So we have to change our views?

So we have to change our views? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

egern -> So we have to change our views? (11/9/2013 8:52:14 AM)
A Prehistoric Woman's Place Was Not in the Cave Fresh research, reported in Discovery News, challenges the idea that a woman's place is genetically geared to be the home while the more aggressive males go forth into the wider world. Turns out, in prehistoric families, the reverse may have been true. You have go back a ways -- two species below humans on the evolutionary scale, to be precise -- yet, Discovery News reports human males may have a genetic predisposition for sitting on the couch and eating chips. Meanwhile, women may have the same wanderlust as female chimpanzees and bonobos. http://www.parentdish.com/2011/06/02/prehistoric-women-roamed/?icid=maing-grid7%20Bronze%20Age%20women%20did%20metalwork:%20http://www.world-archaeology.com/more/first-female-metalworker-sheds-light-on-prehistoric-gender-roles/#.Unfan4bktp0 The evolution of sex roles Anthropologists are looking at how prehistoric tasks were divided, perhaps indicating the moment when we became truly human. Could it be that Neanderthal females achieved an equality that is rare even by today's standards? Some anthropologists make a case that our extinct female cousins hunted alongside the males during an epoch when our own ancestral women were gathering plants and doing other (essential) work. They argue that the appearance of gender roles was critical to humans' eventual domination of the globe - and that the importance of the women of the Pleistocene period has been vastly understated?. A lack of all but the most primitive weapons found at Neanderthal sites suggests they may have had to band together to kill large animals, says Steve Kuhn, an anthropologist at the University of Arizona. And numerous fractures found in skeletons of Neanderthal females, just like the males, indicate that both sexes may have participated in dangerous work. http://articles.philly.com/2007-04-02/news/25241506_1_neanderthals-anthropologists-gatherer These and other articles put on some traditional ideas of gender functions. Are they true? And if so, should we change some views and into what?

MalcolmNathaniel -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/9/2013 4:26:54 PM)
So the first article is that women moved from tribe to tribe. This is hardly a new discovery. Not that long ago female royals were sent to foreign lands to secure treaties and alliances. In the Bible you can find numerous accounts of that happening too. This earns a great big, "DUH!" The second article: This is based a lot on supposition (and exaggeration.) The evidence cited is very vague. Last I heard was that current theory suggested that women actually brought most of the calories into the tribe by fishing with nets and gathering plants. Men brought in the much needed fat by hunting animals. Oh, wait, this entire paper refers to Homo Neanderthalensis not Homo Sapiens. That makes the entire report an issue of poor journalism. Cloth woven as finely as a Brooks Brothers shirt? They didn't have thread that fine. Pull the other one!

LookieNoNookie -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/9/2013 6:38:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern A Prehistoric Woman's Place Was Not in the Cave Fresh research, reported in Discovery News, challenges the idea that a woman's place is genetically geared to be the home while the more aggressive males go forth into the wider world. Turns out, in prehistoric families, the reverse may have been true. You have go back a ways -- two species below humans on the evolutionary scale, to be precise -- yet, Discovery News reports human males may have a genetic predisposition for sitting on the couch and eating chips. Meanwhile, women may have the same wanderlust as female chimpanzees and bonobos. http://www.parentdish.com/2011/06/02/prehistoric-women-roamed/?icid=maing-grid7%20Bronze%20Age%20women%20did%20metalwork:%20http://www.world-archaeology.com/more/first-female-metalworker-sheds-light-on-prehistoric-gender-roles/#.Unfan4bktp0 The evolution of sex roles Anthropologists are looking at how prehistoric tasks were divided, perhaps indicating the moment when we became truly human. Could it be that Neanderthal females achieved an equality that is rare even by today's standards? Some anthropologists make a case that our extinct female cousins hunted alongside the males during an epoch when our own ancestral women were gathering plants and doing other (essential) work. They argue that the appearance of gender roles was critical to humans' eventual domination of the globe - and that the importance of the women of the Pleistocene period has been vastly understated?. A lack of all but the most primitive weapons found at Neanderthal sites suggests they may have had to band together to kill large animals, says Steve Kuhn, an anthropologist at the University of Arizona. And numerous fractures found in skeletons of Neanderthal females, just like the males, indicate that both sexes may have participated in dangerous work. http://articles.philly.com/2007-04-02/news/25241506_1_neanderthals-anthropologists-gatherer These and other articles put on some traditional ideas of gender functions. Are they true? And if so, should we change some views and into what? Neanderthal women, much like today's women, should (have) spen(t) their time making food, ensuring my shirts fit, and that nothing's in my way in the driveway when I come home. (Presumes Neanderthal men had a driveway....and a need for it to be clear of stuff).

MasterCaneman -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/9/2013 8:56:29 PM)
Of course Neanderthals had driveways-did you not watch The Flintstones? Although, even as a kid, I couldn't fathom how Fred steered that thing...

leonine -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/10/2013 2:42:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel *Cloth woven as finely as a Brooks Brothers shirt? They didn't have thread that fine. Pull the other one! I have seen someone with ten minutes' training spin thread finer than standard shirt cotton using nothing more technical than a stick with a stone on the end. And you don't have to keep domestic animals to gather wool, wild sheep shed it naturally all year round. Even with modern breeds which are bred not to shed, you can gather enough wool for a scarf from the hedges. As for weaving, a warp-weighted loom is just three sticks and a bunch more stones, and the quality of the weaving is only limited by the skill and patience of the weaver: modern kinds of hand looms aren't technically better, just easier to use. The idea that everything in the Stone Age was crude and lumpy (because, you know, they must have been dumb if they didn't have electricity and cars) is part of the whole Flintstone image that misleads people's understanding of our past. Perhaps you should check the source before calling him a liar? (I'm reminded of an English Civil War re-enactment where a yob interrupted a description of camp cooking by saying "Go on, they didn't have fires then!" And he WASN'T JOKING, he really did think he'd caught her out.)

leonine -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/10/2013 3:20:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel So the first article is that women moved from tribe to tribe. This is hardly a new discovery. Not that long ago female royals were sent to foreign lands to secure treaties and alliances. In the Bible you can find numerous accounts of that happening too. This earns a great big, "DUH!" I agree, taking this as evidence of women's independence is a big stretch. Interestingly, earlier feminist anthropologists (gynopologists?) argued (based on mythology from around the world) the exact opposite: that in early human cultures men moved from tribe to tribe, and that this indicated that the women were the core of the culture. They believed that it was a sign of the rise of patriarchy when women were expected to go join their new husbands' tribe.

MalcolmNathaniel -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/10/2013 3:20:45 AM)
While I get what your saying, you need to understand something about animal husbandry. Wild sheep do not have the same fineness of hair that domesticated sheep do. To make wool as fine as even the least expensive sheep there are requires thousands of years of genetic manipulation. That's assuming they had domesticated sheep: hardly likely. The article also provides no evidence for looms.

MariaB -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/10/2013 6:48:12 AM)
What about cotton? Around here during the autumn months we have mountains of cotton growing in all directions.

popeye1250 -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/10/2013 9:51:38 AM)
Cool, let (her) go out and make the $200k and I'll do the cooking, shopping, laundry etc.

leonine -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/10/2013 9:53:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel The article also provides no evidence for looms. I would have thought that woven cloth was pretty good evidence. As noted, a loom is not necessarily a high-tech item: it can be built from stuff you find in the woods and knocked down to something you can carry on your shoulder. All the technical progress in the last few thousand years has been about making the basic operation of pushing threads past each other easier and faster. The principle was certainly know in the Neolithic, and pushing it back to the Paleolithic is not such a stretch.

leonine -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/10/2013 9:56:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB What about cotton? Around here during the autumn months we have mountains of cotton growing in all directions. I had forgotten it was native to the Americas as well as Asia. And the original reference was American, so it almost certainly refers to cotton.

leonine -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/10/2013 10:01:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Cool, let (her) go out and make the $200k and I'll do the cooking, shopping, laundry etc. That worked fine in my last marriage.

HoneyBears -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/11/2013 2:09:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leonine quote: ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel So the first article is that women moved from tribe to tribe. This is hardly a new discovery. Not that long ago female royals were sent to foreign lands to secure treaties and alliances. In the Bible you can find numerous accounts of that happening too. This earns a great big, "DUH!" I agree, taking this as evidence of women's independence is a big stretch. Interestingly, earlier feminist anthropologists (gynopologists?) argued (based on mythology from around the world) the exact opposite: that in early human cultures men moved from tribe to tribe, and that this indicated that the women were the core of the culture. They believed that it was a sign of the rise of patriarchy when women were expected to go join their new husbands' tribe. It may have been last year I remember watching either on Discovery or NatGeo a documentary called The First Eve, which traced mitrochondrial DNA migratory patterns. It postulated, based on this matrilineal methodology, that females were indeed more nomadic than males. There is no definitive way to know how much of this was due to tribal bridal exchange practices, or as a result of internecine warfare involving the capture of females, migration of tribes depopulated by the loss of males, etc., instead of an adventurous female nature when it comes to exploration. Animal behavior does support a female sexual behaviorial pattern to instinctively seek out genetic diversity in mating habits.* Patriarchy, rather polygyny/polygamy, makes sense in (predominantly nomadic) societies where the ratio of females to males has become disproportionate. Edited: * Nature's insurance policy against excessive inbreeding, which results in unfavorable DNA mutations, such as with birth defects.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/11/2013 3:29:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman Of course Neanderthals had driveways-did you not watch The Flintstones? Although, even as a kid, I couldn't fathom how Fred steered that thing... I could never figure out a) how that bowling ball could EVER go straight and b) why the alley didn't have a billion chunks plunked out of it.

MasterCaneman -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/11/2013 8:04:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman Of course Neanderthals had driveways-did you not watch The Flintstones? Although, even as a kid, I couldn't fathom how Fred steered that thing... I could never figure out a) how that bowling ball could EVER go straight and b) why the alley didn't have a billion chunks plunked out of it. Don't forget how they managed to send and receive TV signals using just a stone enclosure with some small animal who'd break the fourth wall to signal acceptance of their fate. And a wooden antenna.

kalikshama -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/11/2013 8:14:13 AM)
"That Barney Rubble, what an actor!"

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/11/2013 8:21:48 AM)
FR On a somewhat similar note, here's a great fact sheet I came across about Homo Erectus. Homo Erectus Fact Sheet

MasterCaneman -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/11/2013 9:05:08 AM)
On a somewhat more serious note, considering the latent abilities of the Neanderthals, I've always wondered if at some point in their story arc, they didn't rise above being nomadic hunter-gatherers, even for a short time. Considering how quickly our line has risen from that state to where we are now, why couldn't they have accomplished something similar, only to have it swept away by some unknown force? Idle speculation, of course, but it makes me think about how fragile and tenuous our own civilization and culture is.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/11/2013 4:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman Of course Neanderthals had driveways-did you not watch The Flintstones? Although, even as a kid, I couldn't fathom how Fred steered that thing... I could never figure out a) how that bowling ball could EVER go straight and b) why the alley didn't have a billion chunks plunked out of it. Don't forget how they managed to send and receive TV signals using just a stone enclosure with some small animal who'd break the fourth wall to signal acceptance of their fate. And a wooden antenna. Water impregnated (wood) antennae. Water carries signal.

MalcolmNathaniel -> RE: So we have to change our views? (11/11/2013 8:19:04 PM)
Water carries signals.....very poorly.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125