Reply #20: I don't have a bubble about it

[kcwayne]

But it seems counter-intuitive that if most of the diet was plant matter and more easily attained, why didn't the men just go grab an ear of corn and plop their lazy asses next to the fermented stump water? I mean, it would be a whole lot safer than running out to challenge a Grizzly bear with a couple of semi-sharp rocks and a stick.

I also wonder why in the all the cave drawings that I have seen, you always see the hunters chasing deer and buffalo. I'd like to see the drawing where the hunter is staring down a cabbage with his bow and arrow.

At any rate, you cannot say that as a matter of course, prehistoric diet was largely plant matter. That may have been true in certain locales. It certainly wasn't true of the Plains Indians who wandered vast territories in search of meat, and moved their entire villages to chase the migratory path of buffalo. Unless you want to make the argument that these tribes were hopelessly stupid, which they were not.

Unless archeology has changed dramatically since the visit I made in the 80's to a dig with archeologist friend of mine, the key tells they looked for in sites were discarded animal bones, mounds of clam shells, and tools used for butchering. Obviously these artifacts would last a whole lot longer than discarded carrot tops, but the pure volume would seem to contradict your argument that the hunt was usually fruitless.

BTW the point of my original post was humor, I am not trying to make a modern day argument for the benefits of Neanderthal societal organization.