Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neanderthal Women Joined Men in the Hunt (Eat your heart out, feminists)
The New York Times ^ | December 5, 2006 | NICHOLAS WADE

Posted on 12/07/2006 5:42:12 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger

A new explanation for the demise of the Neanderthals, the stockily built human species that occupied Europe until the arrival of modern humans 45,000 years ago, has been proposed by two anthropologists at the University of Arizona.

Unlike modern humans, who had developed a versatile division of labor between men and women, the entire Neanderthal population seems to have been engaged in a single main occupation, the hunting of large game, the scientists, Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner, say in an article posted online yesterday in Current Anthropology.

Because modern humans exploited the environment more efficiently, by having men hunt large game and women gather small game and plant foods, their populations would have outgrown those of the Neanderthals.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dietandcuisine; feminist; godsgravesglyphs; neandertal; neandertals; neanderthal; neanderthals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last
To: GourmetDan
Based on the samples from the digs, verified against samples from modern day when they KNOW what was eaten, scientists can tell what was eaten and in what general quantities.
If this isn't close enough for you then you need to build a time machine for ANY facts, related to ANY subject, that you haven't verified, in person.

Now, we can argue about what science is, or is not, or we can discuss what you think about my speculation.

Do you want argument or discussion?

41 posted on 12/07/2006 11:11:39 AM PST by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
So, because women went along on the hunts, they all starved to death?

Yeah. The incessant yapping scared off the game.

I'm sooo dead here...

42 posted on 12/07/2006 11:13:15 AM PST by null and void (To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funnybone. --Reba McEntire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
Hmmm... the one on the left's kinda cute.

The one on the right is kinda drunk...

43 posted on 12/07/2006 11:15:09 AM PST by null and void (To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funnybone. --Reba McEntire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
"The point of feminism is that historically women's contributions have not been equally VALUED along with men's in society."

If that were true, then the emphasis of feminism would be on changing the value perception of women's contributions.

Unfortunately, feminism is about competing with men to show that women can do 'what men do' as well as men rather than about increasing the appreciation for 'what women do'.

As a result, 'what women do' is further de-valued by the feminists themselves resulting in a society where even the women do not value 'what women do'.

Women can't see that, but men can.

44 posted on 12/07/2006 11:15:45 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
Does this mean we get to sneer at feminists as 'neanderthals'?

LOLOLOL

Yes.

45 posted on 12/07/2006 11:21:58 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
"Based on the samples from the digs, verified against samples from modern day when they KNOW what was eaten, scientists can tell what was eaten and in what general quantities."

"If this isn't close enough for you then you need to build a time machine for ANY facts, related to ANY subject, that you haven't verified, in person."

It's not about what's 'close enough'. It's about what is science and what is not.

Again, if it isn't observable, measureable and repeatable; it isn't science. It's story-telling.

You would need a time-machine so you could go back and perform the definitive work required for these speculations to be called science. Unfortunately, you can't do that and therefore this can never be 'science'.

Now you can like story-telling if you want, just don't call it science. It isn't.

46 posted on 12/07/2006 11:22:06 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
I don't pretend to be an expert but using logic, there aren't that many sources of fruits and veggies during the winter unless you store them. As far as I know, there haven't been any digs of stone age man found that showed they stored fruits and veggies through the winter. Therefore, most of their sustenance came through animal protein.

Actually we know what stone age people did during the winter. There were lots of them on the American continents 150 years ago. Those in the cold areas gathered and stored roots, berries and grains, smoked and dried meats, huddled down and tried to not freeze.

47 posted on 12/07/2006 11:22:25 AM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The broken bone patterns are mirrored in one modern group: Rodeo riders. Either they spent a LOT of time trying to domesticate the horse and bull, or they spent a lot of time trying to take down large animals up close and entirely too personal.
48 posted on 12/07/2006 11:22:33 AM PST by null and void (To succeed in life, you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funnybone. --Reba McEntire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish

LOL, I was just going to post something like that.


49 posted on 12/07/2006 11:23:53 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dljordan

You're flagged.

50 posted on 12/07/2006 11:25:29 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

No, I think it's more like this: In a culture where how much money you earn or how high a position you attain earns you respect, it is only natural that women (and men) would use that as their goalpost.

Not all buy into that, but many Western feminists do. Other feminists are simply working toward equal treatment under the law (such as feminists in Muslim countries for example).

In many social systems, wealth = success, period. Women and men buy into that, each with their own strategies for getting there ... for example, in other eras women competed to marry the man with the most wealth. It's not that different today except that women compete to earn the money themselves instead of marrying it. But it is essentially the same thing.

If the goalposts are changed, you would find women (and men) employing different strategies for being on the top of the heap (gaining respect).

At the most basic level of course, merely surviving = success. It makes sense that everyone in that society would be working toward that goal.


51 posted on 12/07/2006 11:26:00 AM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about.

52 posted on 12/07/2006 11:26:24 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PissAndVinegar

there's room for all God's creations...right next to the potatoes and carrots.


53 posted on 12/07/2006 11:28:32 AM PST by Rakkasan1 ((Illegal immigrants are just undocumented friends you haven't met yet!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: null and void


"We just looking for some snoos snoos!"
54 posted on 12/07/2006 11:28:35 AM PST by reagan_fanatic (A liberal is a suicide bomber without the guts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Again, if it isn't observable, measureable and repeatable; it isn't science.

No, it doesn't have to be observable, only measurable and repeatable, and these findings are measurable and repeatable.
Now what?

Close enough is relative. Do you want it to the inch or to the centimeter?Do you want it to the pound or the nanogram?

It's science, you just can't see it as it happens.

Once again, do you want argument or discussion? It seems that all you want is argument. If that's the case then there is no need for further communication.

55 posted on 12/07/2006 11:30:18 AM PST by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
There were lots of them on the American continents 150 years ago

Sorry, 150 years ago was not the stone age.

56 posted on 12/07/2006 11:31:19 AM PST by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly

It may just be me, but I think that is a really cute kid.


57 posted on 12/07/2006 11:34:51 AM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Dan, your condescension makes it difficult for some people to get past the point you want to convey. I will treat you as the wise person you seem to consider yourself to be and suggest, in the spirit of rational discussion, that you tone down the pedantry.


58 posted on 12/07/2006 11:36:20 AM PST by SlowBoat407 (A living insult to islam since 1959)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Sorry, 150 years ago was not the stone age.

It was for the Indians who were still using stone tools. Bronze and Iron age civilization implies the technology to manufacture items of said materials, not just acquire them by trade.

59 posted on 12/07/2006 11:39:35 AM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
"No, it doesn't have to be observable, only measurable and repeatable, and these findings are measurable and repeatable. Now what?"

Yes, it does have to be observable. Otherwise you are speculating based on assumptions about measurements.

"It's science, you just can't see it as it happens."

The problem is that most people have come to believe that 'gedanken' experiments are science. They are not. They are imagination-in-action.

Once again, do you want argument or discussion? It seems that all you want is argument. If that's the case then there is no need for further communication.

60 posted on 12/07/2006 11:50:18 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson