freelance writer and professor

of Anthropology at The Pennsylvania State University internationally known as a paleoanthropologist conducted research for many years in Africa on human evolution and the animal communities in which humans evolved

 combination of the disciplines of

paleontology and physical anthropology study of ancient humans through fossil evidences

 hominids are portrayed in both textbooks and

films as hunters small-brained, big-browed, upright, and usually mildly furry

 Males search for prey

(small gazelles to elephants) with crude stone tools in hand Females care for young and gather roots, tubers, and berries

 food is shared by group members at temporary

camps

 In 1978, Pat Shipman tested the hunting

hypothesis through documenting the microscopic damage produced on bones by different events. She hoped to develop a diagnostic key for identifying the post-mortem history of specific fossil bones.

 She used a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to

inspect replicas of modern bones that had been subjected to known events or conditions (reason: specimens must fit into the SEMs small vacuum chamber)

 She soon established that common events

such as weathering, root etching, sedimentary abrasion, and carnivore chewing produced microscopically distinctive features.

 Tool cut marks on fossils were found at Olduvai Gorge,

Tanzania and Koobi Fora, Kenya on 1980. (These sites preserve some of the oldest known archaeological materials.)

Richard Potts

Archaeological Site in Kenya

Henry Bunn

 Shipman and Potts went back to the United

States, manufactured some stone tools and started butchering bones and joints begged from local butchers.

 FINDINGS: Replicas of the stone-tool cut marks looked different

from replicas of carnivore tooth scratches, regardless of species of carnivore or the type of tool involved. (So they compared the marks on the fossils with the modern bones of known history)

 FINDINGS:
Many of the cut-marked fossils also bore

carnivore tooth marks and that some of the tooth marks were in unexpected placeson bones that bore little meat in life. (More work was needed.)

 CONCLUSION:

Hominids using stone tools had

processed carcasses of many different animals nearly 2 million years ago. There was now a firm link between stone tools and at least some of the early fossil animal bones The palaeontologists were persuaded that the hominid hunter scenario is true.

 If similar patterns occurred on the fossils,

then the early hominids probably behaved similarly to more modern hunters, if the patterns were different, then the behaviour was probably also different.

Activity

Disarticulation

Butchery

Skinning or Tendon Removal

Removing skin or tendons from carcasses for making clothing, bags, thongs, and so on > lower limb bones of animals < flesh-covered bones of the upper part of limbs

Method

Taking carcass apart at the joints

Removing meat from bones

Shafts of bones from the upper part of the front or hind limn (fewer than disarticulation)

Mark Areas

Near the major joints of limbs

 Butchery and disarticulation are consistent

in modern hunting. Modern hunters use metal tools instead of tool which leaves more cut marks.

 She did not compare the fossil evidence with data

on modern hunters . Instead, she compared it with the antelope bones processed by Neolithic (Stone Age) hunters in Kenya from Prolonged Drift (a study of Dianne Gifford)

 They made high-fidelity replicas of every

mark. Shipman compared patterns of cut mark and tooth mark distributions on Olduvai fossils with those made by Stone Age hunters at Prolonged Drift (Neolithic bones). She identified marks caused either by disarticulation or meat removal by their location.

 FINDINGS: 90% of Prolonged Drift fossil marks from

disarticulation while 45% for Olduvai Olduvai bones did not show the predicted pattern. Olduvai cut marks had the same pattern of distribution as the carnivore tooth marks. This suggests that early hominids were not regularly disarticulating carcasses and sharing it with others at camp.

 Both Neolithic and Olduvai bones cut marks were

attributable to skinning or tendon removal, 75% occurred on bones that bore little meat. Hominids were using carcasses as a source of skin and tendon. Sets of overlapping marks which includes cut marks and carnivore tooth marks occur on the Olduvai fossils. She could see under the SEM which mark was made first because its features were overlaid by those of the later mark. (8 out of 13 cases: Hominids made the cut marks after the carnivores made their tooth marks)

 Instead of hunting for prey and leaving the

remains behind for carnivores to scavenge, perhaps hominids were scavenging from the carnivores. This might explain the hominids apparently unsystematic use of carcasses: they took what they could get, be it skin, tendon, or meat.

 Many mammals actually do both hunting

and scavenging. Not one of the modern African mammalian carnivores is pure scavenger (only vultures).

 Some animals that scavenge for food are hyenas,

lions, leopards, jackals. These carnivores scavenge when they can and kill when they must.

 Cheetahs and wild dogs are nearly pure hunters.

They rarely scavenge.

 Pros

Cons

- Scavenger avoids the task of making sure its meal is deadno great energy is needed to chase or stalk a prey.

- Scavenging is risky. Predators rarely give up their prey to scavengers without defending it. Both predators and scavengers suffer the dangers inherent in fighting for possession of a carcass.

 Pros

Cons

- They can travel slowly but endurance is important.

- Scavengers must survey much larger areas than predators to find food because it is rarer to find carcass than live prey.

 Predators enjoy a much higher success rate

in hunting than any of the scavengerhunters do Scavengers need an efficient means of locating carcasses, which, unlike live animals, do not move or make noises.

 Vultures ability to fly

make them great scavengers because they exert less energy compared to walking mammalian scavengers the reason why any mammal cannot be a pure scavenger. In fact, mammals learn where carcasses are located from the presence of vultures.

 Because they cannot be full-time scavengers,

mammals must have another source of food to provide the bulk of their diet. Large carnivores rely on hunting large animals while small ones feast on fruits and insects, or hunting rats or hares.

 Two species of large saber-toothed cats were found in

Olduvai and Koobi For a. Since they have teeth suitable for meat slicing not bone crushing, these predators must have left behind many bones covered with meat, skins, or tendons.

 Homo habilis, Australopithecus africanus, and A.

robustus were adapted for habitual, upright bipedalism, and were agile tree climbers as well. Bipedal running is neither fast nor efficient compared to quadrupedal gaits. But bipedal walking is more energetically efficient than quadrupedal walking. Thus, bipedal walking is an excellent means of covering large areas slowly, an appropriate and useful adaptation for a scavenger.

 BIPEDALISM:

- excellent means of covering large areas slowly - elevates the head which improves spotting items to scavenge Bipedalism + Agile Tree Climbing = Improved Vantage Point - frees the hand for locomotion duties making it possible to carry items not meat but stone tools (carrying meat attracts scavengers)

 Like modern mammalian scavengers, early hominids

have an alternative food source, too. Early hominid teeth have microscopic wear more like that of chimpanzees and other modern fruit eaters than that of carnivores. This accords with the estimated body weight of 40 to 80 pounds. They were too small to use a bully strategy, but in groups, combined bully-sneaky strategy is possible. Early hominids may have retreated into trees to eat their scavenged trophies as agile climbers.

 Cut marks, tooth wear, bipedalism, and scavenger

adaptation are consistent with the hypothesis that 2 million years ago, hominids were scavengers rather than accomplished hunters. Animal carcasses are not systematically cut up and transported for sharing. Man the hunter may not have appeared until 1.5 to 0.7 million years ago when there was a shift in omnivory with a greater proportion of meat in diet. Homo erectus, equipped with Acheulean-style stone tools and fire, may have been this heroic ancestor.

 1.) Who wrote the scholarly article entitled Scavenger

Hunt? 2.) What device was used to inspect replicas of modern bones? 3.) Where were fossils with stone-tool cut marks found? 4.) Which hunting-related activity involves removing meat from bones? 5.) In skinning or tendon removal, where are cut marks more visible?

 6.) With what was the fossil evidence compared to?

7.) Which of the following rarely scavenge?

a. Hyenas c. Cheetahs b. Leopards d. Jackals 8.) Why is there greater energy saved when scavenging compared to hunting? 9.) What is the estimated body weight of early hominids? 10.) What tools were used by Homo erectus (Man the Hunter)?