On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:10:24 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
GM>Over the past 20-30 years, anthropology has claimed that there was
>no hunting prior to the advent of modern Homo sapiens.
Glenn here erects a straw-man. In *none* of may anthropology texts have I
ever read that "there was no hunting prior to the advent of modern Homo
sapiens."
For example, my daughter's university anthropology text says that
Neandertals hunted:
"Neandertal craftspeople elaborated and diversified traditional methods,
and there is some indication of development in the specialization of tools
used in skin and meat preparation, HUNTING, woodworking, and perhaps
hafting (attaching handles to tools)." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R.,
"Introduction to Physical Anthropology," 1991, p527. My emphasis.)
Indeed, even Glenn's references below do not support his claim "that there
was no hunting prior to the advent of modern Homo sapiens".
GM>Schick and Toth state,
>
>"Richard Klein of the University of Chicago has pointed out that it is
>unlikely that Oldowan hominids could have been very competent big game
>hunters, as the archaeological evidence suggests that even much later
>hominids were not yet very adept at large-scale-predation. Relatively
>efficient human hunting may be a fairly recent evolutionary phenomenon,
>developing only within the last few tens of thousands of years." ~ Kathy D.
>Schick and Nicholas Toth, Making Silent Stones Speak, (New York: Simon
>and Schuster, 1993), p. 207-208
Being not "very competent big game hunters" and not "very adept at large-
scale-predation" and not being "Relatively efficient" at "hunting" is not the
same as doing "no hunting".
GM>"Taking scavenged food back to living sites was probably a characteristic
>of hominid behavior by the Upper Acheulean and on into the Middle Stone
>Age of Africa (or the Mousterian in Europe)." ~ Lewis Binford, In Pursuit of
>the Past, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1983), p. 75
This doesn't support Glenn's claim either. A "characteristic of" "Taking
scavenged food back to living sites" does not mean that there was"no
hunting".
Indeed in Binford's own words, all he claimed was that hunting and
gathering of hominids was "different" from that of fully modern Homo
sapiens, not that: they did "no hunting."
"I became convinced that the organization of the hunting and gathering
way of life among these relatively recent ancestors was quite different than
that among fully modern Homo sapiens...If this was true then the almost
'human' lifeways depicted in the 'consensus' view of the very early hominids
stood out as an extremely unlikely condition." (Binford L., "Human
Ancestors: Changing Views of their Behavior," Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology, 4, 1985, pp292-327. , in Leakey R., "The Origin of
Humankind," 1995, p67).
GM>The Mousterian was the tool types made prior to 40,000 years ago.
>
>The implication of this 'scavenging' view of ancient Neanderthals and H.
>erectus was to denigrate the intelligence of those ancient men.
Trying to arrive at a *correct* view of "ancient Neanderthals and H.
erectus" abilities is not "denigration". It is *science*.
GM>Hunting
>requires planning, foresight and a complex interpersonal interactions. And
>when anthropologists believed that Neandertals and others were merely
>scavengers, they could be relegated to a lower status.
The strawman continues. No "anthropologists" AFAIK "believed that
Neandertals and others were merely scavengers". Those quoted by Glenn
don't say it.
GM>Christians have followed this lead for theological reasons.
Glenn has his *own* "theological" (or philosophical) "reasons" for trying
to make such "Christians" look bad. That clears the way for his views!
GM>Hugh Ross has claimed that
>ancient hominids like neanderthals were merely 'bipedal mammals'. (see Hugh
>Ross, "Link with Neanderthals Cut by Computer," Facts & Faith, 9:3, 3rd
>Qtr. 1995, p. 22)
Another strawman. In the reference cited, Ross does not even use the word
"merely":
"In other words the Neanderthals must have been a bipedal mammalian
species created a few tens of thousands of years before Adam and Eve."
(Ross H, "Link With Neanderthals Cut by Computer," Facts & Faith,
Reasons To Believe: Pasadena CA, Vol. 9, No. 3, Third Quarter 1995, p2)
Indeed, elsewhere in the same journal, Ross calls them "fairly intelligent
bipedal primates":
"Thus, the discovery of tools dating back 53,000 to 60,000 and even
89,000 years simply establishes that fairly intelligent bipedal primates, not
necessarily humans, inhabited the earth. (Ross H, "Art and Fabric Shed
New Light on Human History," Facts & Faith, Reasons To Believe:
Pasadena CA, Vol. 9, No. 3, Third Quarter 1995, p2)
GM>But this view changed dramatically when Theime discovered hunting
>spears made by men PRIOR to the time that Neanderthals lived.
See above. It wasn't even a "view" that there was "no hunting prior to the
advent of modern Homo sapiens." Here is another quote from an older
antrhopology textbook (but within "the past 20-30 years"), which assumed
that even Australopithecines hunted in groups:
"But let us consider a Pleistocene hominid like Australopithecus. This
creature was a medium-sized anthropoid with smaller front teeth and
cleverer hands than most others. It was faced with a massive change in
ecozone. The new adaptive zone included a change in ecology from thick
forest cover to open bush and savanna and a change in primate social
structure from a food- gathering group to an organized hunting group. It
seems likely that this hominid was able to respond by developing a posture
and a mode of locomotion that enabled it to see over tall savanna grass and
to follow herds of ungulates for long distances over the African, and
probably Asian, veldts. The development of cooperative hunting groups
very likely provided the selection pressure, the selective advantage, that
emphasized skillful use of the hands, symboling, and humanoid social
structure. Formation of hunting groups probably emphasized toolmaking,
an ability that depends on the unique faculty of symboling." (Buettner-
Janusch J., "Physical Anthropology: A Perspective," 1973, p325)
Indeed, the NATURE article cited by Glenn, says there *was* before this
discovery already evidence of hunting at that time:
"Nearby peat deposits of a similar age were already known to contain
remarkably well-preserved remains of large and small animals, fresh-
looking stone tools, and even wooden implements. These included short,
notched pieces of wood which may be the oldest-known handles for
holding stone tools, and a longer piece, 0.8 to 1.0 m long and sharpened at
each end. This item might be a 'throwing stick', possibly for stunning small
prey, or a stabbing spear for killing wounded or cornered animals at close
range." (Dennell R., "The world's oldest spears," Nature, Vol. 385, 27
February 1997, p767)
Indeed, the article says that "a fairly complete spear" dated "115,000 to
125,000 years ago" had already been found in Germany:
"a fairly complete spear from the last interglacial (115,000 to 125,000 years
ago) was found in 1948, inside an elephant skeleton at Lehringen,
Germany; and the tip of what might have been a spear was found at
Clacton, England, in 1911, in deposits comparable in age to those at
Schoningen. (Dennell R., 1997, p767).
Moreover, the article says that there is evidence of a "500,000-year-old"
spear-hole in a rhinoceros scapula:
"There is other new evidence for the use of spears in lower palaeolithic
Europe: one of the finds from the remarkably well-preserved 500,000-year-
old site of Boxgrove, England includes a rhinoceros scapula with a circular
hole that may have been made by a thrown spear." (Dennell R., 1997,
p767).
So for anthropologists to believe that Neandertals hunted with spears
400,000 years ago, can't be as "dramatic" as Glenn makes out.
GM>Robin Dennell wrote:
>
> "The implications of the Schoningen spears are no less extraordinary
>than the degree of their preservation. First, these are unquestionably
>spears, and second, as such they must have been used for hunting large
>mammals. Why are these simple inferences so significant to paleolithic
>archaeologists? The
>reason is simply that hunting has become profoundly unfashionable in
>discussions of the lower, and even Middle, Palaeolithic over the past
>twenty years. Until the 1960s, stone tools associated with large mammal
>remains were routinely explained as indicating the butchery of animals that
>had been hunted. Important examples were the initial interpretations of the
>very ancient 'living floors', 1.8 million years old, at Olduvai in
>Tanzania, and
>the alleged elephant hunters at the much younger, Middle Pleistocene sites
>of Torralba and Ambrona, Spain. Then came a long reappraisal of how these
>stone tools and hominid and other mammal remains were found together. This
>was driven initially by Brain's re-examination of the australopithecine
>deposits
>at Swartkrans, South Africa, by Binford's criticisms of the assumptions and
>methodologies used at Olduvai and, later, by patient analysis of cut-and
>gnawing-marks, surface weathering and skeletal parts frequency at Koobi
>Fora and Olduvai, often under the inspiration of the late Glynn Isaac.
> "By the early 1980s, few of the claims for big-game hunting in the
>Lower and even Middle Palaeolithic could be substantiated, as evidence was
>too disturbed, fragmented and poorly preserved to show deliberate,
>purposeful hunting. Scavenging by both carnivores and hominids seemed a
>more reasonable inference, and some even suggested that big-game hunting
>did not occur until the appearance of fully modern humans in the Upper
>Pleistocene, about 40,000 years ago.
Note that only "SOME..." (not all) "...suggested that big-game hunting did
not occur until the appearance of fully modern humans." Not only did *no
one* say that "there was NO hunting prior to the advent of modern Homo
sapiens" but only "SOME" merely "SUGGESTED that BIG-GAME
hunting did not occur until the appearance of fully modern humans."
Indeed, the main article says that "sophisticated hunting weapons were
common from...the Middle Pleistocene onwards":
"...well-balanced, sophisticated hunting weapons were common from an
early period of the Middle Pleistocene onwards." (Thieme H., "Lower
Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany," Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February
1997, p810)
GM>To fit this picture, the Clacton and
>Lehringen spears were down-graded to digging-sticks or, imaginatively,
>snow-probes for locating buried carcasses." ~ Robin Dennell, "The World's
>Oldest Spears," Nature 385(Feb. 27, 1997), p. 767
>**
>"The Schoningen spears now provide unambiguous evidence that large
animals
>were killed in this manner by 400,000 years ago.
I haven't seen the article, and I accept that these spears are good evidence
that "large animals were killed" by hominids using them, but I doubt that it
is "unambiguous evidence" that they were used for killing "large animals."
The spears might have been used for defence, although I concede that it is
unlikely they would not also be used for hunting.
GM>>"The spears have other exciting implications. First, the time and
>skill needed to make them: each is made from the trunk of a 30-year-old
>spruce tree; in each, the end with the tip come from the base of the trunk,
>where the wood is hardest; and each has the same proportions, with the
>center of gravity a third of the way from the sharp end, as in a modern
>javelin. These represent considerable investment of time and skill--in
>selecting an appropriate tree, in roughing out the design and in the final
>stages of shaping. In other words, these hominids were not living within a
>spontaneous 'five-minute culture', acting opportunistically in response to
>immediate situations. Rather, we see considerable depth of planning,
>sophistication of design, and patience in carving the wood, all of which
>have been attributed only to modern humans." ~ Robin Dennell, "The
World's
>Oldest Spears," Nature 385(Feb. 27, 1997), p. 767-768
This sounds a bit overdone. Finding a long, thin tree, cutting it down and
sharpening its end to make a spear, hardly seems like rocket-science.
Compared to what chimpanzees can do, it's impressive. But compared to
what "modern humans" did, its not impressive at all.
[...]
GM>I will stop here. To conclude, the denigration of Neanderthal abilities
>may finally come to an end. Vishnyatsky probably put it best:
Trying to arrive at a *correct* view of Neandertal abilities is not
"denigration".
GM>"The demonstration that the Kobeh hominids were successful hunters
implies
>that no fundamental difference existed between Neanderthals and
>anatomically modern humans as to their ability to hunt."
> ~ L. B. Vishnyatsky, "Comments," in Curtis W. Marean and Soo Yeun Kim,
>"Mousterian Large Mammal Remains from Kobeh Cave," Current
Anthropology,
>Supplement, 39(1998):79-113, p. 104
I personally have no problem if Neandertals could hunt using some limited
language ability. Indeed I just assumed they did hunt and was suprised by
Glenn's post that there was any controversy about it.
But having said that, I cannot see how Vishnyatsky can claim outright that
there were "no fundamental difference existed between Neanderthals and
anatomically modern humans as to their ability to hunt." Other
anthropologists have concluded from Neandertal sites that there *were*
such "fundamental differences". Tattersall, for example, cites Binford that
Neanderthal did not move around as much to exploit large, migratory big-
game herds:
"Binford also infers differences from modern people in the distribution of
Neanderthal sites. These do not occur in areas of extensive grasslands
where vast migrating herds moved great distances but in predictable
patterns, and where they were widely exploited by early modern people.
Instead, Neanderthal sites were concentrated in areas of varied vegetation
where the resources, if more limited, were also more constant and required
less foresight in their exploitation. Systematic hunting of large- bodied
mammals, Binford believes, is a monopoly of behaviorally modern Homo
sapiens. Whether or not they accept the rest of Binford's analysis this, at
least, is a conclusion which other archaeologists increasingly share."
(Tattersall I., "The Fossil Trail:," 1995, p210)
Stringer concurs, and adds that this hunting pattern led to less social
cohesion:
"There are other signs which divulge the distinctive nature of the
Neanderthals' lifestyle. Lewis Binford, of the Southern Methodist
University, has studied several sites and has suggested that hunters
presumably male - brought no small mammal bones back to their family
shelters: no rabbits, no foxes, and no rodents. Yet it is hard to imagine that
they were not eating these creatures, argues Binford, since every other
large carnivore does. The only likely explanation, therefore, is that they
must have been eating them in the field. Only large pieces of cadaver -
skulls or marrow bones - were returned to campsites, because they needed
to be heated on the communal fire. In other words, Neanderthals killed and
ate much more on their own. They were far less socially cohesive in their
behaviour than Homo sapiens." (Stringer C., & McKie R., "African
Exodus," 1997, p104)
Also, there is evidence that Neandertals worked much harder at staying
alive than Homo sapiens. That is, they were less efficient hunters than
Homo sapiens:
"Clearly modern humans migrated between various winter and summer
locations, while Neanderthals lived in sites the year round. And that is
crucial - for it's hard work to stay in the same place. The area becomes
depleted of nuts, berries, tubers and vegetables, and the local game - even
the gazelle - learn to avoid you. That is why hunter-gatherer tribes today
move around all the time. Neanderthals, on the other hand, would have had
to have travelled further and would have had to have worked harder to stay
in the same place. And if you have to search for many hours for food, there
would be no point in bringing back only a few berries or a couple of
potatoes. You want a deer or a gazelle, a high protein shot in return for all
your effort. It is the schlepp effect. You are not going to go schlepping
about for long distances unless there is good reward. And in the
Neanderthals' case that meant big game. They hunted more, but moved
their homes less than modern humans. We moved more, but hunted less."
(Stringer C., & McKie R., 1997, p102).
Indeed, that is assumed to be one of the main reasons that Neandertals are
extinct and there are 5 billion of us!
"This approach would have had a profound impact on Neanderthals.
Indeed, Lieberman believes the effect pervaded every bit of their lives, right
down to their bones: 'It is clear Neanderthals had thicker skeletons than
modern humans, because their behaviour, not just their genes, were
dissimilar. They were more active. They had to work harder and hunt more
- because they used the environment differently from modern
humans.'...Lieberman and Shea's work creates an evocative picture - of a
species striving harder and harder to stay still. Lacking a less labour-
intensive way to exploit their environment, they slogged towards hardship,
big bones, athleticism, and extinction. But in Homo sapiens, we can see
patterns of a lighter, more effective touch upon the environment. (Stringer
C., & McKie R., 1997, pp103-104)
"The net result of these various, coalescing influences was that by 40,000
years ago, the Neanderthal's heartland was being eroded by modern,
socially cohesive humans spreading across Europe, just as the ice sheets
fluctuated dramatically, constantly changing the Climate and the
environment of the region. Ironically, it was under these conditions that
'cold-adapted' European Neanderthals perished. They continued to live a
relatively isolated lifestyle, which is revealed through their flints which are
hardly ever found much more than thirty miles from their source. By
contrast, the incoming modern humans appear to have adopted wider and
wider webs of social contacts - other 'tribes' or groups and established
flourishing trades in flint, stone artefacts, and ornaments. By analysing the
sources of these implements, it is clear that raw materials were being
transported up to two hundred miles, indicating a considerable commercial
sophistication. In addition, structured campsites, storage pits and primitive
villages began to make their appearance. Neanderthals, for their part,
continued to mark time, displaying little cultural evolution until they were
almost extinct. They had little interest in exploration, at least compared to
Homo sapiens..." (Stringer C., & McKie R., 1997, p104)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------