Sex, Gender, and the Behavior of Early Homo 177transported away from the original location where they
were obtained—again, the pattern that we would expect
if they were “stolen” from the kill of some other animal.
The stone tools, too, were made of raw material procured
at distances of up to 60 kilometers from where they were
used to process pieces of carcasses. Finally, the incred-
ible density of bones at some of the sites and patterns of
weathering indicate that the sites were used repeatedly for
perhaps five to fifteen years.
By contrast, historically known and contemporary
hunters typically bring whole carcasses back to camp or
form camp around a large animal in order to fully pro-
cess it. After processing, neither meat nor marrow (the
fatty nutritious tissue inside long bones where blood cells
are produced) are left. The bones themselves are broken
up not just to get at the marrow (as at Oldowan sites)
but to fabricate tools and other objects of bone (unlike at
Oldowan sites).
The picture that emerges of our Oldowan forebears,
then, is of scavengers, getting their meat from the Lower
Paleolithic equivalent of modern-day roadkill, taking the
spoils of their scavenging to particular places where tools,
and the raw materials for making them (often procured
from faraway sources), had been stockpiled in advance
for the purpose of butchering. At the least, this may have
required fabrication of carrying devices such as net bags
and trail signs of the sort (described in Chapter 4) used
by modern bonobos. Quite likely, H. habilis continued to
sleep in trees or rocky cliffs, as do modern small-bodied
terrestrial or semi-terrestrial primates, in order to be safe
from predators.
Microscopic analysis of cut marks on bones has re-
vealed that the earliest members of the genus Homo were
actually tertiary scavengers—that is, third in line to get
something from a carcass after a lion or leopard managed
to kill some prey. After the initial kill, ferocious scaven-
gers, such as hyenas and vultures, would swarm the rotting
carcass. Next, our tool-wielding ancestors would scav-
enge for food, breaking open the shafts of long bones to
get at the rich marrow inside. A small amount of marrow
is a concentrated source of both protein and fat. Muscle
alone, particularly from lean game animals, contains very
little fat. Furthermore, as shown in the following Original
Study, evolving humans may even have been prey them-
selves, and this selective pressure imposed by predators
played a role in brain expansion.contributions of female paleoanthropologists.) The di-
vision of labor among contemporary food foragers, like
all gender relations, does not conform to fixed bound-
aries defined through biologically based sex differences.
Instead, it is influenced by cultural and environmental
factors. It appears likely that the same principle applied
to our human ancestors. Uncovering such biases is as im-
portant as any new discovery for interpreting the fossil
record.
Evidence from chimpanzees and bonobos casts further
doubt on the notion of a strict sex-based division of labor
in human evolutionary history. As described in Chapter 4,
female chimpanzees have been observed participating in
hunting expeditions, even leading the behavior of hunt-
ing with spears. Meat gained from the successful hunt of
a smaller mammal is shared within the group whether
provided by a male or a female chimpanzee. Among bono-
bos, females hunt regularly and share meat as well as plant
foods with one another. In other words, patterns of food
sharing and hunting behaviors in these apes are variable,
lending credit to the notion that culture plays a role in es-
tablishing these behaviors. Similarly, in our evolutionary
history it is likely that culture—the shared learned be-
haviors of each early Homo group—played a role in food-
sharing behaviors rather than strict biological differences
between the sexes.
No evidence exists to establish definitively how pro-
cured foods may have been shared among our ancestors.
When the evidence is fragmentary, as it is in all paleoan-
thropological reconstructions of behavior, gaps are all
too easily filled in with behaviors that seem “natural” and
familiar, such as the contemporary gender roles of the
paleoanthropologist.
Hunters or Scavengers?
As biases in paleoanthropological interpretations were
addressed, it became clear that early members of the
genus Homo were not hunters of large game. Assem-
blages of Oldowan tools and broken animal bones tell
us that both H. habilis and large carnivorous animals
were active at these locations. In addition to marks on
the bones made by slicing, scraping, and chopping with
stone tools, there are tooth marks from gnawing. Some
of the gnawing marks overlie the butcher marks, indi-
cating that enough flesh remained on the bones after
Homo was done with them to attract other carnivores.
In other cases, though, the butcher marks overlie the
tooth marks of carnivores, indicating that the animals
got there first. This is what we would expect if H. habilis
was scavenging the kills of other animals, rather than
doing its own killing.
Further, areas that appear to be ancient butchering
sites lack whole carcasses; apparently, only parts were
marrow The tissue inside of long bones where blood cells are
produced.
tertiary scavenger In a food chain, the third animal group
(second to scavenge) to obtain meat from a kill made by a
predator.