Last year’s paper on hunting by Anderson et al. sets up an inclusive definition of hunting as the purposeful killing of terrestrial vertebrates. This is a reasonable definition of hunting, used throughout the peer-reviewed literature. It is obviously not the only definition, and, may not be the one favored by the popular press. Most human populations spend the majority of the annual year fishing, so terrestrial hunting often involves slow, frequently small, terrestrial vertebrates that can be found nearby. Shouldn’t the definition of hunting be inclusive enough so that it is something that happens across human cultures? The concern with defining hunting narrowly–solitary stalking of large, terrestrial mammals—is that almost no humans do this activity regularly, so it becomes unhelpful for better understanding how humans manage the complexity of gaining access to resources every day across changing seasons. A broader definition of hunting allows it to have some meaning in multiple cultural contexts; the more narrow definition does little to help our understanding of day-to-day resource allocation in small scale societies across the world.
Anderson et al.’s sample uses ethnographic records that discuss gender. If ethnographers who look for gender also are more likely to notice when women go hunting, that is something to take seriously about the role of ethnographers in understanding human behavior, but it does not simultaneously mean that the method of sampling itself is wrong. Anderson et al. state that they searched the literature for a global sample of groups that had writings about the gender of people acquiring terrestrial animals. Other cross-sectional analyses of the ethnographic literature (e.g. Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods) have even smaller samples given that not all ethnographers record information on children. In the case of Anderson et al., not all people note the gender of workers and as such the sample was limited based on that, as is described by their methodology.
Additionally, in regards to issues of sex and gender, there is no impedance to people of the female sex stalking their large prey, since it clearly happens in some cultures. Additionally, in many small-scale human groups, gender-identity changes throughout a life time; therefore, some “women” hunt at varying points across their life cycle, not only at certain seasons, but prior to getting married, and particularly post-menopausally. The most important issue at stake is how flexible human societies and cultures actually are. There is no “Paleolithic” or “Hunter-Gatherer” identity that is set in stone. What sets humans apart is their incredible flexibility and persistence throughout challenging ecological conditions. Rigid roles and habits are not evidenced by human cultural diversity.
Something for kids interested in gender roles can be found here!
Dr Cara Wall-Scheffler 