On Monday, 4 May 1998, Loren Cordain wrote:
"...latitude had relatively little influence upon the mean estimated
(26-35%) hunted animal food intake for all 181 Hunter Gatherer
Societies......Despite a relatively constant animal food intake in hunter
gatherer societies, there is a moderate to strong inverse relationship
between gathered plant foods and latitude...... The relationship of fished
animal foods to latitude is a moderate correlation. So, presumably more and
more aquatic based animal are included in the diet to replace plant foods
which decrease in frequency with increasing latitude."
Robert L. Kelly analyzed data from 123 hunter-gatherer societies (not a
random sample, biased toward nontropical environments, and also
geographically biased with 77 percent of the cases coming from North
America) with similar results
(1): "For the 123 groups effective temperature and primary production
predict the dependence on gathering quite well (r =3D0.75, p<0.01), however
ET and PP do not predict dependence on hunted food very well (r =3D0.14,
p>0.05)........The use of aquatic resources tends to be higher in colder
than in warmer climates. In general, northern waters are relatively more
productive than the adjoining terrestrial environment, perhaps making the
former more attractive than the latter."
His table of hunter-gatherer societies shows, that in Africa there are some
hunter-gatherers relying primarily on plant food (gathering - including
small animals? - contributes up to 80 percent to subsistence), but with
increasing latitude hunting and fishing becomes more and more important.
This data refer to modern hunter-gatherers. What about ancient humans? I
once again cite Loren Cordain (7 May 1997):
"The fossil record which is obviously incomplete generally doesnt show any
evidence of exploitation of the aquatic environment until about 35,000
years ago. Clearly, part of the problem is that the technologies which may
have been used to capture fish: nets, lines, weirs and bone hooks likely
disintegrated. However, there should have been a record of fossilized
portions (heads, tails, fins etc) of uneaten fish parts along with other
animal foods consumed in the caves and camps of our ancestors......Since
humans reached Australia by 50.000-60.000 yrs ago, it can be inferred that
they had mastered al least somewhat sophisticated boating/rafting
procedures - it is difficult to believe that they did not exploit the
creatures in the medium in which they sailed. Also, the sites of most of
the coastal dwelling people (most likely to have consumed fish) are now
under water and generally unavailable for archaeological exploration. One
final comment - optimal foraging theory would suggest that the aquatic
environment would generally not be exploited until more easily obtained
resources (i.e. large easily killed pleistocene beasts) were depleted."
Another very strong argument against an early exploitation of the aquatic
environment is the frequency of fish and shellfish allergies in humans.
260.000 years ago there were already humans (which were not our ancestors)
in central Siberia (2) and Europe. If fishing technologies are recent
acquisitions of Homo sapiens, the basis of there subsistence could only
have been hunting.
Are aquatic resources really important for our paleolithic diet? Or: Fish
as a brain-specific nutrition with a significant potential to affect
hominid brain evolution?(3) Has Homo erectus been the first sailor (and
fish-consumer?) 800.000 years ago?(4).
1) Kelly RL (1995). The foraging spectrum. Diversity in hunter-gatherers
lifeways. Washington and London, Smithsonian Institution Press.
2) Waters MR et al. (1997). Diring Yuriakh. A lower paleolithic site in
central Siberia. Science 275:1281-1284.
3) Broadhurst CL et al. (1998). Rift Valley lake fish and shellfish
provided brain-specific nutrition for early Homo. British Journal of
Nutrition 79:3-21.
4) Morwood MJ et al. (1998). Fission-track ages of stone tools and fossils
on the east Indonesian island of Flores. Nature 392:173-176.
Ruediger Hoeflechner
|
