BLAME it on the bunnies. The debate over what Neanderthals ate, and how it may have led to their demise, has turned to rabbits. Which, it is now claimed, Neanderthals did not feast on.
Signs that our extinct cousins hunted dolphins and seals were presented in 2008 as evidence of their sophistication. But, experts claimed in 2009, they weren't clever enough to catch fish or birds – which could have given our ancestors an edge. Then came the discovery of fish scales and feathers on Neanderthal tools.
Now, John Fa of the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust in Trinity, Jersey, says Neanderthals eventually bit the dust because they were unable to adapt their hunting to small animals like rabbits.
Erm... I'm fairly sure they have found evidence that neaderthals ate fish such as salmon. Heck, when they're migrating upstream, they're easy to catch by hand in the shallows. The idea they would not be eating fish is frankly stupid.
I doubt it has to do less about catching them and more about what they did after they caught them. Aren't a lot of the flying bird species and a whole bunch of fish considered pets?
I wouldn't be surprised if they thought more versions of animals as pets instead of food.
Imagine chicken was are only food source and we all started raising them ourselves, how many people would actually kill and eat the chickens they raised? Not many.
We all know how some people would turn to eating other people before they ate their pets. Considering we do have a bit of the same genetic code after all?
I'm not sure if Neanderthals kept any pets at all... I don't recall ever reading about any signs of dog domestication among them - though I could have missed it... And dogs are a lot more likely to have been domesticated than birds... Other than hawks and falcons used as hunters, (which seems to require a lot more sophistication than I think the Neanders had) birds weren't really useful except as food (and their feathers as ornamentation)... And if they did use hunting birds... the birds main prey would have been other birds and..... rabbits...
Education...has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
-- G.M. Trevelyan
Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:54 AM
More like PETA less like a regular people. As in people who like to bird watch, then get p***ed; if they hear about somebody blasting away the poor innocent turkey. That type of relationship between humans and animals, which also takes in to consideration the lack of signs for domesticating animals. Actually loving an animal, not capturing them to just use as a tool, I consider a pet.
Seriously, if a human has the power to make clothes of animal skins, to make fire, to catch creatures in a different element (fish), and creatures that fly (birds) why would anyone think that they could not catch, kill and eat rabbits. Humans are opportunist and they will exploit a potential food source. Just because we haven't yet found rabbit fur on a Neanderthal spear tip doesn't mean too much.
Oh and it is unlike they keep "bunnies" as pets. You might keep a dog for garbage cleanup, for warning, protection and for hunting, but if you are a hunter-gatherer type situation you likely do not have time for something that is purely a pet.