|
Normally I recommend that my friends read The Escapist online magazine. Its good stuff, written by people in the gaming industry - and it's usually a good read.
But in the most recent issue, which is centered on issues concerning women and games, legendary gaming grey-beard Chris Crawford ventures into a discussion on evolutionary psychology in his article Women in Games and makes the rather brash statement: "The biggest difference was men were hunters and women were gatherers."Sorry, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. Early man was not a hunter - he was an opportunistic scavenger, just like early woman was. I'm afraid Mr. Crawford has fallen victim to the commonly held ego-boosting assumption that we descend from a proud lineage of hunters who, equipped with our invaluable tool-building brain and equally impressive tool-grasping opposable thumb, bravely hunted anything that dared show its face. As proof he examines our mighty prowess in throwing rocks and running - and that argument just doesn't hold water. Pretty much the entire primate family can fling things with precision - whether the projectile is a rock, a rotten piece of fruit, or a rectally produced editorial comment. You'll notice, however, that none of our primate brethren hunt with rocks. Crawford might then comment that no other primate is able to chase after wounded foes. Well, that's true... but then again, neither can we. Pretty much any large game out there can outrace us; either to run away completely, or to turn and trample us unto little itty bitty stains, or seek the protection of the herd. Our rock throwing shenanigans aren't going to be earning us a steady diet. And the steady diet is key. The steady diet comes from scavenging - it's what we're good at. You won't find any warrior-poets singing the praises of the digging stick; but that's what our first tool was. Scavenging ensures a group of humans a steady and dependable supply of food - guaranteed caloric income. There are clear and measurable signs that the well is running dry when a camp of humans starts to over scavenge an area. There are no such guarantees in a hunter-based society on whether a hunter is going to come back with a large kill or empty handed. And in the long run you just can't risk an entire camp on that lottery without justification. The only time our ancestors would resort to hunting was when there was nothing left to scavenge. It was just too risky to not devote every member of the group to scavenging as hunters run the risk of getting killed (or worse, coming back with a caloric debt - having expended great amounts of energy to return with no food). Indeed, when it comes to hunting it would be less risky for an entire group of humans to force a large carnivore away from one of its own kills (as the hyena do) than it would to risk a band of hunters in making kill of their own. No, hunting was a rare gift, celebrated much later in our past... when camps were so successful that they could afford to risk a few members of the group in a celebrity hunter role. But those advanced groups were only made successful by the mastering of plenty of other skills; like actual weapon production, animal husbandry and planting. That urbane gentleman you saw this morning reading the New York Times that Mr. Crawford talks about was not to be found out hunting - he was scrambling over rock and under brush, nimbly catching a blue bellied lizard between his opposable thumb and forefinger. |