Question: What profession finds evidence of infection in fossil remains to be interesting?

Answer: paleopathologists

<hl> Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists , scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. <hl> Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.

Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for <hl> paleopathologists <hl>, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.

Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for <hl> paleopathologists <hl> , scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms.

question: What profession finds evidence of infection in fossil remains to be interesting?, context: Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.


Question: What do paleopathologists study?

Answer: occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms

<hl> Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms . <hl> Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.

Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study <hl> occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms <hl>. Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.

Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study <hl> occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms <hl> .

question: What do paleopathologists study?, context: Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.


Question: What has been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs?

Answer: Signs of infection

Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. <hl> Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. <hl> When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.

Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. <hl> Signs of infection <hl> have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.

question: What has been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs?, context: Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.


Question: What dinosaur's skull had pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone?

Answer: Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis

Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. <hl> A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. <hl> The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.

Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur <hl> Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis <hl> exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.

question: What dinosaur's skull had pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone?, context: Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.


Question: How did tyrannosaurs become infected?

Answer: being bitten during a fight

Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. <hl> The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight , like the Herrerasaurus specimen. <hl>

Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by <hl> being bitten during a fight <hl>, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.

The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by <hl> being bitten during a fight <hl> , like the Herrerasaurus specimen.

question: How did tyrannosaurs become infected?, context: Evidence of infection in fossil remains is a subject of interest for paleopathologists, scientists who study occurrences of injuries and illness in extinct life forms. Signs of infection have been discovered in the bones of carnivorous dinosaurs. When present, however, these infections seem to tend to be confined to only small regions of the body. A skull attributed to the early carnivorous dinosaur Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis exhibits pit-like wounds surrounded by swollen and porous bone. The unusual texture of the bone around the wounds suggests they were afflicted by a short-lived, non-lethal infection. Scientists who studied the skull speculated that the bite marks were received in a fight with another Herrerasaurus. Other carnivorous dinosaurs with documented evidence of infection include Acrocanthosaurus, Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and a tyrannosaur from the Kirtland Formation. The infections from both tyrannosaurs were received by being bitten during a fight, like the Herrerasaurus specimen.


Question: What is the practice of killing or trapping any animal?

Answer: Hunting

<hl> Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. <hl> Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

<hl> Hunting <hl> is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

question: What is the practice of killing or trapping any animal?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: Why do humans most commonly hunt wildlife?

Answer: food

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. <hl> Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food , recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. <hl> In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for <hl> food <hl>, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for <hl> food <hl> , recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade.

question: Why do humans most commonly hunt wildlife?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: What is there a distinction between lawful hunting and?

Answer: poaching

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. <hl> In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching , which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. <hl> The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from <hl> poaching <hl>, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from <hl> poaching <hl> , which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species.

question: What is there a distinction between lawful hunting and?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: What is poaching?

Answer: illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. <hl> In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species . <hl> The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the <hl> illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species <hl>. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the <hl> illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species <hl> .

question: What is poaching?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: What is the species which is hunted referred to as?

Answer: prey

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. <hl> The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds. <hl>

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or <hl> prey <hl> and are usually mammals and birds.

question: What is the species which is hunted referred to as?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: What is the practice of killing or trapping any animal called?

Answer: Hunting

<hl> Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. <hl> Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

<hl> Hunting <hl> is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

question: What is the practice of killing or trapping any animal called?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: When was lawful hunting distinguished from poaching?

Answer: 2010s

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. <hl> In the 2010s , lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. <hl> The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the <hl> 2010s <hl>, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

In the <hl> 2010s <hl> , lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species.

question: When was lawful hunting distinguished from poaching?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: Illegally killing, capturing or trapping an hunted species is called what?

Answer: poaching

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. <hl> In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching , which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. <hl> The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from <hl> poaching <hl>, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from <hl> poaching <hl> , which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species.

question: Illegally killing, capturing or trapping an hunted species is called what?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: Hunted species are usually referred to as what?

Answer: game or prey

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. <hl> The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds. <hl>

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as <hl> game or prey <hl> and are usually mammals and birds.

question: Hunted species are usually referred to as what?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: What animals are usually hunted?

Answer: mammals and birds

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. <hl> The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds . <hl>

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually <hl> mammals and birds <hl>.

The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually <hl> mammals and birds <hl> .

question: What animals are usually hunted?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: What is it called to kill or trap an animal?

Answer: Hunting

<hl> Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. <hl> Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

<hl> Hunting <hl> is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

question: What is it called to kill or trap an animal?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: What species are usually hunted?

Answer: mammals and birds

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. <hl> The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds . <hl>

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually <hl> mammals and birds <hl>.

The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually <hl> mammals and birds <hl> .

question: What species are usually hunted?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: Why do humans hunt?

Answer: food, recreation, to remove predators

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. <hl> Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. <hl> In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for <hl> food, recreation, to remove predators <hl> which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

question: Why do humans hunt?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: When was lawful hunting distinguished from poaching?

Answer: 2010s

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. <hl> In the 2010s , lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. <hl> The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the <hl> 2010s <hl>, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.

In the <hl> 2010s <hl> , lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species.

question: When was lawful hunting distinguished from poaching?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: Species hunted are referred to as what?

Answer: game or prey

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. <hl> The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds. <hl>

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as <hl> game or prey <hl> and are usually mammals and birds.

question: Species hunted are referred to as what?, context: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife or feral animals is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators which are dangerous to humans or domestic animals, or for trade. In the 2010s, lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game or prey and are usually mammals and birds.


Question: What does evidence suggest hunting may have been a factor in the extinction of?

Answer: holocene megafauna

<hl> Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. <hl> North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the <hl> holocene megafauna <hl> and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.

question: What does evidence suggest hunting may have been a factor in the extinction of?, context: Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.


Question: What was the North American megafauna extinction coincidental with?

Answer: Younger Dryas impact event

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. <hl> North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event , possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. <hl> However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the <hl> Younger Dryas impact event <hl>, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.

North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the <hl> Younger Dryas impact event <hl> , possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought.

question: What was the North American megafauna extinction coincidental with?, context: Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.


Question: What are humans thought to have played a significant role in, in Australia?

Answer: extinction of the Australian megafauna

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. <hl> However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation. <hl>

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the <hl> extinction of the Australian megafauna <hl> that was widespread prior to human occupation.

question: What are humans thought to have played a significant role in, in Australia?, context: Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.


Question: When was Australian's megafauna widespread?

Answer: prior to human occupation

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. <hl> However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation . <hl>

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread <hl> prior to human occupation <hl>.

However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread <hl> prior to human occupation <hl> .

question: When was Australian's megafauna widespread?, context: Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.


Question: What along with multiple environmental factors led to the extinction of the holocene megafauna?

Answer: hunting

<hl> Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. <hl> North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.

Furthermore, evidence exists that <hl> hunting <hl> may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.

question: What along with multiple environmental factors led to the extinction of the holocene megafauna?, context: Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.


Question: What replaced the holocene megafauna?

Answer: smaller herbivores

<hl> Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores . <hl> North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by <hl> smaller herbivores <hl>. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by <hl> smaller herbivores <hl> .

question: What replaced the holocene megafauna?, context: Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.


Question: What event was coincidental with the North American megafauna extinction?

Answer: Younger Dryas impact event

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. <hl> North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event , possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. <hl> However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the <hl> Younger Dryas impact event <hl>, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.

North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the <hl> Younger Dryas impact event <hl> , possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought.

question: What event was coincidental with the North American megafauna extinction?, context: Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.


Question: What is thought to have played a significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna?

Answer: humans

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. <hl> However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation. <hl>

Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, <hl> humans <hl> are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.

question: What is thought to have played a significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna?, context: Furthermore, evidence exists that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to extinctions of the holocene megafauna and their replacement by smaller herbivores. North American megafauna extinction was coincidental with the Younger Dryas impact event, possibly making hunting a less critical factor in prehistoric species loss than had been previously thought. However, in other locations such as Australia, humans are thought to have played a very significant role in the extinction of the Australian megafauna that was widespread prior to human occupation.


Question: What is undisputed about early humans?

Answer: were hunters

<hl> While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters , the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. <hl> With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

While it is undisputed that early humans <hl> were hunters <hl>, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

While it is undisputed that early humans <hl> were hunters <hl> , the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity.

question: What is undisputed about early humans?, context: While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.


Question: Hunting was important for the emergence of the Homo genus from what?

Answer: earlier Australopithecines

<hl> While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines , including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. <hl> With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the <hl> earlier Australopithecines <hl>, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the <hl> earlier Australopithecines <hl> , including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity.

question: Hunting was important for the emergence of the Homo genus from what?, context: While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.


Question: Production of stone tools and control of fire were also pushed forward by what?

Answer: hunting

<hl> While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. <hl> With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the <hl> hunting <hl> hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

question: Production of stone tools and control of fire were also pushed forward by what?, context: While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.


Question: What became a theme of stories and myths?

Answer: hunting

<hl> While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. <hl> With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the <hl> hunting <hl> hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

question: What became a theme of stories and myths?, context: While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.


Question: Hunting allowed what type of rituals?

Answer: dance and animal sacrifice

While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. <hl> With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice . <hl>

While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as <hl> dance and animal sacrifice <hl>.

With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as <hl> dance and animal sacrifice <hl> .

question: Hunting allowed what type of rituals?, context: While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.


Question: What is undisputed about earlier humans?

Answer: humans were hunters

<hl> While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters , the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. <hl> With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

While it is undisputed that early <hl> humans were hunters <hl>, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

While it is undisputed that early <hl> humans were hunters <hl> , the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity.

question: What is undisputed about earlier humans?, context: While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.


Question: What did hunting become a theme of?

Answer: stories and myths

While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. <hl> With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths , as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice. <hl>

While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of <hl> stories and myths <hl>, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of <hl> stories and myths <hl> , as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

question: What did hunting become a theme of?, context: While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.


Question: Stone tools and control of fire are emphasised in what hypothesis?

Answer: hunting hypothesis

<hl> While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. <hl> With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the <hl> hunting hypothesis <hl> and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

question: Stone tools and control of fire are emphasised in what hypothesis?, context: While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.


Question: What type of lifestyle was prevalent in Siberia until the European Age of Discovery?

Answer: Hunter-gathering

<hl> Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. <hl> They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]

<hl> Hunter-gathering <hl> lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]

question: What type of lifestyle was prevalent in Siberia until the European Age of Discovery?, context: Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]


Question: Where does the hunter-gathering lifestyle persist, though in decline?

Answer: some tribal societies

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. <hl> They still persist in some tribal societies , albeit in rapid decline. <hl> Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in <hl> some tribal societies <hl>, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]

They still persist in <hl> some tribal societies <hl> , albeit in rapid decline.

question: Where does the hunter-gathering lifestyle persist, though in decline?, context: Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]


Question: Indigenous peoples of the Amazonas preserved what until the recent past?

Answer: paleolithic hunting-gathering

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. <hl> Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. <hl> In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved <hl> paleolithic hunting-gathering <hl> until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]

question: Indigenous peoples of the Amazonas preserved what until the recent past?, context: Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]


Question: Who are the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers in Africa?

Answer: the Hadza of Tanzania

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. <hl> In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania .[citation needed] <hl>

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are <hl> the Hadza of Tanzania <hl>.[citation needed]

In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are <hl> the Hadza of Tanzania <hl> .[citation needed]

question: Who are the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers in Africa?, context: Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]


Question: Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent until when?

Answer: European Age of Discovery

<hl> Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery . <hl> They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the <hl> European Age of Discovery <hl>. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the <hl> European Age of Discovery <hl> .

question: Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent until when?, context: Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]


Question: What parts of the New World did the hunter-gathering lifestyles remain?

Answer: Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia

<hl> Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia , until the European Age of Discovery. <hl> They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, <hl> Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia <hl>, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, <hl> Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia <hl> , until the European Age of Discovery.

question: What parts of the New World did the hunter-gathering lifestyles remain?, context: Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]


Question: Who are the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers in Africa?

Answer: Hadza of Tanzania

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. <hl> In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania .[citation needed] <hl>

Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the <hl> Hadza of Tanzania <hl>.[citation needed]

In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the <hl> Hadza of Tanzania <hl> .[citation needed]

question: Who are the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers in Africa?, context: Hunter-gathering lifestyles remained prevalent in some parts of the New World, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Siberia, as well as all of Australia, until the European Age of Discovery. They still persist in some tribal societies, albeit in rapid decline. Peoples that preserved paleolithic hunting-gathering until the recent past include some indigenous peoples of the Amazonas (Aché), some Central and Southern African (San people), some peoples of New Guinea (Fayu), the Mlabri of Thailand and Laos, the Vedda people of Sri Lanka, and a handful of uncontacted peoples. In Africa, the only remaining full-time hunter-gatherers are the Hadza of Tanzania.[citation needed]


Question: What is Louis Binford's profession?

Answer: Archaeologist

<hl> Archaeologist Louis Binford criticised the idea that early hominids and early humans were hunters. <hl> On the basis of the analysis of the skeletal remains of the consumed animals, he concluded that hominids and early humans were mostly scavengers, not hunters, and this idea is popular among some archaeologists and paleoanthropologists. Robert Blumenschine proposed the idea of confrontational scavenging, which involves challenging and scaring off other predators after they have made a kill, which he suggests could have been the leading method of obtaining protein-rich meat by early humans.

<hl> Archaeologist <hl> Louis Binford criticised the idea that early hominids and early humans were hunters. On the basis of the analysis of the skeletal remains of the consumed animals, he concluded that hominids and early humans were mostly scavengers, not hunters, and this idea is popular among some archaeologists and paleoanthropologists. Robert Blumenschine proposed the idea of confrontational scavenging, which involves challenging and scaring off other predators after they have made a kill, which he suggests could have been the leading method of obtaining protein-rich meat by early humans.

question: What is Louis Binford's profession?, context: Archaeologist Louis Binford criticised the idea that early hominids and early humans were hunters. On the basis of the analysis of the skeletal remains of the consumed animals, he concluded that hominids and early humans were mostly scavengers, not hunters, and this idea is popular among some archaeologists and paleoanthropologists. Robert Blumenschine proposed the idea of confrontational scavenging, which involves challenging and scaring off other predators after they have made a kill, which he suggests could have been the leading method of obtaining protein-rich meat by early humans.


Question: What idea did Binford take issue with?

Answer: that early hominids and early humans were hunters

<hl> Archaeologist Louis Binford criticised the idea that early hominids and early humans were hunters . <hl> On the basis of the analysis of the skeletal remains of the consumed animals, he concluded that hominids and early humans were mostly scavengers, not hunters, and this idea is popular among some archaeologists and paleoanthropologists. Robert Blumenschine proposed the idea of confrontational scavenging, which involves challenging and scaring off other predators after they have made a kill, which he suggests could have been the leading method of obtaining protein-rich meat by early humans.

Archaeologist Louis Binford criticised the idea <hl> that early hominids and early humans were hunters <hl>. On the basis of the analysis of the skeletal remains of the consumed animals, he concluded that hominids and early humans were mostly scavengers, not hunters, and this idea is popular among some archaeologists and paleoanthropologists. Robert Blumenschine proposed the idea of confrontational scavenging, which involves challenging and scaring off other predators after they have made a kill, which he suggests could have been the leading method of obtaining protein-rich meat by early humans.

Archaeologist Louis Binford criticised the idea <hl> that early hominids and early humans were hunters <hl> .

question: What idea did Binford take issue with?, context: Archaeologist Louis Binford criticised the idea that early hominids and early humans were hunters. On the basis of the analysis of the skeletal remains of the consumed animals, he concluded that hominids and early humans were mostly scavengers, not hunters, and this idea is popular among some archaeologists and paleoanthropologists. Robert Blumenschine proposed the idea of confrontational scavenging, which involves challenging and scaring off other predators after they have made a kill, which he suggests could have been the leading method of obtaining protein-rich meat by early humans.