• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Women Have Played Major Role In History

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
58,322
Location
Eblana
Not sure if this is the right forum. So move if you want.

Women Have Played Major Role In History

http://www.terradaily.com/images/venus- ... nki-bg.jpg

Front and back views of Venus of Kostenki in ivory, dating about 22,000 years ago. The evidence for master weaving comes from fiber artifacts and from 200 "Venus" figurines and figurine fragments found across Europe - "the most representational three-dimensional images made in the Gravettian period," the authors wrote.

by Staff Writers
Champaign IL (SPX) Feb 07, 2007
Hold on to your bearskin hats and your macrame snoods, readers: You are in for a wild verbal ride through your deep, deep past. The authors of a new book have fashioned a 16-chapter prehistory theme park worthy of Disney, but in their confection, lame, even egregious, past assumptions about our past are hunted down and slain, and stars - in the form of womankind - are born.
"The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in History" (Smithsonian Books/Collins) is a roller coaster ride through Homo sapiens' unsteady past. No stone tool is left unturned to bring us up on what is - and what is not - probable about our long and miraculous journey.

The authors are archaeologists J.M. Adovasio, the founder and director of the Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute; Olga Soffer, a professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; and Jake Page, a freelance writer. Adovasio is an expert on perishable prehistoric artifacts; Soffer is an expert on the Paleolithic Period and peoples of the Old World.

Of greatest import in this book is the idea that women have always been major players - not simply baby-machines who tended to the children, rustled up roots, collected nuts and berries and relied on macho male hunters to bring home the bacon.

In fact, the authors' spadework led them to a striking conclusion: that "female humans have been the chief engine in the unprecedented high level of human sociability; were the inventors of the most useful of tools - called the String Revolution; have shared equally in the provision of food for human societies; almost certainly drove the human invention of language; and were the ones who created agriculture."

Capitalizing on their own recent work and on that of numerous scholars in several fields, the authors explore bipedalism, diet, hunting, brain size, language, birth canals, tools, art, agriculture, migration and paleofashion.

Upfront they assert that the stereotypical image of early woman comes mainly from modern males who until the last few decades "have dominated the fields of anthropology and archaeology," fixated on stones and bones and "assumed that it was a man's world back in the Pleistocene and earlier."

The consequence: "Women were largely ignored," the authors wrote, conceding that "the bias was, in a sense, self-fulfilling, but it was more an unconscious bias than a deliberate and nasty plot against women."

Over recent years, new archaeological techniques and technologies have emerged that make perishable artifacts and other "womanly" items more accessible to researchers. "But what is far more decisive," the authors wrote, "is that women have recently joined the archaeological and paleontological workforce in far greater numbers than ever before."

In their investigation of the "grand procession of evolution," including the role of women, the authors draw on evidence from the fossil record, including artifacts and ecofacts; today's primates in general and the great apes in particular; the behaviors of hunters and gatherers who are still with us, such as the San or !Kung of the Kalahari Desert in southern Africa and the Aboriginals in Australia; and genetic and molecular biology.

Their paleo-analyses are anything but bone dry. Rather, they're sprinkled liberally with humor, wit, jaunty writing and puns. The chapter on "The Importance of Being Upright," for example, begins: "In which we look back from present conditions to early human evolution and find that the female pelvis may well have saved all us humans from a life of bowling alone as well as letting us become super smart."

Writing about the theoretical possibility of inbreeding between "archaic folk" and modern humans, they write: "Modern humans will copulate with virtually anything, even barrel cacti, so one can assume that nothing with two legs would have been out of bounds."

One of the stereotypes the authors chip away hardest at is the picture of Upper Paleolithic society and economics "dominated by the mighty hunters setting out to slaughter mammoths and other large animals."

It turns out that "there is no evidence of Upper Paleolithic assemblages of enough hunters - 40 or so - to take down a mammoth, much less the number needed to wipe out a herd. Only the foolhardiest would attempt to kill an animal that stands 14 feet high and has a notoriously bad temper when annoyed."

Because most of the animal remains strewn around places like Dolni Vestonice in the Czech Republic consist of the bones of small mammals like hares and foxes, "The picture of Man the Mighty Hunter is now fading out of the annals of prehistory."

It is more plausible that men and women and even children and the elderly in places like Dolni Vestonice as far back as 27,000 years all contributed to the work of living communally. There is plenty of evidence that immense nets, probably made by women, were tossed over large areas to trap Sunday dinners.

At the same time, some of these same people were "weaving and making basketry with at least eight different styles of twining, some of which remain common today."

The evidence for master weaving comes from fiber artifacts and from 200 "Venus" figurines and figurine fragments found across Europe - "the most representational three-dimensional images made in the Gravettian period some 27,000 to 22,000 years ago. Nothing is their equal before this period from anywhere in the world, and thousands of years go by before anything comparable appears again," the authors wrote.

Yet many observers, male and female, amateur and professional, have missed the fact that many of these stone babes were partly clad.

In 1998, Adovasio and Soffer began their scrutiny of the Venuses, and found that what others saw as braided hair on the Venus of Willendorf, for example, actually was an exquisitely carved hat, constructed similarly to many American Indian baskets today.

So precise is the carving that "it is not unreasonable to think that, among the functions involved in this Upper Paleolithic masterpiece, it served as a blueprint or instruction manual showing weavers how to make such hats."

Adovasio and Soffer also discovered that other Venuses wore carved woven hats and also bandeaus, belts and string skirts - items far too flimsy for daily wear.

The clothing suggests that "such apparel was a 'woman thing,' not worn by males, and that it served to immortalize at some great effort the fact that such apparel set women - or at least certain women - apart in a social category of their own."

One can conclude, the authors wrote, that the clothing on the Gravettian Venuses symbolized achievement or prestige. Moreover, the precision with which the woven items were carved "leads almost inevitably to the conclusion that they were created by the weavers themselves, or at least under the sharp-eyed tutelage of the weavers."

"That it was almost surely women who did most of this fine weaving and basketry is one matter to which the ethnographic record appears to be a reliable guide."

www.terradaily.com/reports/Women_Have_P ... y_999.html
 
As long as it isn´t invoking some continental wide matriarchal society based on a few fat statues.
And I´m not sure the idea of a bunch of men with spears surrounding a mammoth was ever taken that seriously. Publishers are just more likely to publish your book with pictures like that.
 
ElishevaBarsabe said:
This truth wasn't completely obvious before this book?
well, i never knew women had any role in history.

in fact, before i read this, i didn't realise there were any such things as women...


[settles back in large leather armchair in London club, puffs on cigar, and returns to the Times crossword...]
 
Well i thought we only invented women during the renaissance. Before that it was good clean manly fun.

Ah, I think its a bit like Black histiry month. Its a case of asserting that Women were written out of history, being reduced to the role of spear carriers (and even that was just the Amazons).
 
My feminist friends have written all women out of history save those who contributed to their cause

The others were just being unladylike
 
sounds a lot like some of the 'feminists' i've known. the sort who want acknowledgement that women are equal with men, in only the positive attributes...
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
... want acknowledgement that women are equal with men, in only the positive attributes...

I imagine that you've never played field hockey. With teenage girls. It's a bloodsport involving hockeysticks and fingernails.
 
Hell, even real hockey played by women can be pretty rough.
 
I think hockey's just a violent sport anyway. Forget boxing or WWF wrestling. You want blood? Go watch some hockey. I think that game could make daisys fight.
God, I love hockey. ;)
 
I clicked on this thread assuming I was going to read something funny. Imagine my surprise to find a serious post. How deplorably our educational system has failed our children if the premise of this article is not common knowledge today. I can only commend young people for educating themselves. (I'm assuming the thread starter is such a person.)

But, I am more than surprised by a couple of the responders who posted what appears to be serious negative comments about feminists. Are you kidding me? Have we experienced a time slip? Is this 2007, or 1907? What next, a thread titled " Black People Are Just As Intelligent As White People," with responders questioning this statement? :shock:
 
The responders are being sarcastic. And I agree with them that many people calling themselves feminists are keen to write women out of history so that thet can claim how completely downtrodden women have been for the last however-long-they-need-to-fit-in-to-their-agenda. I read a book like that myself quite recently. It is laughable and infuriating at the same time.
 
Of course no one is above criticism, (if deserved). To make a sweeping generalization about any group of people is bigotry. It's a miserable way to treat your fellow humans. To say, for example, that there are "half baked ones" of any particular group has meaning only to you, and those who believe they know your meaning, and agree with you. It's like saying, Black people aren't above criticism, especially those lazy ones.
 
Yes but I still want to criticize those feminists who are interested in special privileges rather than equal rights.

As for history, well I don´t see women as having that big a role in recorded western history. Not many female military leaders, scientists or engineers. Perhaps that is due to history being written by male chauvinists or perhaps not. But if they have found it to have been quite different in pre-history then that is interesting. I have just heard before some historical theories based on little evidence which seem more like feminist propaganda.
 
Oh dear. I'm staying well out of this battle-of-the-sexists debate, but the following part of the article jumped out at me:
ramonmercado said:
Their paleo-analyses are anything but bone dry. Rather, they're sprinkled liberally with humor, wit, jaunty writing and puns... they write: "Modern humans will copulate with virtually anything, even barrel cacti, so one can assume that nothing with two legs would have been out of bounds."
I'll accept that as a genuine attempt at humour, but what this next bit has to do with scientific argument, I've no idea:
It turns out that "there is no evidence of Upper Paleolithic assemblages of enough hunters - 40 or so - to take down a mammoth, much less the number needed to wipe out a herd. Only the foolhardiest would attempt to kill an animal that stands 14 feet high and has a notoriously bad temper when annoyed."
So men didn't hunt mammoth, because mammoths get annoyed when you throw sticks at them. Insightful stuff! Maybe that's why it was thought the hunters worked in large groups?
 
I dont know about you, I generaly go for the very old or injured animals, that or catch them in a trap.
 
Yes but I still want to criticize those feminists who are interested in special privileges rather than equal rights.

and for my part, the ones who seem to feel that women are superior to men (though generally in a very crass, superficial kind of way), or can seemingly do no wrong (and if they do, a man must have put them up to it)...
 
and who knows if mammoths were bad tempered? maybe they actually sat down and cried because everyone was ganging up on them

It's ALL speculation
 
placeholder said:
and who knows if mammoths were bad tempered? maybe they actually sat down and cried because everyone was ganging up on them

It's ALL speculation

I reckon they cried because people pulled their long hair.
 
ramonmercado said

I reckon they cried because people pulled their long hair

then it must've been girls doing the hunting - proof positive, only girls pull hair.
 
placeholder said:
ramonmercado said

I reckon they cried because people pulled their long hair

then it must've been girls doing the hunting - proof positive, only girls pull hair.

They probably attacked them with hockey sticks as well!
 
hey it got the job done though didn't it? here we are with our great big crania, on top of the world.

it's only a pity the mammoths won't be around to laugh when it's our turn to become extinct.
 
Humans with spears hunt elephants today, and humans in the Pleistocene certainly harvested mammoths. It's not unreasonable to think that they were actively hunted.

Which mammoths were actively hunted, by what methods, in what places, under what circumstances - these are all subjects on which the data are still coming in. One thing that struck me when researching hunting methods in the Pleistocene was how few archeologists have direct hunting experience. If you want to know how your ancestors knapped flint, you knap flint, trying to replicate what you find; if you want to know how they made pots, you make pottery ditto; if you want to understand their fabric-making techniques, you make similar fabric; and if you want to know how they hunted large animals, you should hunt large animals. This is tricky, since so many large animals are now endangered; but most good archeological sites in the Americas are also in the middle of modern deer-hunting culture. You could totally get a grant for hunting deer with Clovis points mounted in different ways, and that should get you started on the realistic hypotheses. Managed bison herds are systematically culled, so why not do it with spears instead of guns one year?

As for the danger - certainly, hunting mammoth was dangerous. So are driving a car, rock-climbing, and going to war. "It's dangerous" has never deterred humans much.
 
Its getting them in the freezer afterwards puts me off.

Obviously, in the Ice Age, they did not have that problem.
 
Back
Top