Re: Dispelling the "Man the Mighty Hunter" Myth

"ta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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."

But again, it's a lie.  There isn't even a single significant piece of
evidence that "plant food collected, prepared, and shared by women still
provided the overhwelming bulk of the diet2"; and certainly to claim "all
evidence..." shows the author of this material to be a liar.    It also
ignores the social significance of hunting to early humans.   If these
people (or animals if you prefer) weren't hunting then their social
structure and behaviours are all wrong.

I strongly suggest you read some other texts about early humans and treat
any other material from this author with extreme caution.  There is a clear
agenda here and truth has been discarded in favour of a very unconventional
set of beliefs.


>
> > 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*?
>

It's possible they were fashioned to defend from mythical beasts and
aliens.  What is most probable is that they were used for hunting. The
evidence of tools for butchery show that they were eating what they killed.
Humans have been eating deer, antelope, etc. for a long time, and to do
that you need deliberate hunting.


> <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.

The only point that needed to be made was that your source is clearly a
fraud.


>
> <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?
>

So give some indication that you are willing to read wider, think more
clearly and accept that AR writers lie about human origins.

The paintings simply confirm something that every recognised scholar
accepts - humans are hunters, they were hunters before they came to Europe
(aka. the north) and the only way you can paint a picture of humans as
largely vegetarian is to lie.  Do you wish to join the liars, or show
yourself to have some honesty?

Michael Saunby