Brian Luke writes:
>There is a very provocative suggestion in Jim Mason's new book that
>hunting may have never been really for food. In cultures feeding
>themselves through gathering, men may have started hunting large mammals in
>order to achieve status within the tribe, that is, in
>order to offset the preponderance of esteem given to women because of
>their ability to generate new life ("you can have babies?--well,
>look at what WE can do!"). Hunting may have been, even at its
>historical roots, primarily for trophies, not for food. The original
>expression of womb envy.
An interesting theory, but it doesn't persuade. What about the Native
Americans who hunted buffalo on the plains? Could it be that they wanted
trophies, or did they need the meat, skins, sinews,in fact all parts of the
buffalo, as we are taught. There are lots of habitats where there isn't a hell
of a lot to gather, and so hunting makes sense.
used
