The fishy spaces of the Middle Pleistocene
Marc Verhaegen
"It's now past time to stop talking about whether
"pre-modern" humans used aquatic resources. They
did, sometimes intensively."
quote:
The fishy spaces of the Middle Pleistocene
http://johnhawks.net/taxonomy/term/636
But this doesn't exclude kudu running, of course.
Lee Olsen
As usual, Marc is a dollar short and a day late;
this topic was discussed here:
Message-ID: <e9b00b0b-56a2-4c1e-8434-
a43824...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
Homo fish follies at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:16:42 -0800 (PST)
A recent article about Gesher Benot Ya’aqov:
http://tinyurl.com/yak57dz
John Hawks gives a breakdown on his opinion of
why fish eating (early) should be a new null hypothesis.
http://tinyurl.com/yh9cwel
Hawks: "It's now past time to stop talking
about whether "pre-modern" humans used aquatic
resources. They did, sometimes intensively.
I never understood why this argument about
seafood and modern humans ever got any traction."
http://tinyurl.com/ydaljtd
"So maybe we should redirect our null hypothesis
-- instead of demanding proof of every instance
of Early Pleistocene exploitation of aquatic foods,
we should assume they ate the foods available to
them."
Sorry, bad science by Hawks. What Hawks is doing
is taking out-of-context the thousands of known
Acheulean sites (and later MSA sites) that don't
have fish/shellfish remains and instead he focuses
on a few rare anomalies.
I guess Hawks hasn't heard about the human *eagle-made*
shell midden on Santa Rosa Island yet.
Oliva (1991:318) explains how dangerous it is to use
less than 5% of the total available evidence to draw
conclusions.(1)
When thirsty and hungry enough, humans will drink
salt water and eat each other. Since fish and
shellfish, like saltwater and cannibalism, also make
up less than .01% of the total of all Middle evidence,
the Oliva Rule applies.
It would be just as valid for Hawks to claim drinking
salt water and eating each other is also a null
hypothesis.
The next question is .01% so what? Neither had any
direct bearing on our evolutionary history; therefore,
no "traction" and doesn't deserve any.
I wonder if Hawks has any explanation why the oldest
running African H/G group, Bushmen, have fish right at
the bottom of their grocery list, even though fish
are available on their yearly rounds?
For every fishy site Hawks uses as an example there
are a hundered more just like this one:
Clark (1992): "The activity area is associated with a
freshwater stream that drained onto the beach nearby.
The faunal remains all come from large terrestrial
mammals and there is no indication, at this or any
other site in Morocco, that marine fauna was made
use of."(2)
The volume of crab data at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov is
a joke.
Four crabs wouldn't equal one lunch for one Homo e and
four crabs in how many years? Statistics like that only
prove Homo e hated to eat crabs.
These examples apply to Africa, where humans evolved,
not to what they were doing two million years later
elsewhere:
Little freshwater ponds and streams have little fish and
shellfish in them, it is counter productive to mess with
them, few calories/hr.
Big lakes and rivers that have big, worthwhile to catch,
fish and shellfish in them also have big predators in
them. And....
Davidson, I. & Solomon, S. (1990) Was OH 27 the victim
of a crocodile attack? (3)
How about sea food? Ever hear of the Red Tide?
Ref.
(1) Martin Oliva 1991
The Szeletian in Czechoslovakia
Volume: 65 Number: 247 Page: 318–325
(2) J. Desmond Clark: The Earlier Stone Age/Lower Palaeolithic
in North Africa and the Sahara
In:
Africa Praehistorica 5, Kööln 1992
NEW LIGHT ON THE NORTHEAST AFRICAN PAST
edited by Frank Klees & Rudolph Kuper
Heinrich-Barth-Institute
(3) Solomon, S., Davidson, I. & Watson, D. (eds)
Problem Solving in Taphonomy: Archaeological &
Palaeontological Studies from Europe, Africa & Oceania.
Tempus 2. Anthropology Museum,
University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland. 198 - 206.
>On Jan 4, 11:42 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> "It's now past time to stop talking about whether
> "pre-modern" humans used aquatic resources. They
> did, sometimes intensively."
> quote:
> The fishy spaces of the Middle Pleistocenehttp://johnhawks.net/taxonomy/term/636