Some kudu runner thought he should past this, but apparently didn't even read the comments:
Earliest Archaeological Evidence of Persistent Hominin Carnivory
Joseph V Ferraro cs 2013
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062174
The emergence of lithic technology by ∼2.6 Ma is often interpreted as a correlate of increasingly recurrent hominin acquisition & consumption of animal remains, but associated faunal evidence is poorly preserved prior to ∼1.8 Ma, limiting our
understanding of early archaeological (Oldowan) hominin carnivory.
Here we detail 3 large well-preserved zoo-archaeological assemblages from Kanjera South, Kenya ∼2.0 Ma, pre-dating all previously published archaeo-faunas of appreciable size. At Kanjera,
- there is clear evidence that Oldowan hominins acquired & processed numerous, rel.complete, small ungulate carcasses,
- they had at least occasional access to the fleshed remains of larger, wildebeest-sized animals.
The overall record of hominin activities is consistent through the stratified sequence (spanning 100s to 1000s of yrs),
it provides the earliest archaeological evidence of sustained hominin involvement with fleshed animal remains (i.e. persistent carnivory), a foraging adaptation central to many models of hominin evolution.
Comment: Thanks a lot for this.
The cutmarks show that archaic Homo sometimes tried to crack bones with stones, but it doesn't show that this was an important subsistence strategy: stones and bones preserve incomparably better than all other subsistence strategies.
Archaic Homo spread along rivers and coasts, they sometimes even colonized islands far oversea (Flores), some specimens had ear exostoses (indicating frequent diving in colder water), they all had pachyosteosclerotic skeletons (exclusively seen in
shallow-diving tetrapods), they used stone tools (cf. sea-otters), they had drastic brain enlargement (brain-specific nutrients are abundant in littoral resources, e.g. DHA) etc.
Of course they butchered carcasses they found at the waterside, e.g. from herbivores that were drowned in a flood or when crossing rivers (trek) or left over from carnivore meals, but that doesn't mean this was their most important subsistence strategy.
Nor does it necessarily mean carnivory rather than bone marrow. I don't think they were hunters (at most opportunistic scavengers?), certainly no endurance runners: their plantigrade feet were too slow, their big noses were vulnerable in fights, their
bodies were much too heavy and broadly built, etc.
_____
Only imbeciles believe that mammals with atrophied olfaction are adapted to hunting.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)