Re: Tobias 1995

On Dec 18, 7:46 pm, "caldervang...@xxxxxxxxx"
<caldervang...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:05 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Dec 18, 6:00 pm, "caldervang...@xxxxxxxxx"

<caldervang...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:19 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What shell middens do you have?

Spoonheimer et al. have made a pretty good case for a large part C4
diet

Spoonheimer et. al. specifically excluded any testing for fish in the
diet(s).  That is, the C3 & C4 studies neither prove or disprove
anything at all about whether our ancestors ate fish.

You lost me. What does that have to do with anything? I thought the
issue
was there is no evidence for early middens? No shell-fish middens
would mean
no shell fish eaten.

Isotope evidence means a subtantial portion living on a savanna.
Cut-marked bones also substantiate a savanna diet.
There is no argument that some A'piths and later Homo
were on the savanna eating savanna grass or creatures the ate the
grass.
This is not evidence for living in a gallery forest. If you ignore the
fact
that the very earliest hominids are secondary deposits and they really
lived in gallery forests, Algis would still not have a case for them
being on a direct line to us. Could be just another dead-end cousin,
lots of those out there.

regards
calder- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True, of course, any particular fossil could be... not.. in our direct
line... so that a test of them would show a completely different C3 or
C4 signature than was actually consumed by human ancestors.  However,
my point was that the paper specifically said that fish-foods
(<chuckle>  like that stuff i dump in the aquarium?!?  <chuckle>) was
not included in the study.

Right, but how does that relate to evidence for where they lived?
I asked him if he had any evidence for middens, which would be an
indication of such. C4 was simply an example of savanna. I want to see
what he has for early shell evidence, but early fish bones would
be OK also. So far as I know, a weak claim was made for a cut-marked
fish bone at Olduvai, but that would be evidence for savanna, not
gallery habitat. I'm all for grinding away on teeth like gari or
ramidus. I would guess, if they actually lived in a gallery, their
isotope numbers should reflect this, fish or not.



 More research (according to the authors)
needs to be done to include ... or exclude... fishes.... So, the study
actually has no relevance to whether or not our ancestors consumed
shellfish or any fish.

OK, who said they did (early)? I was looking for location first, then
who, second (like directly related to us). Right now, all he has is
some unknown context (secondary deposit) early A'pith
with no evidence for eating anything, let alone something that was
gathered in waist deep water. Waist deep is his argument, he has to
demonstrate something was worth going into the water waist deep for.




I agree that there should be shell middens all over the place to
support the shellfish eating argument.  The only "excuse" is that sea
levels have risen, but that excuse is riddled with a few problems...
like the possibility that hominids lived on higher ground.  But that
then *is* the basic problem... where the H did these folks live?  It's
a catch-22. Furthermore, with the various fluctuations over 6 my,
surely a midden would be left behind somewhere?!?
regards
c- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Terra Amata poo poo
    ... Absence of evidence then ... We know common chimps eat a small amount of monkey meat and ... which of course are savanna or open woodland type ... Don't forget that the C3C4 research did not include fish, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Terra Amata poo poo
    ... Absence of evidence then ... which of course are savanna or open woodland type ... Don't forget that the C3C4 research did not include fish, ... mya and 3.2 mya. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Tobias 1995
    ... anything at all about whether our ancestors ate fish. ... No shell-fish middens ... Isotope evidence means a subtantial portion living on a savanna. ... C4 signature than was actually consumed by human ancestors. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Tobias 1995
    ... anything at all about whether our ancestors ate fish. ... No shell-fish middens ... Cut-marked bones also substantiate a savanna diet. ... This is not evidence for living in a gallery forest. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Cameron & Groves latest book positive about AAH
    ... > I thought McGinns capital ape theory has some merit before he ... > derived from fish, not out of desire but out of neccesity. ... > attraction of a habitat and other variations of the habitat. ... > certain specific form of evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)