What were the stone tools/weapons for?


Lee Olsen wrote:
Marc claims:
"There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over
your savannas. Zero.
Nada."

To make a claim like this is totally irresponsible,

Well, it depends how you interpret it. The supposition that early
man,
including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if
not
completely defenseless against the predators thereof. IOW, it makes
about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
guns) in treeless savanna habitat as it does to emplace them swimming
alongside crocodiles.

This leaves us with a bit of a dilemma when it comes to interpreting
the evidence. If human ancestors were not regularly venturing
across
treeless habitat chasing down prey and defending themselves against
predators then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
(My answe to this question is below.)

if not downright
dishonest and typical of a total amateur like Marc. Olduvai Gorge cuts
right through two million years of sediments of the Serengeti Plain,
which is about as savanna as you can get.

I agree mostly, but keep in mind that the world climate generally was
wetter (and warmer) prior to 2 mya. This means that the treed
localities where early hominids resided were more expansive than
these
same treed localities are presently at Serengeti and similar regions.

The thousands of artifacts
that have been found there speak for themselves.

Artifacts never speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted in
the context of reconstructed paleohabitats.

"The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied
grasslands and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in
East Africa.

They didn't occupy grasslands and open scrub. They occupied the
treed
localities in the vicinity of grassland and open scrub. These were
the
locations that had the resources--fruit trees, nuts, vegetables--that
were most essential to them surviving the dry season.

Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
posture (Dennell 2003:442)."

Might later hominids have ventured across open habitat more often
than
A'pith? Sure. But to suggest that these adapatations indicate a
shift
to a lifestyle that often involved long distance walking through hot,
treeless habitat is inconsisten with the predatory realities thereof.
What, then, were the stone weapons for? I think the answer to this
question is fairly obvious when you consider the fact that all the
evidence inidcated that hominids are and always have been highly
communal and territorial. The stone weapons served the purpose of
keeping food-competitor species out of their garden-like communal
territory which was part of their larger strategy to survive the dry
season and its rather dramatic predatory implications (predatory
massacres). Does this mean that they never used their weapons for
hunting? No, that too is too simplistic. In addition to keeping
these
food-competitor species out off of their garden-like communal
property
they employed them to ambush these same species once they had entered
their communal property. (And they also employed these stone weapons
to fend off or deter lesser predators.)

I think this interpretation of the evidence better matches up with
the
overwhelming evidence that present day humans are primarily communal,
non-migratory.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What were the stone tools/weapons for?
    ... "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over ... completely defenseless against the predators thereof. ... guns) in treeless savanna habitat as it does to emplace them swimming ... What, then, were the stone weapons for? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over ... treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not ... completely defenseless against the predators thereof. ... What, then, were the stone weapons for? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
    ... No need to divide if someone wants to replace on-the-ground evidence ... reason why Homo was ever anywhere else 4 Ma or before 2.6My. ... you are getting the idea that I am confusing ancestors with fossils I ... because the pattern of evidence after 2.6My is with savanna fauna ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
    ... AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors were ... is reflected in the Plio-Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the Indian ... And the importance of actual evidence not just ... > with savanna fauna. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: butchering sites at the intersection of river channels (Re: AAT is based on comparative data (Re
    ... Thanks, Lee, if I had been a savanna believer & if I had known about ... there were no nearby large bodies of water, ... anatomical & physiological evidence leaves no room for a dry environment. ... his original research papers on Africa? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)