Interesting work, but: “We believe that these findings are particularly timely in light of contemporary conversations surrounding gendered labor practices and

Interesting work, but: “We believe that these findings are particularly timely in light of contemporary conversations surrounding gendered labor practices and inequality,” he added. “Labor practices among recent hunter-gatherer societies are highly gendered, which might lead some to believe that sexist inequalities in things like pay or rank are somehow ‘natural.’ But it’s now clear that sexual division of labor was fundamentally different — likely more equitable — in our species’ deep hunter-gatherer past.” ...the conclusion they're wanting from this, is not the one that logically follows. If truly ancient societies did have women hunting big game, and more recent hunter-gatherer societies pretty much exclusively do not, that would point strongly in the direction of something bad happening when you have the child-bearing half of your small population hunting big game. Probably NOT the conclusion the researchers were looking for. Regardless of which, a better conclusion would have been "Early big-game hunters of the Americas were not exclusively male", which is not what the headline says (although it may be what the researchers meant, rather than the reporter).