Axes

[Mario Petrinovic]

https://youtu.be/ZmmU7hLPq7w

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 12:30:02 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> https://youtu.be/ZmmU7hLPq7w

Stone axes were never used as shown in the video.

[Mario Petrinovic]

DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
Mario Petrinovic:

> https://youtu.be/ZmmU7hLPq7w

Stone axes were never used as shown in the video.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. But, we don't know how they were used.
It doesn't matter, this video actually shows how effective those
three are, the difference in effectiveness of those three types of tools.

[The rich & famous JTEM]

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> It doesn't matter, this video actually shows how effective those
> three are

Sadly, no.

There's so much wrong with this video that I'm not sure
where to start.

#1. Anyone who would use a genuine artifact, as he
claims, to start chopping away at ANYTHING, even a
sapling, should be chained to a bumper & dragged 10
miles down a dirt road.

Secondly, that teardrop shaped "hand axe" was undoubtedly
never used that way.

#2. Look around. There's plenty of other videos out
there with people getting far different results from
stone tools. Such as this one:

https://youtu.be/0a8jB1SSzds?t=4m35s

#3. Otzi's axe is a bit of an enigma. Prior to his
discovery, few would associate such a design with
anything other than the bronze age. The point here
being, it can't be an example of why people moved
from stone to copper because hardly anyone who did
so ever used such a design.

#4. Economics is EVERYTHING! If it's going to take
you 20 hours to make something that is only going to
save you 30 minutes, well, it needs to either last
forever (copper won't) OR it needs to be the kind
of job where speed truly matters (like killing a man).

...so we're back to saying that the job matters. It
matters a lot.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156270853128

[Mario Petrinovic]

The rich & famous JTEM:
Mario Petrinovic:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As usual, I don't understand three quarters of what you are saying
(you like to be enigmatic), but I can answer the remaining quarter.
This video that you showed isn't true, my video is truer. That
teardrop shaped "hand axe" I didn't see in your video.
There are two distinctive "handaxes". The first one is made from a
stone that breaks easily. You make too big force with it, and it will break.
So, this type is interesting because it is sharp. The second type (the one
from your video) is polished axe. Those polished axes are made from stones
that don't shatter easily, so, you can exercise large force on it. They
aren't sharp. So, either they achieved sharpnes by putting some metal onto
it, or they didn't use them for purposes which need sharpness, but they used
them for purposes which need strength, force.
Second thing that I don't like with your video is that they are
using modern tools (metal tools) to make handle. This is not genuine. The
guy in my video really tries, he is really into it, and I trust his opinion,
although I am sure that he hasn't sufficient knowledge. People in your video
are only trying to show how they know something, but they are not living it,
they are not into it. So, they have no time for it, so they are actually
only faking it, when needed. I wouldn't trust this approach, and they proved
their faking by using modern tools. Who knows, maybe they even didn't do a
lot of polishing, maybe they just faked the whole thing, to be in tune with
what they think they know, or with what somebody else expect from them to
present, I don't know. This kind of approach simply isn't sufficient enough.
I agree that economics plays a big part in the whole story. This is
why polished tools appeared only after people gained knowledge of geometry,
which clearly points to grinding wheel.

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

- - -
Ok, I reviewed the video.

Hand axe biface: It was never held with bare hand while cutting hard material. The hand was wrapped in either a skin/leather 'rag' or a pounded-soft inner fig bark 'rag' (as used by Pygmy people for loincloths) or moss 'rag' to reduce skin and nerve damage. In a long handled axe, wood absorbs some impact, so no axes have a metal handle unless they have a rubber sleeve to reduce impact vibration.

The hand axe had a single advantage over the polished celt, copper axe, bronze axe and steel axes in close quarters: it both chopped and removed the wood-chip ("sawdust") in one smooth action due to the slightly serrated edge (which acted to rake out the chip at the end of the swing), the other axes (smooth sharp edge) require a large open space to use the long handle (fore-arm length) in order to chop efficiently while the chip is levered out on the backswing or falls out due to gravity.

Hand axes made of basalt or flint or chert, hard semi-brittle stone that when knapped. Wood contains silica (like quartz) crystals which dull axes.

[Mario Petrinovic]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, thanks.
I am not aware of any existing people that use hand axe. Do you
know, maybe, of one such example?
Second thing, I don't see why those wouldn't be held by hand. See
this picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Biface_Cintegabelle_MHNT_PRE_2009.0.201.1_V2.jpg
One side is wide and blunt. You can take this side by hand, in a
simliar fashion that this guy desrcibes:
https://youtu.be/Fe-uaWRIiPM?t=6m6s
What can you do with them?
Well, if you ask me, they are ideal for agriculture.
You know, it is very hard for an animal to understand how plants
grow up, all by themselves.
But, for an animal that burns everything around, and that eats
fruits, it is much easier. Because fruit trees grow where he left fruit
seeds. Simple as that. While other plants spread by wind, or whatever,
fruits spread by making edible fruit. It wouldn't be so hard to figure it
out. If you have language, you can "spread the word" about it, so you can
start agriculture. Then, you figure out that seed needs to be in the gorund,
and then you reshape stone with which you can dig a hole into ground. Simple
as that.

[Mario Petrinovic]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, see this:
"Flower evolution continues to the present day; modern flowers have
been so profoundly influenced by humans that some of them cannot be
pollinated in nature. Many modern domesticated flower species were formerly
simple weeds, which sprouted only when the ground was disturbed. Some of
them tended to grow with human crops, perhaps already having symbiotic
companion plant relationships with them, and the prettiest did not get
plucked because of their beauty, developing a dependence upon and special
adaptation to human affection."

[Mario Petrinovic]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what hand axe could look alike:
http://cdn.me-mechanicalengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/showel-tool.jpg
Good for digging soil. You can dig out a hole in the ground. For
shelter? To trap animals in it? If an animal doesn't die immediately (it
won't), you keep it for later. Fresh. If animal is young, it is too small to
be eaten. Feed it, until it grows up, then you eat it. It won't go out of
the hole, if hole is deep enough.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Mario Petrinovic:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or, you can dig for clay:
https://youtu.be/tcGqjwTLkXk
And make a lot of nice things with it:
https://youtu.be/Eiecdm1vUjA

[Mario Petrinovic]

Mario Petrinovic:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is nice video:
https://youtu.be/-tjbF2JYEOY

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

None of those rocks could cut wood or slice cartilage. Antler picks were often used to dig for clay.

[Mario Petrinovic]

DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

None of those rocks could cut wood or slice cartilage. Antler picks were
often used to dig for clay.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks.
Excellent. Antler picks you can use for the purpose, but not for
large scale. This means, it was large scale.
I agree it wasn't for cutting something that is harder, because it
is too brittle. Also, it is too pointy, but on the other side, too wide. It
was for digging soil, it looks just like shovel.

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Stonehenge was dug with antler picks!

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 6:10:47 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Hand axe biface: It was never held with bare hand while cutting hard material. The hand was wrapped in either a skin/leather 'rag' or a pounded-soft inner fig bark 'rag'

Bifaces were never 'hand-axes' -- not in any sense of the phrase. They were never used for chopping in the manner seen in that video -- nor in any other manner. Calling them 'hand-axes' was (and is) a gross misnomer. Firstly, they vary enormously in size -- while keeping to that 'tear-drop' shape. Only a small proportion could be thought to match hominid hands. Secondly, they have sharp edges all around their circumference. No one would make a cutting tool that would inflict a wound on the holder's hand. IF they had meant to produce a such a tool, they would have left one side in its natural state, i.e. preferably smooth and rounded. Thirdly, they exist in billions in hundreds of thousands of sites across the Old World, nearly always retaining their sharp edges.

I thought you knew all this, and that I had taken -- from you -- the idea that their sole purpose was the 'poisoning' of predators (of every size). Have you forgotten all this? Or changed your opinion?

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

- - -

Bifaces were not single-function tools, they were general cutting tools, both from outside in (puncture, slash, chop), and inside out (bait trap). Flint, chert, basalt, quartz were knapped to sharp edges, and seldom had naturally smooth and rounded edges provided. Bifacial hand axes typically had a teardrop to ovoid shape.

Only small diameter wood was cut, for pliable wicker poles (for huts) & digging sticks (for tubers) & spears (against prey, mostly those which ate fruit & nut & ground & shallow water foods also eaten by Homo, such as pigs, antelope, monkeys, elephants).

The "rag" I mentioned above functioned as a wrap or handle, especially in chopping slippery sapwood and slicing bloody tendons.

As a bait trap, the biface was similarly wrapped by some flesh & skin or inside an exposed organ eg. bloody liver, or a defleshed fish carcass.

Normally the bifacial hand axe was kept sheathed, and probably forbidden to be touched by children, an early taboo.

None of this differs from my original thesis, check my old threads and my blog @ ddeden the arc.

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

- - -
That picture shows a modern shovel, not an Aecheulian biface hand axe.

shove/shovel/trowel/trough(el)/truffle - used to dig and move broken-up materials (gravel, mud, soft soil), unable to penetrate hard materials which require peg/pick/pike/spike.

[Mario Petrinovic]

That picture shows a modern shovel, not an Aecheulian biface hand axe.

shove/shovel/trowel/trough(el)/truffle - used to dig and move broken-up
materials (gravel, mud, soft soil), unable to penetrate hard materials which
require peg/pick/pike/spike.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, exactly.
I showed the picture of shavel. It has long handle, and it is used
by pushing with foot.
This is a picture of hand shovel:
https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/garden-shovel-white-background-single-tool-working-32761988.jpg
As you can see, both shovels have pointy end for digging. Foot
shovel can be wider, because foot is strong enough to push shovel into soil,
even if "angle of attack" is wider. Hand isn't so strong, so angle of attack
should be sharper.
Anybody who done some gardening knows that this isn't easy job, to
dig into soil. Why? You have a lot of roots. When you dig into soil, the
biggest problem actually is to cut through those roots.
Hand axe can do this. Also, the weight of stone can help. But,
ultimitely, when you stuck shovel initially into soil, you can push it from
above with your weight, or even with your foot, you can stand on it. And
then push with your foot aside, to turn over the soil.

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 7:51:11 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Daud Deden wrote:

> Bifaces were not single-function tools, they were general cutting tools

They are obviously not 'general cutting tools'. No newly-discovered 'stone-age' tribe has ever been found using them. Nor would any modern person use one, nor make one, if confined (by circumstances) to the use of stone.

> Flint, chert, basalt, quartz were knapped to sharp edges, and seldom had naturally smooth and rounded edges provided.

Rounded rocks are routinely found on beaches and in stream beds. Stone choppers, with a round 'handle' and a sharp 'blade' at the other end, have been made and used for the past 3 million years, at least. They can be used with much greater force than any biface, no matter how carefully wrapped to minimise injury to the user's hand.

> Only small diameter wood was cut, for pliable wicker poles (for huts) & digging sticks (for tubers) & spears (against prey, mostly those which ate fruit & nut & ground & shallow water foods also eaten by Homo, such as pigs, antelope, monkeys, elephants).

Thicker branches would also have been cut for all sorts of reasons, even for firewood.

> As a bait trap, the biface was similarly wrapped by some flesh & skin or inside an exposed organ eg. bloody liver, or a defleshed fish carcass.

The 'bait trap' function is wholly different from any proposed cutting one. It requires a quite distinct form -- a slightly flat ovoid stone, with a pointed end and a sharp edge all around the circumference.

> Normally the bifacial hand axe was kept sheathed, and probably forbidden to be touched by children, an early taboo.

Firstly, 'sheathing' would have been very difficult and expensive (in terms of resources). But, more importantly, you are missing the huge quantities, the sheer number, that are found in fossil water courses, usually in pristine condition.

> None of this differs from my original thesis, check my old threads and my blog @ ddeden the arc.

Maybe so. I don't know where to look and there is too much junk. But, if so, you had one small part of the story right, amid a mess of the standard garbage. And that's still the case.

The brilliance of that 'small part' is that it explains (a) the _HUGE_ numbers of those artifacts; (b) how all hominins (including H.sap) coped with large predators; (c) how the great bulk of those predators were driven into extinction; (d) the resulting habitat destruction, from the brief proliferation of herbivores, and (e) the onset of ice ages from ~2.6 mya.

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

There is a Youtube video of Papuans knapping stone tools, I don't recall which type, maybe hand axe, maybe hafted stone axe, maybe hafted stone adze.

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:33:33 PM UTC-5, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 7:51:11 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> Daud Deden wrote:
>
> > Bifaces were not single-function tools, they were general cutting tools
>
> They are obviously not 'general cutting tools'.

Our opinions diverge.

> No newly-discovered 'stone-age' tribe has ever been found using them.

No, they were Aecheulian, time of Homo erectus, about 750ka.
AMHs use compound tools of stone and wood, glued and hafted, or more complex.

Nor would any modern person use one, nor make one, if confined (by circumstances) to the use of stone.

Our opinions diverge.

> > Flint, chert, basalt, quartz were knapped to sharp edges, and seldom had naturally smooth and rounded edges provided.
>
> Rounded rocks are routinely found on beaches and in stream beds. Stone choppers, with a round 'handle' and a sharp 'blade' at the other end, have been made and used for the past 3 million years, at least.

Yes, they were special purpose choppers, unlike the Aecheulian biface hand axe.

They can be used with much greater force than any biface, no matter how carefully wrapped to minimise injury to the user's hand.

Yes.

> > Only small diameter wood was cut, for pliable wicker poles (for huts) & digging sticks (for tubers) & spears (against prey, mostly those which ate fruit & nut & ground & shallow water foods also eaten by Homo, such as pigs, antelope, monkeys, elephants).
>
> Thicker branches would also have been cut for all sorts of reasons, even for firewood.

Firewood is dry and can be snapped off with a club, greenwood must be seasoned to dry out, which simply requires girdling the cambium layer to kill it, not hard chopping. Pygmies don't seem to cut large wood.

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:44:47 AM UTC-5, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:33:33 PM UTC-5, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 7:51:11 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > Daud Deden wrote:
> >
> > > Bifaces were not single-function tools, they were general cutting tools
> >
> > They are obviously not 'general cutting tools'.
>
> Our opinions diverge.
>
> > No newly-discovered 'stone-age' tribe has ever been found using them.
>
> No, they were Aecheulian, time of Homo erectus, about 750ka.
> AMHs use compound tools of stone and wood, glued and hafted, or more complex.
>
> Nor would any modern person use one, nor make one, if confined (by circumstances) to the use of stone.
>
> Our opinions diverge.
>
> > > Flint, chert, basalt, quartz were knapped to sharp edges, and seldom had naturally smooth and rounded edges provided.
> >
> > Rounded rocks are routinely found on beaches and in stream beds. Stone choppers, with a round 'handle' and a sharp 'blade' at the other end, have been made and used for the past 3 million years, at least.
>
> Yes, they were special purpose choppers, unlike the Aecheulian biface hand axe.
>
> They can be used with much greater force than any biface, no matter how carefully wrapped to minimise injury to the user's hand.
>
> Yes.
>
> > > Only small diameter wood was cut, for pliable wicker poles (for huts) & digging sticks (for tubers) & spears (against prey, mostly those which ate fruit & nut & ground & shallow water foods also eaten by Homo, such as pigs, antelope, monkeys, elephants).
> >
> > Thicker branches would also have been cut for all sorts of reasons, even for firewood.
>
> Firewood is dry and can be snapped off with a club, greenwood must be seasoned to dry out, which simply requires girdling the cambium layer to kill it, not hard chopping. Pygmies don't seem to cut large wood.
>
> >
> > > As a bait trap, the biface was similarly wrapped by some flesh & skin or inside an exposed organ eg. bloody liver, or a defleshed fish carcass.
> >
> > The 'bait trap' function is wholly different from any proposed cutting one.

Our opinions diverge.

> It requires a quite distinct form -- a slightly flat ovoid stone, with a pointed end and a sharp edge all around the circumference.

No, a wood gorge is also a bait trap but is a wood stick with two sharp ends.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/gorge-fishing

"One of humankind’s earliest tools was the predecessor of the fishhook: a gorge—that is, a piece of wood, bone, or stone 1 inch (2.5 cm) or so in length ..."

> >
> > > Normally the bifacial hand axe was kept sheathed, and probably forbidden to be touched by children, an early taboo.
> >
> > Firstly, 'sheathing' would have been very difficult and expensive (in terms of resources).

No, cut a piece off the loincloth, voila.

But, more importantly, you are missing the huge quantities, the sheer number, that are found in fossil water courses, usually in pristine condition.

Nope, millions of years....

> >
> > > None of this differs from my original thesis, check my old threads and my blog @ ddeden the arc.
> >
> > Maybe so. I don't know where to look and there is too much junk. But, if so, you had one small part of the story right, amid a mess of the standard garbage. And that's still the case.
> >
> > The brilliance of that 'small part' is that it explains (a) the _HUGE_ numbers of those artifacts; (b) how all hominins (including H.sap) coped with large predators; (c) how the great bulk of those predators were driven into extinction; (d) the resulting habitat destruction, from the brief proliferation of herbivores, and (e) the onset of ice ages from ~2.6 mya.

..

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

The bait trap complemented the leopard-proof dome hut / round shield in protecting bands at vulnerable times and places eg. sleep, pregnancy, infancy, water gathering, old age etc.

The bait trap lured via scent, sight, taste, texture; while the dome shielded families from ambush by physically and visually obstructing attackers and making it easy and safe to stab them close-up, an otherwise very risky behavior.

It was the synergistic combination of these two *passive yet powerful* defence systems which allowed a formerly arboreal hominoid to literally own the Earth around them.

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 5:55:53 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>>> Bifaces were not single-function tools, they were general cutting tools
>>
>> They are obviously not 'general cutting tools'.
>
> Our opinions diverge.

Opinions should be both justifiable and justified. Why on earth would hominids, for millions of years, have gone to the trouble of putting a cutting edge on the side of the tool that was held in the hand?

>> No newly-discovered 'stone-age' tribe has ever been found using them.
>
> No, they were Aecheulian, time of Homo erectus, about 750ka.
> AMHs use compound tools of stone and wood, glued and hafted, or more complex.
>
> Nor would any modern person use one, nor make one, if confined (by circumstances) to the use of stone.
>
> Our opinions diverge.

Opinions that cannot be backed up with facts and argument are no more than prejudices.

"Acheulean tools were the dominant technology for the vast majority of human history"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheulean

They are not in the fossil record for the last 100 Kyr, but that's because the last sight we have of them is at the end of the last inter-glacial. Thereafter the great bulk of hominid fossil sites (created between ~100 Kyr and ~12 Kyr) are now covered by up to a hundred metres of sea-water.

>>> Flint, chert, basalt, quartz were knapped to sharp edges, and seldom had naturally smooth and rounded edges provided.
>>
>> Rounded rocks are routinely found on beaches and in stream beds. Stone choppers, with a round 'handle' and a sharp 'blade' at the other end, have been made and used for the past 3 million years, at least.
>
> Yes, they were special purpose choppers, unlike the Aecheulian biface hand axe.

You are missing the point entirely. Acheulean bifaces are most peculiar 'tools', and honest PA scientists (of which there are a few) admit that they haven't a clue what they were for. (The others just regurgitate empty words.) Nor does your 'general purpose tool' explain the enormous variation in the size of bifaces. Whereas standard choppers are all pretty much the same size.

>> They can be used with much greater force than any biface, no matter how carefully wrapped to minimise injury to the user's hand.
>
> Yes.

So specify one function where a biface would be a better tool than a standard stone chopper.

>>> As a bait trap, the biface was similarly wrapped by some flesh & skin or inside an exposed organ eg. bloody liver, or a defleshed fish carcass.
>>
>> The 'bait trap' function is wholly different from any proposed cutting one.
>
> Our opinions diverge.
>
>> It requires a quite distinct form -- a slightly flat ovoid stone, with a pointed end and a sharp edge all around the circumference.
>
> No, a wood gorge is also a bait trap but is a wood stick with two sharp ends.
> https://www.britannica.com/technology/gorge-fishing

I should not have gone along with your 'bait trap' expression. The function of bifaces was to kill predators. especially large ones. The hominids would not have been interested in their carcasses. In any case, most would be unobtainable. The animal, suffering from intense gut pain, would have gone into the bush, or sought water, where most would have succumbed to crocodile or other predation, before or after death. That's why nearly all bifaces finished up at the bottoms of lakes or in water-courses.

>>> Normally the bifacial hand axe was kept sheathed, and probably forbidden to be touched by children, an early taboo.
>>
>> Firstly, 'sheathing' would have been very difficult and expensive (in terms of resources).
>
> No, cut a piece off the loincloth, voila.

Replacement loincloths could not be bought at the local corner store. If available at all, they were highly-prized items of clothing.

>> But, more importantly, you are missing the huge quantities, the sheer number, that are found in fossil water courses, usually in pristine condition.
>
> Nope, millions of years....

There are no equivalent numbers or sites for other tools such as choppers. The sites where billions of bifaces are to be found today were occupied only during inter-glacials, and then (probably) for only parts of those episodes --- e.g. Kathu Pan, South Africa. Further, none of those billions show signs of use, nor of retouching, that nearly all ordinary tools exhibit.

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:31:04 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:31:04 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> The bait trap complemented the leopard-proof dome hut / round shield in protecting bands at vulnerable times and places eg. sleep, pregnancy, infancy, water gathering, old age etc.
>
> The bait trap lured via scent, sight, taste, texture; while the dome shielded families from ambush by physically and visually obstructing attackers and making it easy and safe to stab them close-up, an otherwise very risky behavior.

This is romantic nonsense. Firstly, leopards evolved only recently, and survive only because they avoid humans. "The modern leopard is suggested to have evolved in Africa 0.5 to 0.8 million years . . " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard). The earlier carnivores and omnivores. with which initial hominids had to cope, were much larger and much more dangerous. Hominin children could not be raised in their presence, and they had to be eliminated before hominin females would agree to live in such places. This task was completed by males laying 'poisoned' carcasses and continuing to do so in the surrounding territory for generation after generation.

[Mario Petrinovic]

:
Further, none of those billions show signs of use, nor of retouching, that
nearly all ordinary tools exhibit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is the case, then those can be sude as abatis:
http://rosalielebel75.franceserv.com/fortifications/tranchees-abatis-pieux-aiguises.jpg
Today african tribes protect themselves from large predators (even
as large as lions) by the fence of thorny bushes. You can be protected that
way from predators, but not from humans. One reason is fire. Another reason
is that humans can remove thorny bushes (unlike animals). Abatis is
protection against infantry.
Also, you can put those at the bottom of a hole in the ground (where
you will hunt animals), positioned vertically.
I don't know if this explains the fact that we don't have those
tools anymore, today.
I would be surprised if those aren't used for soil digging. The
shape is spot on, for this.

[The rich & famous JTEM]

These exchanges are so full of bullshit that I'm
constantly expecting to see something like, "Everyone
in Brazil is named Mike" or "Poops evolved so they'd
have something to talk about."




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156698724658

[Mario Petrinovic]

The rich & famous JTEM:

These exchanges are so full of bullshit that I'm
constantly expecting to see something like, "Everyone
in Brazil is named Mike" or "Poops evolved so they'd
have something to talk about."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://youtu.be/LpJOxbaC8YU

[Mario Petrinovic]

Mario Petrinovic:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must quote what you are addressing, so that people can know.
This is new group, everybody has different news reader, and every news
reader has few different layouts. I don't see what you are addressing, so I
don't know whether you are talking to me, to somebody else, to everybody
(for some reason), just to yourself, or to nobody.
Since I don't know what you are talking about, I can only rely to it
as it is nothing that has been said (from your side), so the effect is just
like you didn't say anything. So, if you want to be understood properly,
please, be so kind, and quote what you are addressing. This musn't be so
hard.

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 6:38:40 AM UTC-5, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 5:55:53 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> >>> Bifaces were not single-function tools, they were general cutting tools
> >>
> >> They are obviously not 'general cutting tools'.
> >
> > Our opinions diverge.
>
> Opinions should be both justifiable and justified. Why on earth would hominids, for millions of years, have gone to the trouble of putting a cutting edge on the side of the tool that was held in the hand?

Depended on what was to be cut, the pointed end or the rounded end would be towards the palm.

>
> >> No newly-discovered 'stone-age' tribe has ever been found using them.
> >
> > No, they were Aecheulian, time of Homo erectus, about 750ka.
> > AMHs use compound tools of stone and wood, glued and hafted, or more complex.
> >
> > Nor would any modern person use one, nor make one, if confined (by circumstances) to the use of stone.
> >
> > Our opinions diverge.
>
> Opinions that cannot be backed up with facts and argument are no more than prejudices.

Another opinion.

>
> "Acheulean tools were the dominant technology for the vast majority of human history"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheulean
>
> They are not in the fossil record for the last 100 Kyr, but that's because the last sight we have of them is at the end of the last inter-glacial. Thereafter the great bulk of hominid fossil sites (created between ~100 Kyr and ~12 Kyr) are now covered by up to a hundred metres of sea-water.
>

In your opinion (or their's).

> >>> Flint, chert, basalt, quartz were knapped to sharp edges, and seldom had naturally smooth and rounded edges provided.
> >>
> >> Rounded rocks are routinely found on beaches and in stream beds. Stone choppers, with a round 'handle' and a sharp 'blade' at the other end, have been made and used for the past 3 million years, at least.
> >
> > Yes, they were special purpose choppers, unlike the Aecheulian biface hand axe.
>
> You are missing the point entirely. Acheulean bifaces are most peculiar 'tools', and honest PA scientists (of which there are a few) admit that they haven't a clue what they were for. (The others just regurgitate empty words.) Nor does your 'general purpose tool' explain the enormous variation in the size of bifaces. Whereas standard choppers are all pretty much the same size.

Choppers only chop, not good for narrow slicing.
Bifaces cut anything, so I call them general.

>
> >> They can be used with much greater force than any biface, no matter how carefully wrapped to minimise injury to the user's hand.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> So specify one function where a biface would be a better tool than a standard stone chopper.

When a biface is handy, but a chopper is not. (Bifaces were carried (cf pocket knives), choppers weren't.)

>
> >>> As a bait trap, the biface was similarly wrapped by some flesh & skin or inside an exposed organ eg. bloody liver, or a defleshed fish carcass.
> >>
> >> The 'bait trap' function is wholly different from any proposed cutting one.
> >
> > Our opinions diverge.
> >
> >> It requires a quite distinct form -- a slightly flat ovoid stone, with a pointed end and a sharp edge all around the circumference.

Which also worked for general cutting.

> >
> > No, a wood gorge is also a bait trap but is a wood stick with two sharp ends.
> > https://www.britannica.com/technology/gorge-fishing
>
> I should not have gone along with your 'bait trap' expression.

Of course not.

> The function of bifaces was to kill predators. especially large ones.

Yes, that was a significant function.

> The hominids would not have been interested in their carcasses.

I wasn't referring to carcasses of predators, but of the 'prey' bait.

> In any case, most would be unobtainable. The animal, suffering from intense gut pain, would have gone into the bush, or sought water, where most would have succumbed to crocodile or other predation, before or after death. That's why nearly all bifaces finished up at the bottoms of lakes or in water-courses.

Yes, plausibly.

>
> >>> Normally the bifacial hand axe was kept sheathed, and probably forbidden to be touched by children, an early taboo.
> >>
> >> Firstly, 'sheathing' would have been very difficult and expensive (in terms of resources).
> >
> > No, cut a piece off the loincloth, voila.
>
> Replacement loincloths could not be bought at the local corner store. If available at all, they were highly-prized items of clothing.

They were literally next door upstairs, bark peeled from the fig tree shading the dome hut.

>
> >> But, more importantly, you are missing the huge quantities, the sheer number, that are found in fossil water courses, usually in pristine condition.
> >
> > Nope, millions of years....
>
> There are no equivalent numbers or sites for other tools such as choppers.

Choppers are special purpose.

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:45:37 AM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>> Why on earth would hominids, for millions of years, have gone to the trouble of putting a cutting edge on the side of the tool that was held in the hand?

> Depended on what was to be cut, the pointed end or the rounded end would be towards the palm.

What you or I or any intelligent hominin would do, would be to make two (or more) tools, with a sharp edge on one side and an unsharp handy grip on the other -- as you can see in every farm, on every work-bench and in every kitchen. Yet, for millions of years, over millions of sites, billions of hominins apparently did no such thing. In other words, you don't have a viable theory.

>> Opinions that cannot be backed up with facts and argument are no more than prejudices.
>
> Another opinion.

An expression that 2+2=5, or that "evolution is ony a theory" (as per Mike Pence) is less than an 'opinion'. It's a disgrace, a reversion to superstition or to irrationality. (And that's not just 'an opinion'.)

>> "Acheulean tools were the dominant technology for the vast majority of human history"
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheulean
>>
>> They are not in the fossil record for the last 100 Kyr, but that's because the last sight we have of them is at the end of the last inter-glacial. Thereafter the great bulk of hominid fossil sites (created between ~100 Kyr and ~12 Kyr) are now covered by up to a hundred metres of sea-water.
>
> In your opinion (or their's).

"They" (?wikipedia editors? PA people generally?) have not yet absorbed (a) that sea-levels were substantially lower between 100 kya and 12 kya, nor (b) that hominins prefer to live close to sea-level.

> Choppers only chop, not good for narrow slicing.

Slicing can be done with any sharp blade, such as are produced by the hundred as by-products when choppers or Acheulean bifaces are fashioned.

> Bifaces cut anything, so I call them general.

Bifaces can be so large that it takes two adult males to carry them. You don't have a viable theory until you can explain that huge range in size.

>> So specify one function where a biface would be a better tool than a standard stone chopper.
>
> When a biface is handy, but a chopper is not. (Bifaces were carried (cf pocket knives), choppers weren't.)

Just nonsense. Weapons would have been carried routinely, possibly some were clubs with vertical grooves into which sharp flakes were inserted.

>> The function of bifaces was to kill predators. especially large ones.
>
> Yes, that was a significant function.

Why do you need more?

>> Replacement loincloths could not be bought at the local corner store. If available at all, they were highly-prized items of clothing.
>
> They were literally next door upstairs, bark peeled from the fig tree shading the dome hut.

Barkcloth can be made, but it's still an expensive process, and probably beyond the capacity of nearly all of our hominin ancestors: " . . harvested during the wet season and then, in a long and strenuous process, beaten with different types of wooden mallets to give it a soft and fine texture and an even terracotta colour. Craftsmen work in an open shed to protect the bark from drying out too quickly . . . "
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/barkcloth-making-in-uganda-00139

[Pandora]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:45:54 -0800 (PST), yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 6:10:47 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
>> Hand axe biface: It was never held with bare hand while cutting hard material.
>>The hand was wrapped in either a skin/leather 'rag' or a pounded-soft inner fig bark 'rag'
>
>Bifaces were never 'hand-axes' -- not in any sense of the phrase. They were never
>used for chopping in the manner seen in that video -- nor in any other manner.
>Calling them 'hand-axes' was (and is) a gross misnomer. Firstly, they vary enormously
>in size -- while keeping to that 'tear-drop' shape. Only a small proportion could be
>thought to match hominid hands.

Also notice the change in sophistication, from the rather crude
Acheulian (left) to the later Mousterian cordate shape (right):
http://www.show.me.uk/media/cache/detail_page/www.culture24.org.uk/asset_arena/4/84/78/487484/v0_master.jpg

As with regard to size, some were simply to big for hand-held
purposes.
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2009/giantstoneag.jpg

>Secondly, they have sharp edges all around their
>circumference. No one would make a cutting tool that would inflict a wound on the
>holder's hand. IF they had meant to produce a such a tool, they would have left one
>side in its natural state, i.e. preferably smooth and rounded.

As with this Oldowan chopper:
https://www.paleodirect.com/pb057-superb-european-oldowan-pebble-axe-chopper-lower-paleolithic-tools/

>Thirdly, they exist in billions in hundreds of thousands of sites across the Old World, nearly always
>retaining their sharp edges.

Those figures may be a little exaggerated, but at some sites they are
indeed quite numerous, while at others they are completely absent
(e.g. Dmanisi).

>I thought you knew all this, and that I had taken -- from you -- the idea that their
>sole purpose was the 'poisoning' of predators (of every size). Have you forgotten
>all this? Or changed your opinion?

But no known predator could possible be "poisoned" by the largest of
these artefacts if the purpose was to make them ingest these objects.

Pandora

[The rich & famous JTEM]

Pandora wrote:

> yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Thirdly, they exist in billions in hundreds of thousands
> > of sites across the Old World, nearly always retaining
> > their sharp edges.

> Those figures may be a little exaggerated

Yes & no. Paleoanthropology really does insist that there
are billions of these things -- literally billions -- at
some sites alone. So it's not "Exaggerating" the claims
at all. But paleoanthropology is NOT a real science, and
it's claims go beyond exaggeration and deep into psychosis.

But, again: Paleoanthropology DOES claim that there are
sites with BILLIONS of handaxes. Each.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156828409933

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 12:54:10 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:

> >Thirdly, they exist in billions in hundreds of thousands of sites across the Old World, nearly always
> >retaining their sharp edges.
>
> Those figures may be a little exaggerated, but at some sites they are
> indeed quite numerous, while at others they are completely absent
> (e.g. Dmanisi).

Bifaces are found in huge numbers at the bottom of paleo-lakes or in former water-courses. The Dmanisi sites are way up in the hills (at an altitude of 1,600 metres or above) so we would not expect them there -- unless they were 'the Swiss Army knife' of PA mythos. Nor is it hard to estimate numbers. Map the area where the fossils are found, dig some pits to (a) get a figure for density, and (b) one for the average depth of the fossil bed, then multiply up.

>> I thought you knew all this, and that I had taken -- from you -- the idea that their
>> sole purpose was the 'poisoning' of predators (of every size).
>

> But no known predator could possible be "poisoned" by the largest of
> these artefacts if the purpose was to make them ingest these objects.

On the contrary, those huge 'hand-axes' are about the right size to finish off large crocodiles. They don't chew the food they ingest and have no crushing teeth. They rely on super-strength acid stomachs to digest bone, etc. Large crocs often leave the water and 'go hunting' at night. Some must have attacked sleeping hominins and taken adults or children. It would not be hard to put such a rock into the carcass of a goat, a sheep or a deer, tie it up so that the rock remains inside, and then leave it to rot in shallow water, where it would soon attract the man-eating crocodile.

[Pandora]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 02:49:48 -0800 (PST), yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 12:54:10 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
>
>> >Thirdly, they exist in billions in hundreds of thousands of sites across the Old World, nearly always
>> >retaining their sharp edges.
>>
>> Those figures may be a little exaggerated, but at some sites they are
>> indeed quite numerous, while at others they are completely absent
>> (e.g. Dmanisi).
>
>Bifaces are found in huge numbers at the bottom of paleo-lakes or in
>former water-courses. The Dmanisi sites are way up in the hills (at an
>altitude of 1,600 metres or above) so we would not expect them there
>-- unless they were 'the Swiss Army knife' of PA mythos. Nor is it hard
>to estimate numbers. Map the area where the fossils are found, dig some
>pits to (a) get a figure for density, and (b) one for the average depth of
>the fossil bed, then multiply up.

There are some sites, e.g. at Olorgesailie, that have high
concentrations of handaxes, hundreds, but these do not extend
throughout the entire basin:
https://media.azpm.org/master/image/2011/8/27/spot/nova_bec_hum_last.jpg

>>> I thought you knew all this, and that I had taken -- from you -- the idea that their
>>> sole purpose was the 'poisoning' of predators (of every size).
>>
>> But no known predator could possible be "poisoned" by the largest of
>> these artefacts if the purpose was to make them ingest these objects.
>
>On the contrary, those huge 'hand-axes' are about the right size to finish
>off large crocodiles. They don't chew the food they ingest and have no
>crushing teeth. They rely on super-strength acid stomachs to digest bone, etc.
>Large crocs often leave the water and 'go hunting' at night.

No, crocs are ambush hunters that prefer to attack from the water.

>Some must have
>attacked sleeping hominins and taken adults or children. It would not be hard
>to put such a rock into the carcass of a goat, a sheep or a deer, tie it up so
>that the rock remains inside, and then leave it to rot in shallow water, where
>it would soon attract the man-eating crocodile.

Crocs do not swallow their prey whole, unless it is already bite-sized
(e.g. chicken). If not, they will roll around their body axis and
violently shake it until a bite-sized piece comes off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRfZR3lB4Bc

With such actions the "poison" would be readily lost.

Pandora

[Pandora]

Name one site with a recorded number of over 1 million handaxes.

Pandora

[Mario Petrinovic]

Pandora:
The rich & famous JTEM:
>Pandora:
>> yelw...@gmail.com:

>> > Thirdly, they exist in billions in hundreds of thousands
>> > of sites across the Old World, nearly always retaining
>> > their sharp edges.
>
>> Those figures may be a little exaggerated
>
>Yes & no. Paleoanthropology really does insist that there
>are billions of these things -- literally billions -- at
>some sites alone. So it's not "Exaggerating" the claims
>at all. But paleoanthropology is NOT a real science, and
>it's claims go beyond exaggeration and deep into psychosis.
>
>But, again: Paleoanthropology DOES claim that there are
>sites with BILLIONS of handaxes. Each.

Name one site with a recorded number of over 1 million handaxes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing is for sure, you forget about "hunter-gatherers" at sites
with numerous unused hand axes. This is advanced (stationary) civilization.
Another thing, not all "hand axes" had to be used for the same
purpose. This shape can be used for few different purposes.
If it is paleo-lake, this is open flat environment (presumably,
there wasn't a lake there at the time of hand axes). Cannot be defended on a
hill, like Dmanisi.

[The rich & famous JTEM]

You're dishonest. You're not new here, you're
a nym-shifting troll, and you have to remember
the many conversations that have already taken
place on this topic...

Pandora wrote:
> Name one site with a recorded number of over
> 1 million handaxes.

Kathu.

Here's a cite:

https://mcopesblog.wordpress.com/tag/hand-axe/

"In South Africa they are common, and there is one
desolate field in the Kalahari where billions of
hand-axes and other stone tools lie in a layer a
metre deep, extending to the horizon."

I believe this page is speaking of Kathu. If not,
I inadvertently identified two sites.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156828409933

[The rich & famous JTEM]

Pandora wrote:

> Name one site with a recorded number of over 1 million handaxes.

Name? Here's a photo:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0103436.g002

Here's another:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=inline&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0103436.g007

That would be the Kathu site, which has been
talked about her for years only for you to
practice selective amnesia...






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156814728603

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Note: problems with computer-net, just sending bits.
------------------------------------------------

The Baganda are making fancy modern stuff, unlike ancient utilitarian methods. Compare a Model T to the presidential limousine.

Note that all great apes peel inner bark. I don't think monkeys or lemurs normally do that, though they all peel fruit.

Principles of Parsimony & Continuity are the primary guides in my research.

The KhoiSan say the most dangerous predator is the leopard, I'd guess Pygmies would say both leopards and crocs.

KhoiSan are reknowned for their trapping methods, as well as their tracking.

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Consider an adult python with stretchy mouth & throat, swallowing a young herbivore carcass with large biface inserted.

Perhaps instead, the super-bifaces were fractalized by knapping off smaller duplicates.

[Pandora]

Who's Michael Cope?

Pandora

[Pandora]

Read the paper:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103436

Where does it say "billions of handaxes"?

Pandora

[The rich & famous JTEM]

Pandora wrote:

> Where does it say "billions of handaxes"?

Oh, you're clearly a usenet Phd candidate!
It's obvious by your unwillingness/inability
to perform so much as a rudimentary 30-second
Google search for "Research."

Google it.

You can even limit your "Research" to grepping
this very discussion group for the search terms.

Or, continue to prove that you're a lame ass
troll. Your choice.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/private/156855868268/tumblr_okx3ikBFYG1qccpvo

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 2:12:27 PM UTC-5, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> Consider an adult python with stretchy mouth & throat, swallowing a young herbivore carcass with large biface inserted.
>
> Perhaps instead, the super-bifaces were fractalized by knapping off smaller duplicates.

A deep-sea fish with a flexible neck (normally fish have no neck) allowing wide-opening jaws and whole-swallowing of prey: https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/02/first-functional-fish-head-joint.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheArchaeologyNewsNetwork+(The+Archaeology+News+Network)#hPCKXWidEvUXtlL6.97

Ethiopian cave shows life from 3000ka to 30ka: https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/02/ethiopian-site-sheds-new-light-on-human.html#P7CrM6HccFg2ZgP7.97 ostrich eggshell trade = !hxaro (KhoiSan) exchange

Birds nests originated in Australia: https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/02/australia-birthplace-of-birds-nests.html#G5Rg0x47ggfsXaLR.97

Body height gene variation: https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/02/giant-study-finds-rare-but-influential.html#gzREBrtEtpga400Q.97 (AMHs that left the tropical rainforest were selected for increased body size, longer forelegs)

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 7:28:41 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:

> Read the paper:
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103436

The topic -- the sheer quantity of these artefacts -- seems to be avoided in the 'scientific' journals. Perhaps it's a bit like "Dark Matter" in cosmology. There is no useful information, and no one can write a Ph.d thesis or produce career-building publications on "nothing". But in Physics every scientist knows that there is an issue about "Dark Matter". In PA this topic -- the sheer quantity -- is just one of many that are not talked about. It's yet another fine item of invisible clothing in the naked emperor's wardrobe.

It's ok if you find, among among those billions, two or three 'hand-axes' with traces of plant material on them. These can happily be examined under the microscope, and their origins discussed. That's all fine and traditional. 'Impossible' quantities of artefacts are best ignored.

See http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116482
for a rare discussion -- and one that makes 'billions' seem excessively conservative.

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 2:22:45 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:

> >On the contrary, those huge 'hand-axes' are about the right size to finish
> >off large crocodiles. They don't chew the food they ingest and have no
> >crushing teeth. They rely on super-strength acid stomachs to digest bone, etc.
> >Large crocs often leave the water and 'go hunting' at night.
>
> No, crocs are ambush hunters that prefer to attack from the water.

Crocs are more often ambush hunters. But not always. In any event, local hominins could have found their ambush hunting unwelcome.

>> Some must have
>> attacked sleeping hominins and taken adults or children. It would not be hard
>> to put such a rock into the carcass of a goat, a sheep or a deer, tie it up so
>> that the rock remains inside, and then leave it to rot in shallow water, where
>> it would soon attract the man-eating crocodile.
>
> Crocs do not swallow their prey whole, unless it is already bite-sized
> (e.g. chicken).

The torso of a goat would be a small bite for a 1000 Kg Nile crocodile.

> If not, they will roll around their body axis and
> violently shake it until a bite-sized piece comes off:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRfZR3lB4Bc

They can't swallow an adult wildebeeste, or hippo, and tearing off bits with that technique is all they can do. But a large crocodile would readily swallow an adult human whole.

" . . . Most crocodilian attacks occur "out of the blue" as the attacking
animal utilizes a sudden burst of speed and the advantage of
surprise. Crocodiles can only consume about 10% of their live
body weight in a feeding event," but a male adult estuarine or
Nile crocodile weighing more than 900 kg (1 ton) can devour
prey much larger in size than a human. According to one report,
the stomach of an Australian estuarine crocodile contained the
remains Of an aborigine and a 4-gallon drum containing two
blankets. The crocodile can travel in water at a speed of 32 km/
hr (20 miles/hr) and can charge a short distance over land at a
maximum recorded speed of 17 km/hr (9.5 miles/hr). The
enormous jaws and sharp teeth can bite with sufficient force to
puncture an aluminum boat. Feeding in waterways adjacent to
rural and urban areas has introduced crocodilians to cows,
horses, and humans, who are attacked when they cross rivers,
catch fish, draw water, wash, swim, or work in the fields . . "

Auerbach's Wilderness Medicine
By Paul S. Auerbach, Tracy A Cushing, N. Stuart Harris
Page 687

[Mario Petrinovic]

:
Pandora:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crocs have some adventages, but they also have some problems. The
adventage is that they don't have to eat often. The problem is that they get
tired fastly. If you resist (on land), you can get him tired (I suppose).
This is why crocs attack only if they can reach you easily.
I am surprised how they survived in a presence of humans who use
fire. Because their nests can be burned, and their offspring depends on
temperature of nests. If nest is too warm, only one gender hatches, and if
it is too cold, the other gender hatches. As far as I know.

[Pandora]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 05:58:20 -0800 (PST), yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 2:22:45 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
>
>> >On the contrary, those huge 'hand-axes' are about the right size to finish
>> >off large crocodiles. They don't chew the food they ingest and have no
>> >crushing teeth. They rely on super-strength acid stomachs to digest bone, etc.
>> >Large crocs often leave the water and 'go hunting' at night.
>>
>> No, crocs are ambush hunters that prefer to attack from the water.
>
>Crocs are more often ambush hunters. But not always. In any event, local
>hominins could have found their ambush hunting unwelcome.

But only a hominid with a food surplus could afford the poisoning
strategy, if it worked. That would be unlikely prior to the Neolithic.
More likely the hominids would consume the prey themselves.

There's also no record of more recent hunter-gatherers using such a
strategy, with crocs present on four different continents (Australia,
Asia, North and South America).

>>> Some must have
>>> attacked sleeping hominins and taken adults or children. It would not be hard
>>> to put such a rock into the carcass of a goat, a sheep or a deer, tie it up so
>>> that the rock remains inside, and then leave it to rot in shallow water, where
>>> it would soon attract the man-eating crocodile.
>>
>> Crocs do not swallow their prey whole, unless it is already bite-sized
>> (e.g. chicken).
>
>The torso of a goat would be a small bite for a 1000 Kg Nile crocodile.

Actually, they can swallow a gazelle whole, but not without a some
processing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mbCVGTbTmg

Your earlier suggestion that crocodiles don't chew their food and have
no crushing teeth is falsified by crocs eating turtles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp56OR3ZYq0

Would they notice a handaxe?

>> If not, they will roll around their body axis and
>> violently shake it until a bite-sized piece comes off:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRfZR3lB4Bc
>
>They can't swallow an adult wildebeeste, or hippo, and tearing off bits with that
>technique is all they can do. But a large crocodile would readily swallow an adult human whole.
>
>" . . . Most crocodilian attacks occur "out of the blue" as the attacking
>animal utilizes a sudden burst of speed and the advantage of
>surprise. Crocodiles can only consume about 10% of their live
>body weight in a feeding event," but a male adult estuarine or
>Nile crocodile weighing more than 900 kg (1 ton) can devour
>prey much larger in size than a human. According to one report,
>the stomach of an Australian estuarine crocodile contained the
>remains Of an aborigine and a 4-gallon drum containing two
>blankets. The crocodile can travel in water at a speed of 32 km/
>hr (20 miles/hr) and can charge a short distance over land at a
>maximum recorded speed of 17 km/hr (9.5 miles/hr). The
>enormous jaws and sharp teeth can bite with sufficient force to
>puncture an aluminum boat. Feeding in waterways adjacent to
>rural and urban areas has introduced crocodilians to cows,
>horses, and humans, who are attacked when they cross rivers,
>catch fish, draw water, wash, swim, or work in the fields . . "
>
>Auerbach's Wilderness Medicine
>By Paul S. Auerbach, Tracy A Cushing, N. Stuart Harris
>Page 687

But you have to wonder if such a robust digestive system would really
get upset by a hand axe, given the fact that crocs regularly swallow
stones (gastroliths).

Pandora

[Pandora]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 04:06:47 -0800 (PST), yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 7:28:41 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
>
>> Read the paper:
>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103436
>
>The topic -- the sheer quantity of these artefacts -- seems to be avoided in the
>'scientific' journals. Perhaps it's a bit like "Dark Matter" in cosmology. There is
>no useful information, and no one can write a Ph.d thesis or produce career-building
>publications on "nothing". But in Physics every scientist knows that there is an issue
>about "Dark Matter". In PA this topic -- the sheer quantity -- is just one of many that
>are not talked about. It's yet another fine item of invisible clothing in the naked
>emperor's wardrobe.
>
>It's ok if you find, among among those billions, two or three 'hand-axes' with traces
>of plant material on them. These can happily be examined under the microscope, and
>their origins discussed. That's all fine and traditional. 'Impossible' quantities of artefacts
>are best ignored.

Apparently not.

>See http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116482
>for a rare discussion -- and one that makes 'billions' seem excessively conservative.

Of course, now we're talking all lithic artefacts, not just handaxes,
across the entire African continent and over a period of a million
years. Nevertheless, those figures are still impressive.
But without further information and context such landscapes suggest
little about the use of those artefacts. I mean, if this was croc
poison then how would you know? What further data would suggest that
conclusion?

Pandora

[Pandora]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 16:07:46 -0800 (PST), yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Opinions that cannot be backed up with facts and argument are no more than prejudices.
>>
>> Another opinion.
>
>An expression that 2+2=5, or that "evolution is ony a theory" (as per Mike Pence) is less than
>an 'opinion'. It's a disgrace, a reversion to superstition or to irrationality. (And that's not just 'an opinion'.)

See what can be achieved with alternative facts:
https://www.scribd.com/document/337471737/

Pandora

[The rich & famous JTEM]

yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

> You are missing the point entirely. Acheulean bifaces are most peculiar 'tools', and honest PA scientists (of which there are a few) admit that they haven't a clue what they were for.

Actually, the vast majority of tools CLAIMED are not the
iconic, tear-drop-shaped "handaxe." Even most of the
biface "Tools," apparently, are not of that distinct
design.


> There are no equivalent numbers or sites for other tools such as choppers. The sites where billions of bifaces are to be found today were occupied only during inter-glacials, and then (probably) for only parts of those episodes --- e.g. Kathu Pan, South Africa. Further, none of those billions show signs of use, nor of retouching, that nearly all ordinary tools exhibit.

They're called "Geofacts" -- rocks that are mistaken for
human artifacts.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156892263430

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 6:57:52 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:

>> Crocs are more often ambush hunters. But not always. In any event, local
>> hominins could have found their ambush hunting unwelcome.
>
> But only a hominid with a food surplus could afford the poisoning
> strategy, if it worked. That would be unlikely prior to the Neolithic.

Most species have short-term food surpluses, and many (especially birds) cache their food. However, here we are talking about the reaction of a community to the loss of a child to a known local crocodile (or possibly to one of a known group of them). The womenfolk are likely to move away to a better place, or threaten to do so if the men don't sort out the problem. This kind of behaviour is seen generally (and not only in primates). It probably goes back about 300 Myr.

> More likely the hominids would consume the prey themselves.
>
> There's also no record of more recent hunter-gatherers using such a
> strategy, with crocs present on four different continents (Australia,
> Asia, North and South America).

It's a strategy that worked generally against all dangerous predators. It would not be devised to solve the problem with just one -- a relatively minor one, in terms of annual deaths. Villages just can't be too close to croc habitat, or they can be protected with thorn bushes or the like. And children (and adults) can be warned to never go near the crocs.

Learning how to make effective 'hand-axes' is no small task, especially when all knowledge of them has disappeared from the culture. However, as Daud Deden pointed out, at the start of this discussion about 20 years ago, North American tribes used strong sticks, pointed at both ends (and possibly crossed in pairs and tightly bound together?) to 'poison' wolves and other troublesome carnivores.

Expertise in 'hand-axe' technology very likely faded during each ice-age. Local populations (and often whole species) of large predator had been driven into extinction. The arid harshness of the climate -- especially the endless dust -- had also devastated hominin populations, forcing them to retreat to isolated coastal refugia. Crocodile predation might have continued at a low level, and 'hand-axes' might have continued to be employed against them. But that skill and knowledge would have been lost in the multi-generational chaos created by rising sea-levels at the end of an ice-age, when the inter-glacial returned. Coastal communities that knew how to cope with crocodiles got destroyed. Their members became inland refugees, with very short life-expectancies. And that happened time and again over a few thousand years.

However, I see ice-ages being caused by hominin behaviour -- killing off the large carnivore and omnivore predators -- thereby allowing a short-term explosion in herbivores, devastating whole continents. Although I'm sure that they were never as effective against crocs. Hominins were never well-adapted to swamps, and crocs would always thrive in such places.

Also I propose that ice-ages ended as a result of a change in hominin behaviour. Predation ceased to be a problem (except in a minor way from crocs) and, over time, they lost the knowledge of, and skills in, 'hand-axe' production. Over tens of thousands of years, nature began to right itself, grasslands and forests returned, with both predators and herbivore populations -- the herbivore populations now controlled by the predators.

> Your earlier suggestion that crocodiles don't chew their food and have
> no crushing teeth is falsified by crocs eating turtles:

They don't chew in the sense that many species (including ourselves) do. They don't need to crush their food before swallowing -- except when it's something like a large turtle, too big to go down the gullet without being smashed up.

> Would they notice a handaxe?

Those huge 'hand axes' were clearly meant for huge crocodiles. I can see the croc being teased by the hominids, as they dragged the bait through shallow water at the end of a rope, thereby encouraging the croc to take, and swallow it quickly.

> But you have to wonder if such a robust digestive system would really
> get upset by a hand axe, given the fact that crocs regularly swallow
> stones (gastroliths).

It's the razor-sharp edges that do the damage, as the peristaltic motion tries to push the object through the gut.

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 8:22:34 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:

>> See http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116482
>> for a rare discussion -- and one that makes 'billions' seem excessively conservative.
>
> Of course, now we're talking all lithic artefacts, not just handaxes

The authors generally seem to try to ignore 'debitage' and focus on larger items. The photographs here are not detailed enough to judge, but those about Kathu were all of 'hand-axes', and they were all packed tight, clearly at the bottom of a body of water.

> across the entire African continent and over a period of a million
> years. Nevertheless, those figures are still impressive.
> But without further information and context such landscapes suggest
> little about the use of those artefacts. I mean, if this was croc
> poison

Just to repeat, the great bulk of 'hand-axes' were for standard terrestrial carnivores and omnivores. On suffering severe gut pain, they would often head for water, where they finished up in the belly of a croc. The relatively small 'hand-axe' that killed the terrestrial animal would probably usually have had little effect on a large croc, although it might have killed smaller ones. In any event it would have finished up on the bottom of the river or lake.

> then how would you know? What further data would suggest that
> conclusion?

Scientific theories cannot be proved. They can only be disproved. So dense deposits in locations that could not have been lakes nor water-courses would be a disproof. Accurate dating could confirm or disprove my linking of 'hand-axes' to the creation, and eventual cessation of ice-ages. Likewise for patterns of (local and general) extinction of large omnivore and carnivore species.

Paul.

[Pandora]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:53:52 -0800 (PST), yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 8:22:34 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
>
>>> See http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116482
>>> for a rare discussion -- and one that makes 'billions' seem excessively conservative.
>>
>> Of course, now we're talking all lithic artefacts, not just handaxes
>
>The authors generally seem to try to ignore 'debitage' and focus on larger items.
>The photographs here are not detailed enough to judge, but those about Kathu
>were all of 'hand-axes', and they were all packed tight, clearly at the bottom of a body of water.

No, if you look at figure 2D of the Kathu paper you see mostly banded
iron rubble, some flakes, but as far as I can judge not a single hand
axe. The authors also state explicitly only a small sample of hand
axes was recovered.
The site was a hill of exposed chert-rich Banded Iron Formation at the
time of occupation, not a lake or river.

>> across the entire African continent and over a period of a million
>> years. Nevertheless, those figures are still impressive.
>> But without further information and context such landscapes suggest
>> little about the use of those artefacts. I mean, if this was croc
>> poison
>
>Just to repeat, the great bulk of 'hand-axes' were for standard terrestrial carnivores
>and omnivores. On suffering severe gut pain, they would often head for water, where
>they finished up in the belly of a croc. The relatively small 'hand-axe' that killed the
>terrestrial animal would probably usually have had little effect on a large croc, although
>it might have killed smaller ones. In any event it would have finished up on the bottom
>of the river or lake.

Thn the paleontological pattern should be significantly shifted toward
lacustrine and river sediments with mixed assemblages of hand axes and
predator remains. That's not the case.

>> then how would you know? What further data would suggest that
>> conclusion?
>
>Scientific theories cannot be proved. They can only be disproved. So dense deposits
>in locations that could not have been lakes nor water-courses would be a disproof.

Then Kathu is a killer.

>Accurate dating could confirm or disprove my linking of 'hand-axes' to the creation,
>and eventual cessation of ice-ages. Likewise for patterns of (local and general) extinction
>of large omnivore and carnivore species.

The typical Acheulian hand axe is currently no older than 1.76 myr,
postdating the onset of Quarternary ice age cycles at ~2.58 myr ago.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/abs/nature10372.html

Pandora

[Mario Petrinovic]

Can somebody tell me how hand axes mix with red ochre? Do they occur
together, or are they more, either one, or the other? Thanks.

[Pandora]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:30:35 -0800 (PST), yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 6:57:52 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
>
>>> Crocs are more often ambush hunters. But not always. In any event, local
>>> hominins could have found their ambush hunting unwelcome.
>>
>> But only a hominid with a food surplus could afford the poisoning
>> strategy, if it worked. That would be unlikely prior to the Neolithic.
>
>Most species have short-term food surpluses, and many (especially birds) cache their food.

For a good reason. Were they to lose such caches to others they would
not survive the lean season. As such they are not surpluses.

>However, here we are talking about the reaction of a community to the loss of a child to a
>known local crocodile (or possibly to one of a known group of them). The womenfolk are
>likely to move away to a better place, or threaten to do so if the men don't sort out the problem.
>This kind of behaviour is seen generally (and not only in primates). It probably goes back about 300 Myr.

Every potential prey species will evolve behaviour to minimize
predation, and occasionally prey may turn against the predator, but
until recently that did not involve wiping out the predator
population.

I thought that Quaternary ice ages were tied to astronomical cycles
(orbital forcing, Milankovitch). There is no pattern of cyclical
faunal change in the fossil record that supports your hypothesis.

>> Your earlier suggestion that crocodiles don't chew their food and have
>> no crushing teeth is falsified by crocs eating turtles:
>
>They don't chew in the sense that many species (including ourselves) do. They don't
>need to crush their food before swallowing -- except when it's something like a large
>turtle, too big to go down the gullet without being smashed up.
>
>> Would they notice a handaxe?
>
>Those huge 'hand axes' were clearly meant for huge crocodiles. I can see the croc
>being teased by the hominids, as they dragged the bait through shallow water at the
>end of a rope, thereby encouraging the croc to take, and swallow it quickly.

That would be a dangerous strategy. Crocs often come in numbers.
(5 victims in 10 seconds):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr7Tv4NgOSY

>> But you have to wonder if such a robust digestive system would really
>> get upset by a hand axe, given the fact that crocs regularly swallow
>> stones (gastroliths).
>
>It's the razor-sharp edges that do the damage, as the peristaltic motion tries to push the object through the gut.

They can handle sharp bone fragments, and hand axes do not tend to be
razor sharp unless made from obsidian.

Pandora

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:29:52 AM UTC-5, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:31:04 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:31:04 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > The bait trap complemented the leopard-proof dome hut / round shield in protecting bands at vulnerable times and places eg. sleep, pregnancy, infancy, water gathering, old age etc.
> >
> > The bait trap lured via scent, sight, taste, texture; while the dome shielded families from ambush by physically and visually obstructing attackers and making it easy and safe to stab them close-up, an otherwise very risky behavior.
>
> This is romantic nonsense. Firstly, leopards evolved only recently, and survive only because they avoid humans. "The modern leopard is suggested to have evolved in Africa 0.5 to 0.8 million years . . " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard). The earlier carnivores and omnivores. with which initial hominids had to cope, were much larger and much more dangerous. Hominin children could not be raised in their presence, and they had to be eliminated before hominin females would agree to live in such places. This task was completed by males laying 'poisoned' carcasses and continuing to do so in the surrounding territory for generation after generation.
- - -

Fossils of ancestors of the leopard have been found in East Africa and South Asia, dating back to the Pleistocene between 2 and 3.5 million years ago. wiki

Dome hut/round shield preceded both (knapped) stone tools and controlled fire (ember carrying and later fire drill).

Dome hut / round shield evolved directly from great ape bowl nest, same materials used in same form but inverted.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Pandora:

That would be a dangerous strategy. Crocs often come in numbers.
(5 victims in 10 seconds):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr7Tv4NgOSY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting video, that shows how deadly river crossing is for
grasseaters.
It also shows that grasseaters simply must cross that river (even
with a great risk for life). They must follow migration routes.
All this was great factor in ecology since the times environment
became open. Open environment is Africa (except rain forest arounf the river
Congo), Europe, and all the way to Movious line.
Humans (and hand axes) were in the middle of all this. First by
producing (and maintaining) this type of ecology (by firestick farming), and
second, by exploiting it.
Another thing is that (obviously), it is very hard to establish
migration routes from Africa into Euroasia. It wouldn't be hard for a
bipedal (or any other animal that doesn't follow migration routes, or isn't
locked in rain forest) to cross into Euroasia. Homo did that, without
problems. I don't think that animals have much problems doing that. Yet,
although Homo did that, his very close relative, Australopithecus, didn't do
that. Well, either he also followed migration routes, or he is locked in
rain forest. He isn't locked in rain forest, so, it is the migration routes
problem.

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Fire was used along the peripheries of wet areas, especially in monsoonal forests, not over vast arid areas which lacked sustainable moisture for food crops until irrigation developed.

There is a major waterfowl migratory pathway over Canaan & Levant. 

Homo differentiated from Australopithecus  by the adoption of waterproof rainforest ground-based dome huts,  which when flipped over served as croc-proof bowl boats to cross rivers and other open water; a long spear was used to punt through the shallows and to pierce fish, ducks etc. and pry up water lily & sedge rhyzomes, and to knock kernels of wild rice into the basket hull, long before the advent of specialized watercraft such as dugout canoes or tautly bound rafts, which eventually replaced them due to faster lateral locomotive propulsion in most areas.

[Pandora]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:48:37 -0800 (PST), "DDeden aka
note/nickname/alas_my_loves" <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:29:52 AM UTC-5, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:31:04 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:31:04 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>> > The bait trap complemented the leopard-proof dome hut / round shield in protecting bands at vulnerable times and places eg. sleep, pregnancy, infancy, water gathering, old age etc.
>> >
>> > The bait trap lured via scent, sight, taste, texture; while the dome shielded families from ambush by physically and visually obstructing attackers and making it easy and safe to stab them close-up, an otherwise very risky behavior.
>>
>> This is romantic nonsense. Firstly, leopards evolved only recently, and survive only because they avoid humans. "The modern leopard is suggested to have evolved in Africa 0.5 to 0.8 million years . . " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard). The earlier carnivores and omnivores. with which initial hominids had to cope, were much larger and much more dangerous. Hominin children could not be raised in their presence, and they had to be eliminated before hominin females would agree to live in such places. This task was completed by males laying 'poisoned' carcasses and continuing to do so in the surrounding territory for generation after generation.
>- - -
>
>Fossils of ancestors of the leopard have been found in East Africa and South Asia, dating back to the Pleistocene between 2 and 3.5 million years ago. wiki

If the material from the Upper Laetolil Beds is correctly identified
as Panthera sp. cf. P. pardus then the taxon may date back to
3.85-3.63 Ma.

>Dome hut/round shield preceded both (knapped) stone tools and controlled fire (ember carrying and later fire drill).

We have no evidence as to when hominids began to build such shelters.

>Dome hut / round shield evolved directly from great ape bowl nest, same materials used in same form but inverted.

There may be continuity from ape nests to dome shelters, but it seems
quite a behavioral/cognitive shift going from simply pulling in
branches and sitting down on them to gathering different construction
materials from the environment, setting up a stable frame, and
covering it.
http://footage.framepool.com/shotimg/qf/958072175-straw-hut-bushmanland-namibia-village-life-san-bushmen.jpg

Pandora

[Pandora]

You may have to distinguish between (seasonal) migration and
dispersal. In the former case the species follows its habitat (e.g.
wildebeast), in the latter it may expand its niche.
Dispersal throughout the African continent doesn't seem to have been a
problem for Australopithecus since it was present from Sterkfontein in
the south to Bahr el Ghazal in the north. But passing the bottleneck
out of Africa into Eurasia may have been a stretch.

Pandora

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:48:37 -0800 (PST), "DDeden aka
> note/nickname/alas_my_loves" <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:29:52 AM UTC-5, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:31:04 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:31:04 PM UTC, DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> >> > The bait trap complemented the leopard-proof dome hut / round shield in protecting bands at vulnerable times and places eg. sleep, pregnancy, infancy, water gathering, old age etc.
> >> >
> >> > The bait trap lured via scent, sight, taste, texture; while the dome shielded families from ambush by physically and visually obstructing attackers and making it easy and safe to stab them close-up, an otherwise very risky behavior.
> >>
> >> This is romantic nonsense. Firstly, leopards evolved only recently, and survive only because they avoid humans. "The modern leopard is suggested to have evolved in Africa 0.5 to 0.8 million years . . " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard). The earlier carnivores and omnivores. with which initial hominids had to cope, were much larger and much more dangerous. Hominin children could not be raised in their presence, and they had to be eliminated before hominin females would agree to live in such places. This task was completed by males laying 'poisoned' carcasses and continuing to do so in the surrounding territory for generation after generation.
> >- - -
> >
> >Fossils of ancestors of the leopard have been found in East Africa and South Asia, dating back to the Pleistocene between 2 and 3.5 million years ago. wiki
>
> If the material from the Upper Laetolil Beds is correctly identified
> as Panthera sp. cf. P. pardus then the taxon may date back to
> 3.85-3.63 Ma.

Plausible. My view is that there were always large opportunistic predators/scavengers affecting ancient Homo, eg. bears, eagles, canids, big cats, crocs, sharks; but none were specific predators on Homo, while there were some parasites which became dedicated to Homo (eg. malarial mosquitoes). The change from arboreal nesting to ground dome dwelling altered many features (fur loss, curled head hair, more fat and heavier (columnar) build, etc.) which did not occur in any apes and only slightly in australopiths.

>
> >Dome hut/round shield preceded both (knapped) stone tools and controlled fire (ember carrying and later fire drill).
>
> We have no evidence as to when hominids began to build such shelters.

Logic dictates that a change occurred after the Homo-Pan mutation split, since Pan nests the same as orangutan and young gorillas and no human population has ever been shown to do so. Physical morphology of Homo shows great reduction in climbing & swinging vs apes and monkeys. The loss of fur requires mosquito defense method, shelter precedes fire-smoke control. All great apes weave, all human groups are known to weave in some fashion. One function of stone tools was to cut tough vegetative fibers, (remains found), best explanation: shelter-related construction, since food would be chosen for ripeness.

A vast peatland area has recently been found in the Congo, possibly some ancient dome huts / round shields and/or Homo sp. will be found buried there. Otherwise, barring volcanic burial, rainforests are excellent recycling systems so physical evidence is unlikely to be found, even if "billions" of huts have dotted the rainforest throughout the distant past.

>
> >Dome hut / round shield evolved directly from great ape bowl nest, same materials used in same form but inverted.
>
> There may be continuity from ape nests to dome shelters, but it seems
> quite a behavioral/cognitive shift going from simply pulling in
> branches and sitting down on them to gathering different construction
> materials from the environment, setting up a stable frame, and
> covering it.
> http://footage.framepool.com/shotimg/qf/958072175-straw-hut-bushmanland-namibia-village-life-san-bushmen.jpg
>
> Pandora

All great ape mothers carefully construct woven bowl nests for their infants, otherwise they might fall to the ground or be plucked off by forest eagles.

Bushmen have a modified hut, due to desert nomadism. The original dome huts were poor in windy areas, the broad leave shingles flapping up like chicken feathers backed up in the wind.

There is indeed a big change, but it can be seen as incremental adaptation to the rainforest floor. Apes sleep above swamps on wood, Pygmies sleep above swamps but on solid ground.

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 12:30:02 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> https://youtu.be/ZmmU7hLPq7w

Marine flat oblong pebbles used as spatulas to spread ochre paste:

Researchers at Université de Montréal, Arizona State University and University of Genoa examined 29 pebble fragments recovered in the Caverna delle Arene Candide on the Mediterranean Sea in Liguria. In their study, published in the Cambridge Archeological Journal, they concluded that some 12,000 years ago the flat, oblong pebbles were brought up from the beach, used as spatulas to apply ochre paste to decorate the dead, then broken and discarded.
Read more at https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/02/broken-pebbles-offer-clues-to.html#JtRxS16lCgkjaMjh.99
- - -

Japanese women Ama divers used spatulas to scrape off abalones from submerged rocks, as did Tasmanian Pygmy women. Spatula paddles were used to form clay pots in some cultures.

- - -
[nonsense]
"Likewise it has even been argued that long-term human survival in tropical forests must have been impossible without some form of agricultural system"
Read more at https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/02/persistent-tropical-foraging-in.html#02OCSIohqObI5mOh.99

However, these claims seem to be incorrect in the case of tropical New Guinea, as a recent study by a research crew from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, the University of Otago, and the University of Oxford has demonstrated. In tropical New Guinea, where one of the earliest human experiments with agriculture occurred, agriculture apparently never replaced foraging as a primary subsistence strategy: "Montane tropical forest environments provided a stable source of subsistence for human hunter-gatherers in New Guinea", says Patrick Roberts, primary author of the study. "We have found out that foragers were living in close proximity to emerging farming groups, from 12,000 to 300 years ago, which indicates that agriculture was not a forced event in this part of the world."

Tropical forests have frequently been perceived as unattractive habitats for humans - both foragers and farmers - due to poor soils, difficulties of humidity, and issues of reliable nutrition. However, archaeological work in New Guinea, among other tropical regions, has now helped to refute this idea: "We can now affirm that humans have occupied areas in this region, covered today in rainforest, from 45,000 years ago", says..., Professor Glenn Summerhayes from the University of Otago, senior author of the study. "Some of the earliest evidence for the human development of agriculture comes precisely from the tropical forested portions of New Guinea."

"While intensive landscape modification and the domestication of plant taxa, including the banana, yam, and taro, occurred nearby, foragers continued to hunt and forage in tropical forest environments" states lead author, Patrick Roberts, of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.

Human survival in New Guinea - a continuum of farming and foraging

"While we often assume that agriculture is a desirable invention that replaced previous ways of obtaining food, in prehistoric New Guinea, agriculture is best seen as one part of a continuum of human survival strategies and certainly not as an inevitable development", says Roberts. This work also demonstrates how new methods, such as stable isotope analysis of tooth enamel and laser scanning from aircraft, are deepening archaeological knowledge of past human tropical forest use, where poor preservation, due to acidic soils and heavy rainfall, and difficulty of survey, due to dense vegetation, have often limited archaeological research. "The successful long-term exploitation of these environments is a key part of the adaptive flexibility that characterises our species relative to our ancestors. Humans have been able to exploit them continuously, and in diverse ways, since their first arrival there 45,000 years ago until the present-day where the expansion of plantations, industry and urbanism threaten their ongoing existence", concludes Roberts.

[Note: they ignore the critically important sago palm, source of pancakes & dugout canoes (and plausibly the first composite stone-wood tools?)!]

Read more at https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/02/persistent-tropical-foraging-in.html#02OCSIohqObI5mOh.99
- - -
Horse evolution & climate change
https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/02/climate-change-responsible-for-rapid.html#6AkvlWXqy3EmESS7.97

[Mario Petrinovic]

Pandora:
Mario Petrinovic:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know I have to research this more (unfortunately, netheir I have
enough time to research everything, but also I am slow mover, :) ), and I
will do this, some day, but, it is true that this wasn't a stretch for Homo,
which is almost the same species as Australopithecus.
I posted this because I am not sure if people trully understand
those seasonal migrations. The main thing is that they have to be done in
circles. You simply cannot go back the same way, because there isn't enough
food for the whole herd anymore at the place you passed alreday, and you
only can survive within a herd.
In open environment grass is everything. We even have primates that
adapted to grass eating (and those primates became very large). So, we have
those large herds, and predators around them, and this is the basis of the
whole environment. And we have to look everything around it through this,
most prominent, happening (seasonal migration). This is why I have problems
to translate australian Aborigines onto open environment of The Old World,
because you don't have those herds, there. But, those herds did establish in
North America.
So, this isn't just "following habitat". You got to move in circles,
and you got to know exactly how this circle looks like, in avdance. Because
if you move into a dead end street, you cannot go back anymore, and you are
dead. I don't see the way how an african herd can move into Asia (without
help from human herders). But, I'll research all the circumstances one day.

[Pandora]

They wouldn't have placed them in different genera if they were almost
the same species. Nevertheless, postcranially Australopithecus and
early Homo seem to be getting closer to each other.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12121.full

That would imply that locomotor pattern wasn't what kept
Australopithecus confined to Africa. But there's also a gap of some 1
myr between earliest Homo inside and first Homo outside Africa.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1352

> I posted this because I am not sure if people trully understand
>those seasonal migrations. The main thing is that they have to be done in
>circles. You simply cannot go back the same way, because there isn't enough

>food for the whole herd anymore at the place you passed already, and you

>only can survive within a herd.
> In open environment grass is everything. We even have primates that
>adapted to grass eating (and those primates became very large).

Restricted to Theropithecus and, to a lesser degree, Papio.

>So, we have
>those large herds, and predators around them, and this is the basis of the
>whole environment. And we have to look everything around it through this,
>most prominent, happening (seasonal migration). This is why I have problems
>to translate australian Aborigines onto open environment of The Old World,
>because you don't have those herds, there. But, those herds did establish in
>North America.
> So, this isn't just "following habitat". You got to move in circles,

>and you got to know exactly how this circle looks like, in advance. Because

>if you move into a dead end street, you cannot go back anymore, and you are
>dead. I don't see the way how an african herd can move into Asia (without
>help from human herders). But, I'll research all the circumstances one day.

It's true that bovids have a high degree of endemism with regard to
Africa (e.g. Alcelaphini (wildebeest, hartebeest, topi, etc.) entirely
confined to Africa), but some taxa do have representatives outside
that continent (e.g. Hippotragini (sable, roan, oryx, addax, etc.),
with one species, Arabian Oryx, outside the continent, and within the
genus Gazella (Antilopini) several species in both Africa and Asia).
So, they do move in and out, and with them also predators such as
lion, leopard, and cheetah. But there does seem to have been something
of a geographical/ecological barrier that few species were able to
take.
The question is, what spurred Homo, some 1 myr after its origin, to
disperse out of Africa?

Pandora

[Mario Petrinovic]

Pandora:
Mario Petrinovic:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. Scientists simply filled the gaps in knowledge of
Australopithecus by imposing parts of goriila onto it. This was in tune with
previous thinking that Australopithecus is half way between gorilla (or
chimp, or whatever) and humans. Now we know that ancestral morphology was
more generalized Pierolapithecus morphology (thanks god). I am glad things
finaly went the right way. The only thing, actually, that is left is to see
if abducted big toe foot (Ardipithecus, Oreopithecus) has the same
characteristics as adducted big toe foot (Australopithecus, Homo), with only
difference being abducted big toe. IOW, was the line of evolution of foot
the same in abducted and adducted big toe foot, as oposed to chimp/gorilla
foot. This thing I will also research one day, :).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would imply that locomotor pattern wasn't what kept
Australopithecus confined to Africa. But there's also a gap of some 1
myr between earliest Homo inside and first Homo outside Africa.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1352

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First I would like to see where did Homo come from, in the first
place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> I posted this because I am not sure if people trully understand
>those seasonal migrations. The main thing is that they have to be done in
>circles. You simply cannot go back the same way, because there isn't enough
>food for the whole herd anymore at the place you passed already, and you
>only can survive within a herd.
> In open environment grass is everything. We even have primates that
>adapted to grass eating (and those primates became very large).

Restricted to Theropithecus and, to a lesser degree, Papio.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theropithecus was largly spread in the past, and had some large
examples of species.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks very much, very informative, :).

[Mario Petrinovic]

Mario Petrinovic:

Yes. Scientists simply filled the gaps in knowledge of
Australopithecus by imposing parts of goriila onto it. This was in tune with
previous thinking that Australopithecus is half way between gorilla (or
chimp, or whatever) and humans. Now we know that ancestral morphology was
more generalized Pierolapithecus morphology (thanks god). I am glad things
finaly went the right way. The only thing, actually, that is left is to see
if abducted big toe foot (Ardipithecus, Oreopithecus) has the same
characteristics as adducted big toe foot (Australopithecus, Homo), with only
difference being abducted big toe. IOW, was the line of evolution of foot
the same in abducted and adducted big toe foot, as oposed to chimp/gorilla
foot. This thing I will also research one day, :).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, I'll take those four species and cut their big toes
off, like they don't exist. And then I will take a look at the rest of the
foot and see if it has adaptations to walking, to climbing, or both.

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Efe Pygmy dome hut (post-fire, pre-ceramic-metal)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7xNOI9g9Z7yLXVpSl9KR19udTQtd3BwaVMzMW15ZV9xWWpv/view?usp=sharing

[DDeden aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm

Glacial cycles 21k, 41k, 100k year Plus albedo effect of snow