Dean Esmay writes:

>I notice that the above-mentioned article about the dig in Kenya found fish
>bones among the fauna apparently processed with stone tools at the site.
>
>If I'm not mistaken, this may be the earliest evidence of fish consumption
>by humans to date.  Although the fish bones were less than 1% of the fauna
>remains found at the site, they were clearly there, along with other
>aquatic animals.  (see
>http://www.nature.com/server-java/Propub/nature/399057A0.table-1 )

Note that there is a qualifying statement in the text of the paper (p.59)
which says:

     The fragmentation and the distribution of the fossils within the
     presumably short sequence of LA2C point to natural accumulation.
     The bones, which are encrusted and poorly preserved, show no
     evidence of anthropic action. However, the tortoise bones and
     ostrich-egg fragments are more closely associated with the
     lithic artefacts; their systematic presence in both Lokalalei
     sites may show a possible hominid collecting strategy.

Also, the deposits occurred in an ancient floodplain, so one would
(presumably) expect there to be some fish bones regardless of human
activity.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>