Re: Humans as scavengers

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"nickname" <alas_my_loves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How come you cannot provide ONE single
example of human population that DOES ANY
scavenging of rotten meat ?

Typically that is referred to as "roadkill" in the US, and is
not uncommon. (Do they have an studies of Texans??? ;-)

Whatever, Eskimos seem to be the reference point for much of
this silliness, and they scavange both walrus and whales that
wash up dead on shore. They are *very* careful about what part
is scavanged and what is not. A "stinker" is a whale that is
found floating (sometimes underneath the ice). The blubber is
typically edible, the meat is not.

Reference point for much of what silliness? It would help if you used
attribution marks so the group would know what you are talking about.

I don't any feel a need to either quote or summarize in detail
insignificant volumes of text. The attribution marks are there,
what is your problem?

"Eskimos seem to be the reference point for much of
this silliness,...." Again, what "silliness" are you referring to? I
see your comments, but nothing directly to what you are commenting
about. It comes as no surprise that Eskimo's scavenge, did someone say
they didn't?

More silliness.

"How come you cannot provide ONE single example of human
population that DOES ANY scavenging of rotten meat ?"

As was quoted in each of your responses, including the article
to which I am replying. As we have noted, the definition of
"rotten" is open to debate, but I don't think Crowley intended
that to be the sticking point.

If Eskimos are *very* carefull about what they take, it only goes to
show Eskimos used a quite different approach than the Chinook, proving
different people at different times processed beached whales
differently. So what was your point?

I have no way to reference what the Chinook did or didn't, but given
what you have said in this article I see no reason to assume you are
correct in the above statement.

DeVoto (1963) page 306.....
"I don't any feel a need to either quote or summarize in detail"
significant "volumes of text."

Lee, you need to learn to be polite, and honest. If you have
something that is important, please to provide a reference, or
better yet a quote when you have something that is not available
on the Internet.

What I said was this (note the significant difference from what you
have above):

"I don't any feel a need to either quote or summarize in
detail insignificant volumes of text. The attribution marks
are there, what is your problem?"

You make an effort to be impolite, and use dishonest means to
support a poor practice.

...
Meat turns rancid whether it is killed by hunting or scavenging. The
question was, again, about eating something rancid, how it was obtained
has not been fully resolved or REFUTED.

I would question most people's definition of "rancid" too.

Most people and my dictionary.

Rancid is not the same as rotton.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/rancidMain Entry: rancid
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: rotten

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Rancidrancid
Having a smell or taste, from chemical change or decomposition.

That one is correct. It can be smell or taste from *any* form
of decomposition, as opposed to only that caused by bacterial
action.

Yes, I am aware of the technical definitions, which vary all
over the place. My point was and has to do with the connotation
that use of these various words will have for the readers.

decomposition:
noun: the organic phenomenon of rotting

There are various different ways that meat ages. Bacterial
action is "rot". Enzyme action is "aging". Fermented meat is
commonly eaten in many cultures, and typically is referred to as
"rotten" or "rancid" by anyone else.

So, humans eat rotten and fermented meat.

It *is* confusing. Bacterial action is what actually makes
something rotten. Enzymes and fermentation do not make it
rotten. But in all cases is might have significant odor, which
means it is technically "rancid".

My comment was not the least bit confusing, humans eat rotten animal
products...end of story.

Just don't refer to aged or fermented meat as "rotten animal
products", especially if you are talking about food common in a
culture other than your own.

Humans are culture centric. They will have a specific name for
any food prepared by fermentation or enzymes that *they* eat,
but will refer to anything made by a different culture as
"rotten".

Hence *you* keep claiming the Eskimos eat "rotton" meat. They
don't think so. But to them, you eat rotton milk and cream,
which they don't... ;-)

Floyd above: "The attribution marks are there, what is your problem?"
My problem is your misquoting me. I don't like to be misquoted any more
than you do. Cite where I ever stated Eskimos ate rotten or even
rancid meat.

I didn't quote you, therefore I can't have misquoted you.

What you mean to claim is that I mis-summarized what you
actually did say. I don't agree. You have twice implied very
strongly, though not specifically claimed, that Eskimos eat
rotten meat.

"So, the fact that Eskimos/Inuit (and probably most
Neandertals) can/could function just fine on a nearly total
meat diet and anyone who was brought up on eating rancid
items (and some who weren't) can do just fine ..."

Who else would you be saying are these people "brought up on
eating rancid items"?

And when you replied to my statement, "I don't know that Eskimo
people ever typically functioned just fine on a nearly total
meat diet. ...",

"There may be a misunderstanding here. "on a nearly total
meat diet."? Literally? I cited numerous examples in my post
that stated just the opposite, that H/G were eating all parts
of animals, NOT just the meat (dictionary: "especially
muscle" but not limited to only muscle) and some of these
products quite rotten."

The same inference is extremely strong. If you are now claiming
that is not what you intended to imply, fine. But it clearly is
the obvious interpretation one would get from reading that. And
I have no idea why you would believe that what you said would
not apply specifically to Eskimos.

a place where mammoths remain frozen solid for 30,000 years, and maybe
some human brains up there may be frozen also :-).

It seems that thinking of Alaska freezes whatever brains exist
in people that don't live here. ;-)

Don't you think exchanging childish insults is childish?

topic (one of them) of this thread is to falsify sniker's: "It was my
stance that humans have a rather robust digestive system as compared to
most animals, and are capable of eating food that's considerably
ripened beyond that which most animals can eat." This has not yet been
done.

I'm not sure what to make of such statements. Different animals
have different means of digestion, and I don't see that as being
more or less "robust" in the obvious cases. A moose can eat
bark and leaves off a tree, as well as cabbage from a garden.
They also will eat hay meant for cows and will eat artificial
Christmas tree ornaments, both of which tend to kill the moose.
Does that make them more or less robust that a human? Or than a
cow which can't eat the bark and leaves?

Or how about wolves and other canines... They "wolf down" raw
meat, but require all the nutrients in the intestinal tract to
survive too. But while a bear will get fat eating raw salmon
all day long, a canine is all but unable to digest it! Of
course if you do almost *anything* to fish protein, it becomes
just about the most digestible protein there is for a canine.
Anything can consist of leaving it in water (even at just above
freezing temperature) for 2-3 days. The canine can then digest
it.

But humans can't! Or at least we can't without eating other
food with it. But while 2-3 days in water will make it
digestible for your family dog, it takes 15-20 days of
fermenting to make it suitable for you to eat!

On the other hand, if you feed something like a small pickle
(cucumber pickle) or a green pepper to a dog, it will go
straight through without any visible decomposition. You eat the
same thing, and it will be totally decomposed.

I just can't get excited about claiming any of these digestive
tracks are more robust than another. They are all specialized
to some degree, and none of them can handle just any sort of
"food".

your apology. May I remind you.... you started off in this thread by
misquoting nickname, he didn't say that, Crowley did.

No apology necessary, IMHO. But where do you get off claiming I
misquoted nickname? Don't you know how to read attributions???

I do not know of any Eskimo culture ever purposely subsisting on
a diet that was essentially "nearly total animal products".

They eat a significant amount of plants. Berries, tubers, grasses,
and green leefy plants were all gathered and eaten daily.

"I have no way to reference" if they did or didn't..... "but given
what you have said in this article I see no reason to assume you are
correct in the above statement."

Not much to compare when it comes to your credibility about
Chinook culture and any references I might make to Eskimo
culture. You clearly *had* to get your information from some
primary source.

I clearly have been living with Eskimos for decades and don't
need to reference another primary source for my observations
about what Eskimos have taught me. Probably more than 50% of
the comments that I make about Eskimo culture are *not* from
data recorded anywhere in particular. It's just a matter of
adding *perspective* to what others do find in various
printed/web references.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humans as scavengers
    ... Eskimos seem to be the reference point for much of ... typically edible, the meat is not. ... Chimps do not eat rotten/rancid food. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Which menu for Easter?
    ... "5) Meat. ... The flesh of any biped or quadruped, ... Dogs are loathsome, disgusting'") or dangerous (bhikkhus, ... To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: OT - why does everyone
    ... On these islands, meat seemed to be ... It does make sense to raise grazing animals on land that can't grow crops ... that humans can eat directly - such as the uplands of Britain that are ... Oh yeah, and the moon - although we'll never be able to give ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: What would you do with this present?
    ... I believe humans could exist on a vegan diet but have ... Some eat living veggies, and some eat meat. ... Did its life have any meaning *for ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: good video - Global Warming & Nutrition
    ... The stats for the production of beef are astonishing - the vast amount of water it takes to produce it, ... It takes more than 10 times as much water to produce meat than to grow the grain it was fed on. ... What did you eat in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh? ... The soup sold at the local chinese restaurant contains mung bean sprouts and bok choy and I've started trying to imitate it at home. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)