Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
Marc Verhaegen
Chris Stringer and colleagues (including Finlayson and Barton) have a paper
in the current PNAS early bin describing Neandertal exploitation of marine
mammals in the Gibraltar caves (Vanguard and Gorham's). The Neandertals left
some seals and dolphin bones with cutmarks behind, along with a lot of
mollusk shells.
When I pulled up the paper, it sounded very familiar to me, like I'd written
about it before. And indeed, I had, although I hadn't posted the results. A
couple of years ago I was doing some research on the Gibraltar caves and I
ran across a website from Oxford covering the Gibraltar excavations. The
page (at the time) included this passage:
As a result of the research project, we have been able to compare and
contrast the distinct records of these caves to show that Middle
Palaeolithic Neanderthals in Mediterranean-type environments occupied
relatively small home ranges, that they focused on local estuarine wetland
and marine habitats and had a highly omnivorous diet. This is revealed in
exceptionally well-preserved occupation levels, by the presence of plant
foods and shellfish, and cut-marked bones of small (e.g. tortoise, bird,
rabbit) and large (red deer, ibex) vertebrates. Vanguard cave has also
revealed the first evidence of Neanderthal processing of marine mammals, and
this very important finding is the subject of a paper now being prepared for
Science.
That sounded pretty interesting, so I filed it away and did some more
reading about marine resource exploitation.
It's often hard to explain to people why it takes so long for us to learn
new things about Neandertals, and why it's so exciting that today's genetic
information is progressing so rapidly. This sequence of marine exploitation
from Neandertals is a good example. Stiner (1993:191ff) documented shellfish
remains in the Middle Paleolithic strata of Moscerini Cave, Latium, Italy.
One of the interesting elements of the Moscerini shellfish remains was a
fluctuation over time between two kinds of shellfish: mussels and
smooth-shelled sand clams. These two kinds of bivalves live on different
substrates -- mussels attach to rock, while sand clams, well, bury
themselves in sand. Distinct pulses of alternating mussel and sand clam
remains occurred in the site, and Stiner interpreted these as a consequence
of local abundance of these different bivalves, which may have changed over
time due to local sedimentation, sea levels, or other hydrological factors.
But this fluctuation raised a point about the Neandertals: they weren't
carrying the clams or mussels very far. They left in the cave a small
fraction of the species variety of shellfish in the environment; the two
kinds of bivalves are approximately equivalent in calories and nutritional
yield.
Their choices of which shellfish to bring into Moscerini appear to have
been guided foremost by locational convenience: one kind of shellfish patch,
on rock or in sand, may have been closer to the cave entrance at any given
time in the past. The case of Moscerini, contrasted with the lack of much
evidence for shellfish exploitation at neighboring Mousterian caves only
slightly farther inland, indeed suggests the influence of this simple
energetic principle. Assuming that transport distance is generally limited
by the relatively low caloric yield of these bivalves, regardless of
substrate source, hominids may have been willing to carry the shellfish to
shelter only from the closest patches before eating them. Otherwise,
hominids might have preferred to eat the shellfish where they found them
(Stiner 1993:191).
So far, so good -- Stiner documented something very interesting about the
way that Neandertals exploited marine resources, and that might tell us
about Neandertal foraging patterns more generally.
In the face of that old result, it was hard to understand the excitement
that accompanied last year's paper by Curtis Marean and colleagues (2007),
who found evidence for shellfish exploitation at Pinnacle Point, South
Africa. The press reported the result as if there were a shell midden, with
abundant evidence for consumption. But actually the number of shells is
fairly small -- all the shells from all the layers reported weigh less than
a kilogram. That looks similar to the pattern of exploitation that Stiner
had reported for the Neandertals at Moscarini, and more or less like the
pattern at Vanguard and Gorham's Caves.
Into this context comes the evidence of marine exploitation from Gibraltar.
The marine mammals showed up in the faunal list of Finlayson et al. (2006),
which along with the web material means that there are no surprises here.
But the progression of this story has built upon several recent papers that
have placed marine exploitation squarely in the the Pinnacle Point paper, as
well as year's giant clam paper and the earlier research by Walter et al.
(2000) in Eritrea. That paper included this quote:
Regardless of which hominid species made the tools at Abdur, or at the
more tenuously dated sites in South Africa, the pressing question is: what
caused such an apparently sudden and widespread coastal marine adaptation by
early humans by the last interglacial period? Climate changes leading to
hyper-arid conditions in Africa and the Red Sea basin during the penultimate
glaciation (150 kyr) and at the peak of the last interglacial may have been
severe enough to pressure early humans to migrate from once stable interior
habitats to exploit coastal marine habitats for survival. As opposed to
shrinking freshwater environments during these times (for example, East
African rivers and lakes), human adaptation to marine shoreline environments
might have been further influenced by the lack of competition from other
terrestrial mammals for coastal marine food resources. It is likely,
however, that during extreme hyper-arid conditions marking the peak of the
penultimate glaciation, that the Red Sea basin itself was virtually
uninhabitable (Walter et al. 2000:69).
So obviously we need a reminder that Neandertals shared the same marine
exploitation patterns as early modern humans. Now Stringer et al. (2008)
have provided it: Neandertals were like Africans in that they exploited
marine resources. The systematic exploitation at Abdur may be beyond that
present at any Neandertal site, but that goes to a question of motives and
foraging patterns, certainly not the recognition of marine resources as
useful foods. And we must not forget that most of the Pleistocene coast is
now far underwater. If people tended to forage according to the Neandertal
pattern, not carrying their shellfish far from the point of acquisition,
then we should never expect to find evidence of any marine exploitation
where the ancient coast was further from a short distance from the present
coast. Littoral ecosystems may have been highly valuable to all these
ancient humans.
This story parallels the pace of discovery about pigment use. Pinnacle Point
is mainly notable for its pigment blocks:
There are 57 pigment pieces (93.4 g total) and most are from the LC-MSA
Lower. Forty-six are iron-rich fine-grained sedimentary materials, and most
have a pinkish-brown or reddish-brown surface colour. Streak colour (Natural
Colour System) shows the majority (n = 31) as intermediate reddish-brown,
followed by saturated reddish-brown (n = 10), and saturated very red (n = 7,
high chroma values and 75% redness). All can be classified as 'red ochre'.
Ten pieces were definitely used (eight ground and two scraped) and two
pieces were probably used (both ground). Most ground pieces are moderately
to intensively ground on one principal surface (Fig. 2). Saturated very-red
values are disproportionately represented among used pieces, suggesting
preferential use of the reddest, most chromatic ochre (Supplementary
Information) (Marean et al. 2007:906).
But as I discussed earlier this summer, there is now clear evidence that
Neandertals used pigment crayons. The numbers at Pech de l'Azé are much more
extensive (although later) than the Pinnacle Point remains. Again, the
evidence is that Middle Paleolithic Neandertals did the same things as MSA
Africans.
In a commentary accompanying Stringer et al. (2008), Pat Shipman points out
the message of behavioral similarity:
Thus, these excavations have yielded excellent evidence of four
behaviors usually cited as hallmarks of modern human behavior: the
exploitation of a wide range of terrestrial resources; the exploitation of
marine resources; the use of small scale resources; and seasonality or
scheduling in the use of resources (11-13). That modern human subsistence
behaviors would show up among
archaic humans like Neanderthals, even as late as 28,000 B.P., is
startling.
...
If behavior did not separate "us" (modern humans) from "them"
(Neanderthals), what did? Why did Neanderthals go extinct if they and modern
humans used similar subsistence strategies in Gibraltar? Answers to these
questions are likely to be elusive. But more research into carefully chosen,
meticulously excavated, and thoughtfully analyzed sites may be one way to
begin to find them (Shipman 2008:14242).
It is the theme of current research: "behavioral modernity" appeared
piecewise in Late Pleistocene humans, including the Neandertals.
References:
Barton RNE, Currant AP, Fernandez-Jalvo Y, Finlayson JC< GOldberg P,
Macphail R, Pettitt PB, Stringer CB. 1999. Gibraltar Neanderthals and
results of recent excavations in Gorham's, Vanguard and Ibex caves.
Antiquity 73:13-23.
Finlayson C, and 25 others. 2006. Late survival of Neanderthals at the
southernmost extreme of Europe. Nature 443:850-853. doi :
10.1038/nature05195
Marean CW and 13 others. 2007. Early human use of marine resources and
pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature 449:905-908.
doi:10.1038/nature06204
Scholz CA and 18 others. 2007. East African megadroughts between 135 and 75
thousand years ago and bearing on modern human origins. Proc Nat Acad Sci
USA 104:16416-16421. doi:10.1073/pnas.0703874104
Shipman P. 2008. Separating "us" from "them": Neanderthal and modern human
behavior. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105:14241-14242. doi:10.1073/pnas.0807931105
Stringer CB, Finlayson JC, Barton RNE, Fernández-Jalvo Y, Cáceres I, Sabin
RC, Rhodes EJ, Currant AP, Rodríuez-Vidal J, Giles-Pacheco F,
Riquelme-Cantal JA. 2008. Neanderthal exploitation of marine mammals in
Gibraltar. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105:14319-14324.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0805474105
Stringer C. 2002. New perspectives on the Neanderthals. Evol Anthropol Suppl
1:58-59. DOI link
Walter RC and 11 others. 2000. Early human occupation of the Red Sea coast
of Eritrea during the last interglacial. Nature 405:65-69.
doi:10.1038/35011048
Lee Olsen
> Neandertal diet was not dolphin-safe
WL apparently believes Neandertals 30 ka were his ancestors
RichTravsky
LOL! Post of the day!
rmacfarl
> Neandertal diet was not dolphin-safe
>
> Chris Stringer and colleagues (including Finlayson and Barton) have a paper
> in the current PNAS early bin describing Neandertal exploitation of marine
> mammals in the Gibraltar caves (Vanguard and Gorham's). The Neandertals left
> some seals and dolphin bones with cutmarks behind, along with a lot of
> mollusk shells.
>
> When I pulled up the paper, it sounded very familiar to me, like I'd written
> about it before. And indeed, I had, although I hadn't posted the results. A
> couple of years ago I was doing some research on the Gibraltar caves and I
Credit where it's due, which means not to Marc. Anyone unfamiliar with
the Belgian bonehead's esoteric vernacular could be fooled into
thinking that that passage, which Marc posted without attribution,
referred to work he had done himself. Of course, it didn't. The whole
passage was written by John Hawks on his blog, from whence Marc cut &
pasted it:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/diet/gorhams-vanguard-marine-mammals-2008.html
Posting someone else's work under your own name without attribution
Marc? That's called "plagiarism", didn't you know that? That would get
you sacked instantly from an academic or journalistic posting. Good
thing no university or science magazine have ever been misguided
enough to give you a job...
Ross Macfarlane
rmacfarl
> On Feb 22, 9:10 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> > Neandertal diet was not dolphin-safe
>
> > Chris Stringer and colleagues (including Finlayson and Barton) have a paper
> > in the current PNAS early bin describing Neandertal exploitation of marine
> > mammals in the Gibraltar caves (Vanguard and Gorham's). The Neandertals left
> > some seals and dolphin bones with cutmarks behind, along with a lot of
> > mollusk shells.
>
> > When I pulled up the paper, it sounded very familiar to me, like I'd written
> > about it before. And indeed, I had, although I hadn't posted the results. A
> > couple of years ago I was doing some research on the Gibraltar caves and I
> > ran across a website from Oxford covering the Gibraltar excavations...
>
> Credit where it's due, which means not to Marc. Anyone unfamiliar with
> the Belgian bonehead's esoteric vernacular could be fooled into
> thinking that that passage, which Marc posted without attribution,
> referred to work he had done himself. Of course, it didn't. The whole
> passage was written by John Hawks on his blog, from whence Marc cut &
> pasted it:
>
>
> Posting someone else's work under your own name without attribution
> Marc? That's called "plagiarism", didn't you know that? That would get
> you sacked instantly from an academic or journalistic posting. Good
> thing no university or science magazine have ever been misguided
> enough to give you a job...
>
> Ross Macfarlane
And in case anyone should be wondering how Hawks regards the aquatic
ape theory:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/pseudoscience/aquatic_ape_theory.html
mclark
Absolutely lovely. This gets appended to my list
of clear rebuttals to Marco and Algis' nonsense
--and added to the Marco section of my .sig list.
Get ready to see it alot, Marco.
--------------------------------------------------
"A little bit of common sense
is enough..." Marco 02/15/2009
spiznet
Here it is:
spiznet
Here it is:
One of the most common arguments about human evolution on the Internet
is whether hominids ever went through an "aquatic phase" in their
evolution. The Aquatic Ape Theory proposes that such an aquatic phase,
during which ancestral hominids relied on a water habitat, explains
much of the distinctive anatomy of recent humans. Proponents of the
Aquatic Ape Theory compare the predictions of their model with the
predictions that they derive for a traditionalist model, which they
term the "Savanna model". In their view, an aquatic phase provides a
better explanation for many human characteristics that the savanna
model finds difficult to explain.
For example, why do humans lack fur? Most anthropologists believe the
lack of fur derives from selection associated with thermoregulation.
In this account, humans are unlike most primates in using sweating as
a significant source of evaporative heat loss. This system is
efficient in humans because it exploits the latent heat of
condensation to carry away much more heat than is possible through
radiation, convection, or shade alone. But sweating would not work on
a furry hominid, because evaporation from the fur does not carry away
nearly the amount of heat lost by direct skin transfer.
The Aquatic Ape Theory rejects this hypothesis, noting that:
the mechanism of sweating in humans is especially wasteful of water--a
rare commodity in the hot savanna
other medium-sized mammals in the hot savanna environment do not use
this mechanism of heat loss
the loss of fur has required the development of a significantly costly
form of insulation for the human body, a relatively thick layer of
subcutaneous fat
By this argument, the theory proposes that it makes more sense that
humans developed hairlessness and their unique glandular system of
sweating in an environment where water was both plentiful and
continuously available.
Several other distinctive human features are treated by this
hypothesis. Bipedalism itself is suggested for its value in wading
into moderately deep bodies of water.
If the Aquatic Ape Theory explains so much, why do the majority of
anthropologists not subscribe to it? It is hard to find a clear answer
to this question on the Internet. Responses to the Aquatic Ape Theory
both on Web sites and on Internet news groups tend to digress into the
a number of specific topics that detract from an answer this question
instead of answering it. Consider the following list of responses:
"Hominids leading into the water sources available to them would have
nothing to protect them from crocodiles and other large predators."
"Paleontologists have never found fossil evidence of this aquatic ape.
"
"There may be gaps in the fossil record, but it is unlikely that those
gaps will be filled by new primates and entirely different from any
known form in their ecology."
Supporters of the Aquatic Ape Theory can provide answers to each of
these questions. They can talk about the great quantity of littoral
resources for a primate foraging along the seashore. They can talk
about the rarity of crocodiles along the seashore and the failure of
other land predators to pursue their prey into the waves. The can talk
about the geological record of sea level changes, as the reason that
geological strata that might contain these ancestors like inaccessible
to paleontologists.
And they can continue to criticize the "Savanna model" as inadequate
to explain human features-especially soft tissue characteristics. This
process itself displays an element of the disingenuousness,
considering that the fossil evidence increasingly suggests that
hominids did not originate on the savanna at all. In fact all hominid
sites earlier than around 3 million years appear to represent woodland
of an open or closed nature. It appears quite evident now that our
"descent from the trees" didn't take us out of the woods. As the
present evidence continues to develop, the Aquatic Ape debate gets
farther and farther from relevance.
But if all these issues are distractions, how can we explain the
reluctance of anthropologists to seriously examine the Aquatic Ape
Theory? Proponents of the theory tend to argue that this is more than
blindness on the part of the paleoanthropological establishment.
Instead, they argue, professional paleoanthropologists are engaged in
a more or less deliberate conspiracy to exert their hegemonic control
over the field by a marginalizing alternative viewpoints.
In this, some proponents of the Aquatic Ape Theory take the same
position as creationists, arguing that it is the dominant culture of
science rather than the intrinsic value of current scientific ideas
that excludes them from debate.
Like most other professional anthropologists, I am well aware that
there is no active conspiracy under way to preclude strange ideas from
scientific evaluation. In fact I have seen many strange ideas come
down the pike over the years that received far more celebrity than
notoriety. The history of new research in the field will show to any
close observer the value of breaking with scientific norms. This is so
much the case in the study of human evolution that has provoked
published complaints on the part of senior scientists. But despite
these grumblings, there is nothing that anyone can do to prevent the
publication of credible research in the field, and little they can do
to prevent the publication of incredible research. There is much more
to be gained for young scientists in pushing a new or outlandish idea
that has serious empirical support than in mindlessly following the
dictates of the aging graybeards.
From this I think we can conclude at least something small: that many
anthropological eyes looking over the predictions of the Aquatic Ape
Theory would have found by now some serious reasons to support it, if
there were any.
But there is more than a small reason why the Aquatic Ape Theory is
not believed by anthropologists. The large reason is parsimony.
Evaluating the parsimony of hypotheses is a fundamental aspect of the
scientific method. The idea is that hypotheses differ with respect to
the kind of assumptions that the requires to make. Some hypotheses
require a large number of assumptions, others require fewer
assumptions. Some hypotheses require fairly extraordinary assumptions.
One of the characteristics of parsimony is the ability of a hypothesis
to link many different effects with a single cause. It is under this
qualification that the Aquatic Ape Theory appears very appealing. By
positing a single assumption -- that as yet undiscovered hominids
lived in a unique aquatic environment -- the theory is able to
encompass the evolution of several different characteristics of the
human body that otherwise would not appear to be tightly linked to
each other. In other words, the hypothesis appears to be simple as an
explanation for many different characteristics, requiring only one
assumption (and its many associated effects) instead of a separate
evolutionary explanation for every characteristic.
But this appeal ignores another fundamental characteristic of
parsimony: a hypothesis that depends on one explanation is more
parsimonious than a hypothesis that invokes multiple explanations.
Consider the proposed "aquatic phase" of human evolution, which the
Aquatic Ape Theory posits to explain human characteristics that are
uncommon in land mammals. Certainly it makes sense that hominids would
develop new anatomies to adapt to such an alien environment. But once
those hominids returned to land, forsaking their aquatic homeland, the
same features that were adaptive in the water would now be maladaptive
on land. What would prevent those hominids from reverting to the
features of their land-based ancestors, as well as nearly every other
medium-sized land mammal? More than simple phylogenetic inertia is
required to explain this, since the very reasons that the aquatic ape
theory rejects the savanna model would apply to the descendants of the
aquatic apes when they moved to the savanna. This is far from trivial,
since fossil hominids did inhabit open woodland starting by 6 million
years ago, and did move to open savanna by 3 million years ago.
Nor can the theory hide behind the idea of exaptation. One might
propose that the features that were originally adapted in the aquatic
environment found new purposes when the formerly aquatic apes moved
onto land. But each of these features still requires an adaptive
explanation for why it would be maintained. And each of these adaptive
explanations would probably be equally credible as an evolutionary
hypothesis for the origin of the characteristics outside the aquatic
environment.
In other words, the Aquatic Ape Theory explains all of these features,
but it explains them all twice. Every one of the features encompassed
by the theory still requires a reason for it to be maintained after
hominids left the aquatic environment. Every one of these reasons
probably would be sufficient to explain the evolution of the traits in
the absence of the aquatic environment. This is more than
unparsimonious. It leaves the Aquatic Ape Theory explaining nothing
whatsoever about the evolution of the hominids. This is why
professional anthropologists reject the theory, even if they haven't
fully thought through the logic.
I couldn't have said it better myself!
-Spiznet
Marc Verhaegen
> http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/pseudoscience/aquatic_ape_theory.html
SFs don't know what they're talking about: it's not unique: overheated
sealions on land sweat abundantly through sweat glands - why don't these
fanatics inform a bit??
Morphology and distribution of Sweat Glands in the Cape fur seal,
Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus (Carnivora : Otariidae)
LS Rotherham, M van der Merwe, MN Bester & WH Oosthuizen 2005
Austr.J.Zool.53:295300
Marc Verhaegen
>> http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/pseudoscience/aquatic_ape_theory.html
hawks apparently doesn't knlow what he's talking aobut:
Marc Verhaegen
>>> Neandertal diet was not dolphin-safe
>>> Chris Stringer and colleagues (including Finlayson and Barton) have a paper
>>> in the current PNAS early bin describing Neandertal exploitation of marine
>>> mammals in the Gibraltar caves (Vanguard and Gorham's). The Neandertals left
>>> some seals and dolphin bones with cutmarks behind, along with a lot of
>>> mollusk shells.
>>> When I pulled up the paper, it sounded very familiar to me, like I'd written
>>> about it before. And indeed, I had, although I hadn't posted the results. A
>>> couple of years ago I was doing some research on the Gibraltar caves and I
>>> ran across a website from Oxford covering the Gibraltar excavations...
>> Credit where it's due, which means not to Marc. Anyone unfamiliar with
>> the Belgian bonehead's esoteric vernacular could be fooled into
>> thinking that that passage, which Marc posted without attribution,
>> referred to work he had done himself.
only a complete imbecile (eg, someone who believes in savanna fairy tales)
doesn't see that this is a press release or so
probably the poor man doesn't even know wht PNAS is...
Lee Olsen
>
> SFs don't know what they're talking about: it's not unique: overheated
> sealions on land sweat abundantly through sweat glands - why don't these
> fanatics inform a bit??
Now this wetloon thinks he is a sealion.
ROFL
rmacfarl
Even a press release (which this isn't; it's from a copyrighted blog)
carries an attribution, plagiarist...
Paul Crowley
>> And in case anyone should be wondering how Hawks regards the aquatic
>> ape theory:
>> http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/pseudoscience/aquatic_ape_theory.html
While I have no sympathy with AAT ideas,
the criticisms of Hawks reveal mainly his
own ignorance. Similar words are ALWAYS
issued against 'heretical' theories by the
orthodox. whether or not those theories
later turn out to be true or false. Hawks is
simply not aware of this. Had he been
writing in the 1960s we'd have heard much
the same from him about 'continental drift'.
If it was the 1880s he'd have been castigating
the 'crazy' ideas of Agassis about ice-ages.
And so on and on, for the whole history of
science.
> Proponents of
> the Aquatic Ape Theory compare the predictions of
> their model with the predictions that they derive
> for a traditionalist model, which they term the
> "Savanna model". In their view, an aquatic phase
> provides a better explanation for many human
> characteristics that the savanna model finds
> difficult to explain. For example, why do humans
> lack fur? Most anthropologists believe the lack of
> fur derives from selection associated with
> thermoregulation. In this account, humans are
> unlike most primates in using sweating as a
> significant source of evaporative heat loss. This
> system is efficient in humans because it exploits
> the latent heat of condensation to carry away much
> more heat than is possible through radiation,
> convection, or shade alone. But sweating would not
> work on a furry hominid, because evaporation from
> the fur does not carry away nearly the amount of
> heat lost by direct skin transfer.
If Hawks regard THIS crap as a reasonable
explanation for sweating, he is even more
of a fool than I thought. What conceivable
reason does the hominid line have for this
system -- NOT possessed by numerous other
species. A pure carnivore _might_ (under
this reasoning) benefit from nakedness --
since, presumably, it could run faster.
But no mammalian carnivores lack fur.
> The Aquatic Ape
> Theory rejects this hypothesis, noting that: the
> mechanism of sweating in humans is especially
> wasteful of water--a rare commodity in the hot
> savanna
Sweat also wastes body salts -- even rarer
in the savanna.
> other medium-sized mammals in the hot
> savanna environment do not use this mechanism of
> heat loss the loss of fur has required the
> development of a significantly costly form of
> insulation for the human body, a relatively thick
> layer of subcutaneous fat By this argument, the
> theory proposes that it makes more sense that
> humans developed hairlessness and their unique
> glandular system of sweating in an environment
> where water was both plentiful and continuously
> available. Several other distinctive human features
> are treated by this hypothesis. Bipedalism itself
> is suggested for its value in wading into
> moderately deep bodies of water. If the Aquatic Ape
> Theory explains so much, why do the majority of
> anthropologists not subscribe to it? It is hard to
> find a clear answer to this question on the
> Internet.
NO, it is not. The answer is presented
again and again and again -- to utter
tedium. Scientists don't change their
minds. They die, and another generation
takes over. Hopefully that will have
acquired -- from intelligent laypersons
-- a better understanding of reality.
(Hopefully also, that new generation will
not have acquired any AAT crap, since it
very bad science.)
<Snip some badly-written stuff>
> And they can continue to criticize
> the "Savanna model" as inadequate to explain human
> features-especially soft tissue characteristics.
> This process itself displays an element of the
> disingenuousness, considering that the fossil
> evidence increasingly suggests that hominids did
> not originate on the savanna at all.
Hawks forgets that (a) the 'savanna theory'
is still the dominant one -- even among
professional PA types, and
(b) all (or nearly all) professional PA
types still maintain a savanna existence
within the last 3 Myr.
> In fact all
> hominid sites earlier than around 3 million years
> appear to represent woodland of an open or closed
> nature. It appears quite evident now that our
> "descent from the trees" didn't take us out of the
> woods. As the present evidence continues to
> develop, the Aquatic Ape debate gets farther and
> farther from relevance.
Another huge point Hawks misses is that
standard PA provides no answers whatever,
and AAT stuff exists only because it can
(apparently) fill in the gaps.
> Like most other
> professional anthropologists, I am well aware that
> there is no active conspiracy under way to preclude
> strange ideas from scientific evaluation.
There may not be "an active conspiracy",
but there is certainly a highly effective
passive one.
> In fact I
> have seen many strange ideas come down the pike
> over the years that received far more celebrity
> than notoriety. The history of new research in the
> field will show to any close observer the value of
> breaking with scientific norms. This is so much the
> case in the study of human evolution that has
> provoked published complaints on the part of senior
> scientists. But despite these grumblings, there is
> nothing that anyone can do to prevent the
> publication of credible research in the field, and
> little they can do to prevent the publication of
> incredible research. There is much more to be
> gained for young scientists in pushing a new or
> outlandish idea that has serious empirical support
> than in mindlessly following the dictates of the
> aging graybeards.
This kind of crap is a story as ancient as
the hills. Every 'discipline' with an axe to
grind -- and even every social institution
(such as the Catholic Church) -- says much
the same.
[..]
> More
> than simple phylogenetic inertia is required to
> explain this, since the very reasons that the
> aquatic ape theory rejects the savanna model would
> apply to the descendants of the aquatic apes when
> they moved to the savanna. This is far from
> trivial, since fossil hominids did inhabit open
> woodland starting by 6 million years ago, and did
> move to open savanna by 3 million years ago.
See -- the savanna theory is alive and well.
What a dope! To him the savanna theory is
so unquestionable, that it might as well be
in the Bible (let's say in the Book of
Genesis).
If this is your core belief, then you might
as well give up science. Human beings have
as much to do with the savanna as they do to
the Arctic. They have no savanna features.
> than unparsimonious. It leaves the Aquatic Ape
> Theory explaining nothing whatsoever about the
> evolution of the hominids.
Maybe AAT types (or some of them) believe
that ancestral hominids spent most of the
last 3 Myr on the savanna. If so, Hawks's
criticism have a some very slight purpose.
But since Standard PA explains none of the
features of modern humans, it is criticism
that emerges from a desert of understanding.
Paul.
mclark
[...the usual]
Speaking of a "desert of understanding", Pauly,
are you going to be willing to discuss ~habitat
preferences~ anytime soon? Just wondering....
> Paul.
------------------------------------------------------
"Unfortunately, to be a great evolutionary
theorist, you do have to have some basic
knowledge first." Pauly 05/05/2004
spiznet
My bad, sorry Ross...
Marc Verhaegen
> Hawks forgets that (a) the 'savanna theory'
> is still the dominant one -- even among
> professional PA types, and
> (b) all (or nearly all) professional PA
> types still maintain a savanna existence
> within the last 3 Myr.
no, no, only a few outdated PAs (& most lay people) stil regard the savanna
nonsense as a theory
all leading PAs consider it unlikely:
Tobias 1995 łWe were all profoundly and unutterably wrong! Š All the
former savannah supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier
words Š˛
Wood 1996 łthe Śsavannahą hypothesis of human origins, in which the
cooling begat the savannah and the savannah begat humanity, is now
discredited˛
Stringer 1997 łOne of the strong points about the aquatic theory is in
explaining the origin of bipedality. If our ancestors did go into the water,
that would forced them to walk upright Š˛
Tobias 1998 łBamford identified fossil vines or lianas of Dichapetalum
in the same Member 4: such vines hang from forest trees and would not be
expected in open savannah. The team at Makapansgat found floral and faunal
evidence that the layers containing Australopithecus reflected forest or
forest margin conditions. From Hadar, in Ethiopia, where ŚLucyą was found,
and from Aramis in Ethiopia, where Tim Whiteąs team found Ardipithecus
ramidus Š well-wooded and even forested conditions were inferred from the
fauna accompanying the hominid fossils. All the fossil evidence adds up to
the small-brained, bipedal hominids of four to 2.5 Ma having lived in a
woodland or forest niche, not savannah.˛ łŠ if ever our earliest ancestors
were savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
urinators there˛
Stringer 2001 łIn the past I have agreed that we lack plausible models
for the origins of bipedalism and have agreed that wading in water can
facilitate bipedal locomotion (as observed in other normally quadrupedal
primates). I have never said that this must have been the forcing mechanism
in hominids, but I do consider it plausible. As for coastal colonisation, I
argued in my Nature News & Views last year that this was an event in the
late Pleistocene that may have facilitated the spread of modern humans.˛
Groves & Cameron 2004 łNor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
Elaine Morgan has long argued that many aspects of human anatomy are best
explained as a legacy of a semiaquatic phase in the proto-human trajectory,
and this includes upright posture to cope with increased water depth as our
ancestors foraged farther and further from the lake or seashore.˛
Wrangham 2005 łHere I follow the conventional assumption that hominins
began in the savanna.˛ łŠ the composition of the Okavango as a network of
islands could favor the evolution of bipedalism. For those who envisage
bipedalism as facilitated by the need to traverse or exploit aquatic
environments, an inland delta that generates low islands termitogenically or
hydrodynamically offers rich scenarios.˛
Alemseged 2006 łI believe we should just put the savannah theory aside.
I think they basically became biped while they were living in a wooded,
covered environment Š˛
Thorpe et al. 2007 łŠ early hominins occupied woodland environments, not
open or even bush-savannah environments (such as sites including Allia Bay,
Aramis, Assa Issie and now Laetoli) ... they retained long grasping
forelimbs, which are more obviously relevant in an arboreal contextŠ˛
Marc Verhaegen
>> Maybe AAT types (or some of them) believe
>> that ancestral hominids spent most of the
>> last 3 Myr on the savanna.
no, no: there is a general consensus among AATers that human ancestors were
no savanna mammals: savanna mammals have excellent olfaction, large teeth &
big mouths, don't sweat much, don't have to drink much, are not fat, are not
alined, don't sing, can't control their breathing, use they forelimbs for
running, run more than 50 km/hr, grow up fast, die soon etc.etc.etc.
all sensible PAs now agree that the savanna nonsense is just nonsense:
Tobias 1995 ³We were all profoundly and unutterably wrong! Š All the
former savannah supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier
words Š²
Wood 1996 ³the Œsavannah¹ hypothesis of human origins, in which the
cooling begat the savannah and the savannah begat humanity, is now
discredited²
Stringer 1997 ³One of the strong points about the aquatic theory is in
explaining the origin of bipedality. If our ancestors did go into the water,
that would forced them to walk upright Š²
Tobias 1998 ³Bamford identified fossil vines or lianas of Dichapetalum
in the same Member 4: such vines hang from forest trees and would not be
expected in open savannah. The team at Makapansgat found floral and faunal
evidence that the layers containing Australopithecus reflected forest or
forest margin conditions. From Hadar, in Ethiopia, where ŒLucy¹ was found,
and from Aramis in Ethiopia, where Tim White¹s team found Ardipithecus
ramidus Š well-wooded and even forested conditions were inferred from the
fauna accompanying the hominid fossils. All the fossil evidence adds up to
the small-brained, bipedal hominids of four to 2.5 Ma having lived in a
woodland or forest niche, not savannah.² ³Š if ever our earliest ancestors
were savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
urinators there²
Stringer 2001 ³In the past I have agreed that we lack plausible models
for the origins of bipedalism and have agreed that wading in water can
facilitate bipedal locomotion (as observed in other normally quadrupedal
primates). I have never said that this must have been the forcing mechanism
in hominids, but I do consider it plausible. As for coastal colonisation, I
argued in my Nature News & Views last year that this was an event in the
late Pleistocene that may have facilitated the spread of modern humans.²
Groves & Cameron 2004 ³Nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
Elaine Morgan has long argued that many aspects of human anatomy are best
explained as a legacy of a semiaquatic phase in the proto-human trajectory,
and this includes upright posture to cope with increased water depth as our
ancestors foraged farther and further from the lake or seashore.²
Wrangham 2005 ³Here I follow the conventional assumption that hominins
began in the savanna.² ³Š the composition of the Okavango as a network of
islands could favor the evolution of bipedalism. For those who envisage
bipedalism as facilitated by the need to traverse or exploit aquatic
environments, an inland delta that generates low islands termitogenically or
hydrodynamically offers rich scenarios.²
Alemseged 2006 ³I believe we should just put the savannah theory aside.
I think they basically became biped while they were living in a wooded,
covered environment Š²
Thorpe et al. 2007 ³Š early hominins occupied woodland environments, not
open or even bush-savannah environments (such as sites including Allia Bay,
Aramis, Assa Issie and now Laetoli) ... they retained long grasping
forelimbs, which are more obviously relevant in an arboreal contextŠ²
mclark
> > Hawks forgets that (a) the 'savanna theory'
> > is still the dominant one -- even among
> > professional PA types, and
> > (b) all (or nearly all) professional PA
> > types still maintain a savanna existence
> > within the last 3 Myr.
>
> no, no, only a few outdated PAs (& most lay people) stil regard the savanna
> nonsense as a theory
>
> all leading PAs consider it unlikely:
Of course, if it's not an orange, that doesn't mean
that it's an apple.......
---------------------------------------------------------
"But the negation of the long held hypothesis that
humans developed their bipedalism on the savanna,
did not imply that I was automatically adopting one
of the alternative theories, namely the aquatic ape
hypothesis..." P.V. Tobias 08/31/2001
[macro]
Paul Crowley
> On Feb 24, 2:33 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>>> Hawks forgets that (a) the 'savanna theory'
>>> is still the dominant one -- even among
>>> professional PA types, and
>>> (b) all (or nearly all) professional PA
>>> types still maintain a savanna existence
>>> within the last 3 Myr.
>>
>> no, no, only a few outdated PAs (& most lay people)
>> stil regard the savanna nonsense as a theory
>>
>> all leading PAs consider it unlikely:
Verhaegen is in my kill-file (along with
his fellow tantrum-toddler Olsen), so I
have to go to Google to see what he says.
But it's never worth the trouble.
However, it is important to distinguish
between two types of Savanna Theory:
A) The ancient full-blown version -- that
ancestral hominids lived there from the
start, developing bipedalism so that they
could run across the plains, hunting down
antelope, zebra and the like, and where
they spent almost all of their 6 Myr
existence; and
B) The recently modified or cut-down
Savanna Theory, under which they spent
the first three million years or so in
the woods (developing bipedalism there)
and THEN going on to the savanna for
most of the next three million years.
It's hard to say which of these absurd
theories is the more ridiculous, but it
seems that most professional PA people
have moved to the cut-down Theory B.
The 'rejections' of the Savanna Theory
listed by Verhaegen seem to refer only
to the full-blown Theory A
I have not seen ANY PA person rejecting
the cut-down Theory B. Have I missed
something?
Paul.
mclark
[...]
> A) The ancient full-blown version -- that
> ancestral hominids lived there from the
> start, developing bipedalism so that they
> could run across the plains, hunting down
> antelope, zebra and the like, and where
> they spent almost all of their 6 Myr
> existence; and
>
> B) The recently modified or cut-down
> Savanna Theory, under which they spent
> the first three million years or so in
> the woods (developing bipedalism there)
> and THEN going on to the savanna for
> most of the next three million years.
>
> It's hard to say which of these absurd
> theories is the more ridiculous, but it
> seems that most professional PA people
> have moved to the cut-down Theory B.
> The 'rejections' of the Savanna Theory
> listed by Verhaegen seem to refer only
> to the full-blown Theory A
Hmmm, Pauly sees through Marcos'
smoke. That's good, Pauly. Now if
you could only see through your own.
> I have not seen ANY PA person rejecting
> the cut-down Theory B. Have I missed
> something?
Nope. Nothing to miss. Are you feeling
like a review of "habitat preferences" now,
or are you gonna miss that too?
> Paul.
-----------------------------------------
Message-ID: <gcaumv$tsj$2...@aioe.org>
'habitat preferences'
http://tinyurl.com/3jfvqr
rmacfarl
Why? As far as I can see you did nothing wrong. Marc's the one posting
unattributed quotations...
RichTravsky
>
> >> Maybe AAT types (or some of them) believe
> >> that ancestral hominids spent most of the
> >> last 3 Myr on the savanna.
>
> no, no: there is a general consensus among AATers that human ancestors were
> no savanna mammals: savanna mammals have excellent olfaction, large teeth &
> big mouths, don't sweat much, don't have to drink much, are not fat, are not
> alined, don't sing, can't control their breathing, use they forelimbs for
> running, run more than 50 km/hr, grow up fast, die soon etc.etc.etc.
>
> all sensible PAs now agree that the savanna nonsense is just nonsense:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/a8f7ca1c31d823b0?dmode=source&hl=en
...
From: "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204...@skynet.be>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
...
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:40:26 +0200
...
"Rich Travsky" <traRvs...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E90F371...@hotMOVEmail.com...
...
>>>> Your arborealism can't explain our ext.nose, our furlessness, SC fat etc.
>>> Neither can you. Especially since you admitted bushmen are savannah adapted.
> > "admitted"?? :-D What else IYO??
> Yes, you admitted it. Are you denying it now?
Of course they're savanna adapted!! What else IYO??
...
Marc Verhaegen
ancestors 2 Ma did that:
Op 02-03-2009 06:42, in artikel 49AB71D6...@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
mclark
> some fool now thinkks that that because bushmen live in savanna our
> ancestors 2 Ma did that:
[S]ome fool now thinkks that that because Ama dive for pearls our
ancestors 2 Ma did that:
[...]
---------------------------------------------------
Marc Verhaegen
Op 02-03-2009 15:09, in artikel
218834c9-9029-4acd...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com, mclark
<mbcl...@comcast.net> schreef:
Lee Olsen
mclark
> SF eats pearls:
>
> Op 02-03-2009 15:09, in artikel
> <mbclar...@comcast.net> schreef:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 5:13 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> >> some fool now thinkks that that because bushmen live in savanna our
> >> ancestors 2 Ma did that:
>
> > [S]ome fool now thinkks that that because Ama dive for pearls our
> > ancestors 2 Ma did that:
>
> > [...]
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > "A little bit of common sense
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess that one went right over your
head, eh?
--------------------------------------------------
"Repeating imbecilities doesn't make
them true." Marco --04/21/2003
RichTravsky
>
> On Mar 2, 5:13 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> > some fool now thinkks that that because bushmen live in savanna our
> > ancestors 2 Ma did that:
>
> [S]ome fool now thinkks that that because Ama dive for pearls our
> ancestors 2 Ma did that:
How's that feel Marc? That's the same kind of logic.