View Full Version : Eritrean stone tools push back dates of earliest use of marine resources
Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!
Lee Olsen
Wed, Jul-11-07, 17:16
http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/00oc_issues/oc000626/-
oc_eritrean.html
An international research team, including two geologists from
UT Austin, has unearthed ancient stone tools from an unusual
geological setting in Africa that may contribute to solving
the mystery of the geographic origins and adaptations of
modern humans. The findings push back by 10,000 years the date
for earliest evidence of human consumption of shellfish,
marking the onset of a new type of feeding strategy in human
evolution. The tools were found within a fossil reef terrace
on the Red Sea coast of Eritrea. They suggest that early
humans were adapted to coastal marine environments and ate
seafood, including clams, crabs, scallops and oysters, as
early as 125,000 years ago. Eritrea is located north of
Ethiopia and southeast of the Sudan. The findings were
published in the May 4 issue of the journal Nature.
Dr. Richard T. Buffler, a professor of geological sciences and
senior research scientist at the UT Austin Institute for
Geophysics, and Berhane Negassi Ghebretensae, a UT Austin
graduate student from Eritrea, participated in the
project. The project was headed by Dr. Robert C. Walter, a
geologist and geochronologist with Mexico's Centro de
Investigacion Cientifica y Educacion Superior de Ensenada
in Baja California. The research team includes scientists
from Eritrea, the U.S., Mexico, the Netherlands, France
and Canada. The Paleolithic hand axes and obsidian flakes
and blades were discovered in a fossil reef terrace near
the Eritrean village of Abdur on the Gulf of Zula. The
reef terrace is about ten kilometers long and about six to
fourteen meters above current sea level. "This is the
oldest documentation in the world of the utilization of
marine resources - clams, crabs and oysters - which are
found in this reef along with the stone tools," Buffler
said. "The use of marine seafoods as a food source
indicates a new behavior for early humans." "We would like
to call this the 'first oyster bar,'" said Walter. "Abdur
is an important site, not just because it is the earliest
evidence for coastal marine occupation to date, but
because it opens up the entire coast of Africa as a whole
new realm of exploration for early human archaeology and
paleontology." Buffler said the discovery "adds credence
to the idea that early Homo sapiens originated in Africa,
and migrated from there to Europe and Asia." The
geographic origin of modern humans is a subject of intense
debate. One school of thought contends that modern humans
evolved semi- independently in Europe, Asia and Africa
between 100,000 and 40,000 years ago. Another holds that
modern humans evolved in Africa between 200,000 and
100,000 years ago, migrating to Eurasia at a later period.
Direct paleontological, archaeological and biological
evidence is required to resolve the conflict. The
importance of finding ancient tools in Eritrea is that it
favors an "out of Africa" migration. "It is right on the
potential migration route of modern humans out of Africa
into Europe, Central Asia and over into Far Eastern Asia,"
Buffler said. The age of the stone tools found embedded in
the rock was based on dating the fossil corals close to
the tools by uranium-thorium mass spectrometric techniques
to 125,000 years ago. The oldest previously known coastal
site, the Klasies River mouth in South Africa, is
estimated to be 115,000 years old, some 10,000 years later
than the Abdur site. Rare occurrences of bifacial handaxes
have been found on the surface of Pleistocene marine
terraces from the Danakil Rift Valley of Eritrea and the
Egyptian coast of the Red Sea. But they were not found in
geological context, meaning direct estimates of their age
were not possible. "Nowhere else have stone tools been
reported to be in a reef rock itself. So we know that the
ancient people at Abdur were there on the reef and dropped
these tools where they harvested their food. And the tools
then became part of the geological record," Buffler said.
Buffler said the team of researchers was traveling to
another field area in the winter of 1997 when the group
stopped near the reef. "We camped overnight and in the
morning we started looking around and discovered the
paleolithic tools in the reef," Buffler said. The team,
led by Walter and partly funded with a National Science
Foundation grant, returned to study the area in more
detail in January and February of 1999.
Paul Crowl
Thu, Jul-12-07, 06:16
"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184188490.636095.231250@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/00oc_issues/oc00062-
> 6/oc_eritrean.html
>
> An international research team, including two geologists
> from UT Austin, has unearthed ancient stone tools from an
> unusual geological setting in Africa that may contribute to
> solving the mystery of the geographic origins and
> adaptations of modern humans. The findings push back by
> 10,000 years the date for earliest evidence of human
> consumption of shellfish, marking the onset of a new type of
> feeding strategy in human evolution. The tools were found
> within a fossil reef terrace on the Red Sea coast of
> Eritrea.
The significance of this find comes from: (a) the frequency of
reef terraces on tropical coast lines; and (b) their
_relative_ rarity as fossils.
> They suggest that early humans were adapted to coastal
> marine environments and ate seafood, including clams, crabs,
> scallops and oysters, as early as 125,000 years ago.
The last inter-glacial occurred around 125 kya; sea-levels
were near their current height.
> Eritrea is located north of Ethiopia and southeast of
> the Sudan.
This whole region is subject to geo- tectonic uplift.
Those fossil coral- reef terraces would not have survived
without it.
> The reef terrace is about ten kilometers long and about six
> to fourteen meters above current sea level.
Coral reefs are made from relatively soft limestone. If
sea-levels fall, and they rise above the waves, they are
usually quickly eroded by wave action. Even when they survive
after one inter- glacial, they will usually be destroyed by
the next, as the coasts advance inland once again.
> "This is the oldest documentation in the world of the
> utilization of marine resources - clams, crabs and oysters -
> which are found in this reef along with the stone tools,"
> Buffler said. "The use of marine seafoods as a food source
> indicates a new behavior for early humans."
Utter nonsense. When you locate an extremely unusual form of
fossil habitat (rare only because its rate of destruction is
exceedingly high) and you find hominid fossils in it, then
you should consider the likelihood that one commonly goes
with the other.
> "We would like to call this the 'first oyster bar,'" said
> Walter. "Abdur is an important site, not just because it is
> the earliest evidence for coastal marine occupation to date,
> but because it opens up the entire coast of Africa as a
> whole new realm of exploration for early human archaeology
> and paleontology."
Not really. It can only apply on those coasts subject to
geo-tectonic uplift over the right timescale, which also
happened to preserve some coral-reefs,
i.e. rare to non-existent.
Paul.
Marc Verha
Thu, Jul-12-07, 17:16
Thanks again for this confirmation of seafood collection. Good
boy. You're improving.
______
Op 11-07-2007 23:14, in artikel
1184188490.636095.231250@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com, Lee
Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:
> http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/00oc_issues/oc00062-
> 6/oc_eritrean.html
>
> An international research team, including two geologists
> from UT Austin, has unearthed ancient stone tools from an
> unusual geological setting in Africa that may contribute to
> solving the mystery of the geographic origins and
> adaptations of modern humans. The findings push back by
> 10,000 years the date for earliest evidence of human
> consumption of shellfish, marking the onset of a new type of
> feeding strategy in human evolution. The tools were found
> within a fossil reef terrace on the Red Sea coast of
> Eritrea. They suggest that early humans were adapted to
> coastal marine environments and ate seafood, including
> clams, crabs, scallops and oysters, as early as 125,000
> years ago. Eritrea is located north of Ethiopia and
> southeast of the Sudan. The findings were published in the
> May 4 issue of the journal Nature.
> Dr. Richard T. Buffler, a professor of geological sciences
> and senior research scientist at the UT Austin Institute
> for Geophysics, and Berhane Negassi Ghebretensae, a UT
> Austin graduate student from Eritrea, participated in
> the project. The project was headed by Dr. Robert C.
> Walter, a geologist and geochronologist with Mexico's
> Centro de Investigacion Cientifica y Educacion Superior
> de Ensenada in Baja California. The research team
> includes scientists from Eritrea, the U.S., Mexico, the
> Netherlands, France and Canada. The Paleolithic hand
> axes and obsidian flakes and blades were discovered in a
> fossil reef terrace near the Eritrean village of Abdur
> on the Gulf of Zula. The reef terrace is about ten
> kilometers long and about six to fourteen meters above
> current sea level. "This is the oldest documentation in
> the world of the utilization of marine resources -
> clams, crabs and oysters - which are found in this reef
> along with the stone tools," Buffler said. "The use of
> marine seafoods as a food source indicates a new
> behavior for early humans." "We would like to call this
> the 'first oyster bar,'" said Walter. "Abdur is an
> important site, not just because it is the earliest
> evidence for coastal marine occupation to date, but
> because it opens up the entire coast of Africa as a
> whole new realm of exploration for early human
> archaeology and paleontology." Buffler said the
> discovery "adds credence to the idea that early Homo
> sapiens originated in Africa, and migrated from there to
> Europe and Asia." The geographic origin of modern humans
> is a subject of intense debate. One school of thought
> contends that modern humans evolved semi- independently
> in Europe, Asia and Africa between 100,000 and 40,000
> years ago. Another holds that modern humans evolved in
> Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, migrating
> to Eurasia at a later period. Direct paleontological,
> archaeological and biological evidence is required to
> resolve the conflict. The importance of finding ancient
> tools in Eritrea is that it favors an "out of Africa"
> migration. "It is right on the potential migration route
> of modern humans out of Africa into Europe, Central Asia
> and over into Far Eastern Asia," Buffler said. The age
> of the stone tools found embedded in the rock was based
> on dating the fossil corals close to the tools by
> uranium-thorium mass spectrometric techniques to 125,000
> years ago. The oldest previously known coastal site, the
> Klasies River mouth in South Africa, is estimated to be
> 115,000 years old, some 10,000 years later than the
> Abdur site. Rare occurrences of bifacial handaxes have
> been found on the surface of Pleistocene marine terraces
> from the Danakil Rift Valley of Eritrea and the Egyptian
> coast of the Red Sea. But they were not found in
> geological context, meaning direct estimates of their
> age were not possible. "Nowhere else have stone tools
> been reported to be in a reef rock itself. So we know
> that the ancient people at Abdur were there on the reef
> and dropped these tools where they harvested their food.
> And the tools then became part of the geological
> record," Buffler said. Buffler said the team of
> researchers was traveling to another field area in the
> winter of 1997 when the group stopped near the reef. "We
> camped overnight and in the morning we started looking
> around and discovered the paleolithic tools in the
> reef," Buffler said. The team, led by Walter and partly
> funded with a National Science Foundation grant,
> returned to study the area in more detail in January and
> February of 1999.
Lee Olsen
Thu, Jul-12-07, 17:16
On Jul 12, 3:26 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>
> Not really. It can only apply on those coasts subject to
> geo-tectonic uplift over the right timescale, which also
> happened to preserve some coral-reefs,
> i.e. rare to non-existent.
Says the loon who claims chimps do not have the capacity to
dig.
Message-ID:
<1160837514.938748.252i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Paul
Crowley: "Chimps do NOT have the capacity to dig."
>
> Paul.
Lee Olsen
Thu, Jul-12-07, 17:16
On Jul 12, 5:49 am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> ______
>
> Op 11-07-2007 23:14, in artikel
> 1184188490.636095.231...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com, Lee
> Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
> >http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/00oc_issues/oc0006-
> >26/oc_eritr...
>
> > An international research team, including two geologists
> > from UT Austin, has unearthed ancient stone tools from an
> > unusual geological setting in Africa that may contribute
> > to solving the mystery of the geographic origins and
> > adaptations of modern humans. The findings push back by
> > 10,000 years the date for earliest evidence of human
> > consumption of shellfish, marking the onset of a new type
> > of feeding strategy in human evolution. The tools were
> > found within a fossil reef terrace on the Red Sea coast of
> > Eritrea. They suggest that early humans were adapted to
> > coastal marine environments and ate seafood, including
> > clams, crabs, scallops and oysters, as early as 125,000
> > years ago. Eritrea is located north of Ethiopia and
> > southeast of the Sudan. The findings were published in the
> > May 4 issue of the journal Nature.
> > Dr. Richard T. Buffler, a professor of geological sciences
> > and senior research scientist at the UT Austin
> > Institute for Geophysics, and Berhane Negassi
> > Ghebretensae, a UT Austin graduate student from
> > Eritrea, participated in the project. The project was
> > headed by Dr. Robert C. Walter, a geologist and
> > geochronologist with Mexico's Centro de Investigacion
> > Cientifica y Educacion Superior de Ensenada in Baja
> > California. The research team includes scientists from
> > Eritrea, the U.S., Mexico, the Netherlands, France and
> > Canada. The Paleolithic hand axes and obsidian flakes
> > and blades were discovered in a fossil reef terrace
> > near the Eritrean village of Abdur on the Gulf of
> > Zula. The reef terrace is about ten kilometers long
> > and about six to fourteen meters above current sea
> > level. "This is the oldest documentation in the world
> > of the utilization of marine resources - clams, crabs
> > and oysters - which are found in this reef along with
> > the stone tools," Buffler said. "The use of marine
> > seafoods as a food source indicates a new behavior for
> > early humans." "We would like to call this the 'first
> > oyster bar,'" said Walter. "Abdur is an important
> > site, not just because it is the earliest evidence for
> > coastal marine occupation to date, but because it
> > opens up the entire coast of Africa as a whole new
> > realm of exploration for early human archaeology and
> > paleontology." Buffler said the discovery "adds
> > credence to the idea that early Homo sapiens
> > originated in Africa, and migrated from there to
> > Europe and Asia." The geographic origin of modern
> > humans is a subject of intense debate. One school of
> > thought contends that modern humans evolved semi-
> > independently in Europe, Asia and Africa between
> > 100,000 and 40,000 years ago. Another holds that
> > modern humans evolved in Africa between 200,000 and
> > 100,000 years ago, migrating to Eurasia at a later
> > period. Direct paleontological, archaeological and
> > biological evidence is required to resolve the
> > conflict. The importance of finding ancient tools in
> > Eritrea is that it favors an "out of Africa"
> > migration. "It is right on the potential migration
> > route of modern humans out of Africa into Europe,
> > Central Asia and over into Far Eastern Asia," Buffler
> > said. The age of the stone tools found embedded in the
> > rock was based on dating the fossil corals close to
> > the tools by uranium-thorium mass spectrometric
> > techniques to 125,000 years ago. The oldest previously
> > known coastal site, the Klasies River mouth in South
> > Africa, is estimated to be 115,000 years old, some
> > 10,000 years later than the Abdur site. Rare
> > occurrences of bifacial handaxes have been found on
> > the surface of Pleistocene marine terraces from the
> > Danakil Rift Valley of Eritrea and the Egyptian coast
> > of the Red Sea. But they were not found in geological
> > context, meaning direct estimates of their age were
> > not possible. "Nowhere else have stone tools been
> > reported to be in a reef rock itself. So we know that
> > the ancient people at Abdur were there on the reef and
> > dropped these tools where they harvested their food.
> > And the tools then became part of the geological
> > record," Buffler said. Buffler said the team of
> > researchers was traveling to another field area in the
> > winter of 1997 when the group stopped near the reef.
> > "We camped overnight and in the morning we started
> > looking around and discovered the paleolithic tools in
> > the reef," Buffler said. The team, led by Walter and
> > partly funded with a National Science Foundation
> > grant, returned to study the area in more detail in
> > January and February of 1999.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> Thanks again for this confirmation of seafood collection.
> Good boy.
Doughboy, you are quite welcome.
Gona 2.6 mya on savanna minus 125,000 equals 2,475,000 year
gap for oyster evidence. Yes, we did eventually get to the
moon, but we didn't evolve there you creationst loon.
>You're improving.
But you obviously are not.
Lee Olsen
Thu, Jul-12-07, 17:16
On Jul 12, 11:26 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
Paul Crowley is not capable of rational thought:
Sun, Oct 6 1996, 4:46 pm Subject: Re: Speciation - how do you
know? First, you present the "fact" that there were no lions
in Europe as evidence that Neanderthals didn't hunt. Then,
when someone points out that there *were* lions in Europe, you
claim that as *conclusive* evidence that Neanderthals didn't
hunt. Stephen Barnard
Message-ID: <32592402.6F55@megafauna.com> Mon, Oct 7 1996
12:00 am The point is, Paul, that you present both the
absence of lions in Eurpope and the presence of lions in
Europe as *prima facie* evidence that Neaderthals didn't
hunt. You must see the gross inconsistency in this argument,
because I believe that you are a logical, reasoning human
being. You *have* to admit, to retain any credibility at all,
that either one or both of your arguments are incorrect.
<snip> Stephen Barnard
Mario Petr
Thu, Jul-12-07, 17:16
>Lee Olsen:
>> The tools were found within a fossil reef terrace on the
>> Red Sea coast of Eritrea. They suggest that early humans
>> were adapted to coastal marine environments and ate
>> seafood, including clams, crabs, scallops and oysters, as
>> early as 125,000 years ago.
Many primates and creatures with dexterous hands (like
raccoons) are eating marine meat. It is natural for
them, they don't have to be specially adapted for
that, they already are, with their dexterous hands.
Now, somebody tries to say that there is no way that
the primate that has very dexterous hands, that is per
excellentiam meat eater, actually only started to
explore those resources 125kya. I mean, who is crazy,
here? What is this? A science? Scientifical view? --
Mario Petrinovich
Mario Petr
Thu, Jul-12-07, 17:16
Mario Petrinovich:
> Now, somebody tries to say that there is no way that the
> primate that has very dexterous hands, that is per
> excellentiam meat eater, actually only started to explore
> those resources 125kya.
Oops. I wanted to say that somebody is implying that
there is no way that humans could eat marine meat much
before 125kya. I mean, what is this? Why do they
bother, at all? What was the earliest evidence of
humans eating fruits? Lol, this is a joke. If they
have evidence for that 125kya (and I doubt they have),
does that mean that our ancestors weren't eating
fruits before that date? -- Mario Petrinovich
Paul Crowl
Thu, Jul-12-07, 17:16
"Mario Petrinovich" <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote in
message news:f75i1s$7a0$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
> Mario Petrinovich:
>> Now, somebody tries to say that there is no way that the
>> primate that has very dexterous hands, that is per
>> excellentiam meat eater, actually only started to explore
>> those resources 125kya.
>
> Oops. I wanted to say that somebody is implying that
> there is no way that humans could eat marine meat
> much before 125kya. I mean, what is this? Why do they
> bother, at all? What was the earliest evidence of
> humans eating fruits? Lol, this is a joke. If they
> have evidence for that 125kya (and I doubt they
> have), does that mean that our ancestors weren't
> eating fruits before that date? -- Mario Petrinovich
There is a way of thinking here that needs a name. I call it
"the Biblical Assumption".
It predates the concept of niche (as does all 'thinking' in
PA). Under it, we are required to assume that humans (and
their hominid ancestors) did NOT perform ANY behaviour until
AFTER we have direct incontrovertible evidence for that
behaviour.
PA types are so dopey and so uncertain about what they are
doing, that they think this is a requirement of 'science'.
You have to laugh (or cry).
Paul.
Marc Verha
Thu, Jul-12-07, 17:16
Op 12-07-2007 17:40, in artikel f75i1s$7a0$1@ss408.t-com.hr,
Mario Petrinovich <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> schreef:
> Mario Petrinovich:
>> Now, somebody tries to say that there is no way that the
>> primate that has very dexterous hands, that is per
>> excellentiam meat eater, actually only started to explore
>> those resources 125kya.
> Oops. I wanted to say that somebody is implying that
> there is no way that humans could eat marine meat
> much before 125kya. I mean, what is this? Why do
> they bother, at all? What was the earliest evidence
> of humans eating fruits? Lol, this is a joke. If
> they have evidence for that 125kya (and I doubt they
> have), does that mean that our ancestors weren't
> eating fruits before that date? -- Mario Petrinovich
Yes, Mario, a child can see that, but not Olson...:
incredible, but savanna believers are that stupid, these
fanatics do everything for their religion of the Holy Savanna.
They invent following migrating herds over weeks or months,
bursts of running at midday outside the forest to dig tubers,
dogged pursuits of gazelles under the sun during days,
scavenging carnivore livers, feeding on bone marrow & the most
far-fetched nonsense you can imagine, if it only happened on
the Savanna. Instead of simply gathering foods along the
water, whether drowned bovids or stranded whales: more than 1
Ma (& likely a lot earlier: sea level changes): M.Gutierrez
cs.2001 "Exploitation d¹un grand cétacé au Paléolithique
ancien: le site de Dungo V à Baia Farta (Benguela, Angola)"
CRAS 332:357-362: "The almost complete skeleton of a large
whale Balaenoptera sp was found closely ass.x 57 LP.artefacts
near Baia Farta, at an altit.of 65 m, 3 km from the present
shoreline , the oldest evidence of the exploitation of a
stranded whale by Palaeol.people." (probably not read by
Savanna fanatics: I guess SFs don't understand French, they
don't understand anything...)
--Marc
Lee Olsen
Fri, Jul-13-07, 06:16
On Jul 12, 12:48 pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Op 12-07-2007 17:40, in artikel f75i1s$7a...@ss408.t-com.hr,
> Mario Petrinovich <mario.petrinov...@zg.htnet.hr> schreef:
>
> > Mario Petrinovich:
> >> Now, somebody tries to say that there is no way that the
> >> primate that =
has
> >> very dexterous hands, that is per excellentiam meat
> >> eater, actually on=
ly
> >> started to explore those resources 125kya.
> >Oops. I wanted to say that somebody is implying that there
> > is no way
> > that humans could eat marine meat much before 125kya. I
> > mean, what is t=
his?
Not bright enough to use attribution marks? Any fool can make
up what someone else didn't say and make a strawman case. What
early Homo was eating the MOST of is demonstrated by 1=2E the
hard on the ground evidence, cut marks on savanna bones. 2=2E
This is confirmed by: "This is an area where recent advances
in analysis of the fossil tissues themselves are enhancing our
understanding of the lifeways of early hominids. I will focus
mainly on learning more about the foods that were eaten, using
a particular kind of chemical tool called stable light isotope
analysis. South African scientists have pioneered its
application to hominid diets." Dr Julia Lee-Thorp
> > Why do they bother, at all? What was the earliest evidence
> > of humans ea=
ting
> > fruits? Lol, this is a joke.
The thread is marine resources, idiot.
> If they have evidence for that 125kya (and I
> > doubt they have), does that mean that our ancestors
> > weren't eating frui=
ts
> > before that date?
Did someone say they didn't eat fruit? You are as
delusional as Marc.
-- Mario Petrinovich
>
> Yes, Mario, a child can see that, but not Olson...:
> incredible, but savan=
na
> believers are that stupid, these fanatics do everything for
> their religion of the Holy Savanna. They invent following
> migrating herds over weeks or months, bursts of running at
> midday outside the forest to dig tubers, dog=
ged
> pursuits of gazelles under the sun during days, scavenging
> carnivore live=
rs,
> feeding on bone marrow & the most far-fetched nonsense you
> can imagine, if it only happened on the Savanna.
IOW, Marco doesn't have one iota of evidence for early Homo
associated with coconuts, oysters or algae, either on the
ground or in the teeth.
> Instead of simply gathering foods along the water,
http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dept/ev/Research/Faculty/OVALI-
tems/ev_oval_t= alk/orcaSealBeach.JPG
http://www.biarms.com/PhotoAlbums/sharkATTACK1.jpg
>whether drowned bovids
Liar
>or stranded whales: more than 1 Ma (&
Only one and a half million years after the fact, Gona 2.6
mya on the savanna. Don't forget to mention the sharks teeth
found at the whale site also, just who was the shark eating?
You stupid fool, do you think Homo was in the water
butchering with the sharks around, or were they on the DRY
beach when the tide went out???? Are you really as stupid as
your posts imply?
Nice job of cherry picking doughboy. For every stranded whale
you have a hundred inland sites that prove what early Homo was
doing most...moving tons of rock about the hot savanna and
eating meat (Potts 2004).
> likely a lot earlier: sea level changes): M.Gutierrez
> cs.2001 "Exploitati=
on
> d=B9un grand c=E9tac=E9 au Pal=E9olithique ancien: le site
> de Dungo V =E0=
Baia Farta
> (Benguela, Angola)" CRAS 332:357-362: "The almost complete
> skeleton of a large whale Balaenoptera sp was found closely
> ass.x 57 LP.artefacts near Baia Farta, at an altit.of 65 m,
> 3 km from the present shoreline , the oldest evidence of the
> exploitation of a stranded whale by Palaeol.people=
."
One whale means a thousand inland sites don't mean anything?
You are crazy.
> (probably not read by Savanna fanatics: I guess SFs don't
> understand Fren=
ch,
> they don't understand anything...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/1-
804830.stm
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.natur-
alhistorymag.c= om/1206/1206_samplings.html or
http://tinyurl.com/32ryet
AAT =3D conglomeration of spritual-phenomenon freaks.
Lee Olsen
Fri, Jul-13-07, 17:17
On Jul 13, 4:19 am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Op 13-07-2007 01:45, in artikel
> 1184283913.918544.138...@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee
> Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 12:48 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> > <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >> Op 12-07-2007 17:40, in artikel
> >> f75i1s$7a...@ss408.t-com.hr, Mario Petrinovich
> >> <mario.petrinov...@zg.htnet.hr> schreef:
>
> >>> Mario Petrinovich:
> >>>> Now, somebody tries to say that there is no way that
> >>>> the primate tha=
t has
> >>>> very dexterous hands, that is per excellentiam meat
> >>>> eater, actually =
only
> >>>> started to explore those resources 125kya.
>
> >>> Oops. I wanted to say that somebody is implying that
> >>> there is no way
> >>> that humans could eat marine meat much before 125kya. I
> >>> mean, what is=
this?
>
> > Not bright enough to use attribution marks? Any fool can
> > make up what someone else didn't say and make a strawman
> > case. What early Homo was eating the MOST of is
> > demonstrated by
> > 1. the hard on the ground evidence, cut marks on savanna
> > bones.
>
> Liar: cutmarks on riverbank bones, probably drowned &
> trampled trekking bovids.
Liar. You prove it everytime you refuse to cite a source for
this, you are making it up.
> Nothing, my boy, in Gona or other archeol.data contradicts
> the physiol.*fact* that our ancestors after the Homo/Pan
> split 5 Ma have alwa=
ys
> been waterside & dispersed along the water.
Liar, negative arguments are garbage in, garbage out nonsense.
> Gona is a good example of this.
Liar.
> As good as Manuel Gutierrez, Claude Guerin, Maria Lena &
> Maria Piedade da Jesus 2001 "Exploitation d=B9un grand
> c=E9tac=E9 au Pal=E9olithique ancie=
n: le site
> de Dungo V =E0 Baia Farta (Benguela, Angola)" CRAS
> 332:357-362: "The almo=
st
> complete skeleton of a large whale Balaenoptera sp was found
> closely ass.x 57 LP.artefacts near Baia Farta, at an
> altit.of 65 m, 3 km from the prese=
nt
> shoreline ... the oldest evidence of the exploitation of a
> stranded whale=
by
> Palaeol.people."-
A million years after-the-fact for cut-marked antelope bones
at Gona. What's the matter doughboy, never heard of evolution.
Try to learn how to tell time.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marc Verha
Fri, Jul-13-07, 17:17
Op 13-07-2007 01:45, in artikel
1184283913.918544.138740@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee
Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On Jul 12, 12:48 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Op 12-07-2007 17:40, in artikel
>> f75i1s$7a...@ss408.t-com.hr, Mario Petrinovich
>> <mario.petrinov...@zg.htnet.hr> schreef:
>>
>>> Mario Petrinovich:
>>>> Now, somebody tries to say that there is no way that the
>>>> primate that has very dexterous hands, that is per
>>>> excellentiam meat eater, actually only started to explore
>>>> those resources 125kya.
>
>
>
>>> Oops. I wanted to say that somebody is implying that
>>> there is no way that humans could eat marine meat much
>>> before 125kya. I mean, what is this?
>
> Not bright enough to use attribution marks? Any fool can
> make up what someone else didn't say and make a strawman
> case. What early Homo was eating the MOST of is
> demonstrated by
> 1. the hard on the ground evidence, cut marks on savanna
> bones.
Liar: cutmarks on riverbank bones, probably drowned & trampled
trekking bovids. Nothing, my boy, in Gona or other
archeol.data contradicts the physiol.*fact* that our ancestors
after the Homo/Pan split 5 Ma have always been waterside &
dispersed along the water. Gona is a good example of this. As
good as Manuel Gutierrez, Claude Guerin, Maria Lena & Maria
Piedade da Jesus 2001 "Exploitation d¹un grand cétacé au
Paléolithique ancien: le site de Dungo V à Baia Farta
(Benguela, Angola)" CRAS 332:357-362: "The almost complete
skeleton of a large whale Balaenoptera sp was found closely
ass.x 57 LP.artefacts near Baia Farta, at an altit.of 65 m, 3
km from the present shoreline ... the oldest evidence of the
exploitation of a stranded whale by Palaeol.people."
Marc Verha
Fri, Jul-13-07, 17:17
Op 13-07-2007 20:53, in artikel
1184352811.010435.198660@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, Lee
Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On Jul 13, 4:19 am, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Op 13-07-2007 01:45, in artikel
>> 1184283913.918544.138...@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee
>> Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
>> schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 12, 12:48 pm, Marc Verhaegen
>>> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>>> Op 12-07-2007 17:40, in artikel
>>>> f75i1s$7a...@ss408.t-com.hr, Mario Petrinovich
>>>> <mario.petrinov...@zg.htnet.hr> schreef:
>>
>>>>> Mario Petrinovich:
>>>>>> Now, somebody tries to say that there is no way that
>>>>>> the primate that has very dexterous hands, that is per
>>>>>> excellentiam meat eater, actually only started to
>>>>>> explore those resources 125kya.
>>
>>>>> Oops. I wanted to say that somebody is implying that
>>>>> there is no way that humans could eat marine meat much
>>>>> before 125kya. I mean, what is this?
>>
>>> Not bright enough to use attribution marks? Any fool can
>>> make up what someone else didn't say and make a strawman
>>> case. What early Homo was eating the MOST of is
>>> demonstrated by
>>> 1. the hard on the ground evidence, cut marks on savanna
>>> bones.
>>
>> Liar: cutmarks on riverbank bones, probably drowned &
>> trampled trekking bovids.
>
> Liar. You prove it everytime you refuse to cite a source for
> this, you are making it up.
Says the kudu runner... :-D
Lee Olsen
Sat, Jul-14-07, 06:15
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op 13-07-2007 20:53, in artikel
> 1184352811.010435.198660@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, Lee
> Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> > On Jul 13, 4:19 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be>
> > wrote:
> >> Op 13-07-2007 01:45, in artikel
> >> 1184283913.918544.138...@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee
> >> Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
> >> schreef:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 12, 12:48 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> >>> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >>>> Op 12-07-2007 17:40, in artikel
> >>>> f75i1s$7a...@ss408.t-com.hr, Mario Petrinovich
> >>>> <mario.petrinov...@zg.htnet.hr> schreef:
> >>
> >>>>> Mario Petrinovich:
> >>>>>> Now, somebody tries to say that there is no way that
> >>>>>> the primate that has very dexterous hands, that is
> >>>>>> per excellentiam meat eater, actually only started to
> >>>>>> explore those resources 125kya.
> >>
> >>>>> Oops. I wanted to say that somebody is implying that
> >>>>> there is no way that humans could eat marine meat
> >>>>> much before 125kya. I mean, what is this?
> >>
> >>> Not bright enough to use attribution marks? Any fool can
> >>> make up what someone else didn't say and make a strawman
> >>> case. What early Homo was eating the MOST of is
> >>> demonstrated by
> >>> 1. the hard on the ground evidence, cut marks on savanna
> >>> bones.
> >>
> >> Liar: cutmarks on riverbank bones, probably drowned &
> >> trampled trekking bovids.
> >
> > Liar. You prove it everytime you refuse to cite a source
> > for this, you are making it up.
>
> Says the kudu runner... :-D
"ostrich-egg shell fragments are more closely associated with
the lithic artifacts"
H. Roche et al. Nature Vol 399:59
"Stage III is found in an adjcent quarry--called S.T.I.C.--and
is in a primary context. the artifacts occur with vertebrate
fauna in a limestone layer overlying the regressive Maarifian
beach gravel. The activity area is associated with a
freshwater stream that drained onto the beach nearby. The
faunal remains all come from large terrestrial mammals and
there is no indication, at this or any other site in Morocco,
that marine fauna was made use of."
Clark, JD. The Earlier Stone Age/Lower Paleolithic in North
Africa and the Sahara. In (F. Klees and R. Kuper, Eds) New
Light on the Northeast African Past, pp.17-37. African
Praehistorica, 5. Koln: Heinrich Barth Institut.
Lee Olsen
Sat, Jul-14-07, 06:15
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "beach gravel"...
>
> Enough said, kudu runner?
"The faunal remains all come from large terrestrial mammals
and there is no indication, at this or any other site in
Morocco, that marine fauna was made use of."
Enough said, mountain-beaver man?
>
> _____
>
>
> Op 14-07-2007 01:54, in artikel
> 1184370899.714560.207130@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee
> Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> >
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> Op 13-07-2007 20:53, in artikel
> >> 1184352811.010435.198660@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> >> Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com>
> >> schreef:
> >>
> >>> On Jul 13, 4:19 am, Marc Verhaegen
> >>> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >>>> Op 13-07-2007 01:45, in artikel
> >>>> 1184283913.918544.138...@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> >>>> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
> >>>> schreef:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 12, 12:48 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> >>>>> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >>>>>> Op 12-07-2007 17:40, in artikel
> >>>>>> f75i1s$7a...@ss408.t-com.hr, Mario Petrinovich
> >>>>>> <mario.petrinov...@zg.htnet.hr> schreef:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Mario Petrinovich:
> >>>>>>>> Now, somebody tries to say that there is no way
> >>>>>>>> that the primate that has very dexterous hands,
> >>>>>>>> that is per excellentiam meat eater, actually only
> >>>>>>>> started to explore those resources 125kya.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Oops. I wanted to say that somebody is implying
> >>>>>>> that there is no way that humans could eat marine
> >>>>>>> meat much before 125kya. I mean, what is this?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Not bright enough to use attribution marks? Any fool
> >>>>> can make up what someone else didn't say and make a
> >>>>> strawman case. What early Homo was eating the MOST of
> >>>>> is demonstrated by
> >>>>> 1. the hard on the ground evidence, cut marks on
> >>>>> savanna bones.
> >>>>
> >>>> Liar: cutmarks on riverbank bones, probably drowned &
> >>>> trampled trekking bovids.
> >>>
> >>> Liar. You prove it everytime you refuse to cite a source
> >>> for this, you are making it up.
> >>
> >> Says the kudu runner... :-D
> >
> > "ostrich-egg shell fragments are more closely associated
> > with the lithic artifacts"
> > H. Roche et al. Nature Vol 399:59
> >
> > "Stage III is found in an adjcent quarry--called
> > S.T.I.C.--and is in a primary context. the artifacts
> > occur with vertebrate fauna in a limestone layer
> > overlying the regressive Maarifian beach gravel. The
> > activity area is associated with a freshwater stream that
> > drained onto the beach nearby. The faunal remains all
> > come from large terrestrial mammals and there is no
> > indication, at this or any other site in Morocco, that
> > marine fauna was made use of."
> >
> > Clark, JD. The Earlier Stone Age/Lower Paleolithic in
> > North Africa and the Sahara. In (F. Klees and R. Kuper,
> > Eds) New Light on the Northeast African Past, pp.17-37.
> > African Praehistorica, 5. Koln: Heinrich Barth Institut.
Marc Verha
Sat, Jul-14-07, 06:15
"beach gravel"...
Enough said, kudu runner?
_____
Op 14-07-2007 01:54, in artikel
1184370899.714560.207130@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee
Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> Op 13-07-2007 20:53, in artikel
>> 1184352811.010435.198660@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, Lee
>> Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>>> On Jul 13, 4:19 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Op 13-07-2007 01:45, in artikel
>>>> 1184283913.918544.138...@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee
>>>> Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
>>>> schreef:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 12, 12:48 pm, Marc Verhaegen
>>>>> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>>>>> Op 12-07-2007 17:40, in artikel
>>>>>> f75i1s$7a...@ss408.t-com.hr, Mario Petrinovich
>>>>>> <mario.petrinov...@zg.htnet.hr> schreef:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Mario Petrinovich:
>>>>>>>> Now, somebody tries to say that there is no way that
>>>>>>>> the primate that has very dexterous hands, that is
>>>>>>>> per excellentiam meat eater, actually only started to
>>>>>>>> explore those resources 125kya.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Oops. I wanted to say that somebody is implying that
>>>>>>> there is no way that humans could eat marine meat
>>>>>>> much before 125kya. I mean, what is this?
>>>>
>>>>> Not bright enough to use attribution marks? Any fool can
>>>>> make up what someone else didn't say and make a strawman
>>>>> case. What early Homo was eating the MOST of is
>>>>> demonstrated by
>>>>> 1. the hard on the ground evidence, cut marks on savanna
>>>>> bones.
>>>>
>>>> Liar: cutmarks on riverbank bones, probably drowned &
>>>> trampled trekking bovids.
>>>
>>> Liar. You prove it everytime you refuse to cite a source
>>> for this, you are making it up.
>>
>> Says the kudu runner... :-D
>
> "ostrich-egg shell fragments are more closely associated
> with the lithic artifacts"
> H. Roche et al. Nature Vol 399:59
>
> "Stage III is found in an adjcent quarry--called
> S.T.I.C.--and is in a primary context. the artifacts
> occur with vertebrate fauna in a limestone layer
> overlying the regressive Maarifian beach gravel. The
> activity area is associated with a freshwater stream that
> drained onto the beach nearby. The faunal remains all
> come from large terrestrial mammals and there is no
> indication, at this or any other site in Morocco, that
> marine fauna was made use of."
>
> Clark, JD. The Earlier Stone Age/Lower Paleolithic in North
> Africa and the Sahara. In (F. Klees and R. Kuper, Eds) New
> Light on the Northeast African Past, pp.17-37. African
> Praehistorica, 5. Koln: Heinrich Barth Institut.
Marc Verha
Sat, Jul-14-07, 06:15
Op 14-07-2007 03:20, in artikel
1184376012.399577.254630@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee
Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> "beach gravel"...
>>
>> Enough said, kudu runner?
>
> "The faunal remains all come from large terrestrial mammals
> and there is no indication, at this or any other site in
> Morocco, that marine fauna was made use of." Enough said,
> mountain-beaver man?
My little boy, I'l try again in simple words for simple minds.
Short sentences. Not difficult.
1184376013) physiology: Our physiology proves our ancestors
were strongly dependent on water. IOW, probably
most of our fossil Homo relatives also were
waterside.
1184376014) fossils: Nothing in the fossil/archeol.record
contradicts this.
Okidoki? Question: Does this mean that there could never have
been ostriches near to Homo fossils? Answere: No.
In fact, all fossil/arcehol.finds suggest a strong
connection to water:
- Mojokerto H.erectus: ŒThe basal part of the Putjangan Beds
is composed of volcanic breccias containing marine and
freshwater molluscs. The rest of the Putjangan Beds is
composed of black clays of lacustrine origin¹ (Ninkovich &
Burckle 1978).
- Chiwondo Beds Malawi: Homo fossils, fish, turtles,
crocodiles, large mammals & molluscs 'in consolidated beds
of carbonate cemented sandstone. Molluscan shell beds crop
out as benches up to several meters thick and several
hundred meters wide' (Schrenk cs.1995:59).
- The late Pliocene Chemeron hominid KNM-BC 1 was deposited in
a lake filled basin where fish remains were abundant &
mollusc remains accumulated to form shelly limestones
(Martyn & Tobias 1967).
- Early Pleistocene archaeol.sites from the Jordan Valley
Erk-el-Ahmar & ¹Ubeidiya are associated with lacustrine &
fluvial deposits rich in fresh water gastropod and bivalve
remains, fish, turtles, hippos & birds (Bar-Yosef &
Tchernov 1972).
- Aïn Hanech, 1.8 Ma, was formed on an alluvial floodplain cut
by a meandering river (oxbow lake), and may indicate
repeated activities by hominids at a shallow river
embankment (Sahnouni cs.2002).
- Pabbi Hills, Pakistan, 2 Ma: deposits which also contain
crocodiles, turtles, aquatic gastropods & bivalves. The
molluscs suggest a large, slow-moving river with clean
shallow water less than 5 m deep (Dennell
2004).
- Sangiran, Java: H.erectus: 'a thin layer of diatoms
(unicellular marine phytoplankton) & dark clays with a
marine musselfauna was deposited by the sea, as was noticed
and described before by Professor Martin from Leiden' (von
Koenigswald 1981).
- Hominids on Java were using mollusc shells to butcher
mammals, presumably to gain access to nutritious meats 1.5
Ma (Choi & Driwantoro 2007).
- Majuangou, Nihewan, China, 1.66 Ma: hominids inhabited a
lake filled basin, where the remains of aquatic molluscs,
leaves & fruits of aquatic plants have been discovered,
indicating a low energy lakeshore or marsh environment
(Zhu cs.2004).
- Middle Awash, Daka Member, Bouri Formation, Ethiopia, 1 Ma,
contains artefacts, H.erectus cranial & postcrania, abundant
hippo fossils, gastropods & bivalves associated with
alluvial, lakeside beaches or shallow water deposits in
distributary channels (Asfaw cs.2002).
- Dungo V, Angola, reveals evidence for the exploitation of a
large whale (Balaenoptera sp) on a former beach >1 Ma.
Closely associated with the whale skeleton were numerous
Lower Palaeolithic artefacts, together with numerous
molluscs, other marine invertebrates & shark teeth
(Gutierrez cs.2001). Of course, we all know that sharks run
on 2 legs over the African savanna.
- Etc.etc.
-- Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
Lee Olsen
Sat, Jul-14-07, 17:15
On Jul 14, 1:09 am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Op 14-07-2007 03:20, in artikel
> 1184376012.399577.254...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee
> Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> "beach gravel"...
>
> >> Enough said, kudu runner?
>
> > "The faunal remains all come from large terrestrial
> > mammals and there is no indication, at this or any other
> > site in Morocco, that marine fauna was made use of."
> > Enough said, mountain-beaver man?
>
> My little boy, I'l try again in simple words for simple
> minds. Short sentences. =20
Not difficult.
Message-ID:
<1124565262.379006.215260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Jason
Eshleman: "You are asking for someone to contradict something
that you've not made a case for. You are asking someone to
prove a negative. This isn't science, though I suspect you
don't know what science is and as such will continue your
mentally ill diatribes."
Marc's mentally ill diatribe: "AAT is based on the
behavior-anatomy- physiology-DNA of living humans vs. chimps &
other animals. Sea/lake-side ancestors collecting coconuts,
fruits, bird eggs, turtles, shell-, crayfish, algae etc."
Marc, being a non-scientist amateur, can only imagine broad
generalizations, which as Eshleman pointed out, there is no
case for eggs between the P/H split and Gona. He does not
understand that archaeology can identify what kind of "bird
eggs" are involved with early Homo. At Gona, 2.6 mya, the
closest association to the core tools is with "ostrich" eggs.
Of course we all know that ostriches are found where humans
sweat a lot, like on a savanna for instance. The ostrich is
clearly not a swamp bird.
Marc also imagines early Homo eating coconuts in the time-line
between the P/H split 5+- Ma and Gona. No evidence for this
has been cited by Marc, yet the odds of coconut evidence to be
found is just as likely as the odds of cut-mark evidence on
bone surviving in the archaeological record if there were any
to be found. Where is this non- existent evidence hiding? At
this point the wet apers usually invoke the Indian Ocean
Atlantis hypothesis (IOW, lost at sea) based solely on a
"negative" as Eshleman pointed out above to cover for their
lack of evidence and overworked imagination. The Indian Ocean
Atlantis hypothesis of course can be easily refuted because
there is something called continuity in archaeology that Marc
has failed to grasp. If the imaginary lost early Homo were
living somewhere else than on the savanna between P/H split
5+- Ma and Gona, then a trail (continuity) from that location
(eailier) to Gona (later) should be as easy to identify as the
continuity evidence between one savanna basin to the next by
trace sources of exotic rocks. IOW, there should be a trail
from the Indian Ocean (for example) to Gona. Well there isn't
any such evidence. It would not matter if the coast evidence
was buried or not, the continuity would still have to exist
between the two locations with the earliest dated exotic
rocks, coconuts, shell fish etc. found closer to the coast and
scattered out from that point. The record is absolutely silent
on such evidence. It no more exists than Atlantis. The most
parsemounious explanation then is the early Homo evolved in
place where the first evidence typical of Homo is found.
>
> 1) physiology: Our physiology proves our ancestors were
> strongly dependent on water. IOW, probably most of our
> fossil Homo relatives also were waterside.
"probably"??? Vague generalizations are not science you
brainless twit. No wonder you have never published a real
research paper. Always vague to the point of being meaningless
and explaining nothing.
>
> 2) fossils: Nothing in the fossil/archeol.record
> contradicts this.
Nothing in the fossil/archeol.record contradicts they didn't
evolve in Atlantis either. Okidoki?
>
> Okidoki? Question: Does this mean that there could never
> have been ostriches near =
to
> Homo fossils? Answere: No.
Question: Does this mean there never could have been Homo near
a lake? Answer: No.
C4 isotopic signature of teeth prove Homo =3D savanna.
Cut-marks on antelope bones prove association with savanna.
Coconuts, sedges, algae leave C3 signature in teeth of pan/G.
Stupid Marc thinks he is a G.
>
> In fact, all fossil/arcehol.finds suggest a strong
> connection to water:
So, does the fact that a deer drinks water make him littorial?
Answer: No.
> - Mojokerto H.erectus: =8CThe basal part of the Putjangan
> Beds is compose=
d of
> volcanic breccias containing marine and freshwater molluscs.
> The rest of =
the
> Putjangan Beds is composed of black clays of lacustrine
> origin=B9 (Ninkov=
ich &
> Burckle 1978).
"1978"??? How silly and out-of-date.
Huffman, O. F, and Y. Zaim. (2003). Mojokerto Delta, East
Jawa: Paleoenvironment of Homo modjokertensis-First Results.
Submitted to Journal of Mineral Technology, v.10, n. 2.
"Test excavations at the hominid site during 2001 and 2002
field seasons produced 250 fossil vertebrates. The nature of
the recovery suggests that additional hominid remains may be
found in the bed. Fossils from the excavations and nearby
surface collecting suggest that deer, muntjak, bovids, pig,
hippopotamus, rhinoceros, Stegodon, and large cat inhabited
the delta, together with Homo erectus.
The delta plain included-and perhaps was largely covered
with-- grasslands. Stable-carbon isotope signatures ( 13C)
have been obtained from the enamel of teeth of bovids,
cervids, and other animals from the hominid bed and other
localities in the hominid-bearing sequence in the Perning
district. This is the first use the stable-isotope method to
characterize the paleoenvironment of Homo erectus in Jawa. The
results encourage the more widespread use of the technique.
Most of the carbon isotope results fit the C4 photosynthetic
pathway characteristic of tropical grasses."
If doughboy spent more time at the library and less time
telling lies on sap, he wouldn't look so ignorant.
> - Chiwondo Beds Malawi: Homo fossils, fish, turtles,
> crocodiles, large mammals & molluscs 'in consolidated beds
> of carbonate cemented sandstone. Molluscan shell beds crop
> out as benches up to several meters thick and several
> hundred meters wide' (Schrenk cs.1995:59).
> - The late Pliocene Chemeron hominid KNM-BC 1 was deposited
> in a lake fil=
led
> basin where fish remains were abundant & mollusc remains
> accumulated to f=
orm
> shelly limestones (Martyn & Tobias 1967).
> - Early Pleistocene archaeol.sites from the Jordan Valley
> Erk-el-Ahmar & =B9Ubeidiya are associated with lacustrine
> & fluvial deposits rich in fre=
sh
> water gastropod and bivalve remains, fish, turtles, hippos &
> birds (Bar-Yosef & Tchernov 1972).
A few Homo fossils that floated onto a beach means nothing. C4
isotopic signature of teeth prove no sedges, no algae =3D no
littorial livestyle.
> - A=EFn Hanech, 1.8 Ma, was formed on an alluvial floodplain
> cut by a meandering river (oxbow lake), and may indicate
> repeated activities by hominids at a shallow river
> embankment (Sahnouni cs.2002).
"may indicate"??? C4 proves no littorial lifestyle.
> - Pabbi Hills, Pakistan, 2 Ma: deposits which also contain
> crocodiles, turtles, aquatic gastropods & bivalves. The
> molluscs suggest a large, slow-moving river with clean
> shallow water less than 5 m deep (Dennell
> 2004).
Crocodiles prove no littorial lifestyle possible, only food
for crocs possible. Thanks Marc, that's a keeper.
> - Sangiran, Java: H.erectus: 'a thin layer of diatoms
> (unicellular marine phytoplankton) & dark clays with a
> marine musselfauna was deposited by the sea, as was
> noticed and described before by Professor Martin from
> Leiden' (von Koenigswald 1981).
No tools, no home base =3D no littorial lifestyle.
> - Hominids on Java were using mollusc shells to butcher
> mammals, presumab=
ly
> to gain access to nutritious meats 1.5 Ma (Choi &
> Driwantoro 2007).
Yep, shells good enough to cut with, but not good enough to
eat. C4 isotopic signature proves what they were cutting.
Answer: savanna fauna.
> - Majuangou, Nihewan, China, 1.66 Ma: hominids inhabited a
> lake filled basin, where the remains of aquatic molluscs,
> leaves & fruits of aquatic plants have been discovered,
> indicating a low energy lakeshore or marsh environment
> (Zhu cs.2004).
Basins are dry land with savanna animals. Do you have a point?
> - Middle Awash, Daka Member, Bouri Formation, Ethiopia, 1
> Ma, contains artefacts, H.erectus cranial & postcrania,
> abundant hippo fossils, gastropods & bivalves associated
> with alluvial, lakeside beaches or shall=
ow
> water deposits in distributary channels (Asfaw cs.2002).
One Ma? Homo evolution nearly over by then. Gona =3D Homo on
savanna at 2=2E6 mya.
> - Dungo V, Angola, reveals evidence for the exploitation of
> a large whale (Balaenoptera sp) on a former beach >1 Ma.
> Closely associated with the wh=
ale
> skeleton were numerous Lower Palaeolithic artefacts,
> together with numero=
us
> molluscs, other marine invertebrates & shark teeth
> (Gutierrez cs.2001). Of course, we all know that sharks run
> on 2 legs over the African savanna.
Marc believes that sharks teeth, also found with the whale and
tools on the same beach, must mean sharks are littorial also.
Lee Olsen
Tue, Jul-17-07, 17:18
On Jul 17, 3:49 am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> My little boy, this is what I answered at another post to
> your nonsense below:
Yes doughboy, just like you answered mountain beavers are
semi-aquatic (TREE 2002).
>
> Some uninformed Savanna Fanatic felt the need to write
> something here:
>
> >> Comparative-imagination evidence is nice.
>
> Yes, eg, savanna imaginations: there is no evidence
> whatsoever (fossil, archeol. & certainly physiol.) that any
> hominid species ever lived in waterpoor conditions as
> typical savanna dwellers do.
You need to renew your library card and learn how to read.
"Waterpoor" ??? What kind of illiterate fool thinks the
elephants that live on the savanna don't need a lot of water?
Do you think there were getting their water seaside?
>The few Homo fossils & tools that are found in "savanna
>environments" were found there in riverbeds, alluvial
>plains, deltas, coasts etc., eg, Gona: riverbank butchering
>of bovids (probably drowned during the trek when crossing
>rivers at rel.shallow places).
Says who, the same amateurs that think mountain beavers are
semi- aquatic?
>
> >> One can imagine Homo ancestors living almost anywhere,
> >> bottom of the Indian Ocean,
>
> The usual SF misrepresentations...
http://tinyurl.com/2hhzuo
"Dirt simple. The fossil evidence of early hominds is positive
evidence for occupation of inland, woodland to open savannah
environments. End of story. Saying this does not 'contradict'
hominids living elsewhere only indicates you have mastered one
of the great logical fallacies. You can't prove a negative so
its no use asking. What you need to do is get positive
evidence for coastal, Indian Ocean hominds. Your inability to
understand this basic point is what will forever confine you
to the lunatic fringe." Rick Wagler
>
> >> Atlantis,
>
> AFAIK, only SFs are interested in this sort of stuff.
AFAIK, only AATers are interested in comparative imagination.
>
> >> seaside, who can prove you wrong?
>
> Anybody with a little bit of sense, if he had good
> arguments: It's beyond doubt that we had seaside ancestors
> at one time after the Homo/Pan split c.5 Ma:
Says the comparative-imagination fool that thinks mountain
beavers are semi-aquatic (TREE 2002).
> - Extremely large brain, brain-specific foods, dependency on
> PUFAs (esp.DHA), salt & iodine, multi-papillary kidneys
> etc. all independently indicate sea(food).
No algae, no oysters, no coconuts, nothing but imagination.
> - Absence of fully aquatic features: external nose, very
> long legs etc. contradict full aquaticism & indicate
> semi-aquaticism = waterside.
"I. The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied grasslands
and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in East Africa. Homo
ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is associated
with hot and dry conditions, and open grasslands; its
post-cranial anatomy, with its long limbs was geared to
long-distance walking across open ground, and to heat
dispersal through upright posture Dennell 2003:442)."
> IOW, sea + waterside = seacoast environment
> (incl.deltas etc.).
No oysters, no algae, no coconuts, no C3 signature in early
Homo teeth
='s AAT a fraud.
> This is corroborated by stone tool use & extreme handiness
> (sea otters,
Otters don't use tools you illiterate fool.
<enough spiritual imagination> stupid fool thinks he is an
otter.
Lee Olsen
Tue, Jul-17-07, 17:18
On Jul 17, 3:49 am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> My little boy, this is what I answered at another post to
> your nonsense below:
>
> Some uninformed Savanna Fanatic felt the need to write
> something here:
>
> >> Comparative-imagination evidence is nice.
>
> Yes, eg, savanna imaginations: there is no evidence
> whatsoever (fossil, archeol. & certainly physiol.) that any
> hominid species ever lived in waterpoor conditions as
> typical savanna dwellers do.
Says the same illiterate imagination that claims mountain
beavers are semi-aquatic (TREE 2002).
> The few Homo fossils & tools that are found in "savanna
> environments"
"Few" is 100% more than nothing the AATers have for evidence.
No coconuts, no oysters, no algae, no littorial lunacy.
The waterside lunacy has been completely falsified.
Lived waterside where the lions and crocs hang out????
How silly.
"Here's a point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did not
learn this point from some academic overlord with an anti-AAT
agenda; I learned it while trying to avoid becoming crocodile
food in Africa. When I spent several months with a team at
Lake Turkana, Kenya, investigating some of the most important
early hominid sites in the world, one of our overriding
concerns -- while swimming, bathing, or catching fish with a
net -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A croc
can be on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and drag you under
to drown before you have time to screech for help. The fact
that crocodiles co-existed in time and space with early
hominids is a colossal blow to AAT, which does not explain
what advantages early humans would have gained by spending
time in crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they
could not make fires, throw stones or sticks, use other tools,
or have any hope whatever of escaping the most common
predator. A troop of early hominids wading in a lakeshore or
swampy forest would best be described as a crocodile banquet.
The cute, feel-good images of babies swimming freely in a
pool, shown in the AAT video, have nothing to do with the real
situation of predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the Dasenich or
Turkana people who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting
maniacs swim in that lake." Cameron M. Smith
"The last place I would camp in Africa is near a water
source." Lew Binford
Lee Olsen: " How close did you camp to lakes?"
Dick Kocan: "Not very close." ( PhD marine biology and African
big-game hunter)
Hadza camp a twenty minute walk from water sources
(O'Connell 2002).
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/aop/olorg2004/dispa-
tch/start.htm The idea of sleeping on the higher ground rather
than next to water seemed an attractive idea. Lakes, ponds,
and stream channels in the African bush are good natural
sources of water and plant food during the day. But at night
they turn into really great places if you want to be hunted
down as prey! The water margins attract the big and small
predators that like to hunt in the dark of night. Even today
at Olorgesailie, we often go to sleep hearing hyenas, jackals,
and sometimes lions growling and whooping off in the distance
during their nighttime prowls. Anyway, early humans could get
food in the lowlands
- that's where they left the chipped stone tools and other
evidence of their activities. And, unlike earlier hominins,
they could have avoided the favored hunting areas of other
predators if they got to higher ground at night.
>were found there in riverbeds, alluvial plains, deltas,
>coasts etc., eg, Gona: riverbank butchering of bovids
>(probably drowned during the trek when crossing rivers at
>rel.shallow places).
Marc can't cite anything he because he made that up in his
comparative imagination.
Fact: EE FxJj 10 floodplain. Overbank flood deposit from
channel system. Has hippo bones, plus bones from 10 other
animals (Schick
1986:125).
No cut marks.Presevation not good. A channel or bank, natural
redisposition. No evidence to prove it was a butcher site.
Marc imagines mountain beavers being semi-aquatic and he
imagins butchered animals were there aren't any.
>
> >> One can imagine Homo ancestors living almost anywhere,
> >> bottom of the Indian Ocean,
>
> The usual SF misrepresentations...
What evidence do you have that proves they weren't?
>
> >> Atlantis,
>
> AFAIK, only SFs are interested in this sort of stuff.
Says the imaginary aquatic-mountain beaver doughboy.
>
> >> seaside, who can prove you wrong?
>
> Anybody with a little bit of sense, if he had good
> arguments:
Thanks for proving your own argument wrong.
Lee Olsen
Tue, Jul-17-07, 17:18
On Jul 17, 3:49 am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Op 16-07-2007 23:04, in artikel
> 1184619849.933515.86...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee
> Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:>
> On Jul 16, 1:40 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >> Op 16-07-2007 22:12, in artikel
> >> 1184616756.259539.215...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee
> >> Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
> >> schreef:
>
> >>> On Jul 16, 4:35 am, Marc Verhaegen
> >>> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >>>> Op 16-07-2007 02:39, in artikel
> >>>> 1184546379.911169.100...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
> >>>> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
> >>>> schreef:
>
> >>>>>> That some people run after antelopes does not mean
> >>>>>> our ancestors did that.
>
> >>> Just because some people live at the seashore, doesn't
> >>> mean our ancestors did that.
>
> >> What is the ratio of people living at coasts & people
> >> living in savannas? I guess 1 million times more at
> >> coasts...
>
> > Besides you, how many people today are Homo erectus? How
> > many Homo e skeletons have you found on the seashore at
> > Point Barrow, Alaska or at Hammerfest, Norway?
>
> > How many people plant lawns (to mimic savanna grass)
> > compared to the few one finds swimming at the beach?
>
> >>> Gona 2.6 mya = cut-marks on antelope bones
>
> >> Yes thanks, Gona (butchering of bovinds on riverbank) is
> >> nice confirmation of waterside tool use.
>
> > Your lies do not confirm anything. You only imagine bovids
> > butchered on a riverbank.
>
> >>> = C4 savanna isotope signature in teeth.
>
> >> No lies, my boy.
>
> > ROFL. The loon who thinks mountain beavers are
> > semi-aquatic (TREE
> > 2002) is questioning a real scientist?
>
> >http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2001/december/hominids.htm
>
> > Dr Julia Lee-Thorp "In the last issue Dr Becky Rogers
> > Ackermann described how our views on the shape of our
> > family tree, or rather, family bush, are being changed by
> > exciting new early hominid discoveries. But discovery is
> > really just the start of the scientific 'detective' trail.
> > After the immediate questions about relationships of the
> > new finds to other hominids, judged from their morphology
> > (size and shape), contexts and ages, follows another
> > important set of questions about how they lived and
> > behaved. This is an area where recent advances in analysis
> > of the fossil tissues themselves are enhancing our
> > understanding of the lifeways of early hominids. I will
> > focus mainly on learning more about the foods that were
> > eaten, using a particular kind of chemical tool called
> > stable light isotope analysis. South African scientists
> > have pioneered its application to hominid diets. Why is it
> > important to know about the foods early hominids ate? Most
> > primates (not forgetting us humans) spend a large
> > proportion of waking hours searching for, and eating food,
> > so diet is a major factor underlying behaviour and
> > ecology. Finding out what they ate is a very important
> > step in establishing what "a day in the life" was like for
> > an early hominid. And for the same reason, dietary
> > differences and changes are inextricably bound with
> > evolutionary pathways. The primary importance of diet was
> > first recognised long ago by
>
> > Raymond Dart who discovered the first hominid to be found
> > in Africa - the "Taung child" (Australopithecus africanus)
> > (enter figure to the right for larger image). Dart puzzled
> > over how these "man-like apes" had survived in an
> > apparently open, arid environment (the Northern Cape) so
> > hostile to their forest-loving great ape cousins. He
> > suggested an expansion of the hominoid menu to include
> > "insects and scorpions, lizards and bird's eggs, berries
> > and grubs" (Dart, 1959, p.
> > 7). Debates about hominid diets have raged back and
> > forth since then. As we shall see below, Dart's
> > original idea has turned out to be pretty good, even
> > though we now know that the ancient Taung environment
> > did not look much like the arid place it is today!
> > How can we investigate diets of species that have
> > been extinct for millions of years? It's not easy!
> > The shape and structure of teeth (dental morphology)
>
> > provides some guidance because teeth are adapted for
> > processing food. For instance, the giant molars of the
> > Australopithecines suggest that they needed to process
> > very tough food (see figure to the right) (Ungar, 1998).
> > But phylogenetic history also plays a role in tooth
> > morphology, and adaptations are not necessarily the same
> > as actual behaviour. For example, Papio baboons have tooth
> > shapes indicative of fruit diets, but many modern baboons
> > eat as much as 50% grass for which they are poorly
> > equipped. The problem is worse in animals that are
> > 'generalists' (ie. can eat a bit of everything) like
> > hominids.
>
> > Some foods leave microscopic traces on teeth. Certain
> > diets such as those rich in hard fruits or grasses leave
> > tiny distinctive damage patterns on enamel surfaces. Based
> > on different microwear patterns, Fred Grine suggested that
> > Australopithecus africanus ate a diet with fleshy fruits
> > and leaves, while A. robustus ate harder, more fibrous
> > foods (Grine, 1981). Unfortunately microwear only reflects
> > the consistency of foods eaten in the last few days or
> > weeks, and many foods, such as animal flesh, are
> > "invisible". Scatters of stone tools and animal bones in
> > former living sites can provide some clues about how food
> > was acquired although the stone tools do not tell us much
> > about diet. It's also hard to tell which hominid was using
> > them. In addition, stone tools appeared about 2.5 million
> > years ago, so they cannot help us in the case of earlier
> > hominids. Other options for investigating hominid menus:
> > introducing stable carbon isotopes. Valuable information
> > is locked up in the crystal structure of fossil tooth
> > enamel. The tooth enamel of fossils is usually remarkably
> > well- preserved (see figure above and follow link for full
> > image), and this is certainly the case for the fossils
> > found in the South African sites. Tooth enamel is a
> > crystalline mineral made up mostly of calcium and
> > phosphate, but small amounts of other ions are also
> > present, including carbonate ions. This tiny carbonate
> > inclusion preserves, in the carbon isotope signatures, a
> > record of certain classes of foods that were eaten when
> > the tooth was forming! The way it works goes something
> > like this. The ratios of the two stable forms of carbon
> > (distinguished only by their atomic mass, 13C and 12C),
> > provide a natural tracer tool for the chemical and
> > biochemical reactions of the carbon cycle. In African
> > savanna or summer rainfall environments, trees, shrubs and
> > herbs follow a photosynthesis pathway (called the C3
> > pathway) which discriminates strongly against 13C, whereas
> > another pathway used by tropical grasses (the C4 pathway)
> > does not.
>
> > The result is that the two groups of plants have very
> > distinct 13C/12C ratios (see figure to the right and
> > follow link for full image). Animals incorporate the plant
> > carbon they eat into their tissues, which then directly
> > reflect proportions of C4 grasses and C3 plants eaten. For
> > instance, grazers (such as wildebeests) are enriched in
> > 13C compared to animals that eat C3 foods such as the
> > leaves or fruits of trees and bushes (like giraffes and
> > chimpanzees). In the case of fossil animals, analysis is
> > limited to bones and teeth, which alone are preserved in
> > the fossil record. Original isotopic signatures are best
> > preserved in enamel in samples that are millions of years
> > old, whereas bone tends to become altered. What does
> > stable carbon isotope analysis tell us about hominid
> > diets? Analysis of A. africanus tooth enamel from
> > Makapansgat Limeworks (about 3 million years old), and A.
> > robustus and early Homo from Swartkrans (about 1.5- 1.7
> > million years old) produced some surprising results. If A.
> > africanus was a fruit- and leaf- eater as suggested by the
> > microwear analysis, they should show corresponding C3
> > carbon isotope signatures. But they do not! Instead, the
> > results show that, on average, 25% of their dietary carbon
> > came from grasses. For one individual at Makapansgat it
> > was more like 50%. It was also surprising that the same
> > pattern held for all the hominids at Makapansgat and
> > Swartkrans, over a period of some 1 to 2 million years
> > (see figure above). None of the hominids analysed so far
> > ate a diet like that of the modern chimpanzee, gorilla, or
> > even orangutan, all of which eat nearly 100% C3 foods.
> > This is not to say that they did not eat fruits and leaves
> > - they most probably did. But they also ate quantities of
> > actual grasses, or animals that ate the grasses, or both.
> > Grass itself is difficult to process and to extract the
> > nutrients (unless one is well-equipped to do so, like a
> > cow), so it's difficult to visualise how such a large
> > ''grass" signature could occur unless the hominids ate
> > some animal foods. C4 -consuming invertebrate and
> > vertebrate animals were abundant and easily collected by
> > hominids. Raymond Dart was on the right track all those
> > years ago, even if his environmental scenario was not
> > quite right! The important point is that we now know that
> > all of these hominids were willing to eat C4 resources
> > that are generally ignored by our primate cousins, the
> > chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Chimpanzees, for
> > instance, stick to C3 'forest' foods even when grasses or
> > grass-eating animals are abundant. It seems that hominids
> > early on became dietary generalists who broadened their
> > diets and thus their resource base. This may have been the
> > seminal step in the development of the hominid lineage. It
> > makes sense when one considers that global climates
> > changed between about 4 - 1.8 millions years ago, causing
> > African forests to be replaced by woodlands and
> > grasslands."
> My little boy, this is what I answered at another post to
> your nonsense below:
You really mean nonsense to a spiritual-imagination freak.
>
> Some uninformed Savanna Fanatic felt the need to write
> something here:
Says the uninformed AAT loon that thinks mountain beavers are
semi- aqyatic (TREE 2002).
>
> >> Comparative-imagination evidence is nice.
>
> Yes, eg, savanna imaginations: there is no evidence
> whatsoever (fossil, archeol. & certainly physiol.) that any
> hominid species ever lived in waterpoor conditions as
> typical savanna dwellers do.
Another mentally-ill diatribe. What do you think herds of
savanna elephants drink in waterpoor conditions. You are
getting dumber by the day.
> The few Homo fossils & tools that are found in "savanna
> environments"
ROFL. "few" is 100% more evidence than there is for coconuts,
oysters, and algae.
> were found there in riverbeds, alluvial plains, deltas,
> coasts etc., eg, Gona: riverbank
No direct quote from a journal for a Gona riverbank....
wonder why?
> butchering of bovids (probably drowned during the trek when
> crossing rivers at rel.shallow places).
"probably" is the only evidence you ever had.
>
> >> One can imagine Homo ancestors living almost anywhere,
> >> bottom of the Indian Ocean,
>
> The usual SF misrepresentations...
You ought to know about misrepresentations, you are an expert
at making them....coconuts, algae, etc....
>
> >> Atlantis,
>
> AFAIK, only SFs are interested in this sort of stuff.
Hardy: spiritual phenomenon.... Verhaegen: Indian Ocean....
>
> >> seaside, who can prove you wrong?
>
> Anybody with a little bit of sense, if he had good
> arguments:
Thanks for proving your imaginary evidence wrong.
Marc Verha
Tue, Jul-17-07, 17:18
My little boy, this is what I answered at another post to your
nonsense below:
Some uninformed Savanna Fanatic felt the need to write
something here:
>> Comparative-imagination evidence is nice.
Yes, eg, savanna imaginations: there is no evidence whatsoever
(fossil, archeol. & certainly physiol.) that any hominid
species ever lived in waterpoor conditions as typical savanna
dwellers do. The few Homo fossils & tools that are found in
"savanna environments" were found there in riverbeds, alluvial
plains, deltas, coasts etc., eg, Gona: riverbank butchering of
bovids (probably drowned during the trek when crossing rivers
at rel.shallow places).
>> One can imagine Homo ancestors living almost anywhere,
>> bottom of the Indian Ocean,
The usual SF misrepresentations...
>> Atlantis,
AFAIK, only SFs are interested in this sort of stuff.
>> seaside, who can prove you wrong?
Anybody with a little bit of sense, if he had good arguments:
It's beyond doubt that we had seaside ancestors at one time
after the Homo/Pan split c.5 Ma:
- Extremely large brain, brain-specific foods, dependency on
PUFAs (esp.DHA), salt & iodine, multi-papillary kidneys etc.
all independently indicate sea(food).
- Absence of fully aquatic features: external nose, very long
legs etc. contradict full aquaticism & indicate
semi-aquaticism = waterside. IOW, sea + waterside = seacoast
environment (incl.deltas etc.). This is corroborated by
stone tool use & extreme handiness (sea otters, racoons),
full plantigrady (never seen in cursorial spp), short toes
(id.), pachyostosis & medullary stenosis in H.erectus (only
seen slow-diving spp for sessile foods), dispersal of
H.erectus 1.8 Ma between Algeria & Java (both at sea
coasts), slow-diving skills (unique among primates),
reduction of climbing adaptations, etc.etc.
>> Absence of evidence then becomes proof. One can imagine
>> early Homo eating mountain beaver food,
I have no idea of the imaginations of this SF (kudu
running??), but AFAIK nobody ever claimed any Homo population
fed on mountain beaver food. Such misrepresentations are
typical of creationists, SFs & that kind of people.
Fact is: afarensis (is not Homo, as this SF seems to believe)
had molar microwear (esp.glossy polishing by wet plants) as
seen in waterside herbivores such as mountain beavers &
capibaras (P-F.Puech), IOW, in combination with everything we
know about afarensis, this suggests afarensis frequently fed
on what researchers call Aquatic Herbaceous Vegetation (as
Ndoki gorillas parttime) & waterside plants (as all gorillas
parttime). IOW, only short-sighted & biased SFs refuse to
consider the possibility that afarensis might have fed partly
on sedges, AHV etc.
>> swishing for algae like flamingos, noodling for catfish.
?? This SF is delirious AFAICS: probably he ran too long after
kudus under the hot sun.
>> Sir Hardy knew what he was doing when he gave up AAT for
>> spiritual phenomenon,
Hardy never gave up AAT, as anybody who is a little bit
interested in AAT should know.
>> because isotopic sigatures refute algae, sedges etc.
AFAIK Hardy never spoke about this.
>> Smart guy that Hardy.
Yes, brilliant.
--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
_______
Op 16-07-2007 23:04, in artikel
1184619849.933515.86420@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On Jul 16, 1:40 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Op 16-07-2007 22:12, in artikel
>> 1184616756.259539.215...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee
>> Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
>> schreef:
>>
>>> On Jul 16, 4:35 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Op 16-07-2007 02:39, in artikel
>>>> 1184546379.911169.100...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
>>>> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
>>>> schreef:
>>
>>>>>> That some people run after antelopes does not mean our
>>>>>> ancestors did that.
>>
>>> Just because some people live at the seashore, doesn't
>>> mean our ancestors did that.
>>
>> What is the ratio of people living at coasts & people
>> living in savannas? I guess 1 million times more at
>> coasts...
>
> Besides you, how many people today are Homo erectus? How
> many Homo e skeletons have you found on the seashore at
> Point Barrow, Alaska or at Hammerfest, Norway?
>
> How many people plant lawns (to mimic savanna grass)
> compared to the few one finds swimming at the beach?
>>
>>> Gona 2.6 mya = cut-marks on antelope bones
>>
>> Yes thanks, Gona (butchering of bovinds on riverbank) is
>> nice confirmation of waterside tool use.
>
> Your lies do not confirm anything. You only imagine bovids
> butchered on a riverbank.
>>
>>> = C4 savanna isotope signature in teeth.
>>
>> No lies, my boy.
>
> ROFL. The loon who thinks mountain beavers are
> semi-aquatic (TREE
> 2002) is questioning a real scientist?
>
>
> http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2001/december/hominids.htm
>
> Dr Julia Lee-Thorp "In the last issue Dr Becky Rogers
> Ackermann described how our views on the shape of our family
> tree, or rather, family bush, are being changed by exciting
> new early hominid discoveries. But discovery is really just
> the start of the scientific 'detective' trail. After the
> immediate questions about relationships of the new finds to
> other hominids, judged from their morphology (size and
> shape), contexts and ages, follows another important set of
> questions about how they lived and behaved. This is an area
> where recent advances in analysis of the fossil tissues
> themselves are enhancing our understanding of the lifeways
> of early hominids. I will focus mainly on learning more
> about the foods that were eaten, using a particular kind of
> chemical tool called stable light isotope analysis. South
> African scientists have pioneered its application to hominid
> diets. Why is it important to know about the foods early
> hominids ate? Most primates (not forgetting us humans) spend
> a large proportion of waking hours searching for, and eating
> food, so diet is a major factor underlying behaviour and
> ecology. Finding out what they ate is a very important step
> in establishing what "a day in the life" was like for an
> early hominid. And for the same reason, dietary differences
> and changes are inextricably bound with evolutionary
> pathways. The primary importance of diet was first
> recognised long ago by
>
> Raymond Dart who discovered the first hominid to be found in
> Africa - the "Taung child" (Australopithecus africanus)
> (enter figure to the right for larger image). Dart puzzled
> over how these "man-like apes" had survived in an apparently
> open, arid environment (the Northern Cape) so hostile to
> their forest-loving great ape cousins. He suggested an
> expansion of the hominoid menu to include "insects and
> scorpions, lizards and bird's eggs, berries and grubs"
> (Dart, 1959, p.
> 7). Debates about hominid diets have raged back and forth
> since then. As we shall see below, Dart's original idea
> has turned out to be pretty good, even though we now
> know that the ancient Taung environment did not look
> much like the arid place it is today! How can we
> investigate diets of species that have been extinct for
> millions of years? It's not easy! The shape and
> structure of teeth (dental morphology)
>
> provides some guidance because teeth are adapted for
> processing food. For instance, the giant molars of the
> Australopithecines suggest that they needed to process very
> tough food (see figure to the right) (Ungar, 1998). But
> phylogenetic history also plays a role in tooth morphology,
> and adaptations are not necessarily the same as actual
> behaviour. For example, Papio baboons have tooth shapes
> indicative of fruit diets, but many modern baboons eat as
> much as 50% grass for which they are poorly equipped. The
> problem is worse in animals that are 'generalists' (ie. can
> eat a bit of everything) like hominids.
>
> Some foods leave microscopic traces on teeth. Certain diets
> such as those rich in hard fruits or grasses leave tiny
> distinctive damage patterns on enamel surfaces. Based on
> different microwear patterns, Fred Grine suggested that
> Australopithecus africanus ate a diet with fleshy fruits and
> leaves, while A. robustus ate harder, more fibrous foods
> (Grine, 1981). Unfortunately microwear only reflects the
> consistency of foods eaten in the last few days or weeks,
> and many foods, such as animal flesh, are "invisible".
> Scatters of stone tools and animal bones in former living
> sites can provide some clues about how food was acquired
> although the stone tools do not tell us much about diet.
> It's also hard to tell which hominid was using them. In
> addition, stone tools appeared about 2.5 million years ago,
> so they cannot help us in the case of earlier hominids.
> Other options for investigating hominid menus: introducing
> stable carbon isotopes. Valuable information is locked up in
> the crystal structure of fossil tooth enamel. The tooth
> enamel of fossils is usually remarkably well- preserved (see
> figure above and follow link for full image), and this is
> certainly the case for the fossils found in the South
> African sites. Tooth enamel is a crystalline mineral made up
> mostly of calcium and phosphate, but small amounts of other
> ions are also present, including carbonate ions. This tiny
> carbonate inclusion preserves, in the carbon isotope
> signatures, a record of certain classes of foods that were
> eaten when the tooth was forming! The way it works goes
> something like this. The ratios of the two stable forms of
> carbon (distinguished only by their atomic mass, 13C and
> 12C), provide a natural tracer tool for the chemical and
> biochemical reactions of the carbon cycle. In African
> savanna or summer rainfall environments, trees, shrubs and
> herbs follow a photosynthesis pathway (called the C3
> pathway) which discriminates strongly against 13C, whereas
> another pathway used by tropical grasses (the C4 pathway)
> does not.
>
> The result is that the two groups of plants have very
> distinct 13C/12C ratios (see figure to the right and follow
> link for full image). Animals incorporate the plant carbon
> they eat into their tissues, which then directly reflect
> proportions of C4 grasses and C3 plants eaten. For instance,
> grazers (such as wildebeests) are enriched in 13C compared
> to animals that eat C3 foods such as the leaves or fruits of
> trees and bushes (like giraffes and chimpanzees). In the
> case of fossil animals, analysis is limited to bones and
> teeth, which alone are preserved in the fossil record.
> Original isotopic signatures are best preserved in enamel in
> samples that are millions of years old, whereas bone tends
> to become altered. What does stable carbon isotope analysis
> tell us about hominid diets? Analysis of A. africanus tooth
> enamel from Makapansgat Limeworks (about 3 million years
> old), and A. robustus and early Homo from Swartkrans (about
> 1.5- 1.7 million years old) produced some surprising
> results. If A. africanus was a fruit- and leaf- eater as
> suggested by the microwear analysis, they should show
> corresponding C3 carbon isotope signatures. But they do not!
> Instead, the results show that, on average, 25% of their
> dietary carbon came from grasses. For one individual at
> Makapansgat it was more like 50%. It was also surprising
> that the same pattern held for all the hominids at
> Makapansgat and Swartkrans, over a period of some 1 to 2
> million years (see figure above). None of the hominids
> analysed so far ate a diet like that of the modern
> chimpanzee, gorilla, or even orangutan, all of which eat
> nearly 100% C3 foods. This is not to say that they did not
> eat fruits and leaves - they most probably did. But they
> also ate quantities of actual grasses, or animals that ate
> the grasses, or both. Grass itself is difficult to process
> and to extract the nutrients (unless one is well-equipped to
> do so, like a cow), so it's difficult to visualise how such
> a large ''grass" signature could occur unless the hominids
> ate some animal foods. C4 -consuming invertebrate and
> vertebrate animals were abundant and easily collected by
> hominids. Raymond Dart was on the right track all those
> years ago, even if his environmental scenario was not quite
> right! The important point is that we now know that all of
> these hominids were willing to eat C4 resources that are
> generally ignored by our primate cousins, the chimpanzees,
> gorillas, and orangutans. Chimpanzees, for instance, stick
> to C3 'forest' foods even when grasses or grass-eating
> animals are abundant. It seems that hominids early on became
> dietary generalists who broadened their diets and thus their
> resource base. This may have been the seminal step in the
> development of the hominid lineage. It makes sense when one
> considers that global climates changed between about 4 - 1.8
> millions years ago, causing African forests to be replaced
> by woodlands and grasslands."
Marc Verha
Tue, Jul-17-07, 17:18
Typical savanna blabla, not worth an answer. These
fanatics better listen to what real Pas have to say on the
savanna nonsense:
Tobias 1995 ³We were all profoundly and unutterably wrong! Š
All the former savannah supporters (including myself) must
now swallow our earlier words в Wood 1996 ³the Œsavannah¹
hypothesis of human origins, in which the cooling begat the
savannah and the savannah begat humanity, is now
discredited² Stringer 1997 ³One of the strong points about
the aquatic theory is in explaining the origin of
bipedality. If our ancestors did go into the water, that
would forced them to walk upright в Tobias 1998 ³ŠBamford
identified fossil vines or lianas of Dichapetalum in the
same Member 4: such vines hang from forest trees and would
not be expected in open savannah. The team at Makapansgat
found floral and faunal evidence that the layers containing
Australopithecus reflected forest or forest margin
conditions. From Hadar, in Ethiopia, where ŒLucy¹ was found,
and from Aramis in Ethiopia, where Tim White¹s team found
Ardipithecus ramidus Š well-wooded and even forested
conditions were inferred from the fauna accompanying the
hominid fossils. All the fossil evidence adds up to the
small-brained, bipedal hominids of four to 2.5 Ma having
lived in a woodland or forest niche, not savannah.² ³Š if
ever our earliest ancestors were savannah dwellers, we must
have been the worst, the most profligate urinators there²
Stringer 2001 ³In the past I have agreed that we lack
plausible models for the origins of bipedalism and have
agreed that wading in water can facilitate bipedal
locomotion (as observed in other normally quadrupedal
primates). I have never said that this must have been the
forcing mechanism in hominids, but I do consider it
plausible. As for coastal colonisation, I argued in my
Nature News & Views last year that this was an event in the
late Pleistocene that may have facilitated the spread of
modern humans.² Wrangham 2005 ³Here I follow the
conventional assumption that hominins began in the savanna.²
³Š the composition of the Okavango as a network of islands
could favor the evolution of bipedalism. For those who
envisage bipedalism as facilitated by the need to traverse
or exploit aquatic environments, an inland delta that
generates low islands termitogenically or hydrodynamically
offers rich scenarios.² Alemseged 2006 ³I believe we should
just put the savannah theory aside. I think they basically
became biped while they were living in a wooded, covered
environment в
_____
Op 17-07-2007 15:52, in artikel
1184680346.375178.133470@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Lee
Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On Jul 17, 3:49 am, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>> Op 16-07-2007 23:04, in artikel
>> 1184619849.933515.86...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee
>> Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
>> schreef:> On Jul 16, 1:40 pm, Marc
>> Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be>
>> wrote:
>>>> Op 16-07-2007 22:12, in artikel
>>>> 1184616756.259539.215...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee
>>>> Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
>>>> schreef:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 16, 4:35 am, Marc Verhaegen
>>>>> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>>>>> Op 16-07-2007 02:39, in artikel
>>>>>> 1184546379.911169.100...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
>>>>>> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> schreef:
>>
>>>>>>>> That some people run after antelopes does not mean
>>>>>>>> our ancestors did that.
>>
>>>>> Just because some people live at the seashore, doesn't
>>>>> mean our ancestors did that.
>>
>>>> What is the ratio of people living at coasts & people
>>>> living in savannas? I guess 1 million times more at
>>>> coasts...
>>
>>> Besides you, how many people today are Homo erectus? How
>>> many Homo e skeletons have you found on the seashore at
>>> Point Barrow, Alaska or at Hammerfest, Norway?
>>
>>> How many people plant lawns (to mimic savanna grass)
>>> compared to the few one finds swimming at the beach?
>>
>>>>> Gona 2.6 mya = cut-marks on antelope bones
>>
>>>> Yes thanks, Gona (butchering of bovinds on riverbank) is
>>>> nice confirmation of waterside tool use.
>>
>>> Your lies do not confirm anything. You only imagine bovids
>>> butchered on a riverbank.
>>
>>>>> = C4 savanna isotope signature in teeth.
>>
>>>> No lies, my boy.
>>
>>> ROFL. The loon who thinks mountain beavers are
>>> semi-aquatic (TREE
>>> 2002) is questioning a real scientist?
>>
>>> http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2001/december/homini-
>>> ds.htm
>>
>>> Dr Julia Lee-Thorp "In the last issue Dr Becky Rogers
>>> Ackermann described how our views on the shape of our
>>> family tree, or rather, family bush, are being changed by
>>> exciting new early hominid discoveries. But discovery is
>>> really just the start of the scientific 'detective' trail.
>>> After the immediate questions about relationships of the
>>> new finds to other hominids, judged from their morphology
>>> (size and shape), contexts and ages, follows another
>>> important set of questions about how they lived and
>>> behaved. This is an area where recent advances in analysis
>>> of the fossil tissues themselves are enhancing our
>>> understanding of the lifeways of early hominids. I will
>>> focus mainly on learning more about the foods that were
>>> eaten, using a particular kind of chemical tool called
>>> stable light isotope analysis. South African scientists
>>> have pioneered its application to hominid diets. Why is it
>>> important to know about the foods early hominids ate? Most
>>> primates (not forgetting us humans) spend a large
>>> proportion of waking hours searching for, and eating food,
>>> so diet is a major factor underlying behaviour and
>>> ecology. Finding out what they ate is a very important
>>> step in establishing what "a day in the life" was like for
>>> an early hominid. And for the same reason, dietary
>>> differences and changes are inextricably bound with
>>> evolutionary pathways. The primary importance of diet was
>>> first recognised long ago by
>>
>>> Raymond Dart who discovered the first hominid to be found
>>> in Africa - the "Taung child" (Australopithecus africanus)
>>> (enter figure to the right for larger image). Dart puzzled
>>> over how these "man-like apes" had survived in an
>>> apparently open, arid environment (the Northern Cape) so
>>> hostile to their forest-loving great ape cousins. He
>>> suggested an expansion of the hominoid menu to include
>>> "insects and scorpions, lizards and bird's eggs, berries
>>> and grubs" (Dart, 1959, p.
>>> 7). Debates about hominid diets have raged back and
>>> forth since then. As we shall see below, Dart's
>>> original idea has turned out to be pretty good, even
>>> though we now know that the ancient Taung environment
>>> did not look much like the arid place it is today!
>>> How can we investigate diets of species that have
>>> been extinct for millions of years? It's not easy!
>>> The shape and structure of teeth (dental morphology)
>>
>>> provides some guidance because teeth are adapted for
>>> processing food. For instance, the giant molars of the
>>> Australopithecines suggest that they needed to process
>>> very tough food (see figure to the right) (Ungar, 1998).
>>> But phylogenetic history also plays a role in tooth
>>> morphology, and adaptations are not necessarily the same
>>> as actual behaviour. For example, Papio baboons have tooth
>>> shapes indicative of fruit diets, but many modern baboons
>>> eat as much as 50% grass for which they are poorly
>>> equipped. The problem is worse in animals that are
>>> 'generalists' (ie. can eat a bit of everything) like
>>> hominids.
>>
>>> Some foods leave microscopic traces on teeth. Certain
>>> diets such as those rich in hard fruits or grasses leave
>>> tiny distinctive damage patterns on enamel surfaces. Based
>>> on different microwear patterns, Fred Grine suggested that
>>> Australopithecus africanus ate a diet with fleshy fruits
>>> and leaves, while A. robustus ate harder, more fibrous
>>> foods (Grine, 1981). Unfortunately microwear only reflects
>>> the consistency of foods eaten in the last few days or
>>> weeks, and many foods, such as animal flesh, are
>>> "invisible". Scatters of stone tools and animal bones in
>>> former living sites can provide some clues about how food
>>> was acquired although the stone tools do not tell us much
>>> about diet. It's also hard to tell which hominid was using
>>> them. In addition, stone tools appeared about 2.5 million
>>> years ago, so they cannot help us in the case of earlier
>>> hominids. Other options for investigating hominid menus:
>>> introducing stable carbon isotopes. Valuable information
>>> is locked up in the crystal structure of fossil tooth
>>> enamel. The tooth enamel of fossils is usually remarkably
>>> well- preserved (see figure above and follow link for full
>>> image), and this is certainly the case for the fossils
>>> found in the South African sites. Tooth enamel is a
>>> crystalline mineral made up mostly of calcium and
>>> phosphate, but small amounts of other ions are also
>>> present, including carbonate ions. This tiny carbonate
>>> inclusion preserves, in the carbon isotope signatures, a
>>> record of certain classes of foods that were eaten when
>>> the tooth was forming! The way it works goes something
>>> like this. The ratios of the two stable forms of carbon
>>> (distinguished only by their atomic mass, 13C and 12C),
>>> provide a natural tracer tool for the chemical and
>>> biochemical reactions of the carbon cycle. In African
>>> savanna or summer rainfall environments, trees, shrubs and
>>> herbs follow a photosynthesis pathway (called the C3
>>> pathway) which discriminates strongly against 13C, whereas
>>> another pathway used by tropical grasses (the C4 pathway)
>>> does not.
>>
>>> The result is that the two groups of plants have very
>>> distinct 13C/12C ratios (see figure to the right and
>>> follow link for full image). Animals incorporate the plant
>>> carbon they eat into their tissues, which then directly
>>> reflect proportions of C4 grasses and C3 plants eaten. For
>>> instance, grazers (such as wildebeests) are enriched in
>>> 13C compared to animals that eat C3 foods such as the
>>> leaves or fruits of trees and bushes (like giraffes and
>>> chimpanzees). In the case of fossil animals, analysis is
>>> limited to bones and teeth, which alone are preserved in
>>> the fossil record. Original isotopic signatures are best
>>> preserved in enamel in samples that are millions of years
>>> old, whereas bone tends to become altered. What does
>>> stable carbon isotope analysis tell us about hominid
>>> diets? Analysis of A. africanus tooth enamel from
>>> Makapansgat Limeworks (about 3 million years old), and A.
>>> robustus and early Homo