The Evolution of Hunting in Pre Human Hominids
Thomas Grové


Fossil records tend to show that the consumption of meat was a vital part of human evolution. There are two basic ways for humans and our hominid ancestors to obtain meat. The question that's we have to answer is how did our ancestors get their meat? The two main theories and the evidence point to hunting and to scavenging as techniques. With a superior intellect, either of these tasks becomes very plausible. In my opinion, our ancestors did not rely on one or another of these techniques but rather a combination of hunting, scavenging, and foraging for plant foods. What is for certain however, is that hunting has evolved extensively over the past 4.4 million years. Hand in hand with these theories is the question of what model of living did the earliest hominids have. Was there a home base (radiating logistic) where hunted animals were brought back and shared with the rest of the clan or did our ancestors live in smaller scavenging bands of two to five individuals, always on the move (circulating residential)? Once again, I am not so sure that it has to be one or the other. It is possible that small scavenging groups could ban together every so often for a hunt.

The major question that I think we need to ask is "how important was meat for the first hominids?" As of yet, the fossil record has revealed no definite answer to this question but we can make rough speculations based on what we know about other apes of today. Human – Pongid divergence probably occurred about 4.5 to 5 million years ago. This poses a problem because even when we compare our closest relatives, chimpanzee and bonobos, to our earliest known ancestor, Australopithecus ramidus, we are still dealing with 4.5 million years of genetic evolution from the time the tree forked. Chimpanzees are no doubt as far from our common ancestors in genetic make up and social conduct as we are. However, since we really have nothing better to go on at this point, some theories about our ancestors based on what we know about chimpanzee's and modern hunter gathers is better than nothing at all.

"Of all the higher primates, only human beings and chimpanzees hunt and eat meat on a regular basis." (5) But what are some of the possible differences in techniques, motivation, and necessity? Chimpanzees, like humans, do not have the best dental structure for being a predator. This does not inhibit them, however, because the way that a chimpanzee kills its prey is by beating, flailing, and tearing it apart. A chimpanzee can hunt alone but they prefer to ban together in groups of 10 or more adult males. The targeted prey will include any number of small antelopes and forest vertebrates but the catch of choice are small, adolescent monkeys such as the red colobus as studied at the Gombe National Park in Tanzania. Although less skilled than males, females are also capable of hunting, but rarely do so. Rather, female chimpanzees spend most of their time foraging for fruits, vegetables, and insects, as well as taking care of their young.

Chimpanzees have been known to trade meat for sex. It was found in Gombe that the females who received the most meat (in trade for sex) had the best success rate of their offspring surviving. Additionally, certain chimpanzees tend to be more successful in hunting than others. It would be in the female's best interest to copulate with the best hunter, therefore increasing the likely hood that her offspring would be good hunters. Observations have also revealed that the presence of estrous females increases the likelihood and frequency of male hunting parties. What's interesting is that Males also share meat with other males. This appears to be tied to chimpanzee politics. In one case, an alpha male would reward his allies with meat and spared no meat for his rivals. It is my hypothesis then that since meat isn't vital for survival, and hunting can be a dangerous activity, that the act of banding together, the act of hunting, and consumption of meat at all may correspond to ego. Maybe a chimpanzee kills and hunts because it can. It's prey, although nutritionally valuable, maybe used as a status symbol, representing a male's superiority to other, less successful, males.

If similar, sex defined, division of labor occurred in early hominids as in chimpanzees, than it would be safe to assume that bipedility may have added in the success of such social ideology and eventually helped us turn into the advanced technology users that we are today. But this is the vital point. Where our ancestors' social and behavior patterns similar to those of chimpanzees? It is a pretty widely accepted theory that our ancestors lived on the outskirts of wooded areas close to rivers and that the majority of their meat consumption was from scavenged sources. The use of stone tools would allow hominids access to the inside of the brain case and to marrow inside of the bones of animals that had been brought down by large cats who are unable to reach these highly nutritional treasures. There is archeological evidence to support this theory. That evidence included fossilized bones and skulls that have been broken by stone tools and stone tools or stone garbage close by. The marks on the bones left by hominid usage of stone tools has been backed up by scientists using similar techniques to those that our ancestors may have used on bones and comparing the results to the fossils. Though pre human hominid females would not have been as adept to hunting, they certainly would have been equally adept to scavenging as their male counterparts were. In the case of a predominantly scavenging based society, the likelihood of a division of labor based on sex roles diminishes.

So, since the archeological evidence supports scavenging, but does not rule out hunting, let us assume, for my hypothesis, that males hominids also hunted. They were certainly capable of hunting, especially if they were to band together. But why do some scientists dismiss the possibility of banding? Could it be that too much coordination was involved? That our brains and bodies had not developed enough for complex communication? Surely if chimpanzees have enough communication skills to carry out this feat than so did our ancestors. The question then arises, why hunt? The most agreed upon answer to this question is that meat, fat, brain, and bone marrow are all saturated with calories. Hunting then becomes the best way to maximize the return rate of calories per time foraging. But it has to be more than that since hominids are very capable of using tools to scavenge. Perhaps, like chimpanzees, hunting was used to elevate one's status in society, and trading meat for sex ensured that the next generation would be more efficient hunters via natural selection. Bipedality would give a hominid an advantage over a pongid's body because it frees up the hands to carry meat back to a female, with less effort, and because it makes carrying tools less of a hassle. With bipedality, carrying tools becomes a good investment, where as with chimpanzees there is more of a chance that a tool will get in the way while hunting than actually being of use. This is important because, with humans, technology and innovation can mean the difference between success and failure. The hominids of days past who were smarter and more innovative were able to be more successful at hunting and thus copulate more often. Over generations, hunting techniques and tools would become more sophisticated as the brain evolved and its learning and thinking processes and capabilities improved.

Current hunter-gatherers eat and obtain far more meat than chimpanzees or baboons do. Even if only using their hands, humans have a greater success rate, a rate that increases exponentially when tools are used. Traditionally, dental structure is largely associated with whether or not a mammal is a hunter by nature. Humans do not, by any means, have a predator-like dental structure. This should not concern us too much though. Predatory animals such as lions use their teeth to capture and to restrain their prey, not to devour it. Unlike most predatory animals, humans do not have the proper enzymes to digest meats very efficiently. Our dental structure, however, is very good at cutting the meat into smaller, more manageable pieces that can be digested, and the advent of cutting tools also aids in the same way. When you add the discovery of fire, those hard to break amino acid bonds become a lot weaker and humans are able to extract an unbelievable amount of calories from a relatively small portion of food (meat).

As we move forward in time, away from pongid-human divergence, and towards the Middle Paleolithic Era, we see several trends manifest. Foresight increases, and with the increase of foresight, we have an increase of sharing. While always opportunistic, hominids begin to rely on themselves more and less on luck. Society evolves from one that could have been strictly, or largely, one of scavenging to one increasingly dependent on hunting. By the time that we get to the Middle Paleolithic Era we see definite planed killing and the transportation of the best parts to another location for consumption. This biological and social behavior could well be accounted for if the chimpanzee model is somewhat valid. Proof of hunting by at least the Middle Paleolithic Era comes from a famous archeological site, Combe Grenal. Here was found a hominid skeleton with a wooden spear and an elephant skeleton. Combe Grenal also gave us crude, re-sharpened stone tools, and some evidence of early game driving. Game driving would require a great deal of coordination and therefore complex communications. Although absurd by today's standards, they probably had already developed these skills by the Middle Paleolithic. The landscape near Combe Grenal would also lend to game driving as it has valleys to channel game through and cliffs for them to be driven over. The archeological records at Combe Grenal offer substantial evidence for such game driving techniques. By looking at a life assemblage of the Middle Paleolithic Era at Combe Grenal, it is found that the skeletal remains of heard animals are of all ages, suggesting a catastrophic (for the prey), non-biased hunting effort. As the evolution of hunting continued, Hominids would become less dependent on terrain.

As time progressed from the Early to the Late Paleolithic Era and then onto the Upper Late Paleolithic Era, hunting became more frequent, more efficient, and more diverse as a result of human and technological evolution. By the Late Upper Paleolithic Era, we see definite evidence of large game herd driving. As population groups grew, people became systematic and scheduled hunters. During off-seasons, Hunter-Gathers would subsist off of smaller prey like rabbits. This ecological mindset helped to conserve populations of larger herd animals such as reindeer and horse that were so vital for a Hunter-Gathers' existence. This suggests an evolution of the brain to the point where forethought and planning months in advance was possible. Hominid society, hunting, weapons, traps, and planing had become more complex and developed. Stone tools became sharper, cleaner, and when construction on a tool begins the final, refined product was in mind. Antler and bone also began to be used and fashioned into tools and ornamentation. Changes in location forced technology and exploitation of new recourses to the point were watercraft, bows and arrows, blow darts, fishing hooks, and nets were used to capitalize on previously unattainable game such as birds and fish. As hominids left fertile tropics and push northwards towards more sparse landscapes such as tundra, the dependency on hunting also increased. Herd animals such as reindeer can survive on fields of lichen, a growth inedible by humans, and thus herd animals continued to be important resources.

Current Hunter-Gathers have mastered their way of life. Eskimos know how to get seals, Bushmen know how to get water, and Humans continue to be opportunistic. Meat, however, doesn't seem to be a viable trade for sex anymore, though it's status substitutes, money and cars, can possibly lead to copulation (with shallow people).

 

Sources List:

1. Weapon Technology, Prey Size Selection, and Hunting Methods in Modern Hunter-Gatherers: Implications for Hunting in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic by Steven E. Churchill, University of New Mexico

2. Hunting in Late Upper Paleolithic Western Europe by Lawrence Guy Straus, University of New Mexico

3. Hunting and Human Evolution by Kim Hill University of Utah

4. The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans by Philip G. Chase

5: http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/Stanford-full.html


back to papers
Back to LiON's Basement