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.


View: Full Article | Source: Yahoo News

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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


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

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

QUOTE

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

And it still holds true today!!

p.s. sorry to the guys