It is easy for Western-educated scholars to fall into the trap of viewing hunter-gatherer social and sexual arrangements in the light of Western values.[editorializing] One common arrangement is the sexual division of labour, with women doing most of the gathering, while men concentrate on big game hunting. It might be imagined that this arrangement oppresses women, keeping them in the domestic sphere. However, according to some observers, hunter-gatherer women would not understand this interpretation. Since childcare is collective, with every baby having multiple mothers and male carers, the domestic sphere is not atomised or privatised but an empowering place to be.[citation needed] In all hunter-gatherer societies, women appreciate the meat brought back to camp by men. An illustrative account is Megan Biesele's study of the southern African Ju/'hoan, 'Women Like Meat'. Recent archaeological research suggests that the sexual division of labor was the fundamental organisational innovation that gave Homo sapiens the edge over the Neanderthals, allowing our ancestors to migrate from Africa and spread across the globe.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What group members are the big game hunters?
Ah, so.. men

Having small population size is a characteristic almost universally inherent to apex predators, humans and dogs by far the most blatant exceptions. Low numbers wouldn't be a problem for apex predators if there was an abundance of prey and no competition or niche overlap, a scenario that is rarely, if ever, encountered in the wild. The competitive exclusion principle states that if two species' ecological niches overlap, there is a very high likelihood of competition as both species are in direct competition for the same resources. This factor alone could lead to the extirpation of one or both species, but is compounded by the added factor of prey abundance.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What principle states that when two prey species have small populations they will compete with each other?
Ah, so.. unanswerable

On 29 May 1842, Victoria was riding in a carriage along The Mall, London, when John Francis aimed a pistol at her but the gun did not fire; he escaped. The following day, Victoria drove the same route, though faster and with a greater escort, in a deliberate attempt to provoke Francis to take a second aim and catch him in the act. As expected, Francis shot at her, but he was seized by plain-clothes policemen, and convicted of high treason. On 3 July, two days after Francis's death sentence was commuted to transportation for life, John William Bean also tried to fire a pistol at the Queen, but it was loaded only with paper and tobacco and had too little charge. Edward Oxford felt that the attempts were encouraged by his acquittal in 1840. Bean was sentenced to 18 months in jail. In a similar attack in 1849, unemployed Irishman William Hamilton fired a powder-filled pistol at Victoria's carriage as it passed along Constitution Hill, London. In 1850, the Queen did sustain injury when she was assaulted by a possibly insane ex-army officer, Robert Pate. As Victoria was riding in a carriage, Pate struck her with his cane, crushing her bonnet and bruising her forehead. Both Hamilton and Pate were sentenced to seven years' transportation.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What person recieved a seven year transportation sentence for striking Victoria on the head with his cane?
Ah, so..
Robert Pate