"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> > *However,
> > interpretation of this information can often
>
> ...not always...

often

Main Entry: of·ten
: many times : FREQUENTLY
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...onary?va=often

Main Entry: fre·quent·ly
: at frequent or short intervals
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...&va=frequently

Main Entry: 2fre·quent
1 a : COMMON, USUAL b : happening at short intervals :
often repeated or occurring
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

> > be misleading, particularly
> > if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations
> > of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
> > meat-eating, could also be
>
> ...not are...

could - expresses possibility

> > the result of unrelated processes.*
>
> That gives a lot of wiggle room, but that's still not to say that the presence
> of stone tools and scraped bones are evidence of something other than early man
> or hominids were eating animal flesh. The very fact that such bones and tools
> are found localized rather than randomized is quite telling and is consistent
> with humanoid behavior. How many "related processes" can you cite which would be
> logically consistent with such piles of scraped bones and the presence of
> primitive stone tools?

But how many of those piles of bones have stone-tool scrape marks?

I'm not denying that meat was eaten when necessary, but that was
a behavioural adaptation, not anatomical, physiological or biological..

'An additional factor influencing the increasing amounts of meat in the
hominid diet may have been accentuated seasonality in the environment.
The dry season decreased resource variety and abundance, causing
many animals to divert their foraging strategies to exploit more of a
single food item, or a greater variety of foods they may not have
sought out before. These might include underground storage organs in
plants, nuts, or other specialty food items to compensate for an overall
decrease in resource abundance.'
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm

> > Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
> > depositional integrity."
>
> What leads you to believe that anthropologists or archaeologists routinely
> ignore surrounding matrices?

What leads you to believe that I believe that anthropologists
or archaeologists 'routinely ignore surrounding matrices'?

The, *your*, source, states- 'interpretation of this information can
often be misleading, particularly if taphonomy has not been adequately
investigated'.

routinely ignore =/= not been adequately investigated.