Slashdot Mirror
Ancestors of Homo Sapiens Hunted by Birds
CFTM writes "The associate press writer, Alexandra Zavis, reports that 'A South African anthropologist said Thursday his research into the death nearly 2 million years ago of an ape-man shows human ancestors were hunted by birds.' The article raises some really fascinating questions, particularly when one begins to think about the evolutionary impact that this may have had on humans." From the article: "The Ohio State study determined that eagles would swoop down, pierce monkey skulls with their thumb-like back talons, then hover while their prey died before returning to tear at the skull. Examination of thousands of monkey remains produced a pattern of damage done by birds, including holes and ragged cuts in the shallow bones behind the eye sockets. Berger went back to the Taung skull, and found traces of the ragged cuts behind the eye sockets. He said none of the researchers who had for decades been debating how the child died had noticed the eye socket damage before."
Perhaps our psychological fascination with dragons and birds of prey are subsequent results of frequent bird attacks on our ancestors? At any rate, it's been commonly believed that several thousand years of exposure to a species results in a slight increase of instinct of fear with each newborn. Books like Guns, Germs & Steel by Jared Diamond explain how evolutionary fears in species develop over many thousand years of exposure. Could what we see in movies of carrion-like dragons be a remnant of psychological fears imposed by these raptors on our ancestors?
... the easiest access being the eyes.
If at one time our ancestors were hunted by large birds, what happened to them? One can easily think of ways for other large predator animals to be removed from the food chain but large raptors seem to have no natural predator. Did modern man learn to defend himself from such birds? Did our stone weapons suffice for protecting us from such large aerial predators or was it not until bronze weapons that we were specialized enough to protect ourselves?
While the telltale signs might remain in skeletons, these issues raise a host of new issues that obviously require much more research to be determined.
More importantly, aren't the researchers overlooking the obvious possibility that the "ragged cuts" behind the eye sockets resulted from carrion birds after the death of the individual?
Perhaps it was the case that many of these ancestors were wiped out from a plague that left no evidence of itself and there just happened to be large scavenger birds everywhere to capitalize off of these corpses? The result would be thousands (if not millions) of dead corpses left for scavengers to ravage. Corpses close enough to an aviary or bird sanctuary would likely suffer from these skull markings. Were the markings also present on other parts of the bodies? I've seen vultures pick a corpse clean and they probably worked pretty hard to get at the fat and oil rich brain
Maybe the eyes of dead human corpses are merely a delicacy among scavenger birds or some other scavenger that left similar markings?
My work here is dung.
...because I don't think there is any bird alive today that doesn't fly away the minute we get anywhere near them, no matter how large. (okay, maybe an ostrich will fight us, but that is a BIG bird...)
How do we know that the holes in the heads didn't come from other proto-humans that fastened a bird talon to the end of some spear and then battled one another? That would seem to make a pretty lethal weapon.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
There is a rather large african bird that runs and pack hunts on the African plains even now. I'm sure that one of you will know the name of it, as it escapes me at the moment. It is quite feared in the regions it is known to inhabit because it currently has the rather uncomfortable habit of killing and eating members of our species. People joke about the dragon saying "Humans...yes...I like them. They're crunchy and taste good with ketchup." However, we often forget that being slow, weak, and unarmed (compared to other species and their natural equipment) that we make a tempting meal for a great many things. Since this is true of modern man, even with all of our technology (googling on "man killed by bear" brings up at least 10 pages), this must have been even more true of our early ancestors.
The whole reason that we consider a 30.06 superior to a flint tipped spear or big stick is because it can kill more stuff before that stuff can kill us. I can only imagine what it would have been like to try to fight of a predator armed only with the most basic implements. This leads me to think that early man was on the menu rather often. While this may sound cold to many of you, we have all benefitted from it, so don't feel too bad for the early guys. We know that our ancestors evolved quite a bit from looking at the fossil record. What's the big driving factor behind evolution? Predation. Wolves make the deer smarter and faster by culling the weak and stupid. Birds force moths to shift their coloration patterns by eating anything that "stands out". Why do we have these big brains and not a whole lot else? Predation. Since we didn't have fangs or claws or venom, we had to think our way out of being eaten. This selected for intelligence.
One theory has it that we're here because we're loosers. Now, don't squeal...keep reading. We know that early hominds lived in forests. Why? Plenty of food and plenty of cover. The same reasons that modern apes are found in forests. Given the idea that forest is the most desirable habitat, why did early hominds forsake the forest and creep on to the plains? It's simple...they didn't leave because they suddenly thought "You know, going out there on the plains where there's no food, no water, and a lot of predators we can't out run sounds like a MARVELOUS idea!" They were driven out. Groups of apes, chimps, etc. war over territory constantly. Early hominids lost a battle to retain their territory and were driven out of the forest and on to the plains because they were loosers. That's right, we're all decended from a big bunch of loosers who made the best of what they had left. Sound familiar??? Being on the plains made forced the evolution of walking upright so that we could see over the top of the grass to see predators coming at us. Once we starting walking around as bipeds instead of knuckle draggers, we had these free hands. With free hands and opposable thumbs, well you can just get into all kinds of trouble can't you.
Given that we have a long history of being dinner, I fail to see why these scientists think it's so odd. It seems emminently logical that some predator made the wounds on the skull.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
I would guess that this is probably the original origin of the "overlord" cliche.
Some little pip-squeak sitting around the communal fire, 2-million years ago trys to be cool and impress his commrades by announcing "I for one welcome our new avian menance overlords" Snicker snicker snicker. After months of repeating this phase with multiple variations his brained cracked skullcase somehow ended in the fire pit.
Noticed quite a few posts about imagined giant doom-birds swooping down to attack cave people, so I thought I'd mention a few things.
First of all, the Taung baby was not a modern human. (Ausralopithecines are bipedal, but closer to apes than to modern humans apart from that). An adult averaged between 65 and 90 lbs., depending on gender.
Second of all, they're talking about a child. It would be tiny, and the idea of something that small being attacked by a larger predatory bird doesn't seem that far-fetched. No need for Mothra.
Maybe human death rituals (e.g. burial, burning, leaving to vultures) got started because they ensured predators didn't profit from the death of the victim.
In Pascal Boyer's book, Religion Explained, he suggests that burial rituals may have formed for a variety of reasons. One idea is that burial rituals mark a transition between two states of being, since our human free agent inference system in our brains still think of the corpse as somehow still possessing an attribute of human-ness. In that way, burials can be viewed in the same light as other rite-of-passage rituals like baptism or marriage.
Another theory is that mentioned by the parent poster, in that dangerous scavangers are less likely to come near the clan looking for dead bodies to eat. The problem with that idea is that early humans were nomadic foragers, which would make it easy for them to avoid such an invasion. And then why do these early burials involve such unnecessary components as flowers, aligned horns, or tools? Furthermore, it would seem that risks of infection from a decaying body would present a more compelling reason to dispose of the body (burial, burning, ingesting by a spiritual specialist, etc.).
Death rituals are likely to stem from the natural human disposition that something must be done. I could go on for several more paragraphs, but this diversion has gone on far enough; those who would like to more fully investigate the phenomenon of burial should read chapter 6 of Boyer's book.
Onto the subject of being preyed upon by birds -- Joseph Campbell talks about experiments wherein scientists draw a wood cutout of a hawk on a string across a chicken pen. The chicks will scurry for cover when that happens. When the scientists drew the hawk across the pen backwards, the chicks did not react. Campbell identified this behavior as an innate releasing mechanism (IRM). It is somewhat like a hard-wired circuit in the brains of these animals that evolved through the selection pressure of millions of years of being hunted by hawks. Other posters have mentioned that perhaps that is why we are so fascinated by dragons and what not in our mythological tales. We have an inference system in our brains that is wired to evoke a stronger emotive response to the image of a big bird-like creature, and hence that leads to the adoption of the bird meme in the images of our culture.
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine