chuds mad that our ancestors lived in classless communal societies with no gender roles
This should have been obvious. The unique human capacity to hunt comes from our ability to multiply force through the use of tools and numbers. Any society relying on these abilities (in the time of the sling and the atlatl at least) would need to fully utilize everyone available regardless of physical strength or stature to feed everyone. It should be obvious that prehistoric men also did a lot of "gathering"
It's extremely easy to come up with plausible stories about why some human behaviour might have evolved. It's much harder to find evidence that those behaviours (a) actually are genetic traits, (b) actually are widespread, and (c) evolved for the reason you think they did. This is why fields like sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have been so troubled and controversial.
Having said that, I don't think your story is plausible at all. If it were really so advantageous to have more surviving female offspring than male ones, you'd think we would just have evolved a different sex ratio at birth, instead of a complex social mechanism for getting more men than women killed through hunting.
Also I don't know if it's even the case that hunting is universally a more dangerous activity than "gathering". You're probably more likely to die climbing up a tree to find fruit than you are by hunting rabbits.
....the women die through child birth, that's why they don't have more
nearly every hunter gatherer society we know of has pretty strict gender roles, it's just how the species happened to evolve
I feel like it makes sense on an individual emotional level too, who do I want with me on a dangerous mission more than the woman I love, my greatest ally, who gives me strength just by looking at them? Idk I just feel like if I was going out to throw spears at an animal I’d want my love with me
Fucking your comrade and making them watch your back as option B.
It's a classic, great excuse for a road trip with the gang, and environmentally friendly.
Shit, isn't there some evidence that the earliest hunters of large game just chased them to death?
Literally just scare a deer or giraffe or something and take turns chasing it until it collapses from exhaustion or its run off of a cliff. Ranged weapons wouldn't be used to do much more than goad the animal into trying to keep itself running with clubs being used to finish it off when it was too weak to run or fight back. Doesn't really matter much about gender then would it?
It is theorized that early humans were persistence hunters and the practice is still alive in parts of the world currently.
https://expertvagabond.com/tarahumara-runners/
That's also a strategy with poison darts/arrows. The poison doesn't immediately kill them so you run a marathon until it does.
I saw a doc video of a hunter in Africa just chaising a gazelle for about 16 mi. it was amazing.
this whole thing is weird, seems just like a dumb headline. of course a woman could hunt. that doesn't mean division of labor didn't exist, it does in basically every very early society, even hunter gatherers. the idea that not hunting means they're useless is really REALLY stupid tho. The women basically do ALL of the work, the men just hunt and chill when not hunting. The hunting doesn't even bring in all that much food for modern San people (probably the closest thing to ancient humans that exists), though it's probably safe to assume that in ancient periods this was likely not the case.
It's a pretty basic idea, the more expendable and larger members of the group go and do the dangerous activities that usually result in lots of good food, while the more important members stay at home to prepare food and gather plant foodstuffs (which almost always accounts for a majority of the food outside the big game hunting communities).
This is such a No Shit concept, but you just know it's gonna give r*ddit a collective aneurism.
you don't need much testosterone to use an atlatl to throw a spear at a rabbit.
I like how the picture is a woman hunting big game in the desert next to a pyramid. First of all the grave they found predates the earliest known pyramids by thousands years. Second of all, no one was hunting big game in the uncomfortable ass desert. Third, Egypt wasn’t even a desert during the time those kind of pyramids were built.
I think that is supposed to be a mountain in the Andes as she is hunting some sort of llama
The study published in Science Advances refers to excavated burial remains from the Andean Highlands of South America. The burial remains were those of a woman aged approximately between 17 and 19 years. The burial material included stone projectile points and tools used for animal processing: tools for a big-game hunt.
I think that the study might be another hint.
Those aren't pyramid's, those are really watercolored mountains a la Bob Ross.
