How Feminism Killed the Neanderthals
|
Posted by Echidne of the Snakes November 10th, 2007 |
The Boston Globe headline screams: “Stone Age feminism? Females joining hunt may explain Neanderthals’ end.” There you have it. Feminism kills species. That is one of the few horrible things I had not yet heard attributed to feminism. And to find it among the science news of the major newspapers! Perhaps we should dispense with that ridiculous idea of gender-equality. For the good of the homo sapiens, you know.
Not so fast. How on earth do anthropologists study Neanderthal feminism? I thought that all the information we have consists of whatever may have survived to this day from various random archeological sites? What is this study all about?
The New York Times science section gives us a synopsis:
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.
The Neanderthals endured for about 100,000 years, despite a punishing way of life. They preyed on the large animals that flourished in Europe in the ice age like bison, deer, gazelles and wild horses. But there is no evidence that they knew of bows and arrows. Instead, they used stone-tipped spears.
Hunting large game at close range is perilous, and Neanderthal skeletons bear copious fractures. Dr. Kuhn and Dr. Stiner argue that Neanderthal women and children took part in the dangerous hunts, probably as beaters and blockers of exit routes.
Their argument, necessarily indirect, begins with the human hunter-gatherer societies, almost all of which have a division of labor between the sexes.
At sites occupied by modern humans from 45,000 to 10,000 years ago, a period known as the Upper Paleolithic, there is good evidence of different occupations, from small animal and bird remains, as well as the bone awls and needles used to make clothes. It seems reasonable to assume that these activities were divided between men and women, as is the case with modern foraging peoples.
But Neanderthal sites include no bone needles, no small animal remains and no grinding stones for preparing plant foods. So what did Neanderthal women do all day?
Their skeletons are so robustly built that it seems improbable that they just sat at home looking after the children, the anthropologists write. More likely, they did the same as the men, with the whole population engaged in bringing down large game.
There you have it. The actual evidence is the absence (so far) of bone needles and awls, grinding stones and small animal remains. Oh, and the chunkiness of the Neanderthal ladies. If they were so chunky and had nothing to do all day, surely they must have participated in big game hunting, even when hugely pregnant. Yes, and the children, too! Then the big game turned and gored them and the Neanderthals died out. Well, they did survive for, like, 100,000 years, in a harsh environment. But clearly it was feminism that did them in. And the lesson we are to learn from this?
I leave it to you, my smart readers. But should you not quite get it, have a look at the drawing the New York Times decided to append to the story. It shows all the Neanderthals going big-game hunting, even the teeny-weeny ones who look scared while holding on to their militant mothers.
Isn’t science wonderful? From a few scraps of evidence, or rather, from the lack of such evidence, we can create a story (though we do need to add a few “it seems reasonable”, “necessarily indirect” and “it seems improbable”) about the gendered division of labor among early humans and the lack of the same among the Neanderthals and we can make this story explain why feminism is a bad thing.
These popularizations of gender research always leave me stunned, and I suspect that’s one of their intentions. The other one is to avoid pointing out the obvious: We have no knowledge of the division of labor among Neanderthals.
November 11th, 2007 09:30
[…] Über WIMN’s Voices […]
November 11th, 2007 12:40
[…] (And Echidne has thoughts). […]
November 11th, 2007 19:55
Feminists also caused the ELE that killed off the dinosaurs.
November 12th, 2007 09:31
Drat. When I saw ‘neanderthals,’ I thought you meant neocons.
November 12th, 2007 10:09
Along as you except that specialization is evolutionarily more viable of a development, then it simply is a question of biology. Splitting the specialization along a gender line is the only way to pass two separate genetic specialties through the same gene pool. You would have had the same survival of homo sapiens if they had specialized along some other lines (such as we do now socially, albeit with non-genetic information passage), but biologically there would be no mechanism for that evolution. It’s a scientifically sound theory given the knowledge we have of Neanderthals. It’s not science’s fault that nature tends towards gender roles. The problem is the Boston Globe’s for calling it feminism.
November 12th, 2007 12:42
Hello?! You’re going off a lurid, simplified news article, and then claiming the problem is science? A hypothesis is not a proven conclusion. The media is notoriously bad about understanding science. They don’t know the difference between, for example, a hypothesis and a theory, but *you* should learn if you want to write about them.
As it is, you sound like a creationist “debunking” evolution. Get a grip.
November 12th, 2007 12:43
“Along as you except” specialization as the only viable solution? Please. This is just more baloney thrown into the wind to try to get people stirred up and make some career noise and maybe get some money together. No one can tell from the material culture remains (e.g., the stuff) whether it was Neanderthal or not; it is just stuff, preserved well or poorly. If there is a dead Neanderthal nearby, then they claim the stuff is Neanderthal as well and from that wax poetic.
I propose that there likely was task specialization in Neanderthal peoples because somebody has to do x, y, and z jobs; I also propose that those patterns will not make our own primitive savages entirely happy, as their “just so” stories depend upon notions of subjugation of women that even in their holiest of biblical fantasies likely did not really exist. A man may be the head, but the woman is the neck that turns it.
November 12th, 2007 21:12
You seem to have a problem with the science of anthropology in general. If you believe that all of anthropological research, evolutionary biology, and all psychological research as to the neurological differences between men and women, and their various cross-field corollaries, are all career noise to make money and wax poetic than not are you sorely mistaken, but sorely irrelevant in your criticism. Just because your ill conceived theory has the merit of being more socially conscionable does not make it any more valid. Your scientific reasoning is flawed, but neither of us are anthropologists (I assume), so it too is irrelevant. These scientists are simply proposing that because of a lack of genetic specialization, the Neanderthals died out. Their hypothesis does not advocate reciprocal ethical repercussions. If it is evolutionarily viable for women to be completely subjugated, it doesn’t matter, as far as our society is concerned. To put it simply, the error in the article is not in the science, but in the media coverage of the science, by implying that evolution has anything to do with the validity of feminism. They said this is what could have happened, not that it was morally correct for it to not have worked out. Your error is assuming that the scientists intended on this misunderstanding, purely for profit, whereas it is entirely possible for a theory to involve gender subjugation to be correct. If you can accept that black widows evolved to eat their male counterparts after reproduction, why can you not accept the possibility of homo sapien’s evolved gender roles to be evolutionarily viable?
“Along as you except” - Perhaps my favorite blunder. Typo + homony misplacement = Hilariously discrediting.
November 13th, 2007 00:20
It seems that the problem is with the coverage, and not with the science itself. I find this to be the case whenever the media attempts to write about any scientific question that has become enmeshed in political discussions (the same holds true for discussions of legal cases with political overtones). “Feminism”?? Come on — that is a cheap eye-catching headline, meant to grab readers and sell papers (or pull you into an article that is bordered by ads, on-line), but nothing more. The Globe should be taken to task, not the scientists.
Of course, if one were to actually read the original study, one might have something to get worked up about…or maybe not.
November 13th, 2007 13:50
Mr. Raygunomics enlightened us with “You seem to have a problem with the science of anthropology in general. If you believe that all of anthropological research, evolutionary biology, and all psychological research as to the neurological differences between men and women…”
You seem to imply that “the science of anthropology in general” including “all of anthropological research, evolutionary biology” etc. etc. concludes that traditional sex roles have been proven (via evolution) to be the best for the human species.
First off, it is not obvious that there is such a belief (let alone a unanimous agreement) within “the science of anthropology in general” (and evolutionary biology, etc.). Could you refer your humble readers to some documentation on this?
Secondly, this belief appears to be a post hoc fallacy: a) there was sex-based division of labor, b) the species survived, ergo c) sex-based division of labor allowed the species to survive. All it tells us is that it didn’t get in the way of survival, not that it actually promoted survival. There are many other (far more important) factors which would have promoted survival of homo sapiens, such as being better than neanderthals at adapting to environmental changes.
“These scientists are simply proposing that because of a lack of genetic specialization, the Neanderthals died out. […] If it is evolutionarily viable for women to be completely subjugated, it doesn’t matter, as far as our society is concerned.”
By “genetic specialization” you must mean gender (i.e. sex) specialization, since the behavior discussed seems to be unrelated to genetics. Also, could you please explain how you jump all the way to women being “completely subjugated”? Such an unwarranted leap would seem to suggest a rather extreme bias on your part. A sex-based division of labor does not imply subjugation, it merely tells us that men and women take on different jobs. How the men treated the women (and the women the men) is impossible to tell.
November 13th, 2007 14:22
Raygunomics also enlightened us with “Along as you except that specialization is evolutionarily more viable of a development, then it simply is a question of biology. Splitting the specialization along a gender line is the only way to pass two separate genetic specialties through the same gene pool.”
Mr. Raygunomics, you appear to be confusing behavior with genetics.
All the article is (apparently) saying is that the (apparent!) lack of a specific behavior seen in homo sapiens *may* have been why Neanderthals did not survive. Or to look at it in reverse, that a specific behavior found in homo sapiens may have allowed them to survive better than Neanderthals. Because the two species were competing for the same resources, if one could multiply more quickly (or at least not die as quickly) it would start to edge out the other species, which could in turn lead to the extinction of that species.
This is behavior, not genetics: Neanderthal men still mated with Neanderthal women (thereby mixing two genetic lines) just as do homo sapiens and all other species that reproduce sexually. You seem to be implying that this was not the case.
November 14th, 2007 08:03
It was not a statement that all of these realms of science have concluded that traditional sex roles are evolutionarily best. It was Phil’s general disregard for archaeological evidence that put him at odds with these sciences. Also, it is irrelevant whether or not there is consensus among these fields, merely that the hypothesis was possible. Although I would argue the case, it does not matter whether or not sex based division of labor was what caused Homo Sapiens to survive or if it simply did not impede that survival. All that matters is that it is not a ridiculous media move to suggest that this was the case. Yes, I was assuming genetic specialization was part of their theory, as the article did cite a lack of genetically controlled differences between the females and males when it came to body size, etc. Also, I didn’t feel the need to jump all the way to gender subjugation. I was saying that even if it did jump all the way to complete gender subjugation, it would not be any less valid of a scientific theory. It would simply be a reminder that nature is cruel, and should be no example on how to run a society. Genetics can control gender specialization. As I stated earlier, it is the only way of passing two sets of specializations through the same species in the absence of a more complicated society that the Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were just developing. (The species can develop completely divergent X and Y chromosome specifications, i.e. women become less fit for hunting and more fit for gathering, genetically). Granted, the evidence could very well be better explained by a learned behavior that happened to coincidentally coincide with the Neanderthal women’s genetic similarity to men. Maybe they were well established in their societal norms. However, it is irrelevant. It is entirely possibly for the anthropologists to be incorrect in every point they made. My point was simply that it is not a completely warrantless theory made just to “get people stirred up and make some career noise”. The scientists, although perhaps incredibly wrong, were not trying to associate feminism into their theories in an effort to discredit women with their stories that “depend upon notions of subjugation of women that even in their holiest of biblical fantasies likely did not really exist”. For the third time, the point here is that the science is not to blame here, the Globe is.
November 14th, 2007 20:13
As an archaeologist, this kind of crap always ticks me off.
As some of the repliers have pointed out, it is very difficult to pinpoint certain aspects of the past, such as tool use and such. Yes, we know the Neanderthal were tool users / makers, had language and could use fire. Using a “sharpish rock stuck on a stick” is a bit harder than one may think and big game hunting is known to not be a viable sustenance pattern if you rely on game alone.
But…we don’t know that Homo Sapiens had gender specific roles, we assume this bases on other modern Hunter / Gather societies that we can study. We assume that women gathered while men hunted because of the very real sexual dimorphism of our species. This does not mean that it’s true. We don’t know who made the weapons, cooked the food, and hunted the game. I don’t see why we assume that because the Neanderthals vanished (and we still don’t know why) and our own species continued to exist that we were superior. (Remember, as a species H. Sapiens still has not outlived the H. Neanderthal.)
As for evidence of “classic Female roles”, uhhh how many millions of years are we talking? We are fortunate that we have what we do from our own species ancient past. We can’t assume just because we haven’t found it yet doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Using this articles own points, if both men and women were hunting, and we know from study and modern groups, big game hunting alone will not keep a people fed, then both men and women must have been participating in the gathering as well. Can we say then that because of Mans participation in gathering the species died off? Since he wasn’t out there killing things to keep the fat, pregnant women safe and fed, the poor defenseless women were killed by these rampaging, deadly beasts. Can’t we make the argument, using a bit of logic and a reversal of roles, that the male was the downfall of the species for his lack of “classic” maleness?