When you imagine a prehistoric hunter, you might think of a vision of a caveman.
But a new study claims these cavemen paled in comparison to their female counterparts.
Although women have long been viewed as nurturers and gatherers and men as hunters, researchers at the University of Notre Dame have debunked this theory.
Their research showed that not only did prehistoric women engage in hunting, but that their female anatomy and biology would have made them intrinsically better suited for it.
“Rather than seeing it as a way to erase or rewrite history, our studies seek to correct the history that has erased women from it,” said Dr. Cara Ocobock, lead author of the study.
When you imagine a prehistoric hunter, you might think of a vision of a caveman. But a new study claims these cavemen paled in comparison to their female counterparts (stock image)
The findings show that the female body is better suited for endurance activities, which would have been crucial in early hunting.
The main reasons for this biological benefit are hormones – in this case estrogen and adiponectin, which are generally present in greater amounts in the female body than in the male body.
These two hormones play a crucial role in allowing the female body to modulate glucose and fat – a function critical to athletic performance.
Estrogen in particular helps by encouraging the body to use its stored fat for energy before using up carbohydrate stores and protecting the body’s cells from damage during heat exposure.
Professor Ocobock said: ‘Because fat contains more calories than carbohydrates, it burns longer and more slowly, meaning the same sustained energy can keep you going for longer and delay fatigue.
‘In my opinion, estrogen is truly the unsung hero of life. It is so important for cardiovascular and metabolic health, brain development and injury recovery.”
The researchers also found that the female body structure would have been an advantage in hunting.
‘The female’s typically wider hip structure allows them to rotate their hips, lengthening their steps,’ added Professor Ocobock.
‘The longer steps you can take, the ‘cheaper’ they are metabolically, and the further you can go, faster.
The researchers found that the female body structure would have been an advantage in hunting
“If you look at human physiology in this way, you can think of women as marathon runners and men as powerlifters,” the researchers said.
“If you look at human physiology this way, you can think of women as marathon runners versus men as powerlifters.”
The study continued by examining fossils for archaeological evidence of women as hunters.
These findings indicate that prehistoric women not only shared in the resulting injuries from the dangerous activity of close contact hunting, but that it was an activity highly valued and valued by them.
According to fossil records, both men and women have the same resulting hunting injuries and equal rates of wear and tear.
Evidence of early female hunters was also found in the Holocene in Peru, where women were buried with hunting weapons.
Professor Ocobock said: ‘You don’t often get buried with something unless it was important to you or something you used often in your life.
‘Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that prehistoric women gave up hunting while pregnant, nursing, or carrying children, nor do we see any indication in the distant past that there was a strict division of labor between men and women.
‘Hunting belonged to everyone, not just men. There were not enough people living in groups to specialize in different tasks. Everyone had to be a generalist to survive.”
The two studies, published simultaneously in the journal American Anthropologist, are of great interest to both authors, who hope their findings will help change the narrative around modern women.
“This revelation is especially important in our society’s current political moment, where sex and gender are in the spotlight,” Professor Ocobock added.
‘And I want people to be able to change the ideas about female physical inferiority that have existed for so long.
“We need to change the biases we present, or at least pause before admitting those biases.
“And in a broader sense, you can’t simply assume someone’s abilities based on the sex or gender you’ve assigned by looking at him or her.”