Re: Here we go again
Kevyn Loren Winkless (firstname.lastname@example.org)
22 Dec 1994 19:49:55 GMT
In <D15354.email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Jonathan E. Feinstein) writes:
> Taken into account should be species currently thought to be in our direct
>lineage; _H. erectus_, _H. habilis_, and other early _Homo_, and the early gracile
>australopithecines. We should also consider _H. neandertalensis_; are the
>Neandertals in our direct line or are they an offshoot on the family tree
>much the same as the robust australopithecines? It has been suggested that
Hmm. Has anyone been following the debate over "Advanced Hunters"
(fishermen) over on archaeology?
Perhaps an increasing level of aquaticness in early homo was linked to
the development and refinement of tool technology?
Oldowan and Acheulean technologies might not have been for digging
recalcitrant roots and tubers out of hard savanna soils, but rather for
digging up and cracking clams and other tidal-region shellfish. Or maybe
for scraping mussels, limpets, barnacles etc off rocks while the tide was
out. Early Homo began to rely more and more heavily on this maritime
diet, for some reason (population density? Aridity and poor harvest
yeild during the ice ages?) leading to the development (evolutionary and
technology) of techniques etc which would facilitate exploiting deeper
And then something happened to reduce our reliance on maritime resources,
leaving us incompletely adapted, and we abandoned that direction of
development in favor of the development of horticultural technologies...