On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:12:39 +1100, John McKenzie <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>> If everyone of only 170,000 killed one kangaroo every day thats
>>  62,050,000 kangaroos per year.
>
>These estimations are very suspect. It is hard to extrapolate the data
>based on current numbers and  their growth/decline rate, but it should
>be pointed out that Australia is inhabitible in a great majority of
>areas and apart from the eastern side of the country the environment
>would not lend itself to large populations pre-agriculture

John, this estimation was of course ment to make clear, that it was
impossible for all aborigines to live on kangaroo (or whatever wild game)
only. 62 mio kangaroos or comparable big animals are even for a country as
big as Australia too many, I think.
This number was based on Andrew's 600g consumption. Actually it would be
more. I've computed that when using all fat from the kangaroo, up to 6kg of
the meat/organs/skin could have been eaten (you can find it looking for
kangaroo in the archives).
The total number of 62 million per year could be reached nevertheless if you
take into account that much more aboriginals were there in previous ages and
that 1600 kcal wouldn't be enough.

The aboriginal culture and diet is of course one that exploits every food
resource, including kangaroos, reptiles, insects, nuts, shots, tubers,
fruit, blossoms, rhizomes, herbs.

I just don't want to buy Andrews statement that aboriginals "preferred" to
eat kangaroo and that it was possible to live on 100g kidney fat plus 600 g
meat.
I want to point out that wild game is far from beeing an optimal paleofood
(but still the optimal meat).
I has too many problems with protein toxicity (this includes calcium bone
loss), it is low energy (because of little fat) and it allows only a very
small population to live on a given area. Much less than for gatherhunters
which use all food resources. Including and most important plants.

When 2 mio years ago some primate species appeared on the african landscape
where humanity descended from, these pre-humans experienced several changes,
some of which are related to the diet.

First there was a change in the environment, from a fruit rich forest to an
open savannah landscape (the onset of the ice age).
Then the human animal developed a change in dentition  which indicates a
smoother and denser diet.
Then upright walking and versatile hand had some new opportunities.
And very striking: the brain enlarged 3-fold.

Some scientists have speculated that the onset of hunting and scavenging
was a driving force or at least a followup of this (expensive tissue
hypothesis).

I do subscribe to more modern explanations that appear more plausible to me:
The denser food items were tubers and nuts.
They are better suited as brain food (glucose) and begin to be available as
a response to primitive techniques like digging sticks, fire and stones.
N.B.mongongo nuts have so hard shells that even elephants can't open them
but they are a staple to african bushmen who easily crack them between two
stones. Macadamias have also *very* hard shells...

Hunting and scavenging also has it's place and contributed to the now
all-eating human animal. I can see it as a central topic only for humans
which entered northern areas (with fatty animals) and after developping
effective hunting weapons and tools.

As I myself avoid animal carcass, it's easier for me to
see the advantages of such paleo-plants and to not overempasize the central
topic of the "standard western nutrition": meat (animal muscle).

>..
>The live in groups and arent hard to hunt.
The miraculous evolution strategies of kangaroos aren't made against
predators. As you point out, Australia was for a very long period devoid of
predators  and only late came only the dingo.

I think this is also the main reason why they are easy to hunt.

>There is evidence
>to suggest that they were eaten, and eaten with a lot of the body
>discarded (the edible part

Science suggests that of such low fat animals only parts can be eaten.

>The lack of
>numerous types of powerful predator may also be responsible for the
>development of the native species. Most of the animals here would not
>exist at all in an environment with significant numbers of predators.

Thanks God humans were also not the super-predator, which hunted all the
harmless creatures of Australia to extinction. Unlike other animals in other
areas , e.g. the moa of New Zealand.
Why?
Somehow the aboriginal culture wase cute enough to limit it's own population
count to numbers which were bearable for the land.
Whithout hunting all kangaroos to extinction.

Possibly because not so much animal could be eaten without additional fat.
Possibly because the aboriginal population had enough of better suited food
in marvellous plant resources.

Amadeus Schmidt