Did division of labor defeat the Neanderthals?
September 27, 2010 Leave a comment
According to some anthropologists, the classic depiction of Paleolithic man as a few strapping cavemen ganging up on a mammoth with their spears might need to be replaced with dioramas of women gathering seeds or a man scraping an animal carcass from the ground to take home for dinner. In addition, this division of labor between men and women may have given Homo sapiens the upper hand when it came to their competition with Neanderthals in the Upper Paleolithic, about 45,000 to 10,000 years ago.
You may be familiar with some of the usual reasons proposed for the extinction of the Neanderthals and the supremacy of H. sapiens in the competition for resources: The wily H. sapiens swarmed the Neanderthals, defeating them in war with superior weaponry or a greater ability to resist disease or defy climate change. Some experts have proposed that a combination of these climatological and cultural factors may have contributed to the Neanderthal’s loss. But until now, no one had focused on differences in division of labor as giving H. sapiens the advantage.
The crushing hand of the Neanderthal woman
Evidence shows that Neanderthal men and women may have shared similar robust builds. In addition to bone finds that suggest as much, a researcher who focuses on hand mechanics has found that the Neanderthal female hand could exert as much force as that of a male. In addition, Neanderthal home sites rarely include artifacts such as tools for grinding seeds or trapping small animals, or even evidence of clothing production, such as needles. Thus, it seems that the Neanderthals may have, as a group—men, women, and children—spent their time focusing on one thing: big game.
Hunting a large animal that has defense ranging from tooth to antler to hoof to claw is a dangerous business, more so when your only weapon is a pointed stone attached to the end of a stick. Neanderthals got a big payoff when their spears worked, however, in the form of calorie- and protein-rich meat for the group. Evidence suggests that the whole group participated in this dangerous task—the bones of females as well as males bear the signs of many fractures, possibly the result of this dangerous lifestyle. Women and children may have been responsible for driving game or forging escape routes should the angered and frightened animal have turned on the group.
The pitfalls of group big-game hunting
This focus on a single kind of food source can have predictable consequences. In times of scarcity, the Neanderthals lacked other options. If they had no training or skills to obtain other food sources, then scarce big game translated into scarce Neanderthals. Homo sapiens, on the other hand, may have developed a division of labor between men and women before emerging from Africa 150,000 years after the Neanderthals, equipped with women who knew how to make protective clothing, trap small animals, and collect and prepare seeds and vegetation, and men with advanced weaponry who could efficiently hunt game. In addition, these people may have relied on scavenging as well as hunting to boost their food supply.
Division of labor gave H. sapiens the upper (non-crushing) hand?
The division of labor, which in some societies was reversed or not allocated in the same way between men and women, allowed Homo sapiens to adjust when food was scarce and boom when food was plentiful, or so some researchers now argue. These archaic humans could use their clothes-making skills to handle climate change and their efficient allocation of time resources to bring in food simultaneously from different sources, even when times were tough. Their booming population may have given them the numbers they needed to outcompete the Neanderthals.
…Or maybe not
Some researchers disagree with this hypothesis, suggesting that evidence of a division of labor dates back one or two million years, and there have been some predictable references in the news media to men’s and women’s roles today. One of the authors of the “division of labor” study explicitly cautions that what was beneficial 40,000 years ago isn’t necessarily a guide to what is beneficial today. Traits that provide a competitive edge are after all entirely reliant on context: What’s good in one environment may not necessarily be that helpful in a different set of circumstances.