Re: butchering sites at the intersection of river channels (Re: AAT is based on comparative data (Re: Algis ranting about AAH


richardparker01@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1124669747.133283.201140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > >>>>>>Do you really believe that Homo got to Java over your savanna?? :-D
> > >
> > > >>>>> That's what Dennell said.
> > >
> > > >>>> Yes, those biases... They can people make tell everything...
> > >
> > > >>> Biases like: "1.8-Ma Homo remains come from Algeria, Iran, Kenya,
> > > Georgia, Java... always near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421);..."
> >
> > The reason there are no quotation marks (from Dennell) in Marc's
> > statement is because nowhere in that paper did Dennell make such a
> > claim. Dennell, instead, does use the terms "permanent water" and
> > "open water" throughout the paper (pp. 423, 426, 428 etc.). This is
> > quite different than saying near lakes and seas.
>
>
> So, Lee, what is the exact difference between 'lakes and seas' and
> permanent and open water"?


So, Rich, just what exactly does your question have to do with the fact
that Marc got caught misrepresenting what Dennell actually said? A
little smoke screen perhaps?

>
> >In fact, the majority
> > of the sites listed in Dennell's fig 2 do not meet the "near lakes and
> > seas" criteria claimed by Marc.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Message ID 42e54fa7$0$6141$ba620e4c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx This erroneous piece of
> > > information you believe from Dennell (or did you mis-quote Dennell-I see no
> > > quotation marks here, maybe you ought recheck to see if he actually said
> > > that),
> > >
> > > >> Haven't you read the paper?
> > >
> > > > Haven't you read Isaac, Hay, Leakey, Feibel, Brown?
> > >
> > > Yes, their findings nowhere contradict AAT.
> >
> >
> > Their archaeological findings refute a littoral lifestyle, only the
> > no-evidence-negative argument is not contradicted. Anthropologists do
> > not spend time refuting littoral lifestyles when there is no evidence
> > for one, this fact does not validate that imagination evidence really
> > exists.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To the contrary, see Feibel on
> > > connections between the Indian Ocean & Turkana c 1.8 Ma. :-)
> >
> >
> > To the contrary, he didn't say there was a connection at c 1.8. You
> > need to review Feibel, just as you need to review Dennell also.
> >
>
>
> What, exactly, Lee, did Feibel say?


Your asking me? Since Marc got caught misrepresenting Dennell, what
makes you think he is correct on Feibel? You will notice Marc did not
quote Feibel exactly, why then is the burden on me to give an exact
quote?


>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Why do you cite from a secondary researcher? Where are his African site
> > > reports, his original research papers on Africa? Has he ever been to Africa?
> > > Why would he know what the people who do research there do not????
> > >
> > > Dennell sees beyond Africa.
> >
> >
> > Correct, Africa first, beyond second, his paper was about dispersals,
> > remember?
> >
> Really? and what evidence have you that Dennell was thinking about
> Africa first?

I read Dennell, did you?



(Apart from the fact his paper wouldn't have got
> published if he didn't ?)


Thank God the editors and peer reviewers still know more than those who
get their information from diaries and tourists.



>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Why on earth confine to Africa?? Do you believe
> > > our ancestors had to be in Africa then?? Any evidence?
> >
> >
> > Because Africa is where the first evidence for Homo is, and the
> > corroborating is there also. The burden is on those who do think
> > otherwise to demonstrate otherwise.
>
> But Lee, that's only in the last half-century - in the half-century
> before that all early humans (Pithecanthropus and Java Dawn Man) came
> from Asia - who has any authority to tell us it's not going to change
> again in the next half-century?


Probably because the errors of the first-half century have been
corrected (that's how science works you know, um no, you probably
didn't know that), and the speculations about the future (negative
arguments of the imagination) can't be refuted by science. I think the
most important thing to figure out here is why so many of the
proponents, like yourself, of AAH seem to rely so heavily on negative
arguments to make their case.




> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To the contrary
> > > perhaps: see the Retrovirus data on our ancestors: possibly absent from
> > > Africa 4-3 Ma.
> >
> >
> > "Perhaps" is not evidence. But, even if it were true,
> >
> > "In terms of studying human origins and dispersions, the most
> > interesting feature of the PRISM2 reconstruction is that grasslands ca.
> > 3 Ma were probably continuous from West Africa right across to
> > northern China;..." (Dennell 2003:425),
> >
> > it would only prove what is known already, early Homo was a savanna
> > creature.
> >
>
> I've put a question here that directly challenges the 'savannah theory'
> - if you've got strong opinions on it, why haven't you contributed even
> a peep?

You are sap's new moderator are you? You now dictate when and where
topics are to be discussed? Everything should be repeated because you
decided this should be so?
Besides being a troll,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/message/31126

it seems we can add 'arrogant' to the list of your transgressions here
also.



>
> >
> > > >> Well, although Dennell is biased by the 'old' savanna beliefs ("heat
> > > dispersal through upright posture" :-D as if all savanna mammals walk on
> > > their hindlimbs) he has to admit: "...preferred mosaic environments that
> > > also contained permanent water".
> > >
> > > > Another words, he has out-of-date savanna beliefs, but he is up to date on
> > > the lake situation?
> > >
> > > Yes: his facts are OK, but not his biases.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I find for the most part his facts are OK also, the problem is
> > your mis-interpretation of them. You say lakes and seas and he says
> > permanent water. The two are not equal.
> >
>
> What, Lee, is the difference between lakes, seas and 'permanent water'


A spring IYO can't be permanent?



>
> >
> > > >> Further on he mentions "perennial open water ... palaeo-shore deposits
> > > of a vast shallow Late Plio/Early Pleist.lake ... Caspian, which may then
> > > have joined the Black Sea... " etc.
> >
> >
> > Dennell actually said ca. 60 km from the Caspian.
> >
> > You ( speaking as a non-geologist & non-archaeologist) do not get to
> > define what NEAR is. This evidence, however, does:
> > "At Olduvai the Acheulean sites tend to lie along the former
> > stream channels away from the playa lakes." Hay 1967a, 1976. At
> > Olorgesailie:
> > "The study suggests hominid preferences for certain kinds of
> > topographic settings as locals for camps, notably the sandy channels of
> >
> > ephemeral water courses." Isaac 1977. Potts, Schick, Jones, Dennell,
> > and Isaac again at Koobi Fora confirm this observation.
> >
>
> This, Lee, is the same old stuff you were pushing at me.


The reason, I suspect, you can't grasp the difference between site
reports and diaries is because you have no access to the reports;
therefore, you want to drag science down to your level.



The
> information is some 40 years old,


Age is not an argument. So long as you think that diary statements like
"We'll be able to tell....Could it be that Locality B was wetter,....
perhaps a lake..Did these fossil animals come from the same layers."
have equal weight with the data published in site reports then you will
always remain at the tourist level of knowledge.


and has been superseded by more
> recent findings.
>
> The ONLY reason we have any ancient hominid remains at all in most
> parts of East Africa is that humid periods happened at the same times,
> and let bones fossilise in lake sediments.


What does that have to do with refuting Hay and Isaac?




> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > So, there was perennial open water somewhere, fine, everyone knows that.
> > > That does not put the majority of the Plio/Pleistocene sites at those
> > > locations. "At Olduvai the Acheulean sites tend to lie along the former
> > > stream channels away from the playa lakes." Hay 1967a, 1976. At
> > > Olorgesailie: "The study suggests hominid preferences for certain kinds of
> > > topographic settings as locals for camps, notably the sandy channels of
> > > ephemeral water courses." Isaac 1977.
>
>
> Isaac 1977, Hay 1967a - 'Those were the days, my friend....'


"We'll be able to tell....Could it be that Locality B was wetter,....
perhaps a lake..Did these fossil animals come from the same layers.'
Yes, these are the days.......


>
>
> > > >> There's not 1 site where large bodies of water must have been absent.
> > >
> > > > Would you like to put your money where your mouth is on that one? :-)
> > >
> > > ?? Sorry, I don't understand this: please no idiomatic language.
> >
> >
> > There is no evidence that a lake existed in the Turkana basin when the
> > Turkana Boy died. There is no evidence that any sort of stable body of
> > water existed there either, lake or river.
>
> So why, exactly, was the site at Koobi Fora established on a point,
> surrounded on three sides by the waters of Lake Turkana ?


So Leakey would have a convenient place to land his float plane? Or was
it because the breezes off the lake acted as an air-conditioner in
three directions?




And this at a
> time when Lake Turkana/Baringo is as dry as it's ever been ?


How did Baringo sneak into the Koobi Fora camp location argument, was a
camp on Baringo surrounded with water on three sides also?

As far as Lake Turkana being as dry as it's ever been, this is in
direct contradiction to Feibel. There is no evidence that a lake
existed (for Leaky to land his plane on) 1.8 million years ago.


>
>
> What Feibel (1993) believes
> > is that the Omo River fractured into a series of small channels that
> > shifted rapidly. This created the sands lenses, and location of the
> > majority of preferred sites ( Hay 1967, Isaac 1977). This falsifies
> > your
> > erroneous observation: "always near lakes or seas."
>
> The Omo river is well known for being a super-model delta - it
> discharges its sand/mud burden far out, and very visibly into Lake
> Turkana. How do you read Feibel (1993) - does he say that these
> channels happen in a very flat river plain, or does he say that they
> happened in a delta? And how do you definitely differentiate bewteen a
> very flat river plain and a delta?

You really need to read Feibel.



> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >> Logically: where else could heavy slow naked fat hominids survive??
> > >
> > > > They just did it in the deserts and on the savannas for 2.6 million years,
> > > do you want to see it again?
> > >
> > > They did nothing in the deserts,
> >
> >
> > Clark (1992:31): "..several scientific expeditions have shown that the
> > Acheulian is well represented in most parts of the desert."
> >
>
> Acheulian is well represented in most parts of the desert ?


You really need to read Clark.


>
> >
> > and even if they did something in the
> > > savannas, our anatomy & physiology clearly proves that it was at the waters
> > > in the savannas.
> >
> >
> > "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 2003:422-23).
>
> I don't know which of you said that,


The quotation marks and page number might be big clues (I think you had
too many beers).



but what have you got to prove it?
> - 'Post cranial anatomy' - don't you mean 'body'? - have we yet found
> any foot, or even bones approaching a whole foot, of any h
> ergaster/erectus ? How have we got any notion they could 'long-distance
> walk?
>
> and as for the heat dispersal nonsense, I spent the whole noontime
> today standing in the sun, and whatever angle I took made no difference
> whatsoever - I had to get another mad Englishman to take over while I
> went for a cooling beer.


Well, we are all in luck, because a biologist, Langdon (2005),
reconfirmed just what Dennell said in the quoted statement above.. Now,
who do you think the world will believe, a beer-drinking tourist, or a
PhD. from Yale?



>
> >
> > But you are right, it was the waters. The waters that attracted all
> > the savanna animals to a concentrated focal point were Homo could
> > exploit them and butcher them and make cut-marks on their bones.
> >
>
> Ye....ess....
>
> >
> > >
> > > > If they didn't need the Indian Ocean for 2.6 million years, then they
> > > didn't need it at all.
> > >
> > > Some populations might not have needed the Ind.Ocean 2.6 Ma, but does this
> > > say that our ancestors nver lived at the sea shores.
> >
> >
> > Fine, then you must move your AAT back, before the 2.6 Ma point IMO. If
> > I read Algis correctly, he seems to be saying the same thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>> but cut-marked bones and tools that litter the savanna
>
> Really - do they 'litter the savannah' or have just a very few been
> found - you mention the 'elephant' at Olorgesailie - are there many
> others like that?


Statistically, from a scientific standpoint, N=40 is usually sufficient
to demonstrate a relationship.
Statistically, from the negative-argument tourist standpoint, N=0 is
sufficient to demonstrate a relationship.


>
>
> , you call "bias",
> > > I call it evidence.
> > >
> > > >> Evidence they butchered animals, yes of course.
> > >
> > > > OK, you have one newspaper report for a 'possibly maybe' butchered whale,
> > > but Clark (1992:22-23): "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."
>
>
> The whale was in Angola - some way from Morocco.
>
> And if H erectus was in Morocco (which he has been shown to have been)
> just how did he get there? - walk across the Sahara ?


If they could walk on beaches, why not? But why not just save the walk
and butcher a whale on the beach in Morocco also? This would
independently verify the original observations in Angola (geez, I hate
to keep shoving good science in the face of imagination, I know how
that must hurt the pseudo-science people).



>
> > >
> > > newspaper??
> >
> > And magazine.
> >
> > Just what I said, the media accounts are more informative than the
> > abstract for the article that you apparently cited from, but haven't
> > read (or if you did read you forgot about that actual evidence required
> > to demonstrate an association between the whale and the tools).
> >
> > http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/whale.html
> >
> > Morocco??
> >
> >
> > 1) Yes, that's is one of the places where tools mixed in with the
> > seashells did not originate from the beach. Where is your evidence that
> > those tools, found with the whale, are not secondary?
> >
> > 2) Even if one late-dated whale were butchered on the beach
> > (correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just recently make a point
> > about the possibility that the Turkana Boy may not have been an
> > ancestor, or something to that effect?), what makes you think those
> > people were our ancestors (to use your analogy)?
> >
> > 3) One whale doesn't an industry make. Freak occurrences do not trump
> > the hundreds of inlands sites that showed up in the record long before
> > this anomaly.
> >
>
> Exactly which 'hundreds' of inland sites ?

The ones that the tourists didn't tell you about.



The elephant at Olorgesailie
> and the....er......?



I forgot, was that a pond or a lake? "We'll be able to tell....Could it
be that Locality B was wetter,.... perhaps a lake..Did these fossil
animals come from the same layers."


>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > I don't know what you're talking about, Lee, but think you're a bit
> > > misinformed:
> > > Manuel Gutierrez, Claude Guerin, Maria Lena & Maria Piedade da Jesus 2001
> > > "Exploitation d'un 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 associated with 57 Lower Palaeolithic artefacts near Baia Farta, at
> > > an altitude of 65 m, 3 km from the present shoreline. It constitutes the
> > > oldest evidence of the exploitation of a stranded whale by Palaeolithic
> > > people. http://www.elsevier.fr/html/index.cfm?act=abstract&cle=22979
> >
> >
> > Then please inform, are there cut marks on the bones and are those
> > artifacts rolled?
>
> This is pseudo-archeological nonsense - why on earth should a big fat,
> blubbery whale show cut marks when there was enough loose flesh to feed
> an army?

Another words, you really do not have any evidence to tie the whale in
with the tools? Binford (1981) now becomes pseudo-nonsense and the
internet tourist carries the day.



>
> If you look at the picture of the bones you might realise they haven't
> been rolled anywhere -


I'm not worried about the bones, I believe it's a beached whale. It's
the tools I'm worried about. You can see the edges of the tools on your
monitor? That's simply amazing.




they may be the ONLY large-mammal butchery site
> where both bones and Acheuilain tools have been found in situ.


Would you mind citing just where you got that gem of information?
There must be a tourist around somewhere you could ask. [PS, in situ
does not preclude the possibility of secondary deposits.]


> >
> >
> > >
> > > >> IMO drowned herbivores crossing rivers or so.
> > >
> > > > Not in the evidence of Hay and Isaac. What site, where butchery occurred,
> > > is at a river crossing?
> > >
> > > Again, you seem to be misinformed or at least outdated, Lee, eg,
> > > M.Domínguez-Rodrigo cs.2002
> >
> > Why do you say that? Don't you follow the threads on sap?
>
> Who on earth follows the threads on sap for information?


That's why you need to actually read some of the citations given here,
before you comment on the posts. That way your comments won't continue
to sound like a lynch-mob.



You might as
> well follow the imprecations of a lynch-mob for evidence at a trial.


or a online diary..... "We'll be able to tell....Could it be that
Locality B was wetter,.... perhaps a lake..Did these fossil animals
come from the same layers."


>
>
> >
> > Message ID: 40a73547.0304122119.3351a5ee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > As you can plainly see, I'm well aware of his work. In fact I think his
> > splitting handaxes into more than one type is a great idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > > "The ST Site Complex at Peninj, West Lake Natron, Tanzania: implications for
> > > early hominid behavioural models"
> > > J.archaeol.Sci.29:639-665
> > > ". alluvial facies to the N, lacustrine facies to the S .. contain most of
> > > the fossils & stone tools discovered thus far ... lacustrine-swampy
> > > dolomitic carbonates . Lacustrine carbonates were deposited on the surface
> > > of the basaltic tuff of the Main Tuff. These carbonates contain abundant
> > > bio-turbation due to the activity of boring organisms. [which may that be?
> > > :-) MV] ... In the initial phase of this deltaic process with the
> > > combination of large & several small & shallower channels, early hominids
> > > occupied the area . [tools] the raw material was obtained from river cobbles
> > > ... the ST-sites were situated in an alluvial setting in a deltaic
> > > environment at the intersection of several river channels. ..." Very very
> > > savanna... sites at the intersection of river channels... :-)
> >
> >
> > Ever hear of a dry river bed? What makes you think the river had water
> > in it when the cobbles were collected. "Small & shallower
> > channels"???? Isn't that exactly what Hay said?
>
> Well, I assume, Lee, you are talking about Hay saying:
>
> ". alluvial facies to the N, lacustrine facies to the S .. contain most
> of


Why did you leave out the distance estimates, are you hiding something?



> > > the fossils & stone tools discovered thus far ... lacustrine-swampy
> > > dolomitic carbonates . Lacustrine carbonates were deposited on the surface
> > > of the basaltic tuff of the Main Tuff. These carbonates contain abundant
> > > bio-turbation due to the activity of boring organisms. [which may that be
>
> Alluvial means rivers
> Lacustrine means lakes
> Swampy means swampy

And?


> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >> What else?
> > >
> > > > Where are the coconut middens?
> > >
> > > Why do you need coconut middens to contradict our scenario??
>
> How the hell do you think coconuts are going to form middens if they
> rot within a year and a half? Go down to your garden centre and look at
> their 'peat' - most of it is coconut fibre.


Too bad, looks like N still equals 0 for your team. But in the world of
your imagination, that will suffice I'm sure.

"The cast of a single large root was preserved in the silts of one site
(DE/89 C, pl 17). Isaac 1977. Root marks in Leakey's excavations
provide the other N=39 cases to validate preservation at Olorgesailie.
I'm sure your run of bad luck will end soon (a little help from
negative imagination).



> >
> >
> > You mentioned coconuts first. No coconuts, no archaeological
> > corroboration.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > I forgot to mention another problem for your littoral dispersion. I notice
> > > that there are many sites scattered through out northwest Africa, some even
> > > near the coasts. Clark (1992:31): "..several scientific expeditions have
> > > shown that the Acheulian is well
> > > represented in most parts of the desert." He is referring to the central and
> > > western Sahara. From Sidi Zin to the Nile delta, ca. 2000 km there is not
> > > one site listed on the coast as of 1992. Sites are numerous in nw Africa,
> > > but not along the coast back to the Nile. This means Homo got there through
> > > the middle of the Sahara, not by coastal migration.
>
> They followed the fauna,
> > > not the clams.
>
> Oh, sure they did.

Is that tourist lingo for something?



>
> Is it not at all possible that Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, etc have not
> been the best of friends with America recently, and that's why no-one
> (American or English) has been there? But a lot of French and Italians
> have - their archeological reports don't, for some reason, go down well
> in America.


Is it not possible that UFOs from outer space will be verified some
day?



>
>
> > >
> > > AFAIK, in most of these site hippo bones are found. Confusing what is desert
> > > now with what was desert then, Lee?? :-)
> >
> > Hippo bones in desert? Who said that? I could throw in your quotes to
> > me about honesty, and fairness, but I won't :-)
>
> See hippo bones at Ain Hanech


See fig 3 Dennell 2003 (hint: savanna, not desert)


>
> >
> > The Sahara was surrounded by savanna in Plio/Plei. That is the way the
> > hippos went, the long way around (see Dennell fig 3, ah, you did read
> > Dennell didn't you?). Of course Homo could go where hippos couldn't,
> > like out into the desert without devices to carry water. Would you like
> > me to look up the citation for evidence of the first well? No, I don't
> > think you would.
> >
> Good luck Lee - you wouldn't venture out from behind the redoubts of
> Isaac (1977) or Hays (1967) in discussing anything with me, so why
> should you with anyone else?

I don't need luck, I have the hard evidence. Luck is what you need to
replace the evidence you don't have. But keep reading those diaries,
you never know what you might learn...."We"ll be able to tell....Could
it be that Locality B was wetter,.... perhaps a lake..Did these fossil
animals come from the same layers."



>
>
> regards
>
> Richard

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: butchering sites at the intersection of river channels (Re: AAT is based on comparative data (Re
    ... The reason there are no quotation marks (from Dennell) in Marc's ... not spend time refuting littoral lifestyles when there is no evidence ... Has he ever been to Africa? ... > also contained permanent water". ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: skinny runners - Jims Crocodile Fable
    ... >> enclosure of stakes extending out into the water about five feet from ... the ones in Lake Victoria are. ... Homo did not evolve in the Philippines, ... that still is not evidence of swimming ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... Depth of water is ... anything for evidence? ... Of course, early Homo ... > Chemical sedimentology and paleoenvironmental history of Lake ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Dense fogs in Valles Marineris Mars.
    ... >> evidence, but on a desire to conform for the purpose of receiving grant ... posts about the Reull Vallis Lake to the attention of supposed American ... To a man they have reflexively brushed off the photo as ... appears to be a pool of liquid water showing at the far right of the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dense fogs in Valles Marineris Mars.
    ... >> evidence, but on a desire to conform for the purpose of receiving grant ... posts about the Reull Vallis Lake to the attention of supposed American ... To a man they have reflexively brushed off the photo as ... appears to be a pool of liquid water showing at the far right of the ...
    (sci.astro)