On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:27:30 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>It's clear to the extent that kangaroos are typical of the meat
>sources available to paleolithic hunter-gatherers.  I've been
>doing some reading about Pleistocene climate variations and, to
>say the least, it's a complicated subject.

Pleistocene is alternating between glaciation and thermals (worm phases).
The thermals beeing smaller, but several 1000 years long thermals were
common (our current thermal lasts some 12000 years now).

In times of glaciation there were bigger landscapes (like Europe)
which were cold and dry and I would expect quite different animals
(like mammouth) which were fat for sake of insulation and covering
the harsh winters. From about 500k years back hominid populations
(like neanderthal, homo erectus) exploited such fatty animal resources
successfully and died off later.
Surprisingly neanderthals died off *in* such times of glaciation
and the cold region.

In the thermals and the more equator-near regions in times of glaciation
there were less intense seasons and a rather worm climate (and dryness).

Indications are, that our present genus of homo evolved in such
areas (africa) in the times from after 4mio years back.
The pleistocene wild game in *these* areas would IMO come close to a
kangaroo or zebra or gnu or present time wild game.
No insulation nor harsh seasons -even no hibernation- could be expected.

>
>The Cordain analysis doesn't show that meat was only an emergency
>food; it only shows that people couldn't live off the meat of
>kangaroo-like animals alone.

I agree.

> So where fattier animals were not
>available, other energy sources had to be exploited.  Where these
>other sources were plentiful, meat was a less important food,
>even though we still know of no societies that dispensed with it
>altogether.

It seems so.
Also - there must have been some caloric sources, isn't it? Besides game.
These other sources (as nuts or tubers fruit or whatever) are rather
complete. They leave some space for game, but not much.
And not necessary (what for.... ehm except vitamin b12).

I think it's probable that savannah hominids and humans explioted
*every* food source available. It's just that animals were not so
well suited. Especially in the main paleo-bottleneck, the calories.

This is a situation quite difficult to imagine.
Now as we are living in the opulence of calories, quality protein like meat
is the rare thing. In the pleistocene the opposite seems to be the case -
calories rare.

BTW: exception are possibly the very first neolithic centuries (Linearband)
which is well studied, but wherefrom no hunting equipment, nearly no weapons
and no bones are found.

> In short, there's no evidence that any human
>population ever treated meat as strictly an emergency,
>"fall-back" food.

I feel too, that my expression "emergency" doesn't hit the nail.

They were not important as daily food, but in times or areas of scarcity
they can be really important (if available).

I think this look on the *whole* pleistocene nutrition should provide a
different view of the *importance* of eating animals.

cheers

Amadeus S.