food-processing activity was a major step in realigning archeological theory, after the theoretical turmoil of the late 1970s. But does this evidence imply that the hominids of site 50, Homo erectus , were hunters or scavengers?
Isaac and his colleagues put it this way: “The characteristics of the bone assemblage invite serious consideration of scavenging rather than active hunting as a prominent mode of meat acquisition.” Had entire carcasses been found at the site, a conclusion of hunting could be drawn. But, as I indicated earlier, the interpretation of patterns of bone assemblages is fraught with potential error. Other lines of evidence, however, have been adduced to imply scavenging as the mode of meat acquisition in early Homo . For instance, Shipman examined the distribution of cut marks on ancient bones and made two observations. First, only about half were indicative of dismemberment; second, many were on bones that bore little meat. Furthermore, a high proportion of cut marks crossed over marks left by carnivore teeth, implying the carnivores got to the bones before the hominids did. This, Shipman concluded, is “compelling evidence for scavenging,” an image of our ancestor she notes is “unfamiliar and unflattering.” It is certainly far from the Man the Noble Hunter image of traditional theory.
I would expect that the meat quest in early Homo would have involved scavenging. As Shipman observed, “Carnivores scavenge when they can and hunt when they must.” But I suspect that the recent intellectual revolution in archeology has gone too far, as often happens in science. The rejection of hunting in early Homo has been too assiduous. I find it significant that Shipman’s analysis of the distribution of cut marks shows so many on bones with little meat. What can be obtained here? Tendons and skin. With these materials it is very easy to make effective snares for catching quite large prey. I would be very surprised if early Homo erectus did not engage in this form of hunting. The humanlike physique that emerged with the evolution of the genus Homo is consistent with a hunting adaptation.
For Isaac the work at site 50 was salutary. Although it confirmed that hominids were transporting bone and stone to a central place, it did not necessarily demonstrate that the hominids used that location as a home base. “I now recognize that the hypotheses about early hominid behavior I have advanced in previous papers made the early hominids seem too human,” he wrote in 1983. He therefore suggested modifying his “food-sharing hypothesis,” making it the “central-place-foraging” hypothesis. I suspect he was being too cautious.
I cannot say that the results of the project at site 50 confirm the hypothesis that Homo erectus lived as hunter-gatherers, moving every few days from one temporary home base to another—bases to which they brought food and where they shared it. How much of the social and economic milieu of Isaac’s original food-sharing hypothesis might have been present at site 50 remains elusive. But in my judgment there is sufficient evidence from the work to dispense with the notion that early Homo was little advanced beyond the chimpanzee grade of social, cognitive, and technological competence. I’m not suggesting that these creatures were hunter-gatherers in miniature, but I’m sure that the humanlike grade of the primitive hunter-gatherer was beginning to be established at this time.
Although we can never know for certain what daily life was like in the earliest times of Homo erectus , we can use the rich archeological evidence of site 50, and our imagination, to re-create such a scene, 1.5 million years ago:
A seasonal stream courses its way gently across a broad floodplain on the east side of a giant lake. Tall acacia trees line the stream’s circuitous banks, casting welcome shade from the tropical sun. For much of the year the stream bed is dry, but recent rains in the hills to the
Isaac and his colleagues put it this way: “The characteristics of the bone assemblage invite serious consideration of scavenging rather than active hunting as a prominent mode of meat acquisition.” Had entire carcasses been found at the site, a conclusion of hunting could be drawn. But, as I indicated earlier, the interpretation of patterns of bone assemblages is fraught with potential error. Other lines of evidence, however, have been adduced to imply scavenging as the mode of meat acquisition in early Homo . For instance, Shipman examined the distribution of cut marks on ancient bones and made two observations. First, only about half were indicative of dismemberment; second, many were on bones that bore little meat. Furthermore, a high proportion of cut marks crossed over marks left by carnivore teeth, implying the carnivores got to the bones before the hominids did. This, Shipman concluded, is “compelling evidence for scavenging,” an image of our ancestor she notes is “unfamiliar and unflattering.” It is certainly far from the Man the Noble Hunter image of traditional theory.
I would expect that the meat quest in early Homo would have involved scavenging. As Shipman observed, “Carnivores scavenge when they can and hunt when they must.” But I suspect that the recent intellectual revolution in archeology has gone too far, as often happens in science. The rejection of hunting in early Homo has been too assiduous. I find it significant that Shipman’s analysis of the distribution of cut marks shows so many on bones with little meat. What can be obtained here? Tendons and skin. With these materials it is very easy to make effective snares for catching quite large prey. I would be very surprised if early Homo erectus did not engage in this form of hunting. The humanlike physique that emerged with the evolution of the genus Homo is consistent with a hunting adaptation.
For Isaac the work at site 50 was salutary. Although it confirmed that hominids were transporting bone and stone to a central place, it did not necessarily demonstrate that the hominids used that location as a home base. “I now recognize that the hypotheses about early hominid behavior I have advanced in previous papers made the early hominids seem too human,” he wrote in 1983. He therefore suggested modifying his “food-sharing hypothesis,” making it the “central-place-foraging” hypothesis. I suspect he was being too cautious.
I cannot say that the results of the project at site 50 confirm the hypothesis that Homo erectus lived as hunter-gatherers, moving every few days from one temporary home base to another—bases to which they brought food and where they shared it. How much of the social and economic milieu of Isaac’s original food-sharing hypothesis might have been present at site 50 remains elusive. But in my judgment there is sufficient evidence from the work to dispense with the notion that early Homo was little advanced beyond the chimpanzee grade of social, cognitive, and technological competence. I’m not suggesting that these creatures were hunter-gatherers in miniature, but I’m sure that the humanlike grade of the primitive hunter-gatherer was beginning to be established at this time.
Although we can never know for certain what daily life was like in the earliest times of Homo erectus , we can use the rich archeological evidence of site 50, and our imagination, to re-create such a scene, 1.5 million years ago:
A seasonal stream courses its way gently across a broad floodplain on the east side of a giant lake. Tall acacia trees line the stream’s circuitous banks, casting welcome shade from the tropical sun. For much of the year the stream bed is dry, but recent rains in the hills to the
Similar Books
