Anthropologist pushes back date of first humans hunting for meat to two million years ago

link

And now we have some evidence that man is alot older than has been previously thought.
Now many of those out of place fossils might be allowed back into the mainstream.

Henry Bunn, anthropologist from Wisconsin University, speaking at the annual European Society for the study of Human Evolution meeting in Bordeaux this year, has suggested that the date that humans began hunting down large prey for food needs to be pushed back over a million and a half years after studying evidence of carcasses of antelopes, gazelles and wildebeest left behind by Homo habilis at a site in Tanzania. He said evidence there indicates that early man was hunting in an organized fashion some two million years ago. Read more at: phys.org...

reply to post by grey580


This could explain the human footprints discovered in 1.5 million-year-old sedimentary layers near Ileret in northern Kenya last year.


Now the human fossils found in 300 million years old sediments remain to be explained.

Interesting, won't suprise me if they find evidence to push it back even further. Nice find S&F for you

Originally posted by grey580
link

And now we have some evidence that man is alot older than has been previously thought.

I thought this was just evidence that humans hunted for meat earlier than previously thought - not that "man" is older than previously thought .....

reply to post by grey580

Does this make logically consistent sense?

When leopards and lions hunt down and eat the larger species of antelope, for example, they tend to go for the young or old, as they are generally easier to bring down. Evidence at the Tanzania site however shows that early humans were eating such animals that were in their prime. On the other hand, when the big cats go after the smaller species of antelope, they tend to capture those in their prime, while early man seemed to prefer the young and the old.

Either one of those statements by itself would be fine. But together they don't quite add up, do they? Why would that be the case? The article offers no explanation.

Originally posted by UmbraSumus

Originally posted by grey580
link

And now we have some evidence that man is alot older than has been previously thought.

I thought this was just evidence that humans hunted for meat earlier than previously thought - not that "man" is older than previously thought .....

That's more or less what it says. No evidence was presented that man is any older than previously thought.

Originally posted by MarcellusWallace
Now the human fossils found in 300 million years old sediments remain to be explained.

Where did you see that? Source?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Here friend,

ireport.cnn.com...

Originally posted by MarcellusWallace
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Here friend,

ireport.cnn.com...

Thanks. If his analysis of human skulls is anything like his analysis of Martian skulls, I wouldn't take him too seriously:

sci.tech-archive.net...

He's either pulling your leg or else he is cognitively challenged. If that's it, I think the humor or wastebasket file is the appropriate filing location.

You know what I wonder about is.....how can a dude pick up just a fragment of a pebble in a field that goes on for a hundred miles in each direction.....then announce that it is evidence of paleo mankind this or that.....just because you can put the fragment in a machine that plugs in....cool....and costs a bunch......now really.
I do respect science and tech, and agree we make advances......and I believe that all will be revealed, even....I read that, but just to keep perspective. the scientist walks about in a field then attends a get-together and gives a talk....see my meaning.

Does this make logically consistent sense? When leopards and lions hunt down and eat the larger species of antelope, for example, they tend to go for the young or old, as they are generally easier to bring down. Evidence at the Tanzania site however shows that early humans were eating such animals that were in their prime. On the other hand, when the big cats go after the smaller species of antelope, they tend to capture those in their prime, while early man seemed to prefer the young and the old. Either one of those statements by itself would be fine. But together they don't quite add up, do they? Why would that be the case? The article offers no explanation.

Sorry, I don't really see what you are suggesting? Seems to make sense to me.

When big cats hunt LARGER types of antelope they tend to go after the young and old.

When early man hunted LARGER types of antelope they tended to go after those in their prime.

When big cats hunt SMALLER types of antelope they tend to go after those in their prime.

When early man hunted SMALLER types of antelope they went after the young and the old.

Makes sense to me. Just says early man seems to have opposite prey choices when hunting different sized species of antelope when compared to big cats.

And as far as why early man hunted opposite to big cats? Well that could be as simple as group hunting. In other words if they are going for small game, it may be just one or two hunters, so they would take what is easiest; the young and the old. On the other hand if going for bigger game they would probably form a hunting party and would take prime animals because you get more meat for the group and with a group they were able take them down, even though they were in their prime.

Just my opinion though.