stone tool cutmarks

Forums: English, Politics, Grammar, Not Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

see this text ..

The number and location of stone tool cutmarks and the rarity of carnivore tooth marks indicate that the people were not restricted to scavenging from lions or hyenas, and they often gained first access to the intact carcasses of even large mammals like buffalo and eland.

what is "scavenging from lions" means ? i get it hard to understand the meaning

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,381 • Replies: 11

No top replies

@tintin,

Quote:

scavenge
1. to take or gather (something usable) from discarded material.

Hyenas and lions are predators. To scavenge food from a hunter is to collect/gather the remaining bits and pieces of food leftover from the animal killed by the hyenas or lions but not eaten by the hyenas or the lions.

This statement suggests that prehistoric humans did not depend strictly on finding food leftover from prey killed by lions or hyenas ... but found food by hunting animals like "buffalo and eland."

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

The entire meaning is still confusing........here I am adding my understanding and doubts.

Can you please explain part by part ?

>>The number and location of stone tool cutmarks and the rarity of carnivore tooth marks

cutmarks / toothmarks on what ?

>>> indicate that the people were not restricted to scavenging from lions or
hyenas

it says 'people were not restricted' ... so people were free to gather leftover food from lions /hyenas then ?

>>>and they often gained first access to the intact carcasses of even large mammals like buffalo and eland.

they means ? people or hyena ?

3 Replies

@tintin,

tintin wrote:

The entire meaning is still confusing........here I am adding my understanding and doubts.

Can you please explain part by part ?

>>The number and location of stone tool cutmarks and the rarity of carnivore tooth marks

cutmarks / toothmarks on what ?
On bones
Preseved bones from prehistoric times are often used as indicators of what prehistoric people used as food. Many things can be determined from bones such as the type and age of the animal. When a carnivore eats a carcase there will be tooth marks on the bones that can be matched with certain types of carnivore. When people made their own kills the marks left on the bones will match stone tools.

>>> indicate that the people were not restricted to scavenging from lions or
hyenas

it says 'people were not restricted' ... so people were free to gather leftover food from lions /hyenas then ?

"NOT RESTRICTED to scavenging" means the people killed their own food as well as gather food leftover from Lions and hyena. In fact the passge suggests most of the food eaten was from peoples own kills. Not restricted to also indicates that some of the food they used WAS from scavenging but only a part of their diet.
if people were "RESTRICTED TO scavenging" it would mean they did not make any of their own kills.

>>>and they often gained first access to the intact carcasses of even large mammals like buffalo and eland.

they means ? people or hyena ?

They means people

0 Replies

@tintin,

Quote:

and they often gained first access to the intact carcasses of even large mammals like buffalo and eland.

Its not that well written because the word " intact Carcasses" implies an already dead animal rather than one that was killed by hunters. You dont hunt down a carcass, its just laying there, already immobile.
Does it mean that the ancients actually"had access to carcasses of large animals" ? or does it really mean that "they were more opportunistic scavengers of animals that were killed or died by means other than predation ?

It doesnt imply that they hunted in this sentence structure

0 Replies

@tintin,

Quote:

>>The number and location of stone tool cutmarks and the rarity of carnivore tooth marks

The cut and toolmarkes are on the bones of the fossil animals.
And you are correct, Im a native english speaker and find the second sentence clumsyl and not really accurate in what I think they wish to say.

Whats the context? IE What does the title say? Is there any lead up to this section that sheds any light on what the author is trying to say?

0 Replies

Thanks I read those comments .....I am still not clear...let me tell why

it says "The number and location of stone tool cutmarks and the rarity of carnivore tooth marks indicate that the people were not restricted to scavenging from lions or hyenas....."

see "carnivore tooth marks" ..who are carnivore ? who eats meat ..right ? men eats meat . I have a confusion here . Can we call men as carnivore here ?

3 Replies

@tintin,

Most humans are carnivores but if you think about how prey is dealt with by animals as opposed to humans, I'm sure it's fairly easy to discern whether an animal was killed by an animal or human carnivore.
Most human carnivores kill their prey and then butcher it before eating it, so you'd see evidence of sawing and cutting at the joints instead of tooth marks on the long bones of the animal, while animals kill their prey and eat it without butchering it - because they don't have and can't use tools like knives and saws-so you'd simply see teeth marks on the bones of animals killed and consumed by other animals.

0 Replies

@tintin,

tintin wrote:

The entire meaning is still confusing........here I am adding my understanding and doubts.

Can you please explain part by part ?

1. >>The number and location of stone tool cutmarks and the rarity of carnivore tooth marks

cutmarks / toothmarks on what ?

2, >>> indicate that the people were not restricted to scavenging from lions or
hyenas

it says 'people were not restricted' ... so people were free to gather leftover food from lions /hyenas then ?

3. >>>and they often gained first access to the intact carcasses of even large mammals like buffalo and eland.

they means ? people or hyena ?

1. On prey animals' bones.

2. That people were killing these animals for them,selves, not just scavenging them after they had already been killed by lions and hyenas.

3. People.

Edit: Doh. When I began to post here, all the above answers were not already there!

0 Replies

@tintin,

tintin wrote:

Thanks I read those comments .....I am still not clear...let me tell why

it says "The number and location of stone tool cutmarks and the rarity of carnivore tooth marks indicate that the people were not restricted to scavenging from lions or hyenas....."

see "carnivore tooth marks" ..who are carnivore ? who eats meat ..right ? men eats meat . I have a confusion here . Can we call men as carnivore here ?

It means OTHER carnivores' teethmarks. Not those of humans.

0 Replies

Humans are Omnivorouse.

0 Replies

@tintin,

tintin wrote:

see "carnivore tooth marks" ..who are carnivore ? who eats meat ..right ? men eats meat . I have a confusion here . Can we call men as carnivore here?

Lions and hyena (as referenced in the passage) are the carnivores.
Humans are omnivorous. Omnivores eat meat and vegetables and fruit,
however that is not the point of the passage.

Tooth marks on bones are distinctive and can be traced to he animal that made the marks.

Would your teeth leave similar markings on a bone to (say) a lion?

Do you understand that a lion or hyena would leave differnt shaped marks on a bone to the marks left by stone tools?

0 Replies

stone tool cutmarks

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know