Posted on 12/04/2006 12:38:58 PM PST by blam
Stone Age Role Revolution: Modern humans may have divided labor to conquer
Bruce Bower
Chalk up modern humanity's rise and the extinction of Neandertals to a geographic accident. That's the implication of a new analysis of material from previously excavated Stone Age sites.
Homo sapiens evolved in Africa's resource-rich tropics. As a result, a division of labor arose beginning around 40,000 years ago that roughly corresponds to the arrangement found in most foraging societies today, say Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner, both archaeologists at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Men in these societies hunt small and large game, while women and children gather tubers, berries, and other foods.
In contrast, Neandertals evolved in Europe and Asia, where large animals were the most abundant food source. Kuhn and Stiner suspect that individuals of both sexes and all ages collaborated in hunting. The high risks of killing the large beasts kept Neandertals' numbers low, the researchers propose.
H. sapiens' switch to a division of labor for procuring different foods prompted population growth, the researchers say. As humans migrated north and the two species jockeyed for survival in the same areas, humans enjoyed a competitive advantage over Neandertals.
Kuhn and Stiner say that humans' survival at Neandertals' expense hinged not on being uniquely clever, as many scientists have assumed, but on a fortunate social structure. Their investigation appears in the December Current Anthropology.
Kuhn and Stiner reviewed evidence from well-excavated Neandertal and modern-human sites in Italy, Israel, and Turkey dating mainly between 100,000 and 10,000 years ago. Neandertals lived from around 250,000 to 30,000 years ago.
Before 45,000 years ago, large- and medium-size game—including gazelles, deer, and wild horses—account for virtually all the animal remains and potential food sources at most locations. Large game declined slightly in importance—to about 80 percent of all prey—beginning around 45,000 years ago. The decline appeared primarily at modern-human sites.
Kuhn and Stiner then determined that the range and amount of small game increased dramatically after 45,000 years ago at modern-human sites. Such prey included birds, rabbits, and fish. Furthermore, many of these sites contain evidence of elaborate clothing and specialized artifacts, including sewing implements likely used by women.
After 15,000 years ago, following Neandertals' extinction, the importance of large game dropped sharply—to about 30 percent of all prey—and evidence of plant foods became more prominent.
Kuhn and Stiner suggest that men and women first adopted specific social roles in tropical African regions where modern H. sapiens originated. However, scientists have examined only a handful of such sites.
Archaeologist John J. Shea of the State University of New York at Stony Brook regards Kuhn and Stiner's argument as a "reasonable hypothesis." Still, he cautions, much is unknown about the extent to which modern-human and Neandertal behavior varied from one region to another.
Archaeologist Olga Soffer of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign remains unconvinced. Kuhn and Stiner underestimate Neandertals' reliance on small game such as turtles and birds, and men and women alike may have used sewing implements to mend clothes, she says.
If you have a comment on this article that you would like considered for publication in Science News, send it to editors@sciencenews.org. Please include your name and location.
GGG Ping.
Neanderthals were humans.
Guess this will be passed off as textbook science soon because some researcher or professor guesses this is what happened.
I remember my professors in the late 70's teaching us, as indisputable fact, that (a) world hydrocarbon energy supplies would be all but gone by 2000 (that was always a convenient date), and (b) there would be mass world starvation due to insufficient foodstuffs by the same date.
Like global warming and evolution, this was nothing but a bandwagon of fools parading as science.
No way this will end up in schoolbooks, but the only reason why is because it reinforces the notion that it's beneficial to recognize the differences between the sexes!
All things are possible, but this is really educated guesswork. And one thing in academia is that people have to keep thinking up new ideas, because it's publish or perish.
Management will be happy, but the AFL-CIO and Teamsters object.
The article claims that sex roles did not exist until they were invented as part of a food-gathering technique.
Laughable.
And we thought that the UAW was progressive. Yabba Dabba Doo!
Thank you kind sir.
We are apparently supposed to believe that people used to hunt in undifferentiated packs.
As if a typical hunting party might have included a 20 year old man, a 60 year old woman, two five year old boys and a pregnant woman.
And then, one special day, some guy came up with the concept of a hunting party composed only of younger but postpubescent men.
Preposterous.
Oh, that can't be right. The world is only 4000 year old.
Yeah, but they would always start their doomsday scenarios with, "Given the resources we have today..." or some other weasel-words.
No more, and no less an "accident" as the location of your birth. Call it Gods will, call it an accident, it makes no difference, you were still born there.
Primitive humans, however, sought their food in completely undifferentiated mobs, until someone did a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the Return On Investment of sex-based roles might have help the band's bottomline.
Seriously: My daughter's textbook already covers this. But I suppose it's in the textbook due to a Marxian "Division of Labor" theory and did not actually have supporting evidence. Now, perhaps, they think they may have some evidence. Does it matter? They were teaching it to children as a fact, even when it was just a theory.
"Seriously: My daughter's textbook already covers this. But I suppose it's in the textbook due to a Marxian "Division of Labor" theory and did not actually have supporting evidence......"
Yet ANOTHER reason my kids won't go to gubmit schools......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.