Re: Homo & molluscs
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Sep 2005 00:12:10 -0700
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> So? Any reason why you think these animals could not have lived next to
> "The sediments, numerous molluscan shells (Gyraulus chihliensis and
> Planorbis youngi), and leaves and fruits of aquatic plants (for example
> Trapa sp.) in MJG-III indicate a low-energy lakeshore or marsh environment
> rich in organic materials."?
No reason at all Marc. Any reason that these highly
mobile creatures might have lived at considerable
distance from, "The sediments, numerous molluscan
shells (Gyraulus chihliensis and Planorbis youngi),
and leaves and fruits of aquatic plants."?
Any reason at all?
> > "Shallow water" the Nature report says. Yes, modern
> > Hadza set up their hunting blinds near shallow water,
> > but NEVER where they live. Their base camps are
> > found 1-2 km away (O'Connell et all. 2002:850).
>
> Fine. And? Your point? We all know how modern Hadza live, but we're talking
> here about our ancestors 1, 2, 3... Ma. Anything in the Hazda's lifestyle
> that contradicts our scenario?
Uh, Yes, as Lee stated above, modern Hadza set up
their hunting blinds near shallow water, but NEVER
where they live. Their base camps are found 1-2 km
away (O'Connell et all. 2002:850).
And, as if that's not damning enough:
"At Olduvai the Acheulean sites tend to lie along
the former stream channels away from the playa
lakes." Hay 1967a, 1976.
> OK: that's where the stones are, no? So? Your point?
The point is that there's nothing remotely aquatic
about any of this.
> > "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;
You sure about this, Lee. Hot and dry conditions? No trees? 1.7 mya?
You sure that they were not extrapolating based more on the present
day climate ratehr than the climate that actually existed 1.7 mya?
Don't allow Marc's idiocy to serve as an excuse for Savanna idiocy.
> 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
Long distance walking nonsense.
>
> Yes, we know many PAs used to associate He with such environments (Wheeler's
> ridiculous midday foraging ideas), but most PAs know better now
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm .
>
> > This paper once again demonstrates the overwhelming trend for savanna-bone
> processing by hominids, and once again zero evidence for marsh-plant
> exploitation. I need to coin a new term here, hmm,
> 'littoral-big-game-hunting'? No matter where you go, the evidence for
> savanna-bone processing always precedes shell/aquatic plant processing
> evidence, be it swamps or sea-side.
>
> Please, don't confuse the facts with your prejudices: the paper shows early
> Homo in China next to hyena, rhino, ostrich, shellfish, aquatic plants. The
> paper also give good reasons to believe these early Homo used stones to
> butcher animal tissues. Ever thought why our nearest relatives chimps (who
> hunt a lot),
Chimps hunt occasionally. And very poorly.
even savanna chimps, don't do this? Ever crossed your mind that
> our ancestors might have acquired these skills at the seashores?
Ever cross your mind that they aquired these skills in places other
than seashore?
>
> IOW, you fail to give 1 argument against AAT: that our anestors were
> littoral once, because this explains our nakedness, SC fat, olfactory
> reduction, masticatory reduction, large brain, tool use etc.etc; many times
> better than savanna-running ideas.
You provided no argument agains the supposition that they were never
littoral.
> _________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "The timing of early human dispersal to Asia is a central issue in the
> study
> > of human evolution. Excavations in predominantly lacustrine sediments at
> > Majuangou, Nihewan basin, north China, uncovered four layers of
> indisputable
> > hominin stone tools. Here we report magnetostratigraphic results that
> > constrain the age of the four artefact layers to an interval of nearly
> > 340,000 yr between the Olduvai subchron and the Cobb Mountain event. The
> > lowest layer, about 1.66 Myr, provides the oldest record of stone-tool
> > processing of animal tissues in east Asia. The highest layer, at about
> 1.32
> > Myr, correlates with the stone tool layer at Xiaochangliang, previously
> > considered the oldest archaeological site in this region. The findings at
> > Majuangou indicate that the oldest known human presence in northeast Asia
> at
> > 40° N is only slightly younger than that in western Asia. This result
> > implies that a long yet rapid migration from Africa, possibly initiated
> > during a phase of warm climate, enabled early human populations to inhabit
> > northern latitudes of east Asia over a prolonged period."
> >
> > This quote appears within the text: "The sediments, numerous molluscan
> > shells (Gyraulus chihliensis and Planorbis youngi), and leaves and fruits
> of
> > aquatic plants (for example Trapa sp.) in MJG-III indicate a low-energy
> > lakeshore or marsh environment rich in organic materials."
> >
> > (thanks, Stephen)
> >
> > Trapa: shallow water, edible seeds.
> >
> > --Marc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Homo & molluscs
- From: deowll
- Re: Homo & molluscs
- Prev by Date: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Next by Date: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Previous by thread: Re: Homo & molluscs
- Next by thread: Re: Homo & molluscs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
