On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:24:09 +0100, Geoffrey Purcell 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I don't personally think it's valid to compare more modern hunter-gatherer 
tribes with Palaeo tribes. 

I believe that it is valid.  Information on the Karankawa largely come from 
archaeological sites rather than direct observation.  The Karankawa existed < 
12,000 yrs ago I believe.  I do not see a great difference between how the 
Karankawa lived compared to an older tribe in a similar environment.  The 
difference in technology would only increase their available sources of food, 
not the food itself.  We can agree to disagree.

>
>As regards the shoreline argument, like I said before, there are also plenty of 
palaeo sites which are far inland, well away from the sea, so while I think it 
rather unlikely that palaeo men near shorelines avoided all shellfish, it doesn't 
seem at all likely that a shoreline diet was a universal phenomenon.

I agree that there are inland sites.  I am not supporting the shoreline or 
aquatic ape theory.  Frankly, I do not enough about either to form an opinion.  
I am simply pointing out that it is not reasonable to assume that HGs did not 
live near the shoreline because of too-lean food.  HGs are nomadic and it is 
documented and perfectly reasonable that HGs would take advantage of the 
resources along the shoreline.  Therefore, it cannot be dismissed as a 
hypothesis for how HGs spread (ie, along the shoreline); more evidence would 
be needed though.

>Well, Cordain's interpretation is that they prized fat, such as found in the 
organ-meats, precisely because of its relative scarcity. And organ-meats, 
from what I've heard, only comprise something like 10% of total edible 
bodyweight.

They did not eat the whole animal.  Lean meat was often left or given to the 
dogs.  Many animals (for instance Caribou) had thick coats of fat during 
certain times of the year.  I am sure that the fat % by weight was much 
greater than 10 and perhaps as high as 50.