On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:30:47 -0700, Lorenzo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I contend that some of them thought that their "spears"
>were finely crafted.   The Chinese found that bamboo can
>make a very sharp knife,   and  a fire hardened piece of
>wood can be brought to a fine edge.

Would you throw it onto an elephant?
(I mean without a gun in the pocket)

> This  Bushman trailed or followed an Elephant
>for several days until the Elephant no longer feared the
>Bushman.   Then the Bushman fired off several arrows into
>the soft stomach area of the Elephant.    Then the Bushman
>followed the Elephant for another few days until the
>Elephant as too badly infected in the gut to walk any
>longer.  Then the Bushman returned to his village and led
>all villagers to the dying Elephant.

Mean tricks these bushmen have.
Gazelles they shoot with poisoned arrows (they'll die in a few hours).
Inuit have another trick.
They put a flexible bone (like a spring) into a piece of meat and have an
icebear eat this. Then, slowly the bear will die because the bone will make
a hole in its stomach.
Just wait and you have a very fine carcass.

>If this is how Mammoths were hunted do you think that our
>ancestors exterminated the Mammoth,  I think that idea is
>absurd!

Well, bows and arrows are a very recent invention the last 40k years only.
Mammoth seem to have died out after humans entered America 12k years back.
So -- possible.
Or they found a way how to poison the mammoth babies - or attack pregnant
mammoth - something that hindered their reproduction.

>
>May I suggest that five Neanderthals with five spears could
>have done in a Mammoth in the same way.

The arrow story sounds less threatening than attacking a giant mammoth with
a spear. Can cou report why the elephant didn't attack the arrow-attacking
bushman? Probably because the pain of an arrow was too small.

>Again and again please do a better job of describing hunting
>and wild animals --  it seems that you all grew up in a big
>City and have strange, unrealistic  ideas about animals and
>hunting.   Or I could get more firm and say "Wrong"  ideas
>about animals and hunting.  So how on earth could you
>propose something about wild animals and wild humans?

Only TV is left (like you have seen too).
Unfortunately I abolished the TV 5 years ago.

>The "American Indian"  had no trouble getting food  until
>forced to live on poor land!

They had just begun to use horses and guns,
which allowed them to approach the gigantic new "resources" which weren't
available before. Like the bison herds.
Nevertheless many of the "American Indian"s were good farmers (with a little
hunting added of course).

>Would all of you please take a trip to the nearest Ocean
>shore.   Then dig with a stick in the sand and the pebbly
>places.  You may find that there are many edible items.

True, for a couple of people per nnn meters shoreline.
I strongly agree that mollusks and seaweed must have been a central food
item for hominids living close to the shoreline.
(Even if they don't were "aquaticus").

Regards, Amadeo