Were our stone tool ancestors predators or scavengers?

Question

I was taking a course which brought this topic up but in my memory never resolved it... is there an answer?

Answer 1

Do not use bad words for them , they were definitely predators.

Answer 2

yeah i agree with hillbilly, i think that they were both predators and scavengers.

Answer 3

I have worked on numerous sites within the United States that span about 20,000 years where there is clear evidence that they hunted.  In the earlier times they used an atlatl witch can be a very powerful weapon for hunting purposes.  Later they changed to a bow and even used stone tools within the past 400 years.

The trouble with scavenging, is that the meat has to be processed within a certain number of days or it is no good.  In ethnological data for places like the Vore Buffalo Jump in Wyoming, Native Americans were very aware of this critical amount of time.

Also, in the case of scavenging big game, there isn't much left after wild animals are through with it.  I have heard stories, however, of the hides and other portions of the animal being scavenged for other purposes other than a meal.

Answer 4

They were omnivores eating available fruit, vegetable, meat, and carrion.

Answer 5

I have worked with scientists that were endeavoring to answer this exact question.  We can’t give you a definite answer yet, but hopefully we will be able to soon.  What we were doing was called “actualistic studies” and, in our case, we were cutting up modern animals with stone tools so that we could try and determine different types of cut marks (either predatory or opportunistic) so that we could compare this to the cut marks that are found in the archaeological record.  In doing this we can become more certain of weather our ancestors were hunters or scavengers.  To be more clear, what we would do is carve up carcasses when time is an issue thereby our aim would be to remove the limbs quickly because that would be a priority in scavenging vs a carcass where there is not a time constraint as would be present in predatory hunting.  Indeed there were differences and then we continued this type of experimentation by leaving some bones out to be scavenged to see how this also affected the appearance of these bones.  Another study that we were doing was to pick up carcasses that had been eaten by lions or hyenas primarily, although sometimes we were lucky enough to find remains that other animals left behind and then look at the marks that are left when these animals are the first on the scene as an additional evidence to determine scavenging.  All in all, we hope to develop a decent idea of how different processes can effect the appearance of bone remains so that we can have a better idea of what was going on in the past.

Answer 6

I would say both,the strong would kill the meat the weak would steal it off of them

Answer 7

I believe they were considered opportunists, hunting and also scavenging anything that would keep them alive.

Answer 8

Both, probably.  There's evidence of human scavenging, things like knife marks over top of hyena tooth marks on bones, and humans and Neanderthals certainly hunted as well.  My guess is that it would have depended on what was around.  If there's not a lot of fresh meat, and you see something else's kill, it makes sense to steal it if you can.

Answer 9

Early theories suggest "man the hunter" was an important part of our development.  BUT - actual study of the bones associated with early human sites show that up until Homo erectus, we were probably scavengers rather than hunters.  The evidence comes in the form of the speicifc parts that are found at these sites.  Typically found  are lower limbs and other body parts with little meat that take more effort to process.  In contrast the more meaty parts, that take little effort to eat are not found.  The interpretation is that those meaty parts are utilized by the primary predators – lions, etc. That would bring down the animal, eat their full and then move on, leaving the less meaty or more difficult to process pieces behind.  Early humans would then scavenge these pieces, often taking back to relatively safe areas (so as not to become the next meal for another predator) where they would then do what they could to get nutrition from the scavenged parts (use those stone tools to break bones for marrow).

Later, when stone tool technology advances, and our brains get bigger, there is a definite shift in the types of bones found associated with human sites as we began to utilize the meaty parts – signaling the shift from scavenging to hunting.