Woman Questions The Gender Norms We’ve Been Following Forever After Finding Out 30-50% Of Ancient Hunters Were Women, Goes Viral
InterviewWhat you think you know about ancient human history might be wrong. A significant number of hunters in prehistoric times may actually have been female. The theory that men and only men used to hunt has been put into question for decades. However, it’s only been relatively recently that the updated information about prehistoric gender roles and the division of labor has begun spreading among the public.
TikTok video creator @allie_202_ went viral on the internet after sharing this discovery with her viewers. Like most other people, Allie was shocked to discover that some prehistoric women used to hunt, too. She noted how our biases affect our perception, even in an area of study that should be objective, like archeology. Scroll down for Allie’s full video and thoughts, as well as to read how the internet reacted to her discovery.
Bored Panda reached out to Allie with a few questions about the viral video, and she was kind enough to answer them. Outside of TikTok, Allie has a variety of interests, including reading, singing, and ultimate frisbee. She is also the co-founder of Aggie House at UC Davis, a student-run housing shelter for students who are experiencing homelessness and domestic violence. Allie told us that when she learned that many ancient hunters were women, her first reaction was genuine shock.
“When I said I was ‘today years old’ in the TikTok I meant it—a couple of hours earlier I was sitting in a sociology class when the professor casually shared an interview about the discovery. She breezed right by it in class, and so I went home and started researching everything I could, and that led to the TikTok. I was mostly stunned that I had never heard about the discovery because it was released in 2020! I would’ve assumed I’d have heard of it by now.” Read on for the rest of the interview.
More info: TikTok | Instagram | YouTube | Linktree | AggieHouse.org
Allie went viral on TikTok after sharing that she recently learned how a large number of ancient hunters may have been female
Image credits: allie_202_
Image credits: William MacKenzie
‘The first things we learned about early human history is that men used to be hunters and women used to be gatherers’
‘So tell me why I was today years old when I found out that 30 to 50% of hunters may have been female this whole time?’
Image credits: Matthew Verdolivo, UC Davis IET Academic Technology
‘Flashback to 2020, a researcher from my university realized that the body they had just dug up with a bunch of hunting tools around it was the body of a female and they were like, “That is surprising. We should look into it.” They checked out data from 400 other burial sites and found that of the 27 hunters that had been dug up, 11 of them were female. That is a third of all the hunters, y’all. Obviously to the general public, this was like massive news.’
Image credits: nationalgeographic
Image credits: nationalgeographic
‘At the same time, people were going on TV saying, “Hold your horses, feminist-oriented archaeologists have known this for a really long time, y’all just weren’t listening.”‘
Image credits: france24
‘Here’s the deal. When it comes to archaeology and ancient history, in general, we’re always playing a little bit of a guessing game. Like, I’m not gonna sit here and pretend to know for sure whether females were hunters or not. What I will say with sociological certainty is that when we are evaluating science, we are always imprinting our own biases onto the data that we see, in that if archaeologists expect that only men were hunters, they’re going to look for evidence that supports that and it’s possible that females were hunters all this time, but that information could have just gone right over their heads.’
Image credits: allie_202_
You can watch Allie’s full video right over here
@allie_202_ Have we been getting ancient gender roles wrong this whole time? It’s possible! More archaeology will be needed to confirm or deny this theory :) Regardless of the outcome, this is a solid lesson in how our biases create blindspots… even for scientists. #women#gender#feminist#science#greenscreen#fyp#music#viral#us♬ JDM Trap Beat X Mr Smokey – Yan 394
Allie shared her thoughts with Bored Panda on why she believes the video went viral and resonated with so many people around the globe. “I think the video went viral for a couple of reasons. First, there’s the obvious shock factor,” she said.
“But second, women’s frustrations with being constantly overlooked come to a head with discoveries like these. If it is the case that women were frequent ancient hunters, then this has been an absolutely massive oversight by (almost) the entire fields of archaeology and ancient history for generations, and that can’t be taken lightly,” Allie shared her thoughts with us.
“It’s both frustrating and liberating to hear that something of this magnitude may have gone wrong simply because of gender bias.”
Allie revealed to Bored Panda that she has always “been obsessed with social activism.” Before TikTok, she actually never had any social media accounts.
“I do consider it a bit of a fluke that I have the platform I do today. But the app really does create the perfect environment for activist creators—it is a quick way to disperse really important content to an entire generation of international users,” she told us.
“The positive response from folks who follow me absolutely keeps me going.”
Most people still cling to the belief that all women used to be gatherers and only men hunted in prehistoric times. The general belief was that it would be difficult to hunt while taking care of children. However, this appears to be an oversimplified view of the past. It’s easy to understand and to put in a school history book, but it’s not the whole picture. The reality likely was far more nuanced.
Archeologist Randall Haas, from the University of California, and his team of researchers were excavating 9,000-year-old buried remains in the Andes Mountains of Peru back in 2018 when they came across a stunning discovery.
The person had been buried with a hunter’s stone tools. “He must have been a really great hunter, a really important person in society,” Haas told National Geographic that, at the time, he and his colleagues assumed that the hunter was male.
They were flabbergasted when a closer inspection of the bones revealed that they most likely belonged to a woman. This wasn’t a unique case, either.
After this discovery, a review of previously studied burials throughout the Americas revealed that 30 to 50% of big game hunters could have been women.
Pamela Geller, an archeologist at the University of Miami, had this to say to National Geographic: “With few exceptions, the researchers who study hunting and gathering groups—regardless of which continent they work on—presume that a sexual division of labor was universal and rigid.”
She continued: “And because it is commonsensical, they then have a hard time explaining why female-bodied individuals also bear the skeletal markers of hunting or have hunting tool kits as grave goods.”
The reality probably was that big game hunting required as many skilled, fit, capable adults to participate as possible. Regardless of gender. Archeologist Kathleen Sterling, from Binghamton University, noted that after a child is weaned, the mother would be able to help during big hunts. Moreover, they would be able to assist on hunts even while their children were still being breastfed, so long as some other members of the community would be willing to help nurse them.
In short, the idea is that prehistoric communities were far more flexible and adaptable than we all might have learned back in grade school. In a relatively low-tech period of history, pretty much everyone had to be willing to lend a helping hand where needed. It’s difficult to imagine the hyper-specialization of skills in a small community. Hence, a greater focus on egalitarianism than many would have assumed.
The University of Calgary points out that “ancient female hunters are an expectation, not a surprise.” That’s not to say that all prehistoric communities had female hunters, though. “Women are perfectly capable of hunting, yet in most hunter-gatherer societies they don’t do it very often.”
Here’s how some TikTok users reacted to the revelation that prehistoric women also hunted
The notion of traditional roles in human evolution is just so dumb and manipulative. Amazingly, humans evolved to survive and thrive in all kinds of situations. What's the selection pressure for women not being good at hunting? Or men not being able to raise children? Hunting genes being actively forced onto the y-chromosome, rather than simply existing on autosomes and being usable by both sexes, as needed. Yes - look at the majestic male lion that hunts for the lionesses, who raise the cubs. Erm... nope.
The selection pressure being the babies and being pregnant. I would assume that for around 9 months ( if not more ) per baby, females were unavailable for hunting especially big game hunting or proper hunting ( I mean they could check snares/trapes which were close). Men can raise children, but they didn't had ready available baby formulas so womens had to stay home anyway for feeding. Animals are different, animal babies are more independent,lots of them can walk/run after birth, they grow up more quickly. Lions are again different: a pack has very few males ,and much more females .
Load More Replies...Of course women hunted. We do now. Why would it be different then? Answer: Males in academic positions of power and social influence deciding to enforce their wishes for female norms on everything. Even the behavior of pinyon jays. B/c, y'know, females just can't be like that (except they are!). Also, men gathered nuts/berries/roots b/c duh, if they didn't, they'd starve. Our ancestors scavenged from the kills of other animals, too. It's not pleasant to imagine, perhaps, but our species realllllly needs a re-set on how it sees itself and its gender roles.
Humans didnt hunt that much actually (at first, after they did, the number of preys significantly dropped and they needed to start farming). They gathered seeds, berries, mushrooms etc. Then when they started hunting, some females had to stay behind if they had a newborn since the baby can cry. But males could look after them too. Everyone did everything and that explains why some of us for example have better sense of spotting the difference between colours: those who gathered much, also needed to know what was poisonous and what was not, aka, colour of the berry etc. Source: elementary, middle- and highschool books.
Pre-agricultural societies hunted as well as gathering. If prey numbers declined in one area, they simply upped and moved elsewhere. There were not enough humans to do lasting damage to the populations they preyed upon.
Load More Replies...My favorite story of an archaeological find is when a group found a room with a bunch of discs. They couldn't figure it out, but a female archaeologist walked in and said, "oh, that's a loom."
Where did you hear that? I am an archaeologist and no archaeologist would not recognise loom weights if they saw some.
Load More Replies...For those truly interested and without any ulterior motive, it must be noted that these American studies have been hugely criticized. There is no expertise in this area in the states, all the experts are in Europe and Asia for a good reason: that’s where the prehistoric sites are. Their conclusions were deemed to be poor (at best) and definitely not conclusive. But the worst part might be the anachronistic interpretation that is ridiculous.
50 years ago the headline for this was "Archeology proved that hungry women will do anything for food"
More and more graves containing weapons are turning out to be those of females on closer reexamination.
Seriously, when we teach this to students we do not mention gender roles because a hunter-gatherer society is considered the most equal. You don't work together, you don't eat. You were usually tasked with what job you could do the best because ancient humans didn't have time to coddle or wallow, they had to survive. Also, many ancient cultures were matriarchal in nature. Gender roles are dumb.
Sounds like all the other things archiologists got wrong. Two male bodies in one grave? They were best friends! Knives overhead on wooden beams? Must be some sort of religiouse ritual. A think that looks like a calendar but has only 28 days? Maybe to count the moon phases or something similar. And so on.
The Ballad of Mulan has this allegory: the buck-rabbit stomps the ground, the doe-rabbit has soft eyes—yet when they run side by side, who can tell them apart? Most people today are so far removed from survival conditions that they don't understand how arbitrary gender roles and family structures are when there's no agriculture.
Gathering was for those who were physically unable to hunt, the very young/old or injured, everyone capable of hunting hunted. A comment down below said male academics wanted to enforce their own beliefs about women. They wanted to keep women subservient so they simply covered up all our contributions to history.
It seems the more cushy our society got, the more gender roles become defined. Once upon a time, women did hard labor on the fields all day alongside the men. Then comes the industrial revolution, and the gender roles as we know them today came about. When you're trying to grow/hunt enough food because your survival depends on it, you don't have time for gender roles.
Well look at that... as it turns out, when your just worried about surviving at all, the person that's actually best for the job is the one that does it
The gendered division of society arose from the development of society into agriculture. I would say the misrepresentation comes from fictional movies and TV shows. The media often misrepresents facts in service of entertainment.
It was a time when we had not tamed our environment. Everyday was a fight for survival. There was no electricity or cars or modern creature comforts. Everyone contributed to staying alive, we did not have time to sit and complain about language, gender identity or any of the nonsense we engage in at present because of how comfortable and relatively easy life is today.
When things were better (in some aspects of course) in primitive times than they are now... that's how you know that there's a problem.
I was literally talking about this the other day. Thank you for this
I don't understand why mostly men see women as not being physically able to do most of the stuff they do. So as a woman in just supposed to ignore my entire hardworking bloodline (stone masons, house builders,, etc)? I'm supposed to ignore my natural instincts to fix things and be handy? Nah, I'm good. I'm gonna continue learning from my dad, who taught me how to change a tire and change multiple parts of the car, and other stuff as well.
Ugh, so many problems with this. There is plenty of proof there were female hunters, but any statement about percentages is already problematic. Only 27 of over 400 graves had hunting tools in them? Were other funerary objects in the other burials? Assuming a profession based on funerary objects is a bad idea in general. What hunting tools are in the burial? Are they for big game or small game? This is important as the article simply suggests that both genders "hunted equally" so to speak. In surviving hunter gatherer societies we usually see a division of labor, because women are basically constantly pregnant or nursing a toddler, so they usually stay closer to the camp and spend their time gathering, small game hunting, fishing, caring for livestock, fixing stuff, creating stuff or simply vibing. Next she implies that this was a massive oversight from (almost) the whole field. Well, it wasn't.
It's known for decades that women were also hunting, but it looks like that news didn't go to wherever she lives.
Load More Replies...Anyone even slightly surprised by this doesn't know what it is to be a woman and that it's likely been that way throughout the history of the world. Men only step up when it suits them personally to do so. And when men drop the ball, guess who's there to pick it up. I suppose next we're going to be shocked that there are actually societies in the world where it's primarily women and the only purpose men serve is procreation. People have had their heads firmly planted up their own asses about this because men have made it so. Come on, when will everybody realize how deeply the manipulation of the patriarchy goes? No woman reading this article should be surprised in the least, unless they are still drinking the Kool-Aid we've all been fed almost from the beginning of humankind.
This is not new information. I still know plenty of female hunters.
It's stupid, nobody who know the subject generalize like this, only people who know nothing about. So if you follow only those people who know nothing, you would be surprised and ironically, perpetuate the same stereotype you want to prevent.......
Especially with comment as delude and caricatural as the one show here... People have a lot of difficulties making nuances.
Load More Replies...The notion of traditional roles in human evolution is just so dumb and manipulative. Amazingly, humans evolved to survive and thrive in all kinds of situations. What's the selection pressure for women not being good at hunting? Or men not being able to raise children? Hunting genes being actively forced onto the y-chromosome, rather than simply existing on autosomes and being usable by both sexes, as needed. Yes - look at the majestic male lion that hunts for the lionesses, who raise the cubs. Erm... nope.
The selection pressure being the babies and being pregnant. I would assume that for around 9 months ( if not more ) per baby, females were unavailable for hunting especially big game hunting or proper hunting ( I mean they could check snares/trapes which were close). Men can raise children, but they didn't had ready available baby formulas so womens had to stay home anyway for feeding. Animals are different, animal babies are more independent,lots of them can walk/run after birth, they grow up more quickly. Lions are again different: a pack has very few males ,and much more females .
Load More Replies...Of course women hunted. We do now. Why would it be different then? Answer: Males in academic positions of power and social influence deciding to enforce their wishes for female norms on everything. Even the behavior of pinyon jays. B/c, y'know, females just can't be like that (except they are!). Also, men gathered nuts/berries/roots b/c duh, if they didn't, they'd starve. Our ancestors scavenged from the kills of other animals, too. It's not pleasant to imagine, perhaps, but our species realllllly needs a re-set on how it sees itself and its gender roles.
Humans didnt hunt that much actually (at first, after they did, the number of preys significantly dropped and they needed to start farming). They gathered seeds, berries, mushrooms etc. Then when they started hunting, some females had to stay behind if they had a newborn since the baby can cry. But males could look after them too. Everyone did everything and that explains why some of us for example have better sense of spotting the difference between colours: those who gathered much, also needed to know what was poisonous and what was not, aka, colour of the berry etc. Source: elementary, middle- and highschool books.
Pre-agricultural societies hunted as well as gathering. If prey numbers declined in one area, they simply upped and moved elsewhere. There were not enough humans to do lasting damage to the populations they preyed upon.
Load More Replies...My favorite story of an archaeological find is when a group found a room with a bunch of discs. They couldn't figure it out, but a female archaeologist walked in and said, "oh, that's a loom."
Where did you hear that? I am an archaeologist and no archaeologist would not recognise loom weights if they saw some.
Load More Replies...For those truly interested and without any ulterior motive, it must be noted that these American studies have been hugely criticized. There is no expertise in this area in the states, all the experts are in Europe and Asia for a good reason: that’s where the prehistoric sites are. Their conclusions were deemed to be poor (at best) and definitely not conclusive. But the worst part might be the anachronistic interpretation that is ridiculous.
50 years ago the headline for this was "Archeology proved that hungry women will do anything for food"
More and more graves containing weapons are turning out to be those of females on closer reexamination.
Seriously, when we teach this to students we do not mention gender roles because a hunter-gatherer society is considered the most equal. You don't work together, you don't eat. You were usually tasked with what job you could do the best because ancient humans didn't have time to coddle or wallow, they had to survive. Also, many ancient cultures were matriarchal in nature. Gender roles are dumb.
Sounds like all the other things archiologists got wrong. Two male bodies in one grave? They were best friends! Knives overhead on wooden beams? Must be some sort of religiouse ritual. A think that looks like a calendar but has only 28 days? Maybe to count the moon phases or something similar. And so on.
The Ballad of Mulan has this allegory: the buck-rabbit stomps the ground, the doe-rabbit has soft eyes—yet when they run side by side, who can tell them apart? Most people today are so far removed from survival conditions that they don't understand how arbitrary gender roles and family structures are when there's no agriculture.
Gathering was for those who were physically unable to hunt, the very young/old or injured, everyone capable of hunting hunted. A comment down below said male academics wanted to enforce their own beliefs about women. They wanted to keep women subservient so they simply covered up all our contributions to history.
It seems the more cushy our society got, the more gender roles become defined. Once upon a time, women did hard labor on the fields all day alongside the men. Then comes the industrial revolution, and the gender roles as we know them today came about. When you're trying to grow/hunt enough food because your survival depends on it, you don't have time for gender roles.
Well look at that... as it turns out, when your just worried about surviving at all, the person that's actually best for the job is the one that does it
The gendered division of society arose from the development of society into agriculture. I would say the misrepresentation comes from fictional movies and TV shows. The media often misrepresents facts in service of entertainment.
It was a time when we had not tamed our environment. Everyday was a fight for survival. There was no electricity or cars or modern creature comforts. Everyone contributed to staying alive, we did not have time to sit and complain about language, gender identity or any of the nonsense we engage in at present because of how comfortable and relatively easy life is today.
When things were better (in some aspects of course) in primitive times than they are now... that's how you know that there's a problem.
I was literally talking about this the other day. Thank you for this
I don't understand why mostly men see women as not being physically able to do most of the stuff they do. So as a woman in just supposed to ignore my entire hardworking bloodline (stone masons, house builders,, etc)? I'm supposed to ignore my natural instincts to fix things and be handy? Nah, I'm good. I'm gonna continue learning from my dad, who taught me how to change a tire and change multiple parts of the car, and other stuff as well.
Ugh, so many problems with this. There is plenty of proof there were female hunters, but any statement about percentages is already problematic. Only 27 of over 400 graves had hunting tools in them? Were other funerary objects in the other burials? Assuming a profession based on funerary objects is a bad idea in general. What hunting tools are in the burial? Are they for big game or small game? This is important as the article simply suggests that both genders "hunted equally" so to speak. In surviving hunter gatherer societies we usually see a division of labor, because women are basically constantly pregnant or nursing a toddler, so they usually stay closer to the camp and spend their time gathering, small game hunting, fishing, caring for livestock, fixing stuff, creating stuff or simply vibing. Next she implies that this was a massive oversight from (almost) the whole field. Well, it wasn't.
It's known for decades that women were also hunting, but it looks like that news didn't go to wherever she lives.
Load More Replies...Anyone even slightly surprised by this doesn't know what it is to be a woman and that it's likely been that way throughout the history of the world. Men only step up when it suits them personally to do so. And when men drop the ball, guess who's there to pick it up. I suppose next we're going to be shocked that there are actually societies in the world where it's primarily women and the only purpose men serve is procreation. People have had their heads firmly planted up their own asses about this because men have made it so. Come on, when will everybody realize how deeply the manipulation of the patriarchy goes? No woman reading this article should be surprised in the least, unless they are still drinking the Kool-Aid we've all been fed almost from the beginning of humankind.
This is not new information. I still know plenty of female hunters.
It's stupid, nobody who know the subject generalize like this, only people who know nothing about. So if you follow only those people who know nothing, you would be surprised and ironically, perpetuate the same stereotype you want to prevent.......
Especially with comment as delude and caricatural as the one show here... People have a lot of difficulties making nuances.
Load More Replies...





















99
61