Post by Lone Wanderer on Jan 4, 2018 19:17:09 GMT
Source: Cannibal Calories: Early Humans Likely Didn't Eat Each Other for Nutrition
The results, published online today (April 6) in the journal Scientific Reports, suggest that hunting and consuming hominins wouldn’t have been a reliable source of food for prehistoric humans, as many archeologists previously thought, Cole said. Rather, it's more likely that cannibalism was socially driven, he added. For example, Neanderthals or other hominins may have cannibalized each other when having to defend their territory, or as a way of resolving competition within a group.
This hypothesis is also supported by the scarcity of fossil records of Paleolithic cannibalism. Bones of adults, children and teenagers carrying teeth marks and other signs of cannibalism have been found deep inside caves in large groups, indicating that the whole group was likely consumed in one go, instead of as part of regular diet, Cole said.
In the future, archaeologists can use the template as a tool for evaluating human fossil sites and interpreting the motivations behind the acts of cannibalism at each site, he said. Scientists can look at the calorie values of various animal remains found next to human bones and analyze whether that particular prehistoric group was struggling for survival and was therefore driven to cannibalism due to a lack of other food options, or if they were cannibalizing as ritual or to defend their territory.
"The stereotype of the Neanderthal is not true," Cole said. Accepting that our Neanderthal cousins ate their own kind doesn't mean that they were brutes. Their motivations could have been just as varied as our motivations for various behaviors are. "We should expect that the reason they engaged in cannibalism could be complex, and different for each episode, rather than trying to limit them to one label."
The results, published online today (April 6) in the journal Scientific Reports, suggest that hunting and consuming hominins wouldn’t have been a reliable source of food for prehistoric humans, as many archeologists previously thought, Cole said. Rather, it's more likely that cannibalism was socially driven, he added. For example, Neanderthals or other hominins may have cannibalized each other when having to defend their territory, or as a way of resolving competition within a group.
This hypothesis is also supported by the scarcity of fossil records of Paleolithic cannibalism. Bones of adults, children and teenagers carrying teeth marks and other signs of cannibalism have been found deep inside caves in large groups, indicating that the whole group was likely consumed in one go, instead of as part of regular diet, Cole said.
In the future, archaeologists can use the template as a tool for evaluating human fossil sites and interpreting the motivations behind the acts of cannibalism at each site, he said. Scientists can look at the calorie values of various animal remains found next to human bones and analyze whether that particular prehistoric group was struggling for survival and was therefore driven to cannibalism due to a lack of other food options, or if they were cannibalizing as ritual or to defend their territory.
"The stereotype of the Neanderthal is not true," Cole said. Accepting that our Neanderthal cousins ate their own kind doesn't mean that they were brutes. Their motivations could have been just as varied as our motivations for various behaviors are. "We should expect that the reason they engaged in cannibalism could be complex, and different for each episode, rather than trying to limit them to one label."