this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
326 points (87.7% liked)

science

14812 readers
122 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BugleFingers@lemmy.world 55 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I had always assumed that Hunter-Gatherer societies were very loosely sex divided and strongly necessity based. Meaning, sure men could be the typical hunter and women the typical gatherer but if necessity dictates, any person would do any job, and, given the times, that was probably frequently.

Furthermore they also likely didn't have societal structures the way modern societies did, meaning people likely weren't barred from any job or forced into any job, it was a community effort for survival, if you meet a criteria that can help, you do that.

These are not factual statements, these are just my assumptions on how I figured they reasonably existed.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

At least some of them took the kids down to the creek every 6 months or so, and threw the babies in the water to see who would swim. The ones that didn't swim stayed back at the camp and fixed pottery, cleaned, cooked, etc. The swimmers became the hunters and gatherers. Several of the Native American Nations in the Eastern US did this when white man came over and invaded. According to their oral histories, they had been doing this for a few tens of thousands of years, which seems to match up to the archaeological evidence we've found in the last couple decades.

[–] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the two genders, can swim and not can swim

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I identify as a doggy paddler

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Same here: the t seems the most logical answer. I’m not especially convinced by the arguments in this article, except that they are at least as strong as “man the hunter” arguments so neither changes my mind

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Man the hunter presupposes any woman is weaker than the weakest man. It really is junk science. When they say those guys ignored evidence of women hunting, they mean it. And at the end of the day, women doing it is the biggest evidence you're going to find.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

Well.. many of the younger women would be constantly pregnant back then, and engaged in communal child rearing. So they are going to be spending less time on mammoth hunts.

Ancient people's also worked way less than we do now.