Females: Tool Inventors

[Katy]

Chimps

Yet another "uniquely human" thing gets tossed out as we find chimps creating wooden tools to hunt with. The interesting bit is that it appears the females were the ones who invented this technology. As these are our nearest relatives, it does bring up some interesting questions about our own evolution - though it obviously is still far from proving anything.

[Dan Rowden]

Your contemporary point is?

[Ryan Rudolph]

I think her point is that the female apes are more innovative than the female humans.

[Katy]

Your contemporary point is?

Uh the name of the forum is Science and Evolution - which is almost by definition not exactly contemporary.

However, it does call into question whether masculine and feminine traits are biological or cultural.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Katy wrote:

However, it does call into question whether masculine and feminine traits are biological or cultural.

The biological is the cultural. The outward manifestation, which is culture is the result of biological/psychological factors.

[Katy]

The biological is the cultural. The outward manifestation, which is culture is the result of biological/psychological factors.

Well, no.
If that were true we wouldn't have so many different cultures around the world.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Katy wrote:

Well, no.
If that were true we wouldn't have so many different cultures around the world.

Cultures are fundamentally the same, and they are irrational by nature. And this is the result of our biological conditioning.

[Katy]

Cultures are fundamentally the same, and they are irrational by nature. And this is the result of our biological conditioning.

Cultures are dramatically different. Other than the fact that most people are irrational by nature, there are a zillion different ways to put together a society and a whole lot of them have been tried. This is not a result of biology, but rather social conditioning.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Katy wrote:

Cultures are dramatically different. Other than the fact that most people are irrational by nature, there are a zillion different ways to put together a society and a whole lot of them have been tried. This is not a result of biology, but rather social conditioning.

Only genetically weak humans are easily socially conditioned, someone with strong genes can think his way out of social conditioning. Social Conditioning exists because of our weak biology.

A wise person has transcended most forms of social conditioning.

[Katy]

Only genetically weak humans are easily socially conditioned, someone with strong genes can think his way out of social conditioning. Social Conditioning exists because of our weak biology.

A wise person has transcended most forms of social conditioning.

And most people aren't wise. Thus we have thousands of cultures around the world.

[Jamesh]

How would one know if a female devised the original idea. It is true they would have had more cause to be innovative, being restrained by child rearing, but there is nothing to suggest that they actually originated the idea. Females may just have copied it - one would not know.

Pruetz could easily just be a female with an agenda.

"Eventually the researchers documented 22 instances of spearmaking and use, two-thirds of them involving females."

I wonder what the makeup of the herd was - 2/3rds female is not beyond possibility.

And as for this dude

"The new observations are "stunning," said Craig Stanford, a primatologist and professor of anthropology at the University of Southern California. "Really fashioning a weapon to get food -- I'd say that's a first for any nonhuman animal."

There are lots of previous examples of animals using tools, the guy is a dunce.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The article even said that animals have used tools - what he is calling "stunning" is the multi-step creation of tools expressly made for killing.

[Katy]

Most animal tools are found, not made. They pick up a stick and use it to do something rather than sharpening the stick.

[Nordicvs]

Chimps

Yet another "uniquely human" thing gets tossed out as we find chimps creating wooden tools to hunt with. The interesting bit is that it appears the females were the ones who invented this technology. As these are our nearest relatives, it does bring up some interesting questions about our own evolution - though it obviously is still far from proving anything.

Since humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, this means nothing. (Humans did not evolve 'out of' chimps or vice versa.)

Are you trying to imply that females---gatherers---invented male tools for hunting...?

Um...that's pretty silly. Any proof or tangible theory at all to back this up and contradict hundreds of years of archaeological evidence?

It's pretty clear that men made their own bloody tools and weapons. We know that spears and bows and arrowheads and cave paintings were done by men (because men used these things---duh; women didn't...they didn't know shit about hunting and so wouldn't know how to make, let alone design new, appropriate forms for spearheads and such).

Farming bullshit, though---that was likely developed more by the women, the gatherers.

Language, words, also, I suspect (because it just stands to reason: pre-Paleolithic male hunters were right-brained, intuitive, non-verbal communicators) was a female invention.

[Katy]

Um...that's pretty silly. Any proof or tangible theory at all to back this up and contradict hundreds of years of archaeological evidence?

uhm. You somehow believe that there is any archaeological evidence even possible saying which gender made various artifacts prior to modern man and religious burials? It's not like they signed their names. It's not even like we know who did or made what - we've only been assuming based on what modern cultures do.

The chimp evidence is the first evidence of any kind regarding what pre-modern humans did. Which isn't to say it's great evidence, as of yet, but at least it's something.

It's pretty clear that men made their own bloody tools and weapons. We know that spears and bows and arrowheads and cave paintings were done by men (because men used these things---duh; women didn't...they didn't know shit about hunting and so wouldn't know how to make, let alone design new, appropriate forms for spearheads and such).

Why so defensive? Especially over something you know nothing about (given that humans know very little about it).

We do not know that cave paintings were made by men. In fact, I've seen some compelling arguments that women made the cave paintings as a sort of prayer that their husbands would return safely and bring them sufficient food.

Nor do we really know that either gender of Australopithicine did any specific thing or that there was gender differentiation in their work. Since we evolved from a common ancestor as the other great apes, there is little reason to think that there would be significant differences, since there aren't in these other species. This is likely something that evolved later.

In fact we do have evidence that Neanderthal man (possibly the same species as us, and if not, then extremely closely related - there is evidence of interbreeding between us and them) did not have separate jobs for the genders, such as weapons being found with female skeletons.

The entire subfield of Biological anthropology is defined by studying other species of primates to try to determine how we evolved and what our ancestors might have been like based on behavior patterns of different species with DNA similar to our own. I think maybe someone with a phD in the subject might know a bit more about it than you do.

Farming bullshit, though---that was likely developed more by the women, the gatherers.

Well, it is obvious that you are not willing to look at evidence and be rational and would rather spew your misogyny, so unless you show some evidence of rational thought, I am done with you after this post. We call people who ignore scientific evidence in favor of their pet theories fundamentalists. I've learned from arguing with Baptists that it's worthless, and your flat out dismissal with no facts whatsoever puts you in the same category. In fact, it puts you in a lower category, really, since you claim to be rational.

Language, words, also, I suspect (because it just stands to reason: pre-Paleolithic male hunters were right-brained, intuitive, non-verbal communicators) was a female invention.

Possible. Also possible that the ability to communicate with one another was vital for hunting prey several times your own weight... and thus men invented language.

The point is that short of someone inventing a time machine, we will never know the answer to these things, but evidence from our nearest relatives is the best evidence we can ever hope to have.

[Nordicvs]

double post

[Nordicvs]

uhm. You somehow believe that there is any archaeological evidence even possible saying which gender made various artifacts prior to modern man and religious burials?

The same gender that makes them today in wild areas made them back them---the evidence is fucking overwhelming!---the "stone age" never went away, yunno, people still live like they did 30 thousand years ago, and it's men doing what they've always done---making their bows and arrows, spears, and art and music. Look at the world sometime (North America's Natives, how 'bout? Yunno, the ones sealed off from the Old World, still doing what pre-Paleolithic Eurasians were doing 30 millennia ago...since, yunno, that's where they got it from---the Clovis culture.)

Besides, check out some of these caves, accounts from those who discovered them and those who first documented them. After looking at just one, many years ago, I knew immediately who'd done it. I felt it, sensed it. The images are as powerful as they are beautiful...

The Metropolitan Museum of Art's look at the Chauvet Cave:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/chav/hd_chav.htm

An Examination of Lascaux Cave, also in France:

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/%7Eraar/regions/jrobinson.htm

Another site, a weird one, in Spanish, but good in that the person has collected all sorts of images from caves across Europe, from 30 to 10 thousand BC, concentrating on the rarer human (clearly male) forms found in them (the rest of the art is always animals, nothing else)...handy for cross-referencing similar images, anyway.

http://www.nodulo.org/ec/2005/n037p13.htm

It's not like they signed their names. It's not even like we know who did or made what - we've only been assuming based on what modern cultures do.

The chimp evidence is the first evidence of any kind regarding what pre-modern humans did. Which isn't to say it's great evidence, as of yet, but at least it's something.

1. We're not directly related to chimps. We're very, very distant cousins, not even the same species...

2. It's a leap of logic to assume that's how we started out---quite unscientific. No chain of evidence, not even supportive empirical data.

3. It's equally likely that those chimps picked it up from humans! (And Goodall had already discovered chimps---male and female---using tools: designing slender sticks to dig out termites, and there's no evidence to suggest they've always done that either.)

Why so defensive?

Why is that you view me as defensive?

Especially over something you know nothing about (given that humans know very little about it).

Excuse me? How the fuck do you know what I know? You do assume much...

(If you're keen on enbolding my curse words and strong language, here's another fucking one; because that's how I write and speak---it doesn't mean I'm angry or "rattled" or "defensive." If it offends you, then you're likely too sensitive.)

We do not know that cave paintings were made by men. In fact, I've seen some compelling arguments that women made the cave paintings as a sort of prayer that their husbands would return safely and bring them sufficient food.

Oh, good bloody hell---please o please post some links to this "evidence;" I haven't had a good laugh all day...

(No, seriously: I really, really, really want to see these "compelling arguments" of yours. I'm on the edge of my chair...)

Nor do we really know that either gender of Australopithicine did any specific thing or that there was gender differentiation in their work.

Sure, we can find stuff like that out. Like which primal culture made tools. Reason. We can use reason:

---Men hunted. This we know. This was male culture---everything had significance to it, it was deeply rooted in our psyches, expressed in caves as the first art. (No women were drawn---nothing feminine is found in these caves: no plants either. It's all animals and an occasional 'shaman.' Men stuff. No fat women on thrones or gardening tips, no fertility or 'mother earth' junk---sorry: 'wonderful farming stuff'.) They had fantastic understanding of the world around them, the plains and forests and the creatures who lived in each---and they, the men, understood how to kill them, what they'd need for that. Women did not---why on earth would they? I guess I have to spell it out for you: THEY WERE NOT OUT THERE HUNTING.

---Men made weapons to hunt. Women were/are smaller and needed to be protected, along with the children, especially when they were 'with child' obviously. Men used the weapons they made to defend against invading tribes and predators.

---We can view native peoples today who still do the exact same things as these ancient peoples did. DUH. They're still in that time.

Since we evolved from a common ancestor as the other great apes, there is little reason to think that there would be significant differences, since there aren't in these other species. This is likely something that evolved later.

In fact we do have evidence that Neanderthal man (possibly the same species as us, and if not, then extremely closely related - there is evidence of interbreeding between us and them) did not have separate jobs for the genders, such as (1) weapons being found with female skeletons.

Right, and no one knows yet what that (1) symbolizes. Females were the first to be buried with objects, that we know---later, there weren't weapons, it was other stuff. More valuable stuff. No sane, unbiased archaeologist is going to tell you that short, big-hipped girls were out slaying mammoths or even making the tools that men (who did that job) would need to accomplish that. (This conversation really is pathetically irrational---it's like me claiming men told women about contraception, for crissakes. We're talking about primordial culture here---the two first cultures on this planet: male and female cultures; females' was gathering, and males' was hunting, and every fucking thing regarding the hunt, including the weapons and tools for it. Jesus christ, tell me what ratio women today are into weapons or tools compared to men....)

The entire subfield of Biological anthropology is defined by studying other species of primates to try to determine how we evolved and what our ancestors might have been like based on behavior patterns of different species with DNA similar to our own. I think maybe someone with a phD in the subject might know a bit more about it than you do.

Why? Because someone with a phD sat in a class, getting spoon fed info, while I sat in a library, digging up and going over the same material? Wow, you're narrow-minded. I guess some people need to overcompensate by clinging to educational badges and titles as bright neon signs indicating their immense intelligence. Oh well. Damn ego strikes again...

Well, it is obvious that you are not willing to look at evidence and be rational and would rather spew your misogyny,

1. Aw, you didn't allow your feelings to be hurt, did you? No need to cry about it; I wasn't slamming women---if you could read instead of getting your knickers in a twist so quickly---I said "farming bullshit," because that's what it is, from any sound naturalist or masculist point of view, which I happen to have. (See? I didn't insult gathering---female culture---either. Nothing's wrong with gathering. Just farming. Unless you consider "farming" synonymous with "women," in which case I suppose that would make me misogynist...otherwise, you're being irrational and defensive.)

2. What facts? What evidence? You haven't posted shit---not to mention anything resembling common sense. You posted some sensationalistic Washington Post article, as if that's where one goes to find good sources of anthropological and archeaological documents. Ever hear of supplimentary data?

[Or was the chimp thing your whole "case" for primitive women making and designing everything in ancient societies, while men did nothing but hunt with the tools n sticks them smart gurls made for em...only later, switching roles miraculously and all of the sudden producing inventive genius among the Greeks and Chinese and Europeans and hundreds of others, paintings by Da Vinci and Michaelangelo, et cetera, et cetera, on and on, eclipsing anything women then could even dream of creating? Or are you saying women made the tools and designs for the Greeks, Persians, Romans, every civilization there ever was? Or taught them to paint and sculpt? And the (stone age) Native North American culture, whose men we can observe even today making their own bows and arrows and tools, how do you explain them? A vast conspiracy perpetrated by the insidious global patriarchy to cloak the fact that women did all that and still do? Or was it just good ol' aliens? Are you sure you're not a fundie or creationist type?]

3. Fine, that's chimps---interesting, but there's no correlative data as to humans---or other great apes---or evidence of anything regarding humans. Find a correlation, post it, and we'll have a serious debate; I'll post some stuff and we'll have a go at this logically. Or we can continue nitpicking each other and getting "defensive."

so unless you show some evidence of rational thought, I am done with you after this post. We call people who ignore scientific evidence in favor of their pet theories fundamentalists. I've learned from arguing with Baptists that it's worthless, and your flat out dismissal with no facts whatsoever puts you in the same category. In fact, it puts you in a lower category, really, since you claim to be rational.

I never ignore scientific evidence, or any evidence. Ever. I presented already the high probability that females developed gathering tools---and you went on a 'defensive' tangent and ignored the point utterly. The point: it stands to reason---and fits the facts---that each culture, both male (hunting) and female (gathering), made tools for what that culture was doing, what its role was, and what it was best at (which I mistakingly thought would have been completely obvious to a reasoning mind---common sense). It is illogical to think men were involved in making little clay flowers and learning about seeds and soil (due to primitive man's total obsession with planting, obviously---I mean, he was never out scanning the horizon for danger or had any interest in either feeding, clothing, or protecting his tribe or family...) or that women were designing a longer spear or sharper speartip (out of women's vast hunting experience, no doubt) to hunt mammoth or bison or scare off large predatory cats.

Possible. Also possible that the ability to communicate with one another was vital for hunting prey several times your own weight... and thus men invented language.

Unlikely---that's a left-brainer---men were vastly right-brained, even evidenced by their art; women are left-brained naturally, great with words and language. Organized, object-oriented, rationalizational. Today, women speak three times as many words as men do in one day---500 years back, it was less for men. 5000 years back, a lot less. In the Paleolithic? Logically, even less, hey, especially since that's when he actually still hunted and needed to be quietest for the longest streches of time, no?

Women (and feminized men) generally have a hard time understanding this because they're so verbal and not accustomed to activities requiring total silence and patience---physical stuff, moving around---only men who've hunted or at least played sports can appreciate the speed and teamwork resulting from non-verbal communication (out on the Eurasian Steppe, hunting, stalking prey, men had to be quiet, out of necessity, as I said---no time for sharing and exploring feelings out here).

Who's more likely to come up with language: a bunch of sweaty, hairy hunters out quietly doing their thing, men of very few words, or gossiping groups of women back at the shelter, in their sewing circles and with their infants and kids...? Who would need to speak more, logically? Who speaks more today?

The point is that short of someone inventing a time machine, we will never know the answer to these things, but evidence from our nearest relatives is the best evidence we can ever hope to have.

Not so much---that can help, but it's certainly not the "best evidence." Scientific evidence is best from many sources--> DNA, paleobiology, and especially all the artifacts---cross-referencing these artifacts with others, such as pottery, which can be traced throughout Eurasia, telling us plenty about what cultures did what and where and how long they lasted, since pottery is so damned abundant---and comparative studies of peoples still living a stone-aged existence.

From all this we can get a rough outline. We can get the gist of it.

[Nick]

Humans and chimpanzees have been evolving seperately for around seven million years since we split apart from our common ancestor. Apart from this common ancestor we shared there is nothing we can learn about ourselves from other chimpanzees or any other primates. Chimps may be more closely related to humans than any other animal, but we still have seven MILLIION years of seperation between us, evolving very distinctly from one and other, no drop in the bucket. It makes about as much sense to compare female lions and female humans and some how come to the conclusion that since female lions do the hunting for their pride then it is more likely female humans did the hunting for their community, which isn't much sense at all.

[DHodges]

Apart from this common ancestor we shared there is nothing we can learn about ourselves from other chimpanzees or any other primates.

I think there are instances where we can gain some insight into human behavior from watching chimps, for instance, if you are interested in politics.

[Nick]

No doubt there are similarties between the two species, but let me add to that phrase of mine you quoted. Apart from this common ancestor we shared there is nothing we can learn about ourselves from chimpanzees or any other primates that we can't more accurately learn from studying our own history and various cultures.

[Katy]

7 million years isn't really that big of a difference in the span of evolutionary time - you share 98.4% of your DNA with chimps. But nonetheless, you're right that we can't universally apply chimp behavior to early human behavior. What we can do is look at behavior to determine what we have in common and what is different to determine when various evolutionary steps took place.

For example, chimps have both males and females hunt, while we have just males hunt in most cases (though, as usual not universally since I can't actually name a single thing that is universal to humanity) This indicates that most likely the common ancestor between us didn't have gendered work.

In fact, we have females burried with weapons from Neanderthals - a much closer relative to us than chimps, of course so most likely these gender differences in work evolved after that time. It appears to be a relatively recent change in reality.

So then you have to look at who were the first tool users.

There is no evidence of tool creation in Australopithecines, but evidence of creation and use of tools appears 2.5mya - around the same time that robust Australopithecines and Homo evolved and separated from their common ancestor. In other words, long before the advent of Homo sapien vs Homo neanderthalis (or Homo sapien neanderthalis as the case may be)

In other words, tool use evolved prior to the time it is likely that work was gender specific and thus there is no reason to assume that either gender was responsible, and in fact it is impossible to know without a time machine.


Also, there is a significant difference between tool use and tool creation Tool use has been demonstrated in a lot of species from chimps using sticks to get termites to otters using stones to open shellfish and someone fairly recently told me about a bird that used cars to open nuts (though I haven't fact-checked the last). The significant fact with these chimps is that they are creating the tools.

[Nick]

I don't think you are giving seven million years enough credit. Think about the fact that over the last 65 million years, just about every single mammal evolved from what most believe were small rodents. 7 million years is very significant 10.2% of 65 million years in the evolution of mammals. I think it's fair to say that any conclusions drawn from the comparisons between humans and chimpanzees that doesn't immediately reference our common ancestor is pure speculation and nothing more.

[Dan Rowden]

I also think that drawing human evolutionary inferences from modern chimp behaviour is highly problematic, perhaps even just plain silly. But then, I've always thought Beavers making dams was more interesting than Chimps using sticks to gather ants. There's a qualitative difference between gathering tools and tools designed for hunting. Lots of animals, from Beavers to Otters to Crows utilise the former, but the latter seems to be the domain of our near and direct ancestors.

Oh, and inferences drawn from what individuals are buried with is also highly problematic unless there's supporting evidence for said inference. There can be all sorts of reason people get buried with certain artifacts and their use by that individual in life isn't necessarily one of them.

[sue hindmarsh]

Ryan wrote: The biological is the cultural. The outward manifestation, which is culture is the result of biological/psychological factors.

Katy wrote: Well, no. If that were true we wouldn't have so many different cultures around the world.

I think Ryan is correct, for all cultural differences are, at base, divided along the lines of female and male "biological/psychological factors". As Nordicvs wrote, male and female cultures were the first ‘cultures’, and I think they continue to govern most human activity.

Of course, in the industrialized world, those biological/psychological factors don’t have as great a role to play in the division of labour as they once did, but there still remains an obvious psychological difference between the relationship each sex has with 'their' work.

-

I’m still not sure, Katy, what point you are trying to make, but it sounds like you are trying to suggest that the deep psychological differences between males and females aren’t actually true, and that the causes for any differences between the two sexes stem from the societies they are born into. Is that what you are thinking?

.

[DHodges]

Apart from this common ancestor we shared there is nothing we can learn about ourselves from chimpanzees or any other primates that we can't more accurately learn from studying our own history and various cultures.

Well, you may be right. I think there is sometimes an advantage in looking at chimps rather than humans, as it allows some space to be more objective - making it easier to put aside preconceptions about how things work, and seeing general rules rather than specific cases.

If your only goal is to learn about humans, then studying humans directly would probably be more effective. Even so, a more "outside" perspective can be useful.