posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 05:50 PM
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.
edit on 26-9-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because:
(no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo