Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:06:04 -0700
Jim McGinn wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
[...]
It is not clear whether or not the first stone artifacts were
used for the processing of plant foods. There are certain indications
from microwear studies on artifacts from Koobi Fora (Keeley & Toth,
1981) and from Gona (Beyries, 1993), but strong cases have yet to be
made based on the archaeological record to demonstrate the use of
flaked stones for processing plant food items"
I never asserted they used stone tools for plant processing. They used
their teeth for plant processing. I asserted stone weapons for pest
control, specifically as a deterent to large, mammalian herbivorous
Gona site. 2.6 mya. Stone tools in association with cut marked bones.
[...]
Is there any evidence that they did not have gardens, or something to
that effect?
But do you have any evidence for gardens?
Much of the existing evidence is consistent with gardens/groves, etc.
Would please give a specific instance and reference and how it "is consistent
with gardens/groves"...
Hominid fossils tend to be found in association with trees and water
nearby. And hominid food preference are consistent with such. And
I've yet to find anything that would allow us to eliminate the
possibility of these gardens/groves. How about yourself? Can you
think of anything that would allow us to eliminate the possibility of
these gardens or groves for early hominids?
Considering that agriculture proper is a huge conceptual leap that didn't
happen until later, yes.
.
[...]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Paul Crowley
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- References:
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: pete
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: pete
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Rich Travsky
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- Prev by Date: Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- Next by Date: Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- Previous by thread: Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- Next by thread: Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|