On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 03:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Paul Crowley
<yelworcp@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday 26 August 2021 at 14:39:36 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:

If they were 'competent hunters" why
are their fossils so rare on the landscape?

Biology 101: the ecological (trophic, energy) pyramid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_pyramid

Therefore apex predators must be relatively rare.

If their theory was that hominins preyed
largely on carnivores (lions, leopards,
hyena, etc.,) then you might have some
slight beginnings of an argument. But
that's not the case. Their claim is that
hominins were carnivores (or largely so)
and chased after antelope, etc.,
competing with lions, leopards and the
like.

The idea is that early Pleistocene Homo as a faunivore occupied one of
the higher trophic levels, implying smaller numbers/less biomass
relative to lower levels of primary consumers.
But of course not as low as 1 hominin per 10 million bovids.

There are many daft theories about
human evolution. This is among the
worst. It conflicts with every principle
of ecology.

Is there anything in the evolution of
the taxon suggesting fitness for this
specialisation? . . . NO
Has the taxon any adaptations enabling
it to fit this niche? . . . NO
Are there any modern representatives
occupying this niche? . . . . NO
Are any reasons proposed for that
absence? . . . . NO
Is the taxon as a whole adapted for
life in the proposed habitat? . . . NO
It is agreed that the taxon has some
distinctive advantages -- intelligence
and cultural adaptability -- does the
theory propose that these were
exploited? . . . NO
Does it focus on the reproductive
element of the taxon -- the females
and their young? . . . . NO
Does the diet of modern members
of the taxon reflect the proposed
paleolithic diet? . . . NO

This list could be extended indefinitely.

Apparently you're in a state of categorical denial.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday 28 August 2021 at 16:14:30 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:

Therefore apex predators must be relatively rare.

If their theory was that hominins preyed
largely on carnivores (lions, leopards,
hyena, etc.,) then you might have some
slight beginnings of an argument. But
that's not the case. Their claim is that
hominins were carnivores (or largely so)
and chased after antelope, etc.,
competing with lions, leopards and the
like.

The idea is that early Pleistocene Homo as a faunivore occupied one of
the higher trophic levels,

Those are empty words -- obviously so
when you can't identify any other
occupants or these 'higher trophic levels'.
In any case, no one doubts that much of
early hominin diet consisted of vegetables.

implying smaller numbers/less biomass
relative to lower levels of primary consumers.

And if hominins had wings, they'd fly
really high. IOW you first have to show
that your assumption has some basis
in reality.

But of course not as low as 1 hominin per 10 million bovids.

". . . In East Africa, my colleague Don Johanson tells me that there
is something like a one in ten million chance of finding an early
hominin fossil, if you know that they are already on the landscape.
Generally what that translates to is that about one in ten million
of the fossils they find in East Africa is an antelope fossil or some
other animal fossil . . "

You mentioned research into the Manonga
Valley from ~4.0-5.5 ma, which 'should'
have had plenty of hominin fossils -- IF
standard PA assumptions had some basis
in reality. They found none.

100 million bovid fossils to one hominin --
or GREATER -- odds are to be expected
when none have already been found nearby.
Hominins simply weren't present -- except
in extremely low numbers in rare locations.

Apparently you're in a state of categorical denial.

Doctrine (based on totally unquestioned
assumptions) has overwhelmed you -- as it
has the whole profession. You've become
blind to the evidence. Hominins were NO
part of that ecology. They simply weren't
there.

OK, it's hard to take. They were necessarily
somewhere in the neighbourhood You just
have to be honest with yourself and do your
best to work it out. There are a whole
range of similar questions, such as: "How
did early (or any) hominins cope with large
predators?". (Kortlandt is the only PA
person AFAIK who was honest enough to
try to face up to that one -- not that his
answers were convincing.)

But such an attitude will not sit well with
your colleagues. No one likes the bastard
who keeps asking hard questions to which
they have no answer -- and where they are
part of huge institutions which have no
answers -- while pretending that they're
'scientific' and have had, for a hundred or
more years, thoroughly tested solutions
to all the obvious questions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 6:54:53 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:

On Saturday 28 August 2021 at 16:14:30 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:

Therefore apex predators must be relatively rare.

If their theory was that hominins preyed
largely on carnivores (lions, leopards,
hyena, etc.,) then you might have some
slight beginnings of an argument. But
that's not the case. Their claim is that
hominins were carnivores (or largely so)
and chased after antelope, etc.,
competing with lions, leopards and the
like.

The idea is that early Pleistocene Homo as a faunivore occupied one of
the higher trophic levels,

But not what I would call the apex level, and it looks like you don't either:

Those are empty words -- obviously so
when you can't identify any other
occupants or these 'higher trophic levels'.

Smaller omnivores would be my guess. Like some members of
the raccoon family. Also bears, see below.

In any case, no one doubts that much of
early hominin diet consisted of vegetables.
implying smaller numbers/less biomass
relative to lower levels of primary consumers.

And if hominins had wings, they'd fly
really high. IOW you first have to show
that your assumption has some basis
in reality.

Analogy: no one doubts that meat comprises a minority
of the consumption of most members of the bear family,
yet we do think of bears as high on the food chain (trophic levels).

I think you are getting too hung up on semantics here.

But of course not as low as 1 hominin per 10 million bovids.

". . . In East Africa, my colleague Don Johanson tells me that there
is something like a one in ten million chance of finding an early
hominin fossil, if you know that they are already on the landscape.

Generally what that translates to is that about one in ten million
of the fossils they find in East Africa is an antelope fossil or some
other animal fossil . . "

I suspect antelopes were much more common in East Africa
than hominins. Also, most fossils are of invertebrates or plants.

You mentioned research into the Manonga
Valley from ~4.0-5.5 ma, which 'should'
have had plenty of hominin fossils -- IF
standard PA assumptions had some basis
in reality. They found none.

100 million bovid fossils to one hominin --
or GREATER -- odds are to be expected
when none have already been found nearby.
Hominins simply weren't present -- except
in extremely low numbers in rare locations.

Apparently you're in a state of categorical denial.

Doctrine (based on totally unquestioned
assumptions) has overwhelmed you -- as it
has the whole profession. You've become
blind to the evidence. Hominins were NO
part of that ecology. They simply weren't
there.

OK, it's hard to take. They were necessarily
somewhere in the neighbourhood You just
have to be honest with yourself and do your
best to work it out. There are a whole
range of similar questions, such as: "How
did early (or any) hominins cope with large
predators?". (Kortlandt is the only PA
person AFAIK who was honest enough to
try to face up to that one -- not that his
answers were convincing.)

But such an attitude will not sit well with
your colleagues. No one likes the bastard
who keeps asking hard questions to which
they have no answer -- and where they are
part of huge institutions which have no
answers -- while pretending that they're
'scientific' and have had, for a hundred or
more years, thoroughly tested solutions
to all the obvious questions.

It's fun to play the role of "Jack the Giant Professor Killer"
but a little more respect might garner you some
more thoughtful answers. Over in talk.origins, someone
was disrespectful a couple of years ago to a leading ungulate paleontologist, Christine Janis, but after he apologized for his rudeness,
Christine was surprisingly candid about the spottiness of
our knowledge about the questions he was posing.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:06:31 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:

Really silly paper in Nature. It seems to
gather together every current ill-considered
fashionable PA wheeze -- such as "running
to exhaustion" and present it all as
'uncontested fact".

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94783-4
". . . We provide evidence of hominin primary access to animal
resources and emphasize the role that meat played in their diets,
their ecology and their anatomical evolution, ultimately resulting in
the ecologically unrestricted terrestrial adaptation of our species. . . "

And John Hawks approves of it (more-or-less)
John Hawks@johnhawks 6:56 PM · Aug 13, 2021·TweetDeck
"The paper's discussion raises lots of reasons why the anatomy of
early Homo supports the idea that they were competent hunters.
On this I don't disagree"

If they were 'competent hunters" why
are their fossils so rare on the landscape?

The authors do a good job of perpetuating the usual savanna hunter story.

Endurance running shows up. The problem is that they claim He was running and walking, when actually He was waddling,

If the ground is neither too wet nor too dry, tracks show up nicely. So the prey doesn't have
to be in sight while being worn down to exhaustion by alternating between walking and running.

Discover Magazine once had a detailed article about endurance vs. speed.While we are among the
slowest sprinters, long distance endurance puts only a few animals (camel, elephant, but few if any antelopes)
ahead of us. I believe Homo erectus was at least as good at endurance as we are.

an intermediate striding gait where the head was further forward while walking on level land than Hs, thus the advantage of dense occiput and nuchal ligament to cross-balance and maintain momentum. In order to flee, they would have had to get down into

a quadrupedal sprinter's start.

Sprinters do start from a quadrupedal stance, but for longer distances
the advantage of that kind of start becomes comparatively insignificant. With good advance warning,
the difference can be disregarded.

In Hs, the gait became refined as the 'anchor point' shifted from the skull rear to the bony chin in front of the larger skull & brain. Note that unlike great apes, humans & hylobatids have long Achilles tendons.

Thanks for the anatomy lesson, but I'm not sure how relevant it is.

The presence of a nuchal ligament in H. erectus is suggestive of the stabilization of the head to the trunk, probably to counter the shock wave effect of the heel strike of the foot during running57,58. The fact that other cursor mammal runners have

nuchal ligaments suggests that H. erectus was also a runner. The co-occurrence of a nuchal ligament with the earliest evidence of long legs in a larger body size (which, although also selected for by walking, are essential for running) supports the
interpretation that this hominin taxon engaged in endurance running. Additional evidence for the stability needed during running comes from the long Achilles tendon, the podal plantar arch, the short forefoot and, especially, the enlarged semicircular
canals of the ear57,58. An expanded gluteus maximus, which


Would you like to finish your sentence now?


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pandora wrote:

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 03:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Paul Crowley
<yelworcp@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday 26 August 2021 at 14:39:36 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:

If they were 'competent hunters" why
are their fossils so rare on the landscape?

Biology 101: the ecological (trophic, energy) pyramid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_pyramid

Therefore apex predators must be relatively rare.

If their theory was that hominins preyed
largely on carnivores (lions, leopards,
hyena, etc.,) then you might have some
slight beginnings of an argument. But
that's not the case. Their claim is that
hominins were carnivores (or largely so)
and chased after antelope, etc.,
competing with lions, leopards and the
like.

The idea is that early Pleistocene Homo as a faunivore occupied one of
the higher trophic levels, implying smaller numbers/less biomass
relative to lower levels of primary consumers.
But of course not as low as 1 hominin per 10 million bovids.

This is of some relevance here:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleobiology/article/on-calibrating-the-completometer-for-the-mammalian-fossil-record/2E575C53B13487DBBB08E541D04A4466

Abstract
We know that the fossil record is incomplete. But how incomplete? Here we
very
coarsely estimate the completeness of the mammalian record in the Miocene, assuming that the duration of a mammalian species is about 1 Myr and the species
diversity has stayed constant and is structurally comparable to the taxonomic diversity today. The overall completeness under these assumptions appears
to be
around 4%, but there are large differences across taxonomic groups. We
find that the
fossil record of proboscideans and perissodactyls as we know it for the
Miocene must
be close to complete, while we might know less than 15% of the species of artiodactyl
or carnivore fossil species and only about 1% of primate species of the Miocene. The
record of small mammals appears much less complete than that of large mammals.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 9:29:07 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:06:31 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:

Really silly paper in Nature. It seems to
gather together every current ill-considered
fashionable PA wheeze -- such as "running
to exhaustion" and present it all as
'uncontested fact".

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94783-4
". . . We provide evidence of hominin primary access to animal
resources and emphasize the role that meat played in their diets,
their ecology and their anatomical evolution, ultimately resulting in the ecologically unrestricted terrestrial adaptation of our species. . . "

And John Hawks approves of it (more-or-less)
John Hawks@johnhawks 6:56 PM · Aug 13, 2021·TweetDeck
"The paper's discussion raises lots of reasons why the anatomy of
early Homo supports the idea that they were competent hunters.
On this I don't disagree"

If they were 'competent hunters" why
are their fossils so rare on the landscape?

The authors do a good job of perpetuating the usual savanna hunter story.

Endurance running shows up. The problem is that they claim He was running and walking, when actually He was waddling,

If the ground is neither too wet nor too dry, tracks show up nicely. So the prey doesn't have
to be in sight while being worn down to exhaustion by alternating between walking and running.

Plains ungulates walk and run daily, they don't wear down. Only non-hunters would believe the endurance hunting scenario.

Discover Magazine once had a detailed article about endurance vs. speed.While we are among the
slowest sprinters, long distance endurance puts only a few animals (camel, elephant, but few if any antelopes)
ahead of us. I believe Homo erectus was at least as good at endurance as we are.

Neither ever used that method. Its a PA myth.

an intermediate striding gait where the head was further forward while walking on level land than Hs, thus the advantage of dense occiput and nuchal ligament to cross-balance and maintain momentum. In order to flee, they would have had to get down

into a quadrupedal sprinter's start.

Sprinters do start from a quadrupedal stance, but for longer distances
the advantage of that kind of start becomes comparatively insignificant. With good advance warning,
the difference can be disregarded.

Nope.

In Hs, the gait became refined as the 'anchor point' shifted from the skull rear to the bony chin in front of the larger skull & brain. Note that unlike great apes, humans & hylobatids have long Achilles tendons.

Thanks for the anatomy lesson, but I'm not sure how relevant it is.

Humans drink water with 2 cupped hands, as do hylobatids, no other hominoid does.

The presence of a nuchal ligament in H. erectus is suggestive of the stabilization of the head to the trunk, probably to counter the shock wave effect of the heel strike of the foot during running57,58. The fact that other cursor mammal runners have

nuchal ligaments suggests that H. erectus was also a runner. The co-occurrence of a nuchal ligament with the earliest evidence of long legs in a larger body size (which, although also selected for by walking, are essential for running) supports the
interpretation that this hominin taxon engaged in endurance running. Additional evidence for the stability needed during running comes from the long Achilles tendon, the podal plantar arch, the short forefoot and, especially, the enlarged semicircular
canals of the ear57,58. An expanded gluteus maximus, which

Would you like to finish your sentence now?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Why bother, you prefer endurance hunting myths to reality.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 2:34:45 AM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 9:29:07 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:06:31 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:

Really silly paper in Nature. It seems to
gather together every current ill-considered
fashionable PA wheeze -- such as "running
to exhaustion" and present it all as
'uncontested fact".

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94783-4
". . . We provide evidence of hominin primary access to animal resources and emphasize the role that meat played in their diets, their ecology and their anatomical evolution, ultimately resulting in the ecologically unrestricted terrestrial adaptation of our species. . . "

And John Hawks approves of it (more-or-less)
John Hawks@johnhawks 6:56 PM · Aug 13, 2021·TweetDeck
"The paper's discussion raises lots of reasons why the anatomy of early Homo supports the idea that they were competent hunters.
On this I don't disagree"

If they were 'competent hunters" why
are their fossils so rare on the landscape?

The authors do a good job of perpetuating the usual savanna hunter story.

Endurance running shows up. The problem is that they claim He was running and walking, when actually He was waddling,

If the ground is neither too wet nor too dry, tracks show up nicely. So the prey doesn't have
to be in sight while being worn down to exhaustion by alternating between walking and running.

Plains ungulates walk and run daily, they don't wear down.

They walk and run all day without stopping? Where do you get this information?

Only non-hunters would believe the endurance hunting scenario.

You, a non-paleo-hunter [1], obviously don't believe it, but why is your judgment any better
than that of the Nature editors who approved the article?

[1] You never followed a deer for a whole day with snow on the ground, did you? If you had, you might have been able to dispatch it at the end of the day with a spear thrust,
if there is anything to what I wrote about next.

Discover Magazine once had a detailed article about endurance vs. speed. While we are among the
slowest sprinters, long distance endurance puts only a few animals (camel, elephant, but few if any antelopes)
ahead of us. I believe Homo erectus was at least as good at endurance as we are.

Neither ever used that method. Its a PA myth.

No method involved here: *Discover* simply talked about
being able to keep going for a whole day and covering a lot of distance to boot.

an intermediate striding gait where the head was further forward while walking on level land than Hs, thus the advantage of dense occiput and nuchal ligament to cross-balance and maintain momentum.

You shouldn't have tried to sound erudite. A word search in the Nature article for "nuchal" showed where
you got this information AND their connection with endurance running:

"The fact that other cursor mammal runners have nuchal ligaments suggests that H. erectus was also a runner. The co-occurrence of a nuchal ligament with the earliest evidence of long legs in a larger body size (which, although also selected for by
walking, are essential for running) supports the interpretation that this hominin taxon engaged in endurance running."

In order to flee, they would have had to get down into a quadrupedal sprinter's start.

Sprinters do start from a quadrupedal stance, but for longer distances
the advantage of that kind of start becomes comparatively insignificant. With good advance warning,
the difference can be disregarded.

Nope.

Tell me why you disagree, and if you try, you might discover that you misread what I wrote.

In Hs, the gait became refined as the 'anchor point' shifted from the skull rear to the bony chin in front of the larger skull & brain. Note that unlike great apes, humans & hylobatids have long Achilles tendons.

Thanks for the anatomy lesson, but I'm not sure how relevant it is.

Humans drink water with 2 cupped hands, as do hylobatids, no other hominoid does.

Read Judges 7: 3-6 to see where out of 10,000 soldiers, only 300 drank with cupped hands.

Besides, you are doing zilch to explain the relevance of what you wrote earlier.

The presence of a nuchal ligament in H. erectus is suggestive of the stabilization of the head to the trunk, probably to counter the shock wave effect of the heel strike of the foot during running57,58. The fact that other cursor mammal runners

have nuchal ligaments suggests that H. erectus was also a runner. The co-occurrence of a nuchal ligament with the earliest evidence of long legs in a larger body size (which, although also selected for by walking, are essential for running) supports the
interpretation that this hominin taxon engaged in endurance running. Additional evidence for the stability needed during running comes from the long Achilles tendon, the podal plantar arch, the short forefoot and, especially, the enlarged semicircular
canals of the ear57,58. An expanded gluteus maximus, which

Would you like to finish your sentence now?

You give a rotten excuse for not finishing it below.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Why bother, you prefer endurance hunting myths to reality.

I see. You dismiss a *Nature* article AND an article in *Discover* back in the 1980's,
when it was still on the level where *Scientific American* was a decade ago, and you call it a "myth" without any evidence but your say-so for what you claim to be "reality".

I expect such behavior in sci.bio.paleontology from Oxyaena and John Harshman, but
from you this comes as an unpleasant novelty.


Peter Nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 1:56:33 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 2:34:45 AM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 9:29:07 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:06:31 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:

Really silly paper in Nature. It seems to
gather together every current ill-considered
fashionable PA wheeze -- such as "running
to exhaustion" and present it all as
'uncontested fact".

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94783-4
". . . We provide evidence of hominin primary access to animal resources and emphasize the role that meat played in their diets, their ecology and their anatomical evolution, ultimately resulting in
the ecologically unrestricted terrestrial adaptation of our species. . . "

And John Hawks approves of it (more-or-less)
John Hawks@johnhawks 6:56 PM · Aug 13, 2021·TweetDeck
"The paper's discussion raises lots of reasons why the anatomy of early Homo supports the idea that they were competent hunters.
On this I don't disagree"

If they were 'competent hunters" why
are their fossils so rare on the landscape?

The authors do a good job of perpetuating the usual savanna hunter story.

Endurance running shows up. The problem is that they claim He was running and walking, when actually He was waddling,

If the ground is neither too wet nor too dry, tracks show up nicely. So the prey doesn't have
to be in sight while being worn down to exhaustion by alternating between walking and running.

Don't confuse tracking wounded prey (very common in Homo) with endurance running-hunting (uncommon except during teen coming of age ritual hunting drive herding prey towards a group of static hunters).

Plains ungulates walk and run daily, they don't wear down.

They walk and run all day without stopping? Where do you get this information?

Millions of years of open plains evolution. Do you believe that healthy prey can be chased for many hours without being confused with hundreds of other identical prey?

Only non-hunters would believe the endurance hunting scenario.

You, a non-paleo-hunter

I have hunted with bow, tracked, killed, gutted, cooked and eaten whitetail deer.

[1], obviously don't believe it, but why is your judgment any better

than that of the Nature editors who approved the article?

How many have done what I have done?

[1] You never followed a deer for a whole day with snow on the ground, did you?

You believe a myth, then ask if I have enacted it.

If you had, you might have been able to dispatch it at the end of the day with a spear thrust,
if there is anything to what I wrote about next.

I knew where the deer bedded down and where they drank water. I hid behind a log, rose and arrowed a buck within 2 hrs.
Spearing would have taken another hour, to arrange a funnel of brush to bring them closer.

Discover Magazine once had a detailed article about endurance vs. speed. While we are among the
slowest sprinters, long distance endurance puts only a few animals (camel, elephant, but few if any antelopes)
ahead of us. I believe Homo erectus was at least as good at endurance as we are.

Homo erectus Humerus, upper arm bone density

https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/71962

Homo erectus overhand throwing https://www.insidescience.org/news/homo-erectus-was-original-starting-pitcher

Homo erectus was not a gracile runner like AMHs, but a trudging walker and waddling runner with strong arms able to throw overhand, unlike chimps.

--

Neither ever used that method. Its a PA myth.

No method involved here: *Discover* simply talked about
being able to keep going for a whole day and covering a lot of distance to boot.

Not H erectus nor neanderthal.

an intermediate striding gait where the head was further forward while walking on level land than Hs, thus the advantage of dense occiput and nuchal ligament to cross-balance and maintain momentum.

You shouldn't have tried to sound erudite. A word search in the Nature article for "nuchal" showed where
you got this information AND their connection with endurance running:

Right, and they omit the most significant point which I did not.

"The fact that other cursor mammal runners have nuchal ligaments suggests that H. erectus was also a runner. The co-occurrence of a nuchal ligament with the earliest evidence of long legs in a larger body size (which, although also selected for by

walking, are essential for running) supports the interpretation that this hominin taxon engaged in endurance running."

In order to flee, they would have had to get down into a quadrupedal sprinter's start.

Sprinters do start from a quadrupedal stance, but for longer distances the advantage of that kind of start becomes comparatively insignificant.

In AMHs.

With good advance warning,

the difference can be disregarded.

Nope.

Tell me why you disagree, and if you try, you might discover that you misread what I wrote.

You keep confusing AMHs with H erectus. Look at the bone density of H erectus. How far is he going to run to wear down gracile antelopes? Why not walk around to encircle and constrict by throwing spears and stones?

In Hs, the gait became refined as the 'anchor point' shifted from the skull rear to the bony chin in front of the larger skull & brain. Note that unlike great apes, humans & hylobatids have long Achilles tendons.

Thanks for the anatomy lesson, but I'm not sure how relevant it is.

Ignorance is bliss?

Humans drink water with 2 cupped hands, as do hylobatids, no other hominoid does.

Read Judges 7: 3-6 to see where out of 10,000 soldiers, only 300 drank with cupped hands.

Myths again.

Gibbons and humans have chins, drink 2fisted, lack laryngeal air sacs, are obligate orthograde bipedalists, Unlike all others. Endurance running-hunting played no significant part in either's evolution.

Besides, you are doing zilch to explain the relevance of what you wrote earlier.

The presence of a nuchal ligament in H. erectus is suggestive of the stabilization of the head to the trunk, probably to counter the shock wave effect of the heel strike of the foot during running57,58. The fact that other cursor mammal runners

have nuchal ligaments suggests that H. erectus was also a runner. The co-occurrence of a nuchal ligament with the earliest evidence of long legs in a larger body size (which, although also selected for by walking, are essential for running) supports the
interpretation that this hominin taxon engaged in endurance running. Additional evidence for the stability needed during running comes from the long Achilles tendon, the podal plantar arch, the short forefoot and, especially, the enlarged semicircular
canals of the ear57,58. An expanded gluteus maximus, which

Would you like to finish your sentence now?

You give a rotten excuse for not finishing it below.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Why bother, you prefer endurance hunting myths to reality.

I see. You dismiss a *Nature* article AND an article in *Discover* back in the 1980's,

No, I corrected them.

when it was still on the level where *Scientific American* was a decade ago, and you call it a "myth" without any evidence but your say-so for what you claim to be "reality".

I expect such behavior in sci.bio.paleontology from Oxyaena and John Harshman, but
from you this comes as an unpleasant novelty.

Gigo.

Peter Nyikos

If you namedrop once more, say goodbye and leave.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 2:09:08 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday 28 August 2021 at 16:14:30 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:

Therefore apex predators must be relatively rare.

If their theory was that hominins preyed
largely on carnivores (lions, leopards,
hyena, etc.,) then you might have some
slight beginnings of an argument. But
that's not the case. Their claim is that
hominins were carnivores (or largely so)
and chased after antelope, etc.,
competing with lions, leopards and the
like.

The idea is that early Pleistocene Homo as a faunivore occupied one of
the higher trophic levels,

But not what I would call the apex level, and it looks like you don't either:

There is no 'apex level' for large terrestrial
mammals. There are no 'super-carnivores'
that live by eating other carnivores

Those are empty words -- obviously so
when you can't identify any other
occupants or these 'higher trophic levels'.

Smaller omnivores would be my guess. Like some members of
the raccoon family. Also bears, see below.

Polar bears eat seals, and are really
part of a marine trophic system.
They can be regarded as 'super-
carnivores' with (for humans) highly
toxic livers.

Analogy: no one doubts that meat comprises a minority
of the consumption of most members of the bear family,
yet we do think of bears as high on the food chain (trophic levels).

Other than polar bears, no one thinks
of bears as high in the food chain.

I think you are getting too hung up on semantics here.

Not me. Humans (and undoubtedly their
hominin ancestors) find carnivore liver
toxic. Ergo, they certainly weren't apex
predators. In fact (given that intolerance
and the sheer difficulty of catching fast
prey) they were hardly predators at all
and ate little meat.

But of course not as low as 1 hominin per 10 million bovids.

". . . In East Africa, my colleague Don Johanson tells me that there
is something like a one in ten million chance of finding an early
hominin fossil, if you know that they are already on the landscape.

Generally what that translates to is that about one in ten million
of the fossils they find in East Africa is an antelope fossil or some
other animal fossil . . "

I suspect antelopes were much more common in East Africa
than hominins.

Yep, around 100 million to one -- based on
the visible fossil record. Meaning that
hominins were not, in any sense, part of
the ecology. They were absent. BUT. over
wide swathes of Africa, they left enormous
numbers of tools -- i.e. 'handaxes'.

So, what's the story? The great bulk of
professional PAs reflect the emptiness of
your mind. Not aware that there's even
a problem!

It's fun to play the role of "Jack the Giant Professor Killer"
but a little more respect might garner you some
more thoughtful answers.

You haven't a clue as to what's going on. The
professors have not being doing their job for
many decades. They've forgotten the questions
that they are supposed to be answering. And
you are so enthralled in your admiration of the
fine clothes they claim to wear, that you have
not noticed their nakedness.

Where are the explanations of bipedalism.
Is 'jumping over small streams' still one of
the leading theories?

In what habitat did the taxon evolve? It
certainly wasn't one for which it is wholly
unfitted -- the African savanna. But that's
still the ONLY contender in the pages of
Nature, Science, et al.

What were all those billions of 'hand-axes'
for? How come they were left in enormous
piles, most ass sharp as the day they were
made?

Is there any progress towards a solution
to this and similar questions? The answer
is NO, NO, NO and always NO.

Was there ever a 'science' so bereft of purpose
and sense? And so unaware of its own defects?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I've straightened out the attributions below.

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 11:11:43 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 2:09:08 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 6:54:53 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:

On Saturday 28 August 2021 at 16:14:30 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 03:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Paul Crowley <yelw...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday 26 August 2021 at 14:39:36 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:

Therefore apex predators must be relatively rare.

If their theory was that hominins preyed
largely on carnivores (lions, leopards,
hyena, etc.,) then you might have some
slight beginnings of an argument. But
that's not the case. Their claim is that
hominins were carnivores (or largely so)
and chased after antelope, etc.,
competing with lions, leopards and the
like.

The idea is that early Pleistocene Homo as a faunivore occupied one of >>> the higher trophic levels,

But not what I would call the apex level, and it looks like you don't either:

There is no 'apex level' for large terrestrial
mammals. There are no 'super-carnivores'
that live by eating other carnivores

I see you don't count the polar bear as being terrestrial. What would be your word for it?
["amphibian" doesn't cut it, obviously; would "maritime" do?]

Of course, there are plenty of super-carnivores in the waters of the earth, which cover
the majority of the planet. The sperm whale is a prime example, and disqualifying
the giant squid and other squids as "carnivores" on the grounds that they aren't vertebrates
would be silly.

Those are empty words -- obviously so
when you can't identify any other
occupants or these 'higher trophic levels'.

Smaller omnivores would be my guess. Like some members of
the raccoon family. Also bears, see below.

Polar bears eat seals, and are really
part of a marine trophic system.
They can be regarded as 'super-
carnivores' with (for humans) highly
toxic livers.

Yes, Vitamin A is poisonous to us at high levels. That is partly
because, unlike e.g. Vitamin C or alcohol, and like THC,
it is stored in fat. You can get over being badly drunk in two days,
but the effects of being stoned linger for a month.

[I did experience the first effect once, but never the second:
like Bill Clinton, I didn't inhale.]

Analogy: no one doubts that meat comprises a minority
of the consumption of most members of the bear family,
yet we do think of bears as high on the food chain (trophic levels).

Other than polar bears, no one thinks
of bears as high in the food chain.

I disagree: the grizzly has a much higher percentage of
meat consumption than the black bear, and it will hunt
and eat black bears, even adults guarding their cubs,
where the ranges of the two overlap.

Black bears essentially never make unprovoked attacks on humans.
Grizzlies, on the other hand, sometimes regard humans as natural prey.
Polar bears too, of course. The residents of Svalbard tote rifles routinely, for that reason.

I think you are getting too hung up on semantics here.

Not me. Humans (and undoubtedly their
hominin ancestors) find carnivore liver
toxic. Ergo, they certainly weren't apex
predators. In fact (given that intolerance
and the sheer difficulty of catching fast
prey) they were hardly predators at all
and ate little meat.

The Nature article says otherwise. Daud isn't doing a crash-hot job
of refuting it. Can you do better?

But of course not as low as 1 hominin per 10 million bovids.

". . . In East Africa, my colleague Don Johanson tells me that there
is something like a one in ten million chance of finding an early hominin fossil, if you know that they are already on the landscape.

Generally what that translates to is that about one in ten million
of the fossils they find in East Africa is an antelope fossil or some other animal fossil . . "

I suspect antelopes were much more common in East Africa
than hominins.

The formerly screwed-up attributions left their mark below: there should be two more "chevrons" (> symbols)
in the left margin for the next two paragraphs.

Yep, around 100 million to one -- based on
the visible fossil record. Meaning that
hominins were not, in any sense, part of
the ecology. They were absent. BUT. over
wide swathes of Africa, they left enormous
numbers of tools -- i.e. 'handaxes'.

So, what's the story? The great bulk of
professional PAs reflect the emptiness of
your mind. Not aware that there's even
a problem!

It's fun to play the role of "Jack the Giant Professor Killer"
but a little more respect might garner you some
more thoughtful answers.

You haven't a clue as to what's going on.

Actually, I do. I know that many if not most professional biologists have become ideologues where many things, such
as the "birds are dinosaurs" dogma, are concerned.
Another example: the cladophiles and cladomaniacs have let
their undeserved victory in "the cladist wars" go to their heads.

I could tell you more, but I hope you get the picture already of where I am coming from.
As a mathematician, I am appalled by how so many biologists have sold
their intellectual birthright for various messes of pottages.

The professors have not being doing their job for
many decades. They've forgotten the questions
that they are supposed to be answering.

On the whole this is true, but these things need to be taken
on a case by case basis. Pandora is an invaluable contributor
to sci.bio.paleontology, and is invariably thoughtful there.
Perhaps she may not be that way here, but I will give her the respect I think she deserves
until I see clear signs that she doesn't deserve it here.

And you are so enthralled in your admiration of the
fine clothes they claim to wear, that you have
not noticed their nakedness.

Are you generally so prone to jump to conclusions about people?

Where are the explanations of bipedalism.
Is 'jumping over small streams' still one of
the leading theories?

I don't know; I am basically new to sci.anthropology.paleo.

In what habitat did the taxon evolve? It
certainly wasn't one for which it is wholly
unfitted -- the African savanna. But that's
still the ONLY contender in the pages of
Nature, Science, et al.

I see you are just as firm in your convictions as Daud Deden
[who uses his name, and not some silly byline as here, in s.b.p.]

What were all those billions of 'hand-axes'
for? How come they were left in enormous
piles, most ass sharp as the day they were
made?

I've seen the hypothesis that they were for tearing through
the tough hides of dead mammals to get at the meat.
How does that hypothesis fare here?

Is there any progress towards a solution
to this and similar questions? The answer
is NO, NO, NO and always NO.

Was there ever a 'science' so bereft of purpose
and sense? And so unaware of its own defects?

Sociology and psychology seem to reinvent themselves
every half century or so. And I know that some of the leading
practitioners of sociology have been utterly ignorant of its defects,
beginning with Auguste Comte.

And don't get me even started on Sigmund Freud.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

...........................Bing Quote of the Day:

Why fit in when you were born to stand out?
—Dr. Seuss

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday 3 September 2021 at 21:09:34 UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

[..]

There is no 'apex level' for large terrestrial
mammals. There are no 'super-carnivores'
that live by eating other carnivores

I see you don't count the polar bear as being terrestrial.

The polar bear is certainly terrestrial. It
happens to feed on marine animals that
are high in a marine trophic system.

[..]

Not me. Humans (and undoubtedly their
hominin ancestors) find carnivore liver
toxic. Ergo, they certainly weren't apex
predators. In fact (given that intolerance
and the sheer difficulty of catching fast
prey) they were hardly predators at all
and ate little meat.

The Nature article says otherwise. Daud isn't doing a crash-hot job
of refuting it. Can you do better?

Nature regurgitates traditional thinking.
Sometimes it makes sense, often it
doesn't. Intolerance of vitamin-A is
clear proof that hominins were never
more than occasional carnivores.
Unlike the herbivores and carnivores
of the savanna, they did not evolve --
over tens of millions of years -- for fast
and/or persistent running

[..]

". . . In East Africa, my colleague Don Johanson tells me that there
is something like a one in ten million chance of finding an early hominin fossil, if you know that they are already on the landscape.

Generally what that translates to is that about one in ten million
of the fossils they find in East Africa is an antelope fossil or some other animal fossil . . "

[..]

The professors have not being doing their job for
many decades. They've forgotten the questions
that they are supposed to be answering.

On the whole this is true, but these things need to be taken
on a case by case basis.

Not so. In the 17th century the big question
was 'The date of Creation', and some of the
best minds devoted themselves to it.
Cromwell (no C of E man) gave a state funeral
(a rare honour) to Archbishop Ussher, largely
for his great work in the field. When a
discipline goes badly wrong, no one later
looks at its merits on a 'case by case' basis.

Pandora is an invaluable contributor
to sci.bio.paleontology, and is invariably thoughtful there.

She's very good. Many in the field come
close to 'Archbiship Ussher status'. Due
high respect.

And you are so enthralled in your admiration of the
fine clothes they claim to wear, that you have
not noticed their nakedness.

Are you generally so prone to jump to conclusions about people?

You referred to 'Nature' as though it was an
ultimate authority.
[..]

What were all those billions of 'hand-axes'
for? How come they were left in enormous
piles, most as sharp as the day they were
made?

I've seen the hypothesis that they were for tearing through
the tough hides of dead mammals to get at the meat.

That would not lead to billions of them,
mostly razor-sharp, being piled often
metres deep.

How does that hypothesis fare here?

It's rarely discussed -- as is the pattern
everywhere.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op woensdag 25 augustus 2021 om 22:06:31 UTC+2 schreef Paul Crowley:

Really silly paper in
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94783-4

Yes, increbible dat nature published such nonsense.
See the comment:

It is difficult to believe that Nature published this just-so paper which is simply a reiteration of the traditional view of Man the Hunter. It takes the endurance-running hypothesis of Pleistocene Homo for granted, without considering the comparative
evidence, e.g. our remarkable brain expansion (only comparable to some Cetacea: seafood is rich in DHA), our external nose (google "Oi, big nose!"), our flat feet (seen in wading and/or swimming tetrapods), our subcutaneous fat-layer, our fur loss, etc.
Did Homo need an external nose to hunt? Human olfactory atrophy (our remarkably poor sense of smell) is impossible to explain in a hunting scenario. We have plantigrade feet, but cursorial mammals are invariably unguli- or digitigrade (mostly resp. herbi-
and carnivores). The eccrine sweat glands all over our body required environments where water and sodium were abundant. Moreover, Homo erectus had pachy-osteo-sclerosis (very dense and thick bones), which is exclusively seen in shallow-diving tetrapods (
and auditory exostoses, as seen in some neandertal skulls, are typically caused by cold-water irrigation). The early-Pleistocene expansion of archaic Homo as far as e.g. Java (and later islands such as Flores) is incompatible with the Afrocentric
standpoint of the article, google e.g. "coastal dispersal of Pleistocene Homo PPT" (+ references therein, e.g. Peter Rhys-Evans 2020 "The Waterside Ape" CRC Press). That our waterside ancestors or relatives sometimes butchered carcasses (which the
authors use as their evidence) is only to be expected: our ancestors had learnt to use stone tools in the way sea-otters use them: for opening hard-shelled seafoods such as shellfish. In short: all comparative biological evidence shows that our early-
Pleistocene ancestors were no running carnivores, but waterside omnivores.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 12:57:40 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:

On Friday 3 September 2021 at 21:09:34 UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

[..]

There is no 'apex level' for large terrestrial
mammals. There are no 'super-carnivores'
that live by eating other carnivores

I see you don't count the polar bear as being terrestrial.

The polar bear is certainly terrestrial. It
happens to feed on marine animals that
are high in a marine trophic system.

OK, I will take this as you withdrawing your claim to which I was responding here.

[..]

Not me. Humans (and undoubtedly their
hominin ancestors) find carnivore liver
toxic. Ergo, they certainly weren't apex
predators.

That does not necessarily follow. Even so lowly a mammal as the
bandicoot learned, not long after cane toads were introduced
to Australia, to avoid eating the organs containing a deadly toxin.

How much more, then, might hominins have learned to avoid
certain organs of certain animals.

In fact (given that intolerance
and the sheer difficulty of catching fast
prey) they were hardly predators at all
and ate little meat.

The Nature article says otherwise. Daud isn't doing a crash-hot job
of refuting it. Can you do better?

Nature regurgitates traditional thinking.

I agree about certain topics, like the "birds are dinosaurs" dogma,
but I am not familiar with how it skews its coverage when it
comes to hominins, so please bear with me.

Sometimes it makes sense, often it
doesn't. Intolerance of vitamin-A is
clear proof that hominins were never
more than occasional carnivores.

I eat the liver of non-carnivores without danger,
since it is much lower in vitamin-A.

Unlike the herbivores and carnivores
of the savanna, they did not evolve --
over tens of millions of years -- for fast
and/or persistent running

I have seen no convincing argument against the "persistent" part.
Can you provide one, despite the existence of ultramarathoners in
contemporary humans?

[..]

". . . In East Africa, my colleague Don Johanson tells me that there is something like a one in ten million chance of finding an early hominin fossil, if you know that they are already on the landscape.

Generally what that translates to is that about one in ten million
of the fossils they find in East Africa is an antelope fossil or some other animal fossil . . "

[..]

The professors have not being doing their job for
many decades. They've forgotten the questions
that they are supposed to be answering.

On the whole this is true, but these things need to be taken
on a case by case basis.

Not so. In the 17th century the big question
was 'The date of Creation',

Mythical, as opposed to some biblical events whose historical account
Daud Deden wants to relegate to "myth" without justification.

and some of the best minds devoted themselves to it.
Cromwell (no C of E man) gave a state funeral
(a rare honour) to Archbishop Ussher, largely
for his great work in the field. When a
discipline goes badly wrong, no one later
looks at its merits on a 'case by case' basis.

I'm not talking about whole disciplines, only individual issues,
and individual scientists like Pandora:

Pandora is an invaluable contributor
to sci.bio.paleontology, and is invariably thoughtful there.

She's very good. Many in the field come
close to 'Archbiship Ussher status'. Due
high respect.

I hope you aren't being sarcastic here.

And you are so enthralled in your admiration of the
fine clothes they claim to wear, that you have
not noticed their nakedness.

Are you generally so prone to jump to conclusions about people?

You referred to 'Nature' as though it was an
ultimate authority.

There's a fine example of jumping to conclusions. I have no dog in this fight, and
in the absence of reasoned argument, and of any preconceived
notions of my own, I treat opposing sides with equal respect [or lack thereof]. Such is the case here, where {Cowley, Pandora, _Nature_ author} is concerned.

You gave a reasoned argument up there, but I have made a counter-argument,
and I await your response before moving towards bias in one direction or another.

[..]

What were all those billions of 'hand-axes'
for? How come they were left in enormous
piles, most as sharp as the day they were
made?

I never heard of "billions" nor of enormous piles. Can you provide me with a reference?
Since this is about raw data, I hope you can point me to some universally undisputed references.

I've seen the hypothesis that they were for tearing through
the tough hides of dead mammals to get at the meat.

That would not lead to billions of them,
mostly razor-sharp, being piled often
metres deep.

I eagerly await a reference, or better, several of them.

By the way, I assume you are referring to carefully shaped hand axes,
and not mere flakes struck from flint, or chert, or whatever.

How does that hypothesis fare here?

It's rarely discussed -- as is the pattern
everywhere.

Any opposing views before I came along?


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday 16 September 2021 at 21:15:46 UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

The polar bear is certainly terrestrial. It
happens to feed on marine animals that
are high in a marine trophic system.

OK, I will take this as you withdrawing your claim to which I was responding here.

At no point did I make that claim.

[..]

Not me. Humans (and undoubtedly their
hominin ancestors) find carnivore liver
toxic. Ergo, they certainly weren't apex
predators.

That does not necessarily follow. Even so lowly a mammal as the
bandicoot learned, not long after cane toads were introduced
to Australia, to avoid eating the organs containing a deadly toxin.

The cane toad was introduced into Australia
in 1936, and already native species are getting
around its defences. But they're not similar to
vitamin-A. A dog will suffer instantly on licking
or biting a toad. The illness that comes from
eating a piece of carnivore liver develops
slowly and a sufferer can ascribe it to many
other causes. Liver is highly nutritious, and
tolerance would almost certainly be built up
over the thousands of generations.

Unlike the herbivores and carnivores
of the savanna, they did not evolve --
over tens of millions of years -- for fast
and/or persistent running

I have seen no convincing argument against the "persistent" part.
Can you provide one, despite the existence of ultramarathoners in contemporary humans?

If 'water-stops' were banned, there would
be no more marathons. Were the supposed
persistent runners able to set them up in
advance when they tracked their antelopes?

and some of the best minds devoted themselves to it.
Cromwell (no C of E man) gave a state funeral
(a rare honour) to Archbishop Ussher, largely
for his great work in the field. When a
discipline goes badly wrong, no one later
looks at its merits on a 'case by case' basis.

I'm not talking about whole disciplines, only individual issues,
and individual scientists like Pandora:

Individuals necessarily operate within the
ideology of the whole discipline. That's
what they are paid for.

Pandora is an invaluable contributor
to sci.bio.paleontology, and is invariably thoughtful there.

She's very good. Many in the field come
close to 'Archbiship Ussher status'. Due
high respect.

I hope you aren't being sarcastic here.

You can respect Archbishop Ussher, and
admire his honesty and level of scholarship
even if he was hopelessly wrong.

[..]

What were all those billions of 'hand-axes'
for? How come they were left in enormous
piles, most as sharp as the day they were
made?

I never heard of "billions" nor of enormous piles. Can you provide me with a reference?
Since this is about raw data, I hope you can point me to some universally undisputed references.

https://www.burgosconecta.es/burgos/estudio-cenieh-situa-20180220200702-nt.html

This is how they commonly look -- found
in deep dense piles, and as good as new.
See also the images in other papers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesak_Settafet https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116482

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathu_Archaeological_Complex https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103436
Also see references to other investigations
listed at the end of that paper

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4356577/
for a rare discussion -- and one that makes 'billions' seem excessively conservative.

The near-total absence of discussion of this
huge topic is massive scandal in this so-called
'discipline'. It can only be explained by an
extraordinary degree of embarrassment,
roughly equivalent to the 'respectable'
Victorian attitude to sex.

It's rarely discussed -- as is the pattern
everywhere.

Any opposing views before I came along?

Sssssh. Don't talk about it. No one knows
what to say. And cover up those legs on
the piano. They're embarrassing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)