Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:51)|
|Quote (Verbena @ Dec. 01 2011,14:15)|
|Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:08)|
|Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)|
|Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?|
Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.
I don't know about being more risky. An unarmed woman is at a greater risk from a predator than a group of armed men.
While that might be true, there are now and where then few animals that viewed humans as prey. There was (and still is) far more danger facing most large prey. Elephants, rhinos, whales, hippos, buffalo, etc. represent deadly opponents when threatened.
This isn't to say that herbivores didn't present a problem for gatherers as well. Clearly they like many of the same plant food we do. But the incidents of gatherers facing large herbivores seems to be less than than the hunters that put themselves in such situations.
Of course, there are some other elements to consider. Division of work was not discrete in a number of hunter-gatherer societies; men and women both gathered when plants/berries/nuts were abundant and women and men both hunted when the prey herds were near - the women contributing by tracking. So I don't know who black and white that celebration of hunting was in all societies, but there certainly was some.
I respectfully disagree. We still have highly attuned anti-predation instincts, which tells us that in the EEA, predation was a signifcant threat. Once homo sapiens made the step to making throwing weapons and began to hunt collectively, we may have reduced that threat slightly and that over vast amounts of time, even hunting some species to extinction (including other proto-humans!) but predation in primitive cultures is still a high mortality risk - and this includes other humans, especially rogue males.
The Vandermassen paper is very good at uncovering the bias and wishful thinking that has permeated many past social and social anthropological studies.