hunter-gatherer culture

[Anonymous No.11129676]

does /sci/ agree on the fact that 190,000 years of human hunter-gatherer culture compared to 10,000 years of modern civilizations made an impact on why gender roles exist?

>inb4 muh women hunters
statistically insignificant

[Anonymous No.11129748]

>>11129676
The funny thing is that Hunter gatherer end date is just based on oldest civilization found. If you look at modern disaster areas people still act like Hunter gatherer. It's not mutally exclusive from civilization. Anthros making up stories based on statistically insignificant finds.

[Anonymous No.11129755]

>>11129748
the population of hunter-gatherer cultures that still exist is statistically insignificant compared to the population of modern civilized cultures

[Anonymous No.11129771]

>>11129676
This is a dumb label.
You can't tell me they didn't trade with others. And none of the others were farmers of a sort. I think physical strength has an impact on gender roles. Hur dur, is Otzi a hunter or farmer? He has more than one thing in his stomach.

[Anonymous No.11129780]

>>11129771
agriculture did not exist until about 11,500 years ago. before that it was just gathering (mostly by women while men mostly hunted)

[Anonymous No.11129791]

>>11129780
Based on what? Anthro schizos

[Anonymous No.11129801]

>>11129780
Were you there?

[Anonymous No.11129818]

>>11129791
>>11129801
it's known. look it up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture
>The history of agriculture began thousands of years ago. After gathering wild grains beginning at least 105,000 years ago, nascent farmers began to plant them around 11,500 years ago. Pigs, sheep and cattle were domesticated over 10,000 years ago.

fucking high iq board right

[Anonymous No.11129830]

>>11129818
>fucking high iq board right
THEBESTTHEBESTTHEBESTLOLTHEBESTTHEBESTTHEBESTLOLTHEBESTTHEBESTTHEBESTLOLTHEBESTTHEBESTTHEBESTLOLTHEBESTTHEBESTTHEBESTLOLTHEBESTTHEBESTTHEBESTLOLTHEBESTTHEBESTTHEBESTLOL

[Anonymous No.11129834]

>>11129818
I'm not buying that there wasn't small patches of mallow or berries that weren't encouraged to grow before what we consider official farming, or that selective breeding wasn't already taking place. These things are only as old as the oldest evidence found. But, I know bro. Just messing with you.

[Anonymous No.11129960]

>>11129834
you can't do much to cultivate a patch of berries when you're a nomad. hunter-gatherer cultures were nomadic and would not stay long enough in any one place to really cultivate any particular patch of plants

[Anonymous No.11130014]

>>11129818
I'm just seeing anthro head cannon here anon. Wiki of anthro schizos that take a ultra small sample of things found and extrapolate as a large trend of species. Kind of retard

[Anonymous No.11130216]

>>11129676
Extant primitive cultures have gender roles not at all similar to modern western ones, which are more or less entirely a result of the industrial revolution.

[Anonymous No.11130265]

>>11129834
you're partially correct, they would sometimes burn selective areas of land, fuck off for a few months, then return when all the plants were sprouting and the undergrowth had yet to be crowded out by trees. this is why australia has so many eucalyptus, the abbos burned down most of the old forest

[Anonymous No.11131937]

>>11129960
Is this what PBS told you? What are you going to do, in that situation? How far will you nomad? Will you ever return to good pickings?

[Anonymous No.11132002]

>>11130265
interesting
>>11131937
no, this is what my education has told me (not that this too much in academia, only a course in anthropology and a course in demographics and one history course that touched on prehistory) but i feel this is what you will find if you review the scholarship. the basic feature of nomadic culture is that they _didn't_ cultivate particular patches of plants very much. and just watering a wild berry plant (or peeing on it) once every couple of months is not "agriculture".

anyhow the whole argument is retarded. early civilizations marked a very real change from what came before (hunter gatherer-culture) and the main shift between the two is large-scale agriculture and as a result stopping being nomadic. it seems the counterarguments so far are nitpicks meant to try to argue that there wasn't a clear breaking point between civilization and hunter-gatherer culture.

but there is. culture changed. modern civilization IS different from what came before and it DID change how people lived. so let's return to the question: did the way humans lived before this obvious transition lead to gender roles that still exist in our current civilization?

the answer is obviously yes but i am just trying to get trannies and equality-feminists to realize how they are ignoring science. whatever. the thread can die now since apparently scientific aspects of anthropolgy are unimportant here compared to the tranny community pushing "sex is a social construct" pseudery

[Anonymous No.11132004]

>>11132002
*not that i studied this too much
not "not that this too much"

[Anonymous No.11132037]

>>11129676
It certainly had an impact (how could it not?), but why vs modern civilizations? It was not until well into the industrial revolution that hard physical labor saw a real drop off.

[Anonymous No.11132040]

>>11132002
Well, we agree more than I thought. Idk where you draw the lines with categories. There are still those that are more hunter/gatherers than others but fuck trannies. I don't make others uncomfortable for my selfishness.

[Anonymous No.11132913]

>>11129676
those bitches are stone cold. not even looking at the action.

[Anonymous No.11133355]

>be humans
>Jerk off and eat bugs for 190,000 years
>One day stick dick ground and nut in
>Cover with dirt
>Wait lmao also some seeds
>Week later go back to your nut hole
>See little plant
>Tell your tribe to put their seeds in the earth
>Birth of the Pagan tribes + civilization

[Anonymous No.11133566]

Didn't sexual dimorphism increase in the neolithic? If anything civilization is what played the greatest role on gender divergence