Humphrey Archer
LevkaI pity your ignorance. You’re also rude and vulgar, but I forgive you for that. You can’t help it. Rudeness and vulgarity stem from ignorance.
Ignorance can be cured. Start here:
But wait. There’s more:
Female hunters of the early Americas
Sexual division of labor with females as gatherers and males as hunters is a major empirical regularity of hunter-gatherer ethnography, suggesting an ancestral behavioral pattern. We present an archeological discovery and meta-analysis that challenge the man-the-hunter hypothesis. Excavations at the Andean highland site of Wilamaya Patjxa reveal a 9000-year-old human burial (WMP6) associated with a hunting toolkit of stone projectile points and animal processing tools. Osteological, proteomic, and isotopic analyses indicate that this early hunter was a young adult female who subsisted on terrestrial plants and animals. Analysis of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene burial practices throughout the Americas situate WMP6 as the earliest and most secure hunter burial in a sample that includes 10 other females in statistical parity with early male hunter burials. The findings are consistent with nongendered labor practices in which early hunter-gatherer females were big-game hunters.
Despite such theoretical considerations, some scholars have been reluctant to ascribe hunting functionality to tools associated with female burials (20–22). Concerning the Paleoindian Gordon Creek burial, Breternitz et al. (23) grappled, 'Since the burial has been determined to be a female, the inclusion of a projectile point preform has been difficult to explain. However, if the artifact had been used as a knife or scraper, typically women’s tools, then its inclusion with the burial is a more consistent association.' Nelson (24) challenged a DNA-based sex determination at Toca dos Coqueiros (25) partially on the grounds that '...[t]he presence of inferred funerary offerings in the form of chipped stone points and other tools and flakes appear to support [male estimation]....' On the one hand, such reluctance may reflect a degree of contemporary gender bias r ethnographic bias. On the other hand, ethnographically informed models of gendered subsistence labor remain plausible as quantitative phenomena or given the multiple pathways by which objects can come to be spuriously associated in the archeological record. Toward resolving the question of gendered big-game hunting practices among early hunter-gatherer populations in the Americas, we report the discovery of two Early Holocene [pre–8 thousand years (ka)] hunter-gatherer burials in association with big-game hunting paraphernalia and place these findings in the context of Early Holocene and Late Pleistocene burial practices throughout the Americas."
And . . .
"Early Women Were Hunters, Not Just Gatherers, Study Suggests
Regardless of maternal status, women hunted in almost 80 percent of recent and present-day foraging societies in a new study
People have long said that in prehistoric foraging societies, labor was divided by gender: Women gathered and men hunted. But now, a new study adds to the growing body of work challenging this idea, suggesting that prehistoric women were just as skilled at killing game as men were.
'We’ve had scattered reports here and there about women’s hunting,’ Vivek Venkataraman, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Calgary in Canada who was not involved with the research, tells Science’s Bridget Alex. But the new research 'pulls a lot of these things together.'
In the paper, published Wednesday in the journal PLOS ONE, a team of international researchers identified 391 foraging societies across the world, from the 1800s to present day. (Scientists use modern foraging societies as a window into past human behavior, reports NPR’s Nurith Aizenman.) Of these, they obtained data on hunting from 63 societies.
'We were reading papers written by people who had lived with these groups and had studied their behavior,’ study co-author Cara Wall-Scheffler, a professor and co-chair of biology at Seattle Pacific University, tells Live Science’s Jennifer Nalewicki. 'They were looking at people and recording what they did.'
Their analysis revealed that regardless of maternal status, women hunted in 50 of these societies—or about 79 percent. And more than 70 percent of female hunting appeared to be intentional—rather than opportunistically killing animals while doing other activities, per the study. In societies where hunting was the most important activity for subsistence, women participated in hunting 100 percent of the time.
'The hunting was purposeful,‘ Wall-Scheffler tells NPR. 'Women had their own tool kit. They had favorite weapons. Grandmas were the best hunters of the village.'
The researchers also found that women played an active role in teaching hunting, and they used a wider variety of weapons and hunting strategies than men did. For example, while men tended to hunt alone or in pairs, women hunted alone, with a man or with groups of women, children or dogs. Women hunted small game in 46 percent of the studied societies and took down medium or large game in 48 percent of them. In 4 percent of societies, they hunted game of all sizes.
While previous research has found that women may have rivaled males when it came to taking down big game, historically, scientists have dismissed females’ hunting prowess, possibly because of researcher bias, per the paper. But recent studies have increasingly shown women as hunters: In the Americas, a 2020 study found that females likely represented up to 50 percent of prehistoric big game hunters, suggesting the practice was gender neutral.
And the remains of women, like men, have been discovered buried alongside hunting weapons. Yet, while researchers presume stone projectiles found buried with men are hunting tools, they are “'ess persuaded when projectiles are associated with females,' per the new paper.
Wall-Scheffler tells NPR that stories of gender differences in our ancestors have percolated into our society today, which can lead people to assume dividing labor based on gender is a more natural way to live.
‘It can be damaging,’ Nurith Aizenman reports for NPR. ‘They use that to argue that gender roles should be more rigid today.’"
But don’t stop there. Read these:
https://www.thecollector.com/incredible-burial-excavations-viking-women/
Kajetan HundhammerCould you please start your own thread for your ramblings? Just looking at the length of your posts in this excellent thread, I can see how irrelevant your content is to it. Go troll somewhere else, thanks.
@LevZadov
Again, "Lev" fuck off
I don't need nor desire your "forgiveness".
I refer you back to point 1.
Your voice, which now exceeds several foolscap pages of red-herring-do, amply illustrates why some men.., nay, men in general, should rather shut the fuck up and not offer their embarrassingly off-key opinions.
Here is my gift to you, "Lev": shut up more
This person is more than just rude and ignorant, they’re an apologist for the (relatively recent) rise of patriarchy.
Are the propagandists of patriarchy welcome on Mastodon? Not in my timeline.
I’d like to also point out that “screwturn” not only fails to provide evidence that anything I said was untrue or irrelevant, he has no way of knowing for sure that I *am* a man. For all he knows for certain, I’m virtual crossdressing, so for all he knows for certain, he’s insulting a woman. He’s *definitely* insulting women in general. By denying women’s history he’s denying women's agency.
He’s also lying. No, it was not “always” like this, nor shall it be forever. Even today there are groups and circumstances in which women are equals. Have doubts? Read up on anarchist culture.
The rise patriarchy, like the even more recent rise of capitalism, was a collective mistake. We’ll get over it like we got over the divine right of kings.
Don’t trust him. He’s a closet patriarchist, preaching defeatism. No, women don’t need to “lie back and enjoy it” because “that’s just Nature’s way”. Women have always resisted male (or any) domination, sometimes with “extreme prejudice".
Lev, please
1. You don’t need to be heard. Rather shut up. (See link)
2. You clearly misunderstood what I wrote. Maybe lay off the sauce or change meds
3. You clearly misunderstood the scholarship on the (very contested) interpretation of (very rare) grave goods that (may) suggest that *some* women, in *some* cultures, were *sometimes* also *periodic* participants in warfare in the 300,000 or so years of modern humans.
Also
Fuck off, you blowhard
(1.) Contested? Where? By who? Be specific.
(2.) I clearly *understand* what you wrote. It’s not scholarship. It’s blather. Actual scholars defend their statements with evidence, not ad hominems.
(3.) If I wanted to be insulted by rude, ignorant trolls I’d have stayed on Xhitter. Maybe you should go over there where your sort are welcome. At least then you wouldn’t be trolling the feminists of Mastodon.
I’m bored with this troll. I’m going to go something productive with my time. If any of you want to keep listening to his crap, be my guest. I have better things to do.
Please do, "Lev"
Go and be an excitable blowhard somewhere else.
Also, fuck off, you ninny
rebecca ravenoak 🏳️⚧️@LevZadov @screwturn buddy you are so far out of your depth it is comical.
your "evidence" that some women had high status, because of the things they were buried with, is not proof that women have enjoyed universal equality throughout history. some women were queens, but it would be silly to conclude that all societies with queens were inherently egalitarian. you might as well might conclude that Margaret Thatcher's use of paramilitary death squads in Northern Ireland is a prime example of "girl power" — women who rise to the top of patriarchal societies are usually anti-feminist and see themselves as the exception to the rules they think other women should live under.
and before you go "but but but anarchists" anarchists aren't immune to sexism. there are so many anarchist groups that have fallen apart because men couldn't shut up and do the work. you don't know what you're talking about and you should sit down and listen instead of posting through it.
(1.) I didn’t say that women have enjoyed universal equality throughout history.
(2.) I also didn’t say anarchists are immune to sexism, though we *are* better at fighting it than a lot of cultures.
(3.) Don’t put words in my mouth. It’s rude, it’s dishonest, it’s very bad form.
(4.) It is naive to assume that a person of either gender was a leader and not a common soldier. Common soldiers of any gender are *far* more common than leaders. That’s how it is in their lives, that’s how it is in their graves.
(5.) The Irish death squads were overwhelming male and operated under male command. The Troubles weren’t about fighting sexism. They were about fighting colonialism. Not everyone on earth has the same priorities. Personally, I never got involved in The Troubles except for one scuffle in a bar in SF’s Tenderloin, and I didn’t start it. Not my priority. My first duty is to resist here in the belly of the beast. However, I won’t criticize the Irish paramilitariesI for not doing it my way. I agree with Fredrick Douglass who wrote, "Let every man work for the abolition of slavery in his own way. I would help all and hinder none."
Are you drunk, Lev?
Because that might explain why you keep misunderstanding what people type.
Again, you don't HAVE to post extraordinarily long, tedious, and banal posts about things you seem not to actually understand.
Rather just STFU for a change
Be kind, be helpful, and post less
mizblueprint@screwturn @LevZadov @ggggbbybby
Mansplaining to a man is an especially delicious turn of the screw. Carry on! 😊
Mansplaining to a man is an especially delicious turn of the screw. Carry on! 😊
I think "Lev" left the building
We all mourn the loss of his sparkling wit and adroit reasoning
Three plus or minus five@LevZadov @screwturn @ggggbbybby
It’s utterly hilarious that the thread that says “you don’t have to make a 10 point post and should not expect people to read and debate each point” has your response that does exactly that.
Furthermore, the statement originally was that women have had a bad deal through history. If you have to go to archeology, you’re discussing pre-history.
Charles ☭ 
is a GreenWhy have you put his name in quotes?
Would you mind terribly if I ask you to please stop?
As a trans person, messing with people's names makes me nervous and then the additional suggestion that a Jewish name is illegitimate becomes even more troubling.
It seems like your intent was not to annoy anyone besides him, so maybe there's a different avenue for (counter) trolling that could work?
Thank you
Felix Neumann