"Rubystars" > wrote in message . ..
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> m...
> > <..>
> > > I wonder what all those stone tools were for then, and the bone piles
> with
> > > scraper marks.
> >
> > 'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study of
> > correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals which
> > existed in particular types of environments are carefully extracted
> > and catalogued as fluctuations in the biosphere over a period of time.
> > Added to this is the use of oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide
> > temperature fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind)
> > dust deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate
> > change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point towards
> > an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater seasonality
> > during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras. Reduction in forested
> > areas most likely spelled to end for many Miocene hominoid species.
> > The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland
> > environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator
> > defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these *behavioral*
> > adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat
> > in the diet, to *augment* plant resources.
>
> This happened in pre-human hominids. Humans have always eaten meat.

ALL humans, everywhere?

> > Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary
> > composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found.
> > Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources.
> > One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of
> > different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of
> > hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association
> > with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and
> > consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. *However,
> > interpretation of this information can often 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 the result of unrelated processes.*
> > Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
> > depositional integrity."
> > http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm
> > (*emphasis added)
>
> Sometimes the volume of evidence itself is evidence enough for reasonable
> people.

'interpretation of this information can often be misleading'.

"pearl" > wrote in message
<snip>
> > This happened in pre-human hominids. Humans have always eaten meat.
>
> ALL humans, everywhere?

Obviously not everyone everywhere, or we wouldn't have so many vegetarians
around the world, would we?

However, as a species, human beings have always consumed meat, from befiore
the very beginning.

> > > Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary
> > > composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found.
> > > Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources.
> > > One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of
> > > different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of
> > > hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association
> > > with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and
> > > consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. *However,
> > > interpretation of this information can often 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 the result of unrelated processes.*
> > > Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
> > > depositional integrity."
> > > http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm
> > > (*emphasis added)
> >
> > Sometimes the volume of evidence itself is evidence enough for
reasonable
> > people.
>
> 'interpretation of this information can often be misleading'.

I don't think it's misleading when you find bones cracked open to get at the
marrow:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...23/MN62659.DTL

"
"One antelope leg bone, for example, clearly shows the marks of deliberate
cutting and a cracked area that could only have been made by pounding it
with a rock, according to White, And a fragment of the animal's skull showed
where a sharp tool had obviously cut away the tongue -- presumably a
delicacy. "



-Rubystars