iHerb.com has the best supplement prices & quality. Get $5 free by using code ZEB079 which also supports our site!
Quote from: samjohn on April 21, 2011, 07:08:33 PMQuote from: Jean on April 21, 2011, 06:58:51 PMLinguistic analysis also suggests the Kalahari Bushmen are the oldest race on earth.One of the things I found interesting about the article was their argument in favour of a high proportion of seafood, with migration routes tending to be around the coasts. I think it is probably quite valid.I just can't see shore caught fish (without nets/hooks/fishing poles) ever being an kind of match for big 4 legged herbivores with regards to calories expended for calories gained.I can. Seafood, crustaceans & birds eggs are a much more easily accessible & less dangerous way to get good quality protein, plus they wouldn't have to expend much energy to get them. Women & kids would be collecting/harvesting them, while the men were out trying to bring down the big game. If they returned empty-handed (which was around 75% of the time, according to speculation in the article), they would feast on scallops & other water critters. Until we'd perfected prey-specific hunting techniques in our genus and in Neaderthalensis, I'd think that bringing home big game was more luck than actual skill. Plus, seafood of some kind is almost guaranteed to be available, unlike the larger land animals.
Quote from: Jean on April 21, 2011, 06:58:51 PMLinguistic analysis also suggests the Kalahari Bushmen are the oldest race on earth.One of the things I found interesting about the article was their argument in favour of a high proportion of seafood, with migration routes tending to be around the coasts. I think it is probably quite valid.I just can't see shore caught fish (without nets/hooks/fishing poles) ever being an kind of match for big 4 legged herbivores with regards to calories expended for calories gained.
Linguistic analysis also suggests the Kalahari Bushmen are the oldest race on earth.One of the things I found interesting about the article was their argument in favour of a high proportion of seafood, with migration routes tending to be around the coasts. I think it is probably quite valid.
When you're talking about proto-humans, they hadn't developed the 'warrior culture' that we have over the millennia, so risk-taking for societal gain (like a manhood rite of passage in tribes) wasn't a big factor in their food acquisition. Greed (in an animal context--ie, "pig out on antelope because it tastes good!") and/or desperation drove them to go after larger and riskier game and over time this method became commonplace and this trait was encouraged in order to survive.And that's why we have the Roman Coliseum, lol.
And, like I said, the women and children were the ones most likely to be doing the gathering, the men out hunting. The women and older kids would not be sitting idly around, waiting for their ape-hubbies to come back, without having made some contribution to their meal.
The hominids leading up to erectus and ergaster were not skilled enough to hunt, which is why they would have no doubt relied on scavenging and collecting molluscs, fish, eggs, and other protein-packed goodies that could easily be scooped up from a tidal pool or shore line.
. In fact the most plausible scenario, to my mind, would be carrion eaters who upgraded to chasing the predators off their kill, then upgraded further to doing the killing themselves.
