pearl wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>*However,
>>>interpretation of this information can often
>>
>>...not always...
>
> often

CAN often doesn't imply frequently. It means there's a possibility -- which is
fully unsubstantiated by example in the context of the claim.

> 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

Exactly. What is the frequency of that possibility as it occurs in specific
situations? Why doesn't the text note any examples to substantiate the call for
caution?

>>>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,

Or when desired.

> but that was
> a behavioural adaptation, not anatomical, physiological or biological..

That's how those all other changes usually start in human evolution. Natural
selection *can* occur through a genetic mutation, but that's rare since most
genetic mutations are (by themselves) deleterious. Humans will probably never
grow sharp claws or develop mouths full of canines because we used technology to
leap over the slow and cumbersome process of genetic adaptation. Cooking is
another such example, and the difference in the digestability in cooked meat
versus raw pretty much levels the evolutionary paths -- and outcomes -- required
by other animals.

> 'An additional factor influencing the increasing amounts of meat in the
> hominid diet may have been accentuated seasonality in the environment.

IIRC, the issue is about humans -- modern man -- not earlier hominids.

> 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

Irrelevant digression.

>>>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'?

Answer my question.

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

Since such discoveries are pored over and endlessly debated internally and
externally, I don't accept that the conclusions of anthropologists are "often
misleading." Perhaps early hypotheses formed when sites are dug can be
misleading, but that's why the scientific method doesn't make rigid conclusions
even after testing them.

> routinely ignore =/= not been adequately investigated.

Name me one study of tool-scraped bone piles in which such findings are
inadequately investigated.