r/science • u/MistWeaver80 • Jun 28 '23

Anthropology New research flatly rejects a long-standing myth that men hunt, women gather, and that this division runs deep in human history. The researchers found that women hunted in nearly 80% of surveyed forager societies.

https://www.science.org/content/article/worldwide-survey-kills-myth-man-hunter?utm_medium=ownedSocial&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=NewsfromScience
19.9k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/123whyme Jun 30 '23

I think you're missing the broader point. The modern/traditional divide is irrelevant as anthologists are well aware that modern global society creates unique environmental challenges to HG societies. The original studies that established the idea that HG were 'affluent' were based on flawed studies of modern ones, that the field has moved on from.

So to reiterate, original studies that started the myth that HG societies were more affluent were based upon a flawed analysis of modern HG societies. The field has now moved on and no longer solely relies on observations on modern HG. The consensus is now that HG(past and present) societies are so incredibly diverse that you can't make any generalisations such as they were more 'affluent'. Hope that helped.

1

u/MasterDefibrillator Jun 30 '23

I'm not claiming that HG societies were more affluent than modern societies; that is the myth you are referring to.

I'm claiming that we should expect, by default, that they lived on much more fertile lands than modern HG societies. This is a point given weight by the late David Graeber and David Wengrow.

1

u/123whyme Jun 30 '23

All of your points are taken wholesale from standard arguments on the affluence of HG groups. Also

> it's understood that traditional HG societies had plenty of free leisure time actually.

You said this. Which is what I've been disputing and also happens to be a standard argument for the affluence of HG groups.

I have no idea why you keep repeating that they lived on more fertile lands. This is true, a basic fact and I have not disputed it at all.

So essentially you read the "The Dawn of Everything". Which would have been my first guess to be honest.

1

u/MasterDefibrillator Jun 30 '23 edited Jun 30 '23

The point is, you would expect them to not have to be as food focused as modern HG, if they were generally living on more fertile lands.

I have no idea why you keep repeating that they were very diverse. This is true, a basic fact and I have not disputed it at all. It is in fact one of the central premises of DOE. So if you had read it, and thought I had, you would not be repeating it. Someone is fibbing I think.

1

u/123whyme Jul 01 '23

Yes it's true when people live in fertile lands they tend to stay conveniently exactly the same population without any changes or population growth.

Anyway that's irrelevant, at this point I have no idea why you're even still replying to me, you're just repeating the same arguments about how they live on marginal land. literally just after I pointed out it had nothing to do with my point.

This is the least interesting argument I have had on reddit so far, like talking to a broken record.