for clarifying the obvious for me as i am such an idiot i would have never figured that one out.

im sorry, but this a pet peeve of mine.  i never stated my "interpretation of a grandmother".  you assumed and you assumed wrong.                                                  

if there was a meteor,
adrift amongst space,
set about on a collision course
not with Earth, but my face...
i wonder if id even know,
at what time i might,
be passed off like an old style
and by the meteor be smite?

- me, 1997

#5    Kismit

Kismit

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,680 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2001
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New zealand

Posted 29 January 2003 - 04:47 AM

                                                 Older women might have proved crucial in feeding children,
QUOTE

   Well there you go that sorts out that debate . Grandmothers are obviosly a very good source of protien . rolleyes.gif                                                


#6    Magikman

Magikman

    Most Exalted member of the first 15

  • Member
  • 6,280 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Posted 29 January 2003 - 06:06 AM

                                                And my explanation was asinine? You're so clearly befuddled all you're able to do is spout generalizations in a half-assed, authoritative manner. Gee, I must have really gotten under the 'professor's' skin. A pet peeve of mine is when someone states opinions using only vague generalizations and expects their answer to be accepted as the 'only' correct one. In the future, if you don't want anyone to make false assumptions perhaps you'll state your reasoning in a more coherant fashion, hopefully minus the pompasity and juvenal defensiveness. You really need to work on your interpersonal communication skills, finding any excuse to become indignant really is pathetic, and a bit tiring.                                                

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan

"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler

#7    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,236 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 29 January 2003 - 01:00 PM

                                                The role of the "grandmother" refers to the "elderly" women who would have stayed and looked after the children, while the younger, fitter mothers, would have been gathering/working/hunting. This would result in a far more efficient process of acquiring food than if the mothers had to stay behind to look after the children, leaving the men to do everything.

People would not have lived as long at that time, but "grandmothers" would have still been a very valuable part of any community. They would not have been "elderly" by today's standards, but in prehistoric times, anyone too old to work or hunt efficiently would likely have been regarded as such.

                                                


#8    Bizarro

Bizarro

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2002
  • Location:USA

Posted 29 January 2003 - 02:50 PM

                                                when did i say my opinion was the only correct one?  why am i authoritative when i simply posted my opinion on the subject?  the only false assumption i had a problem with you making is that i would be so idiotic as to need your useless clarifications.  i simply expect that people would treat me as a person of reasonable intelligence when they address my comments- not like a child who needs the obvious explained to him.  good god, get the chip off your shoulder.  

btw, learn to spell your fancy words before you use them.  it would help you seem like you actually know what they mean wink.gif


i still am doubting this theory.  its a mighty long grasp from finding a pile of bones.                                                

if there was a meteor,
adrift amongst space,
set about on a collision course
not with Earth, but my face...
i wonder if id even know,
at what time i might,
be passed off like an old style
and by the meteor be smite?

- me, 1997

#9    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 03 February 2003 - 05:20 PM

                                                This article has finally made it to my local newspaper on Sunday. I feel so backwards and forgotten laugh.gif                                                

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#10    emmy

emmy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,448 posts
  • Joined:10 Nov 2002
  • Location:Birmingham, UK

Posted 04 February 2003 - 02:18 PM

                                                
QUOTE
the driving force behind this evolutionary surge may have been woman the gatherer



And it still holds true today!!
biggrin.gif
p.s. sorry to the guys kiss.gif                                                





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users