A groundbreaking historical study by researchers at Tel Aviv University reviews the development of early man's hunting habits over the past 1.5 million years - as reflected in the animals he hunted and ate. According to the researchers, ancient humans at all times preferred to hunt the largest animals in their environment, those that produced the largest amount of food for the least effort.
In this way, the researchers hypothesize, early humans repeatedly exterminated the large animals, each time moving on to the next largest animal, forcing them to refine their hunting technology accordingly. The researchers also claim that about 10,000 years ago, when the animals were too small and hunting may no longer be 'payable', man moved to domesticating animals and plants that would satisfy his needs, and perhaps because of this the agricultural revolution took place in our region at exactly this time.
The research, which is unprecedented in its scope, was conducted under the leadership of Prof. Ran Barkai and Dr. Miki Ben-Dor From the Department of Archeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Prof. Shay Meiri from the School of Zoology וFrom the Natural History Museum by Steinhardt, and Jacob Dambitzer, a research student of Prof. Barkai and Prof. Meiri who led the research. The article was published in the prestigious journal Quaternary Science Review.
As part of the study, the researchers performed a comprehensive statistical analysis of data on animal bones from dozens of prehistoric archaeological sites in and around Israel, and found that the size of the animals that provided man with most of his food gradually decreased - from giant elephants that formed the main basis of nutrition 1.5 million years ago to deer before About 10,000 years. The findings, according to them, paint an eye-opening picture of the interaction between man and the animals in his environment over the past million and a half years.
Hunting or climate change?
Prof. Barkai explains that there are two main issues that preoccupy prehistory researchers all over the world: What caused the mass extinctions of large animals in the last tens and hundreds of thousands of years - was it overhunting by humans, or perhaps climate changes that hit the planet? And also, what drove the great changes - both physical and cultural - that the human species underwent during evolution?
"In light of previous studies, our team built an original hypothesis that links the two issues: we believe that large animals became extinct due to overhunting by humans, and that the change in diet and the need to hunt animals whose size has decreased are the driving factor in the changes that humans have undergone." says Prof. Barkai. "In the current study, we sought to test our hypotheses in light of data from excavations that were conducted here in our region and refer to several human species over a long period of 1.5 million years."
The South Levant is considered an archaeological laboratory
Adds Jacob Dembitzer: "The area in which we live, known as the South Levant (Israel, the Palestinian Authority, southwestern Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon) is considered a kind of 'archaeological laboratory', because it is very rich in prehistoric findings from a particularly long period, and provides a database that is not anywhere else in the world. Excavations that began here about 150 years ago brought up evidence of the presence of ancient humans, starting with Homo erectus who arrived here 1.5 million years ago, through the Neanderthals who arrived here, it is not clear when, but disappeared from the area about 45,000 years ago, and up to the modern man (meaning us) who came From Africa in several waves, the first probably about 180,000 years ago."
As part of the study, the researchers gathered all the data available in the literature about animal bones found in dated archaeological sites in the southern Levant region, most of them in Israel. The excavations, carried out from 1932 until today, have provided a unique sequence on a world level of finds from different human species, over a period of 1.5 million years. Some of the sites included several layers from different periods, sometimes with a gap of thousands of years between layers, and in total 133 layers from 58 prehistoric sites were included in the study, in which thousands of bone remains of 83 species of animals were identified. The researchers then calculated the average size of the animals whose bones were found in each layer at each site.
Prof. Meiri points out that "unlike other studies, which looked at the size of the animals over much shorter periods of time, this study followed changes with high resolution over a long period of time. The results were eye-opening: a continuous and very significant decrease in the size of the hunted animals was observed over 1.5 million years. For example, a third of the bones left behind by Homo erectus in very early sites, from about a million years ago, belonged to elephants that weighed up to 13 tons - more than double that of today's African elephant - and provided man with about 90% of his food. The average weight of animals hunted by man at that time was three tons. In fact, until about half a million years ago, elephant bones were found in almost all sites.
Starting 400,000 years before our time, a time when the ancient ancestors of the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens lived here, elk constituted the majority of hunted animals, but alongside their remains, bones of large animals weighing close to a ton were also uncovered, such as wild cattle and horses. And finally, at the sites of modern man, starting 50,000 years before our time, the bones of deer - an animal weighing only 30-20 kg, make up about 70% of the findings. The rest of the findings at these late sites consist of donkey bones (about 20%) along with the remains of smaller animals such as rabbits and turtles."
Human progress has always harmed the environment - from bow and arrow to greenhouse gases
Jacob Dambitzer: "The next question we asked is what caused the disappearance of the large animals. A common theory claims that the extinction of animals was mainly caused by climate change, and to test this we collected climate data that covered the entire period. Some of them determined the temperature in different periods according to the level of the oxygen isotope 18. Others examined carbon 13 values taken from the local Sorek Cave, which indicate the amount of precipitation and the types of vegetation - that is, the environment in which humans lived in each period. In this way we covered many ice age cycles and interglacial periods. A variety of statistical analyzes that compared the size of the animals with the climate, precipitation and environment in each period, revealed that the climate and climate change had a minimal effect, if any, on the extinction of the animals.
According to Dr. Ben-Dor, "the findings allow us to make a fascinating hypothesis about the development of the human species: humans always preferred to hunt the largest animals in their environment, until they became extinct or their numbers decreased to a level that forced humans to move on to the animals next in size. As a result, each new human species that appeared in our area had to hunt smaller animal species than its predecessor, in order to obtain the same amount of food. For this, each human species is required to develop more innovative and efficient technologies. For example, Homo erectus was content with spears to attack elephants at short range, while modern man developed a bow and arrow to hit the agile deer from a distance."
Environmental damage since the dawn of humanity
Prof. Barkai concludes: "We believe that our model is relevant to human culture everywhere in the world, and claim for the first time that the decrease in the size of animals is the driving factor behind the improvement of human technology. In the end, it is possible that about 10,000 years ago in our region, the animals were too small or rare to provide man with his food, and this may be related to the appearance of agriculture. In addition, we confirmed the hypothesis that it was man who caused the extinction of the large animals, and in this sense he repeatedly 'cut the branch on which he was sitting'. It can be concluded, therefore, that since the beginning of human days we are destroying our environment. However, it turns out that the human race in its sophistication finds solutions to the problems it itself created - from the bow and arrow that allowed hunting from afar to the agricultural revolution, while the environment always pays the price."
More of the topic in Hayadan:
5 תגובות
I'm not an expert on the subject but it doesn't sound serious or convincing to me. Man has not existed for a million and a half years and large species became extinct due to the circumstances of natural factors and not by the hands of the tiny man who amplifies his heritage or abilities in the name of hypothetical science. In my opinion, man belongs to the small creatures, not the great super creatures. A matter of contemporary view and not a theory in aspemia brewing from lego toys of bone parts.
It can't be that the world existed a million and a half years ago, just in the last century we destroyed half of the animals in the world, in another hundred and two hundred years there won't be a world anymore, so what's all this talk about, and I also noticed that there are crazy contradictions regarding the age of the world according to studies that are actually in general deviant theories of Hundreds of millions of years makes absolutely no sense
During the last ice age there were global climate changes that are hard to describe, for example the Sahara desert was not a desert but a tropical forest, the Mediterranean Sea was much smaller and the Black Sea was a river at all. The weather changes were apparently very rapid in some cases, for example mammoths found frozen in Siberia with undigested leaves in their stomachs. The extinction of the animals took place around the world, in places where humans had not yet arrived or where their numbers were really limited such as South America.
Another fact that must be taken into account is that there were groups of people who lived more or less in balance with their environment like the Indians in America, another thing is the fact that the number of people who lived at the end of the Ice Age were much less than the number of people who lived in ancient Egypt, Greece, Assyria, Persia, Rome, etc. "and. If hunting in the Stone Age and before led to such a mass extinction, then how did hunting in later periods when there were many more people not lead to the continued extinction of the various species such as elephants, tigers, lions, etc.? Here it is also possible to note the fact that the large animals did not exactly disappear completely, in some cases they were "replaced" by smaller breeds if less fur (but still large enough to be hunted) which perhaps suggests more adaptation to the climate than the result of overhunting.
And of course, mass extinction events are a known thing in the history of the earth, in fact about 7 of the major events of this type happened long before the appearance of humans, when there is a theory that claims that according to genetic data at the end of the last ice age, the human race itself was close to becoming part of the statistics. Of course, I am not here to claim that humans could not, in certain areas, cause mass mortality of this or that species until its complete extinction, but from this to the claim that "since the beginning of human history we have been destroying our environment... while the environment always pays the price." The distance is very large.
On the contrary, if we look at human history and the destruction that man causes to the environment (especially since the industrial revolution with the pollution of the environment and global warming) and compare it with the mass extinctions in the history of the earth, we will come to the obvious conclusion that despite the great destruction that man causes, even "the environment" is not exactly a total waste Blue, and to this day she is the biggest mass murderer.
I agree with the response from my occupation of hunting and hunting. Local cultures that did not obey the strict laws of existence and cut branches on which they were sitting, crashed with them...but they are the exception. For hunters, the small and weak animals will always be hunted like wolves. Certainly for most of our development axis where our skills were quite limited. In the modern period - Neanderthals and Spaniards, real data must be checked on accepting ice ages for extinctions and crossbreeding with evolutionary advantages demonstrated by these species under difficult conditions... only then will it be possible to reach true conclusions.
I read the article about it
on the "hunter's preferences" of primitive man,
In my humble opinion, there are inaccuracies in the article,
Misrepresentation of the findings
and therefore wrong conclusions.
Below:
It says: "They preferred to hunt the large animals
the most in their environment, those who produced the amount of food
The greatest for the least effort.'
Not exact:
Because to hunt large animals a large group of hunters is needed
Whereas the ancient hunter-gatherers lived in small family groups.
Anyone familiar with today's hunter-gatherers knows that they hunt fowl
and small animals simply because they are unable to hunt large animals,
Write :
"In this way, the researchers hypothesize, the ancient humans
Exterminated the large animals again and again,
There is no doubt that humans "contributed" to the extinction of large animals
But according to most and the best studies the main cause of extinction
There were environmental and climatic changes,
Write :
"About 10,000 years ago, when the animals were too small
And hunting may no longer 'pay off', man has moved on to domestication
animals and plants that will satisfy his needs,
And maybe that's why the agricultural revolution took place in our region
Just at this time.'
Again,
Most studies show that the agricultural revolution
occurred following climatic and environmental changes
Following the end of the last ice age,
Write :
"They found that the size of the animals that provided man with most of his food
It gradually decreased - from giant elephants that formed the main basis of the diet
1.5 million years ago and up to deer about 10,000 years ago. "
Again:
When due to environmental and climate conditions there are fewer large animals
Obviously there will be fewer remains.
In addition to this, it is worth knowing that then, as today, there were groups
who "specialize" in stealing mad hunters
and in collecting food from laggards (of large animals).
The sequel emphasizes the fact of the connection
Between the extinction and the climate and the environment
yes if:
"A third of the bones left behind by Homo erectus
on websites. very early,
From about a million years ago, belonged to elephants…….''
It is known that Homo erectus did not have the skills to hunt large animals
Therefore the remains are of carcasses and not of a hunter.
Towards the end it says:
"We confirmed the hypothesis that the person
He is the one who caused the extinction of the large animals,
While several sentences before it is written:
"A common theory claims that the extinction of animals
caused mainly by climate change',
Therefore, it is possible that the researchers avoid combining the data
Let them see about man's tiny "contribution" to extinction
in the face of climate change,
There is no doubt that:
"We are destroying our environment."
But to attribute the main extinction of the large animals to man
Based on a misinterpretation of data...
Not exact.