gordon <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> It seems to me there is nothing artificial about the distinction
> between running around in a loin cloth in the pursuit of food because one is
> forced by hunger to do so, and sitting around on one's duff playing
> checkers with a friend because it happens to suit one's fancy at the moment.
> One is  work and the other is play.

Ardeith writes:
So, the men go out and chase down a buffalo, kill it, haul the
meat home......eating from it on the way.....and get back to
the women, children, and elders.....and share the booty
around.......and they have fresh meat for a few days, dry
some of it, maybe.     And the men don't have to go out
chasing down another buffalo for maybe a week.   They
spent a couple of days on the trip.....and have the next
week to relax.    Meanwhile, the women, elders, and
children have spent a couple of hours a day gathering
fresh greens, fruit, nuts, egg, whatever.....and they
ate quite well while the men were gone.......and if the
men don't get another buffalo next week....so what?
The family or clan will still get enough to eat.  (The
survival of our species was more dependent on the
gathering than on the hunting......at least in warm
climates.......hunting was more vital in cold climates. )
So what do you suppose the men did on the days
that they weren't out chasing buffalo?   One of the
oldest games in history involves putting and taking
stones out of little holes.......don't remember the name
of it.......but it might be the equal of checkers.......and
it certainly didn't require many hours of leisure time
or high technology to make the game pieces.

Gordon wrote:
> We are tempted to  give our
> paleo ancestors more credit than is due them.

Ardeith writes:
No, I think you don't want to give them near the credit
that is due them.   For how many generations did our
ancestors survive with stone and wood tools?   How
long did they survive with just what medicinal plants
they gathered?   How long did they survive with only
their knowledge of the plants and animals and the
seasonal changes of life around them to guide them?
They were tough and intelligent and creative and
spiritual..........all those things.   And they did in fact
make war on other tribes, and some of them may have
treated their women brutally........but if it had not been
for their creativity and intelligence......you would not
be here to put them down.   I don't want to worship
my ancestors.....but I do respect them.

Gordon wrote:
> Occasionally I even ponder the possibility that we would have
> descended from strict vegetarians but for the fact that our violent omnivorous
> hominid ancestors killed off whatever peaceful plant-eating tribes may have
> existed in order to get more food and grub for themselves.

Ardeith writes:
By all the tests humans have been able to devise.....herbivores are not
as intelligent as carnivores or omnivores......I'm not talking about
vegetarians here.....I'm talking about the differences between grazers
and their predators....including humans.    The grazers operate mostly
from instinct......the predators have to be more creative than that.....
I imagine this difference was a factor in the dying out of the lines
of early humans that depended only on vegetation for food.