Women dominated low-risk foraging because they usually had children in tow. That might include gathering shellfish and hunting lizards, but it definitely meant they dominated the gathering of plants. This is a repeated pattern in foraging societies.
Men (and women without children in tow) dominated higher-risk foraging, so hunting large …
Women dominated low-risk foraging because they usually had children in tow. That might include gathering shellfish and hunting lizards, but it definitely meant they dominated the gathering of plants. This is a repeated pattern in foraging societies.
Men (and women without children in tow) dominated higher-risk foraging, so hunting large animals and gathering honey. (In Ancient Egypt, men did the laundry because you did that on the river bank and, well, crocodiles.)
The only place I am aware of where women regularly plough is in some African societies where they are making the transition from hoe farming (which women dominate) to plough farming. So, farming is still predominantly coded as women’s work. Also, African societies do a lot of “farming out” of kids as a risk-dispersal mechanism, so it is easier not to have children in tow.
There are lots of disadvantages in remaining in the continent where we evolved. There are so many more pathogens, parasites, predators and mega herbivores that co-evolved with, and so can cope with, us. We did much better outside Africa, where we were vermin (i.e. an introduced species) so could occupy lots of habitats and drive not-used-to-us species to extinction.
The problem with ploughing and kids is (1) control of animals and (2) have to be very systematic in a way that being interrupted by children is not helpful. Plough societies overwhelmingly have men as presumptive landowners. (The main exception is the Mosuo of China, who do not recognise fatherhood, uncles provide male parenting, so inheritance has to be female line.)
Pastoralism is overwhelmingly patrilineal kin groups since men own the animals (because herd them without the small kids in tow) and you needed effective (mostly male) warrior teams to defend the mobile assets. (There is one African society that has taken up pastoralism and is in the process of shifting from matrilineal to patrilineal.) But pastoralism evolved after farming, so does not tell us much about the forager-farmer transition. (The only animals domesticated by foragers were dogs, horses and reindeer.)
Brown’s classic “note” has since been vindicated by subsequent studies.
Thanks for your reply. This is all interesting and one way to look at it. History, like any other discipline, is highly open to interpretation. It is also vastly more complex than it appears. There is quite a bit of new anthropology focusing on the hunter gatherer transition. I will provide this link soon. Interesting duscussion.
Women dominated low-risk foraging because they usually had children in tow. That might include gathering shellfish and hunting lizards, but it definitely meant they dominated the gathering of plants. This is a repeated pattern in foraging societies.
Men (and women without children in tow) dominated higher-risk foraging, so hunting large animals and gathering honey. (In Ancient Egypt, men did the laundry because you did that on the river bank and, well, crocodiles.)
The only place I am aware of where women regularly plough is in some African societies where they are making the transition from hoe farming (which women dominate) to plough farming. So, farming is still predominantly coded as women’s work. Also, African societies do a lot of “farming out” of kids as a risk-dispersal mechanism, so it is easier not to have children in tow.
There are lots of disadvantages in remaining in the continent where we evolved. There are so many more pathogens, parasites, predators and mega herbivores that co-evolved with, and so can cope with, us. We did much better outside Africa, where we were vermin (i.e. an introduced species) so could occupy lots of habitats and drive not-used-to-us species to extinction.
The problem with ploughing and kids is (1) control of animals and (2) have to be very systematic in a way that being interrupted by children is not helpful. Plough societies overwhelmingly have men as presumptive landowners. (The main exception is the Mosuo of China, who do not recognise fatherhood, uncles provide male parenting, so inheritance has to be female line.)
Pastoralism is overwhelmingly patrilineal kin groups since men own the animals (because herd them without the small kids in tow) and you needed effective (mostly male) warrior teams to defend the mobile assets. (There is one African society that has taken up pastoralism and is in the process of shifting from matrilineal to patrilineal.) But pastoralism evolved after farming, so does not tell us much about the forager-farmer transition. (The only animals domesticated by foragers were dogs, horses and reindeer.)
Brown’s classic “note” has since been vindicated by subsequent studies.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/671420
Thanks for your reply. This is all interesting and one way to look at it. History, like any other discipline, is highly open to interpretation. It is also vastly more complex than it appears. There is quite a bit of new anthropology focusing on the hunter gatherer transition. I will provide this link soon. Interesting duscussion.
I really have nothing to say, but I can only heart this post once, so I'm also *commenting* that I love this post. This comment means super-heart
I have been spending some years working on a book on marriage down the ages, so this stuff is front and centre for me.