Man The Hunted

[TylerDurden]

Here's the link:-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050212190551.htm

Man The Hunter' Theory Is Debunked In New Book

In a new book, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis goes against the prevailing view and argues that primates, including early humans, evolved not as hunters but as prey of many predators, including wild dogs and cats, hyenas, eagles and crocodiles.

Despite popular theories posed in research papers and popular literature, early man was not an aggressive killer, argues Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences.

Sussman's book, "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and Human Evolution," poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man.

He co-authored the book with Donna L. Hart, Ph.D., a member of the faculty of Pierre Laclede Honors College and the Department of Anthropology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The book is scheduled to be released in late February.

Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart the predator, says Sussman.

Since the 1924 discovery of the first early humans, australopithicenes, which lived from seven million years ago to two million years ago, many scientists theorized that those early human ancestors were hunters and possessed a killer instinct.

Through his research and writing, Sussman has worked for years to debunk that theory. An expert in the ecology and social structure of primates, Sussman does extensive fieldwork in primate behavior and ecology in Costa Rica, Guyana, Madagascar and Mauritius. He is the author and editor of several books, including "The Origins and Nature of Sociality," "Primate Ecology and Social Structure," and "The Biological Basis of Human Behavior: A Critical Review."

The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human evolution, says Sussman, who recently served as editor of American Anthropologist. "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case."

Studying the fossil evidence

And examine the evidence they did. Sussman and Hart's research is based on studying the fossil evidence dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory. We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls, bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."

Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied, Sussman and Hart decided to focus their research on one specific species, Australopithecus afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half million years ago and is one of the better known early human species. Most paleontologists agree that Australopithecus afarensis is the common link between fossils that came before and those that came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal traits with both. It's also a very well-represented species in the fossil record.

"Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5 feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters.

But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat. "It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?"

It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible. Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.

"Furthermore, Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species," adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators," Sussman argues.

The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today. There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors. Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."

Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.

Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization, developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.

"One of the main defenses against predators by animals without physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact, all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living. In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to being preyed upon."

[TylerDurden]

What I like about the book is that they do make some obvious points,. For example, the fact that nets traps and bows and arrows were only invented c. 60, 000 years ago does rather indicate that their point re hunting being more prevalent in the late stages of the Palaeolithic era is correct. Perhaps that's why so many megafauna got wiped out c. 40,000 years ago.

Secondly, there is increasingly strong evidence  in the last 2 decades showing that plant-matter was consumed during the Palaeolithic,  in large amounts in some areas, judging from accounts re the Ohalo site etc. so there is certainly a strong reason to doubt the notion of an all-pervasive all-meat diet being everywhere. Not that I necessarily agree with the above peoples' claims that meat-eating only started c.400,000 years ago, either.

Another point is the notion of humans as prey. They would certainly have had a much bigger rate of evolution if they'd been subjected to a higher level of natural selection(such as via predation or extreme weather) than otherwise. The alternative theory , the  meat-dha hypothesis, doesn't actually state that eating meat directly led to bigger brains, merely that the consumption of energy-rich raw meats made it possible to provide enough energy for the larger  brains evolved for other reasons, so seems weaker by comparison as a theory. And I, for one, am more convinced by a non-dietary explanation for the increase in hominid brain-size given the fact that animals in the wild have grown bigger brains over millions of years via all sorts of different diets.


Then there's the refreshing fact that the authors are more cautious than idiots like Wrangham in claiming dates for fire. They give a figure of at most 800,000 years ago for the invention of fire, and  a  much later period for cooking(400,000 years ago).

Of course, 1 sentence is absurd re the claim that ancient hominids couldn't eat meats without using fire. They presumably imagine that such hominids couldn't eat raw meat, which is ridiculous.

At any rate, it seems to support the scavenger hypothesis although it fails to acknowledge the plentiful evidence that hominids also scavenged for meat(well, actually, marrow and brains, probably not meat given that they scavenged carcasses already eaten by predators except for bones/skulls) but that's still raw animal food.

[goodsamaritan]

If humans flourished beside the sea and the rivers, they would have dependable nutrition from shellfish and other water animals and plant animals.  And there would be less predators.

[TylerDurden]

If humans flourished beside the sea and the rivers, they would have dependable nutrition from shellfish and other water animals and plant animals.  And there would be less predators.

That's the shoreline hypothesis and is really derived from the aquatic ape theory which is extremely controversial. I just don't buy the notion that hominids all occupied such narrow areas of coastline round the world. They would have needed to migrate widely to get the right foods.

[SkinnyDevil]

The notion that humans are either exclusively prey or predator makes no sense and never has. Humans, which popped on the scene about a 1/4 million years ago, may be at the top of the food chain, but they've always been a tasty treat for bears, lions, and gators.

Humans are an opportunistic species. Humans, and earlier primates, may well have been avoiding large critters, but clearly at some point we began chasing their asses down, too. And eating them.

[William]

In a new book, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis goes against the prevailing view and argues that primates, including early humans, evolved not as hunters but as prey of many predators, including wild dogs and cats, hyenas, eagles and crocodiles.

Despite popular theories posed in research papers and popular literature, early man was not an aggressive killer, argues Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences.

PhD means Piled higher and Deeper, according to Charles Jonkel, Phd. I like that definition. 

I like the idea of natural selection too, in that we are descended from the smart hunters, and the stupid prey humanoids all got eaten.

"killer" is irrelevant; we were agressive consumers. Nothing has changed.

[goodsamaritan]

I like the idea of natural selection too, in that we are descended from the smart hunters, and the stupid prey humanoids all got eaten.

This thought sounds great and flattering too.  We are descendants of the winners. 

[wodgina]

This thought sounds great and flattering too.  We are descendants of the winners. 

Ha ha Kinda...

[rafonly]

"The alternative theory , the  meat-dha hypothesis, doesn't actually state that eating meat directly led to bigger brains, merely that the consumption of energy-rich raw meats made it possible to provide enough energy for the larger  brains evolved for other reasons, so seems weaker by comparison as a theory."

why "weaker"?

the point is facilitated evolutionary variation
{besides natural selection & heredity}

australop. needed such traits as better brain & bipedalism to grow & spread, survive & reproduce under the circumstances they found themselves in
dietary adjustments -- available land meat + long chain pufa's from both land & water animals -- were used in case they would support the environmental challenge... & the new diet did work (that's why we humans, post-australop, are here)

[SuperInfinity]

I agree with the book, I think it's very good.

However "debunked" is a very strong adjective (even if Sciencedaily uses it doesn't mean we have to).

The fact is that man was both hunter and huntee, and a scavenger to boot. The authors actually talk about how when large felines got tired of some meat, man probably snuck in to scavenge the remains.

I'm not a huge meat-proponent myself, but it's nice to see we can have mature and intelligent discussion on what paleo man ate rather than getting extremely sensitive and embittered about it unlike certain other paleo-lists who are so biased towards meat and against "them nasty carbs" it's astonishing.

[rafonly]

"That's the shoreline hypothesis and is really derived from the aquatic ape theory which is extremely controversial"

this is a baseless statement!

the aquatic ape theory (morgan, crawford, etc.) claims that some animals, reptiles or whatever, evolved out of the ocean & onto the dry land; later, however, some hominids ("aquatic apes") went back to live in the depths of the sea

cunane's shoreline theory does not make any of those claims at all!
it only says that some hominids, those that ended up being homo, had access to the appropriate quality & quantity of water animals (& algae), whose edible meat is high in long-chain omega-3 esp dha

as far as who was the hunted
the australopithecus, says the theory referred to in this thread
not the homo, humans -- if you do not believe this fact you may want to take a look at the cro-magnon cave art

[TylerDurden]

Actually my claim that the shoreline hypothesis is merely a variant of the aquatic ape theory is common knowledge. Here's an excerpt which mentions the focus on the coastal aspect:-"

The most popular formulation involves a semi-aquatic episode coinciding with the Pliocene-Pleistocene littoral diaspora of the Homo genus along the East-African Rift Valley lakes and the African and Indian Ocean coasts. The Pliocene epoch (spelled Pleiocene in some older texts) is the period in the geologic timescale that extends from 5. ... The Pleistocene epoch (IPA: ) is part of the geologic timescale. ... African Rift Valley. ... "

taken from the aquatic ape theory section of
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Aquatic-ape-hypothesis

Note that the aquatic ape theory doesn't merely suggest that humans ever were in wholly aquatic environments, merely that they lived next door to such water-sources, re coasts of lakes/seas or near rivers, allowing them to adapt to such environments as well.