Re: Dispelling the "Man the Mighty Hunter" Myth

"Michael Saunby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "ta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ..
> >
> > I suppose if we only studied the far northern tribes where plant life
was
> > not abundant and hunting was the primary means of survival, we might be
> able
> > to craft such a story. But these cultures are relatively recent ones and
> > don't help much in understanding the habits of our original descendants
> much
> > further south. Even so, it is likely that *intentional* hunting did not
> > surface until around 20,000 years ago, well into the story of human
> > evolution.
> >
> ...
>
> Doesn't it trouble you that someone putting forward such a theory would
> build it on such an obvious lie?

To be fair, here are  his exact words: "It is much later on in evolution
before true, planned hunting appears, some now think as recently as 20,000
years ago - well after moder Homo sapiens sapiens appeared. Hunting now
becomes relevant because this is our cultural as well as biological
ancestor. Anthropologists generally agree that primal men tended to range
frather from the home camp in pursuit of animals while women and children
tended to stay closer in, making shorter forays with their children to
gather plant foods and smaller prey. Even so, all evidence indicates that
plant food collected, prepared, and shared by women still provided the
overhwelming bulk of the diet. The exceptions are found mostly in the
extreme northern regions where the climate made animal flesh the most
available food year-round."

> There's plenty of evidence of deliberate hunting long, long before that
> date.  After all you don't make spears, etc. for "accidental" hunting?

No, but you do make spears to protect yourself from predators who are trying
to attack you. Isn't it possible that these weapons were designed first and
foremost for *defense* rather than *offense*?

<snip>

> And what about this
>
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/08/01/html/ft_20010801.6.html
> ??
> Suggests that hunting wasn't just common place but rather important more
> than 20,000 years ago.

Fair enough, your point is a valid one. An honest mistake on my part. So
let's use 35,000 years ago, as indicated by the cave paintings in France.
Several points can be made:
1. That hunting existed does not mean that it meets the exaggerated role
assigned it in anthropology and entertainment. The only places hunted played
the major role in survival were in regions that plant life was not abundant.
Also of interest is how rare depictions of hunting are in the paintings.
Perhaps these people were more fascinated with other aspects of the animal
world (mystical, spiritual) than their use as a food resource.
2. It would be erroneous to assume that the hunting in Europe represents the
lifestyles of all humans, like those in the warmer climates.
3. Hunting, relatively speaking, is still a recent development in the
evolution of the human race.

<inappropriate and unnecessary vulgarites snipped>

By the way, before you go off on your next childish rant about dishonesty,
you might want to give the people on the other end the benefit of the doubt.
Mason's book was published in 1993 and the cave paintings in Chauvet Cave
were not discovered until 1994. Geez, is there anyone on this ng capable of
carrying on a civil conversation?