Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Woman the hunter [merged]


Waspie_Dwarf

Recommended Posts

Woman the hunter

UD anthropology professor rebukes notion that only men were hunters in ancient times

Quote

It’s a familiar story to many of us: In prehistoric times, men were hunters and women were gatherers. Women were not physically capable of hunting because their anatomy was different from men. And because men were hunters, they drove human evolution.

But that story’s not true, according to research by University of Delaware anthropology professor Sarah Lacy, which was recently published in Scientific American and in two papers in the journal American Anthropologist.

Read More: ➡️ University of Delaware

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Woman the hunter

UD anthropology professor rebukes notion that only men were hunters in ancient times

 

It's possible. Probably young woman helped hunt. But, once they were having children, I'd find it hard to believe that the woman did much hunting, even if they had more endurance. 

Modern sports demonstrates that men are generally stronger and more aggressive then woman. Perhaps woman would be better at long distance wolf pack chases.

But, then again, perhaps that lack of chasing ability is what caused humans to need a bigger, better, brain to build sneakier ambush methods, such as pits, and corrals.

There could be some truth to this. But I find the statements made that "Man the Hunter" is false to be bombastic, sensational, and generally aimed at being woke click bait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

There could be some truth to this. But I find the statements made that "Man the Hunter" is false to be bombastic, sensational, and generally aimed at being woke click bait.

Have you considered that this could be exactly the kind of bombastic, misogynistic thinking that the authors have issue with?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course we would hunt. We used the men as bait for the big game, and when the big game was distracted eating the bait, I mean fighting or chasing the men. we would sneak up behind those beasts and whammooo! :D Dinner is served!

Edited by Katniss
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Have you considered that this could be exactly the kind of bombastic, misogynistic thinking that the authors have issue with?

True. But it does say...

Quote

Nevertheless, the data we do have signal that it is time to bury Man the Hunter for good.

I admit woman could hunt just fine. And young woman almost certainly did.

But the idea men did most of the hunting is probably still not ready to be "buried for good".

Maybe they're thinking one good bombast deserves another?

I understand the reason for the article is to lay out an arguement. But aside from a few, "yeah, well... men...", mentions it's trying to layout how woman are superhuman. 

If the idea is correct, we should see the armys of the works be woman, and the best athletes, be woman. But we don't. We should historically see woman being the pioneers and trail blazers. But we don't. 

If the whole point is to say the Man the Hunter idea isnt 100%. I'd say of course, only an idiot would argue no woman hunted ever.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Nevertheless, the data we do have signal that it is time to bury Man the Hunter for good.

You have isolated that quote so that it does not appear in the context of the article (incidentally, I have just searched the article and the phrase you have quoted doesn't actually appear to be there, if it is I apologise, but I couldn't find it).

The authors are not arguing that man didn't hunt, they are arguing that the assumption that ONLY men hunted is not supported by the data. Since you have said:

24 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I admit woman could hunt just fine. And young woman almost certainly did.

you are, effectively, arguing against your own point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

You have isolated that quote so that it does not appear in the context of the article (incidentally, I have just searched the article and the phrase you have quoted doesn't actually appear to be there, if it is I apologise, but I couldn't find it).

The authors are not arguing that man didn't hunt, they are arguing that the assumption that ONLY men hunted is not supported by the data. Since you have said:

you are, effectively, arguing against your own point.

I think it depends on how you read the article. I read the Scientific American link. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/

Quote

The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong

So, then is the idea woman were evolved to hunt ALSO? 

I do suppose it depends on how you're predisposed. I read the beginning of the article at first and thought it was aimed at a certain audience. 

By the end of the article it was clear they meant the idea of 0% woman hunting should be considered dead. That wasn't clear in my mind from reading the first part. Or the article title.

 

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Quote

 

If you envisage a prehistoric hunter, a vision of a caveman might spring to mind. 

But a new study claims that these cavemen paled in comparison to their female counterparts.

While women have long been seen as child-rearers and gatherers and men as hunters, researchers from the Univeristy of Notre Dame have debunked this theory. 

Their study found that not only did prehistoric women engage in the practice of hunting, but their female anatomy and biology would have made them intrinsically better suited for it.

'Rather than viewing it as a way of erasing or rewriting history, our studies are trying to correct the history that erased women from it,' said Dr Cara Ocobock, lead author of the study. 

 

Link

Alrighty.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overarching blanket statements are inherently innacurate. 

There are trends among data sets, there are exceptions and then there are outliers.

Critical thinking is its own reward when making claims, observing patterns and considering conditions of ever flowing life.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When that link came up I nearly had a seizure.  There FIVE separate ads in motion, placed all over the screen.  The ads are really getting out of control.  I copied and pasted it to a Brave browser so I could read it in peace.  SMH.  At the current pace, I predict that within the next decade, "science" will determine that males - especially caucasian males - are utterly useless and in need of extinction as soon as possible.  Or as Yuval Harari would say, they're useless eaters... :lol:

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women are pretty sneaky sometimes  ..sorta hard to see them coming sometimes! ?    Then, WHAM!   :P

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be honest, I don't think it really mattered who was a better hunter. What mattered was survival. I guess people forget that. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that, my daughter is a good hunter, better than her husband. You need to be ruthless and that's what women are. They are also more stoic than males.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Prehistoric men were stronger than women and could throw a weapon farther and harder or when something like a large boar was in a snare had the weight and strength to stand up to it and attack it better in close quarters than their women.  We know from various hunter gatherer societies still living in some parts of our world today which sex does the hunting.  The men.  This is speculation based on who burns fat and proteins more efficiently, right?  But in reality we know who wins in both speed and distance while running between men and women don't we :yes:  I'm quite sure that women hunted alongside men occasionally but to declare women were better hunters than men, or that they were them main hunters in a clan seems ridiculous to me.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off. Caucasian males are not being relegated into the useless pile.  We participated and were instrumental in some of the big changes in civilization and culture.  We just didn't do it alone.  I am really not sure about the skin tone of those 4000 BC Bell Beaker People and Corded Ware People that began showing up in Hunter Gatherer Europe, but it was genetics linked to outside males settling among established populations that we find..

As for hunting prey, there a lot of ways to do that apart from frontal encounters requiring strength.

There are still sites identified as pishkun, buffalo jumps in Montana and other places.  Native Americans used them as long as 12,000  years ago. In Europe they were used for reindeer as well as other herding animals. The trick is to build grass fires and otherwise drive a herd to stampede over a cliff.  Men, women, and children could all participate in that activity and the days of butchering and meat preparation afterwards.  Small game was often hunted with throwing sticks, the non-returnable alternative to boomerangs.  Even in historical times, children were encouraged to practice archery skills on squirrels and small rodents around camp. Both good training and a way to contribute more meat to the pot.  Fighting a mammoth or wooly rhino may be very manly,   but if you can kill them without personal risk, all the better.

33 minutes ago, OverSword said:

But in reality we know who wins in both speed and distance while running between men and women don't we 

Interesting comment.   Our early ancestors seemed to have evolved useful traits for running game to exhaustion.  Hunters would harry game until it collapsed of overheating, unable to shed enough body heat.  It was an endurance game more than a strength one.

If you do consider today's distance and speed events, you might observe that to get very fast or run for endurance, athletes shed a lot of their upper body muscle and bulk in favor of leg development. Biceps don't win a race. A woman without a lot of upper body muscle might be well suited to the chase.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

First off. Caucasian males are not being relegated into the useless pile.  We participated and were instrumental in some of the big changes in civilization and culture.  We just didn't do it alone.  I am really not sure about the skin tone of those 4000 BC Bell Beaker People and Corded Ware People that began showing up in Hunter Gatherer Europe, but it was genetics linked to outside males settling among established populations that we find..

As for hunting prey, there a lot of ways to do that apart from frontal encounters requiring strength.

There are still sites identified as pishkun, buffalo jumps in Montana and other places.  Native Americans used them as long as 12,000  years ago. In Europe they were used for reindeer as well as other herding animals. The trick is to build grass fires and otherwise drive a herd to stampede over a cliff.  Men, women, and children could all participate in that activity and the days of butchering and meat preparation afterwards.  Small game was often hunted with throwing sticks, the non-returnable alternative to boomerangs.  Even in historical times, children were encouraged to practice archery skills on squirrels and small rodents around camp. Both good training and a way to contribute more meat to the pot.  Fighting a mammoth or wooly rhino may be very manly,   but if you can kill them without personal risk, all the better.

Interesting comment.   Our early ancestors seemed to have evolved useful traits for running game to exhaustion.  Hunters would harry game until it collapsed of overheating, unable to shed enough body heat.  It was an endurance game more than a strength one.

If you do consider today's distance and speed events, you might observe that to get very fast or run for endurance, athletes shed a lot of their upper body muscle and bulk in favor of leg development. Biceps don't win a race. A woman without a lot of upper body muscle might be well suited to the chase.

I can see it being a team effort. For some reason I think women might excel at spear fishing. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Piney said:

@Still Waters

Didn't you or @Abramelin already post this? 

 

Nope, it was me. I'm going to merge the threads.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Woman the hunter [merged]
12 hours ago, OverSword said:

when something like a large boar was in a snare had the weight and strength to stand up to it and attack it better in close quarters than their women. 

You haven't seen my mrs, a professional pig catcher for many years, using dogs and just a knife.🐗

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is, any society that lets their breeding capital be risked in dangerous activities like hunting or warfare will find that they have fewer breeding females to bulk up numbers in times of trouble.  Enough women die in childbirth that they cannot be risked pointlessly in activities which men are better physically equipped to pursue.  Hence the division of labor.  it isn't that women can't hunt, it is just in a low tech society, it is stupid for them to do so.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.