2 ms·

None of those sources contradict the common understanding that men primarily did the hunting in hunter-gatherer societies. They certainly point out that there h

None of those sources contradict the common understanding that men primarily did the hunting in hunter-gatherer societies. They certainly point out that there have existed societies where women hunt, but even one of your own pull-quotes states that normally, it was men.

lucideer 8y ago
Neither study was entirely conclusive on that particular question (especially as the first is of contemporary tribes); as I said at the start of my comment: "we don't know". My main intent linking them was pointing out the ambiguity around the question. The general assumption is that men are more likely to be the hunters: I'm not contradicting this, just pointing out it's not definitive. The previous poster was stating it as fact, and the first commenter was being questioned for daring to question said unverified fact. Often the assumption is based on the need for speed and strength, but a lot of hunting (even of big game) was trap-aided, and primarily called for practised skill rather than simple strength and speed.
- bloak 8y ago
  Speed and strength for hunting? That's crazy. Why would anyone think that? Unless by speed you mean quick reactions. That might help for catching a lizard by stamping on its tail. (I did that as a child: the tail came off so it wouldn't have been many calories.) I imagine persistence hunting as being a big thing in olden times. You'd need to have a long-distance runner's physique, and ability to follow tracks. Also bow and arrow: skill in moving quietly, and aiming well, obviously.
- marci 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting When it involves mostly running for hours, sex probably matter much less.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progress... indicates otherwise. Well in a way. "Less" would be accurate than it might matter in contests of strength, but it's still hugely relevant. I think the older races may even be more informative since that would be more of contests of raw athleticism as opposed to the extreme diet/supplemental/developmental process that high level athletics is today.
    - marci 8y ago
      You have to see things from the hunter's point of view. If your strength lies in endurance, you'll hunt the Usain Bolt equivalent. There's obviously no data, but I would bet any of the top 10000 long distance women runners outruns Usain Bolt in their category. Regarding persitence hunting, it's prohbably easier for humans to hunt cheetas* than to hunt horses. *https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24953910 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24953910

lucideer 8y ago

Neither study was entirely conclusive on that particular question (especially as the first is of contemporary tribes); as I said at the start of my comment: "we don't know". My main intent linking them was pointing out the ambiguity around the question. The general assumption is that men are more likely to be the hunters: I'm not contradicting this, just pointing out it's not definitive. The previous poster was stating it as fact, and the first commenter was being questioned for daring to question said unverified fact. Often the assumption is based on the need for speed and strength, but a lot of hunting (even of big game) was trap-aided, and primarily called for practised skill rather than simple strength and speed.

bloak 8y ago
Speed and strength for hunting? That's crazy. Why would anyone think that? Unless by speed you mean quick reactions. That might help for catching a lizard by stamping on its tail. (I did that as a child: the tail came off so it wouldn't have been many calories.) I imagine persistence hunting as being a big thing in olden times. You'd need to have a long-distance runner's physique, and ability to follow tracks. Also bow and arrow: skill in moving quietly, and aiming well, obviously.
marci 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting When it involves mostly running for hours, sex probably matter much less.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progress... indicates otherwise. Well in a way. "Less" would be accurate than it might matter in contests of strength, but it's still hugely relevant. I think the older races may even be more informative since that would be more of contests of raw athleticism as opposed to the extreme diet/supplemental/developmental process that high level athletics is today.
  - marci 8y ago
    You have to see things from the hunter's point of view. If your strength lies in endurance, you'll hunt the Usain Bolt equivalent. There's obviously no data, but I would bet any of the top 10000 long distance women runners outruns Usain Bolt in their category. Regarding persitence hunting, it's prohbably easier for humans to hunt cheetas* than to hunt horses. *https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24953910 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24953910