Message from discussion A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcg...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
Date: 11 Dec 2006 00:20:08 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1165825213 6050 127.0.0.1 (11 Dec 2006 08:20:13 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:20:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; YPC 3.2.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Injection-Info: j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=126.96.36.199;
Rich Travsky wrote:
> claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net 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.
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?
> > [...]