On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:40, William wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 05:43, Keith Thomas wrote:
>
>> My point is not that pre-agricultural Homo sapiens did not 
>> eat cattle (they certainly did), but that it was relatively rare. 
>> Paleo eating would ideally include meat from a
>> number of species, most of them small, with no single meat 
>> predominating.
>
>I'm guessing that you refer to a comparison of small bones/large bones at
>paleo campsites. I've never seen such, would appreciate a link if you have
>one.
No link. The view I expressed above was based on ethnographies
I have read over the years, paleontological reports and informed speculation.
It is impossible to generalize. 

Binford's examination of 390 hunter-gatherer ethnographies 
found only five tribe getting only 10% of their food as meat (none got less 
than 10%) and about the same number of outliers at the other end of the 
scale. So there is immense variety.

Historical and recent hunter-gatherers on the coast left huge middens 
of shells showing that they ate small and easily captured prey. The sort of 
bone inventory you suggest is difficult as most cave sites, for example, have 
been contaminated with bones left over from carnivores who used the caves 
for their meals after the humans had departed. In some cases it is possible 
to say whether the bones were butchered by humans or gnawed by animals, 
but this is rarely the case. Paleontology doesnt work like a CSI movie. As well
as meat from birds, fish, reptiles and mammals, our ancestors ate invertebrates. 
(I found some ants on a recent trip to the UK and tried them, but they were 
salted to the extent that the salt dominated their flavour - there was no hint 
of formic acid).

Keith