• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Well, the theory is that persistence hunting was one of the main hunting strategies during a large portion of human evolution before ranged weapons were invented. So it may well have relevance for distribution of labor between men and women during most of human prehistory, and therefore our evolutionary psychology.

      • Hegar@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        persistence hunting was one of the main hunting strategies during a large portion of human evolution before ranged weapons were invented

        How do ranged weapons invalidate persistence hunting?

        If you’re trying to chase down an animal till it’s exhausted, I think you’d want to be throwing stuff at it to injure or at least to keep it moving.

        Also, was there a time before ranged weapons? As soon as humans have weapons we have ranged weapons because we can throw. Atlatls and slings - tools to help you throw sticks and stones - wouldn’t have been developed if we weren’t already throwing sticks and stones at things.

        • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          How do ranged weapons invalidate persistence hunting?

          Even with a modern bow it’s still really difficult to sneak close enough to a deer to reliably make a kill shot. You’re not going to sneak close enough to poke it with a spear and with game that size, throwing rocks is not really an option either because that wont kill it. Something like axis deer is quick enough to even dodge a modern arrow.

          The reality is that the animal will notice you and it will out-sprint you as well but it wont outrun a human on a long distance. When the animal is exhausted and no more able to run, then you can then stick your spear in it.

    • Kethal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The OP article said the same thing, and like this article, it provides no evidence for the statement. I looked for some numbers, and for world bests, men had better performance in every category I found. The study linked below looked at speeds over decades and in every case men had better performance. Both men and women have improved over time, and as a percentage the difference is getting smaller, but in absolute difference it appears the same. It is an admittedly brief search, but I can’t find evidence in the form of measured times (not conjecture about estrogen) indicating at all that women perform better in ultra marathons. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870311

      • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Those are athletes. To really know, you would need to use average people going for the same time/distance at more moderate speeds. While the fastest men are probably faster than the fastest women across most any distance, I doubt we have good data on average men and women going the same distances.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That is definitely impressive stamina. An Olympic marathoner can average 12mph for around 2 hours and an “average” marathoner does 8mph, but that is on a road or track. Savannah is one of the few terrains where you could approach those speeds. I would believe they could go 50 miles on a hunt. Trying to run far in sand or snow, through heavy vegetation, or up and down mountains drastically increases the energy it takes (and the max distance and speed you are capable of). That’s a whole other thing.