Down and Dirty Primitive Hunting Technology / Videos

HUNGER: The prime motivator of human behavior and technology. Primitive tools compensate for “puny human” lack of claws, reduced olfactory sense, and other assets possessed by the competition: other hungry animals, including many much smaller than humans, had superior strength, speed, meat-or tough vegetation-tearing teeth (cooking required), protective fur, athletic ability, specialized body parts and instinctive tactics. Early humans HAD TO develop tools!

Our type of brain most likely developed as a “tool” that compensated for (and competed with) the “equipment” of other animals in particular environments. The brain as technology – think about it! LOL

Advertisements

Wonderful Website / Go There

 

http://www.lazerhorse.org/2018/01/27/awesome-photos-from-russia-with-love-january-2018/

We have to start somewhere / What is cognition?

I’m working up to the problem of visual and sensory thinking being all but ignored (or even dismissed) by the “cognition and behavior sciences” as a primary mode of perception and cognition in evolutionary history. This ignorance or arrogance on the part of “researchers” is especially negligent on the part of those whose declared interest is ASD / Asperger’s and other non-typical diagnosis. The irony is that these diagnosis of “abnormality” may simply demonstrate the bias or outright prejudice that only the “social” language of scripted word concepts / formal academic constructs  is “important” to human thought and behavior. That is, rigid restrictions have been placed on human thought, behavior and personal expression that may reflect the inability of the “social engineering class” to think in any other mode. Can this group have become so isolated from “natural” human behavior, that only individuals who are similarly limited to social constructs and rigid narratives are “accepted, selected for” inclusion in the class of those who dictate social behavior, thus increasingly diminishing the diversity of ideas about “what it is to be human” to their own impoverished experiences? The peasant classes are urged to function only on emotional reactivity and scripted social behavior, thus remaining powerless.

WIKI on Cognition: 

“Cognition is “the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses”.[1] It encompasses processes such as attention, the formation of knowledge, memory, and working memory, judgement and evaluation, reasoning and “computation,” problem-solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language. Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and generate new knowledge.” 

Note that “producing language” is only one of many thinking processes; the “expressive – action based” fields of art and music, dance and kinesthetic “thinking” must be assumed to be included under experience and the senses; otherwise these thought processes are missing from the list. Why? The stress is on “conscious” cognition; “unconscious” cognition is considered to be “low-level” cognition and has been segregated from “high-level cognition” – an error that has had severe consequences to the understanding of “how the brain works” in relation to the “whole” human organism and how it interacts with the environment. This “social conception” of human biology, physiology and behavior serves the western socio-religious narcissism of “man” as a special creation isolated from the reality of evolution.  

“The processes are analyzed from different perspectives within different contexts, notably in the fields of linguistics, anesthesia, neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology, education, philosophy, anthropology, biology, systemics, logic, and computer science. These and other different approaches to the analysis of cognition are synthesized in the developing field of cognitive science, a progressively autonomous academic discipline.”  

Again, we must assume that “the arts” are included somewhere in this disconnected “chopped salad” of academic reserves, which often are “at war” with each other over “domains of expertise” (territories) without much flow of information or “honest” discussion between academics. Genuine scientific competition and progress requires constant questioning of assumptions (hypothesis, theories); this necessity is hampered by most of these disciplines being based on theories, rather than truly investigative “reality-based” research that is open to challenges by other researchers.

A severe problem with current concepts of cognition and intelligence: The 300,000 y.o. Jebel Irhoud Homo sapiens, considered to be the “earliest so far” true Homo sapiens. If judged on the decision / conceit that only “conscious social cognition and behavior” count toward being classified as Homo sapiens, how do we explain the survival of any hominid? The current explanation is that these early Homo sapiens were “cognitively and socially identical to modern social humans.” A reality based conclusion would be, that given the variety and range of difficult environments and conditions in which they survived and successfully reproduced, these humans would have had to be more intelligent than modern domesticated humans, who have the advantage of 300,000 years of collective human experience and culture HANDED TO THEM by default. 

The “human brain and behavior” community would have us believe that this fellow survived by relying on modern social word-concepts and social theories of behavior.

Au contraire! Survival would have demanded the “action” intelligences of sensory processing: art and technology production, acute and immediate visual-sensory analysis of threats and opportunities presented by a wild ‘natural’ environment, memorization / mapping of geographical, geological and faunal-flora details of food availability; cooperation, sharing and mutual respect for individual skills and talents, and a precise (not vague or generalized) use of verbal language, gestures, imitative animal communication and graphic symbols.

 

 

 

 

Ancient Homo in the Philippines? / Two Articles Aye, yai, yai!

 ___________________________________________________________________________________
Ancient humans settled the Philippines 700,000 years ago (as opposed to modern day humans)
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/ancient-humans-settled-philippines-700000-years-ago-new-fossils-reveal
xx

“The only thing missing is the hominin fossil to go along with it,” says archaeologist Adam Brumm, of Griffith University in Nathan, Australia. He’s wasn’t involved with the work. (This standard “journalistic format” added comment by a “random” expert drives me nuts… is it supposed to compensate for lack of evidence? Is it merely to make it look like the journalist did some “background work”? Or is it the NT passion for “he said, she said” cable TV news “black and white” ideological warfare transferred to “science” articles? Please stop! 

Researchers found 75% of a fossilized rhino skeleton—ribs and leg bones still scarred from the tools that removed their meat and marrow—lying in ancient mud that had long since buried an even older river channel. To determine the site’s age, researchers dated the enamel in one of the rhino’s teeth, as well as quartz grains embedded in the sediment layers above and below the bones, using electron spin resonance (ESR), which measures the buildup of electrons as a material is exposed to radiation over time. The team dated the bottom sediment layer to about 727,000 years old, the rhino tooth to about 709,000 years old, and the top sediment layer to about 701,000 years old. Several independent experts say (aye, yai, yai!) they were impressed by the team’s careful use of the technique. “They’ve nailed it,” says Alistair Pike, an archaeological dating expert at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom. (Please stop inserting these technically-scientifically irrelevant comments! These statements are NOT PROOF that the dating is accurate, EXCEPT IN THE “lazy-crazy” NT social brain. The appeal to “authorities” is a social substitute for facts; NTs believe in “authority hearsay” and don’t recognize the existence of factual information) 

So who were these ancient people? They couldn’t have been our own species, Homo sapiens, which evolved in Africa hundreds of thousands of years later. The most likely bet is H. erectus, an archaic human species that first evolved nearly 2 million years ago and may have been the first member of our genus to expand out of Africa, the team writes today in Nature. H. erectus bones have been found in China and Java, so researchers know they lived in Asia (Asia is a VERY BIG PLACE, but if one is geographically illiterate, this vague reference may sound impressive and “meaningful”) around the time the rhino was butchered on Luzon. But Thomas Ingicco, a paleoarchaeologist at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris who led the research, doesn’t want to jump to any conclusions without human bones—especially not in a region that already has yielded one big surprise for scientists studying archaic humans. (Drum roll…)

Three thousand kilometers to the south, (almost 2,000 miles) on the island of Flores in Indonesia, archaeologists discovered H. floresiensis, a diminutive archaic human species known as the hobbit. It lived from about 60,000 to 100,000 years ago and seems to have evolved its short stature, large feet, and other distinctive traits because of its long isolation on Flores. There’s no evidence that the rhino butcherers on Luzon are the ancestors of the hobbit, or connected to those unusual humans in any way. But the discovery of H. floresiensis opened up the possibility that there could be many hitherto unknown human species living and evolving in Southeast Asia. (Wow! What “peculiar” logic. 1. Why are “the Hobbits” even mentioned in this context? (700,000 y.o. hominid in Luzon “magically” connects to” 60-100,000 y.o. hominid in Flores, 3,000 km away. 2. The possibility of hitherto unknown human species living and evolving in Southeast Asia” already exists WITHOUT “the Hobbits”. 3. The salient fact about Flores Homo is that it’s small stature is a consequence of being isolated on an island – they were not “wandering around” a vast region.  “In theory you could have something special on every single island,” Ingicco says.

And how did the rhinoceros get to Luzon?

The area in question.

Equally mysterious (please ban the use of mysterious, strange, bizarre, etc. in science journalism, and let the Ancient Aliens crew have this nonsense as their very own ”catchy” theme! The use of mysterious, etc can only refer in this context to the confused state of the NT mind.) is how the ancestors of the rhino butchers arrived on Luzon, which was surrounded by deep water then, as it is today. “I’ve been studying H. erectus for a long time, and I think they are pretty clever,” says Susan Antón, a paleoanthropologist at New York University in New York City who wasn’t involved in the work. Recent research (by whom?) even suggests that stone age peoples were using boats more than 130,000 years ago in the Mediterranean Sea. (Now there is a piece of “NT logic” – Non-correlation of geography, dates, location – and zero evidence – are no obstacle to social typical magical thinking) But like most researchers Antón isn’t convinced that ancient humans were deliberately crossing Southeast Asian seas so long ago. More likely, they were carried to distant islands by tsunami waves, or arrived there via floating islands of land and debris detached during typhoons. (Really? Does this actually occur, or is this a garbled interpretation of massive landslides that end up AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA? Maybe it was Ancient Astronauts…) “The presumption has been that Homo erectus didn’t, at least purposefully, disperse over water,” Antón says. “But the more places you find that happening, then … the more likely it becomes that they had some kind of control over it. But that kind of a conclusion is way off in the distance.” (How articulate…)

_______________________________

Let’s see what NATGEO has to say: 

700,000-Year-Old Stone Tools Point to Mysterious Human Relative

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/05/stone-tools-rhinoceros-luzon-philippines-ancient-hominins-science/

Someone butchered a rhinoceros in the Philippines hundreds of thousands of years before modern humans arrived—but who?

Stone tools found in the Philippines predate the arrival of modern humans to the islands by roughly 600,000 years—but researchers aren’t sure who made them.

The eye-popping artifacts, unveiled on Wednesday in Nature, were abandoned on a river floodplain on the island of Luzon beside the butchered carcass of a rhinoceros. The ancient toolmakers were clearly angling for a meal. Two of the rhino’s limb bones are smashed in, as if someone was trying to harvest and eat the marrow inside. Cut marks left behind by stone blades crisscross the rhino’s ribs and ankle, a clear sign that someone used tools to strip the carcass of meat.

But the age of the remains makes them especially remarkable: The carved bones are most likely between 631,000 and 777,000 years old, with researchers’ best estimate coming in around 709,000 years old. The research—partially funded by the National Geographic Society—pushes back occupation of the Philippines to before the known origin of our species, Homo sapiens. (Of course, as the pinnacle of evolution, every “discovery” must be oriented to “our” arrival!) The next-earliest evidence of Philippine hominins comes from Luzon’s Callao Cave, in the form of a 67,000-year-old foot bone.

“It was surprising to find such an old peopling of the Philippines,” says lead study author Thomas Ingicco, an archaeologist with France’s National Museum of Natural History. While the researchers don’t know which archaic cousin of ours butchered the rhino, the find will likely cause a stir among people studying the human story in the South Pacific—especially those wondering how early hominins got to the Philippines in the first place.

“I think it’s pretty spectacular,” says Michael Petraglia, a paleoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History who was not involved in the work. “While there had been claims for early hominins in places like the Philippines, there wasn’t any good evidence until now.”

Dating With Confidence

Several of the habitable islands across the South Pacific have long been hemmed off by swaths of open ocean, (Is that not what an island is?) so it was thought that humans’ ancient cousins couldn’t have made it to them without knowing how to sail.

But as the saying goes, life finds a way. In 2004, researchers unveiled Homo floresiensis, which lived on the isolated island of Flores for hundreds of thousands of years. In 2016, researchers also found stone tools on Sulawesi, an island north of Flores. As National Geographic reported at the time, the Sulawesi tools date to at least 118,000 years ago, or some 60,000 years before the first anatomically modern humans arrived. (Repetitive NT narcissism)

“It’s really, really exciting—it’s now becoming increasingly clear that ancient forms of hominins were able to make significant deep-sea crossings,” says Adam Brumm, a paleoanthropologist at Griffith University who studies H. floresiensis. (but wait…)

In search of similar sites, Ingicco and Dutch biologist John de Vos went to Kalinga, a site in northern Luzon with a reputation for yielding ancient bones. Researchers had found animal bones and stone tools there since the 1950s, but those scattered remains couldn’t be dated. To prove that ancient hominins had lived at Kalinga, de Vos and Ingicco needed to find artifacts that were still buried.

In 2014, the team dug a test pit at Kalinga about seven feet to a side. Almost immediately, the researchers started finding bones that belonged to a long-extinct rhinoceros. Soon, they had uncovered an entire skeleton, as well as stone tools left behind by its butchers.

To get an age range for the site, the team measured the sediments and the rhino’s teeth to see how much radiation they had naturally absorbed over time. (You never know – 700,000 y.a. there may have been time traveling H. sapiens going around artificially irradiating rhinoceros bones and teeth. Or maybe it was Ancient Aliens) In addition, they measured the natural uranium content of one of the rhino’s teeth, since that element decays like clockwork into thorium. In the mud around the rhino’s bones, they also found a speck of melted glass from an asteroid impact dated to about 781,000 year ago. (More magical and irrelevant NT type “evidence” What impact, where? How did it “end up” in the sediment? erosion, transport, etc.)

“Nowadays, it’s necessary that you try various methods to nail the dates, because in the past, there have been so many dates that have proved unreliable,” says study coauthor Gerrit van den Bergh, a University of Wollongong sedimentologist.

The Unusual Suspects

The list of possible toolmakers includes the Denisovans, a ghost lineage of hominins known from DNA and a handful of Siberian fossils. The leading candidate, though, is the early hominin Homo erectus, since it definitely made its way into southeast Asia. The Indonesian island of Java has H. erectus fossils that are more than 700,000 years old.

Ingicco’s team suggests that the butchers may have been Luzon’s version of H. floresiensis, (what on earth does that mean?) which may have descended from a population of H. erectus that ended up on Flores. Over millennia, the H. erectus there may have evolved to live efficiently on a predator-free island, shrinking in a process called island dwarfism.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

But wait! 

The most comprehensive study on the bones of Homo floresiensis, a species of tiny human discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003, has found that they most likely evolved from an ancestor in Africa and not from Homo erectus as has been widely believed.

The study by The Australian National University (ANU) found Homo floresiensis, dubbed “the hobbits” due to their small stature, were most likely a sister species of Homo habilis—one of the earliest known species of human found in Africa 1.75 million years ago.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-indonesian-hobbits-revealed.html#jCp

SEE also: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4429596/Indonesian-hobbits-early-form-human.html

_________________________________________________________________________________________

back to: In 2010, a team led by University of Philippines Diliman archaeologist Armand Mijares found the Callao Cave foot bone, which has measurements that overlap with both modern humans and H. floresiensis. (Utterly meaningless: this panders to archaic notions of “linear evolution” that demands “missing links” – so outdated!) Was this Luzon hominin a homegrown hobbit, descended from H. erectus castaways that arrived hundreds of thousands of years before? It’s too soon to say. (OMG!)

“We don’t have any information about 600,000 years of prehistory, [so] it’s a reach,” says Petraglia. 

Riding Out the Storm?

Whoever they were, the toolmakers’ ancestors may have taken one of two migration routes into the Philippines, according to Ingicco’s team: an west-to-east route from Borneo or Palawan, or a north-to-south route from China and Taiwan. (Does this contrived “choice” have any real meaning? Were Homo erectus standing around looking at a map, arguing over which “migration route” to take?) But it’s an open question how these hominins crossed open ocean.

It’s tempting to think that our extinct cousins used rudimentary boats: When news of the Callao Cave remains broke in 2010, some experts chalked up their presence to ancient seafarers. But the idea is still considered farfetched. Rhinos and elephant-like creatures also made it to Luzon, and they clearly didn’t build boats.

OMG! What is this, a Disney movie?

Perhaps large animals and the butchers’ ancestors accidentally rode to Luzon on floating masses of mud and aquatic plants, torn off coastlines by large storms. Regional tsunamis may have also washed some terrified H. erectus out to sea. As they clung to floating debris, they may have inadvertently island-hopped.

“Water dispersal by H. erectus is accidental—there’s no Manifest Destiny, there’s no plot,” says Russell Ciochon, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Iowa at Iowa City. (What an outstanding contribution to this article!)

There’s also outstanding questions about what happened when and if descendants of these early hominins made contact with the first modern humans to reach Luzon: (Endless NT narcissism, of course.) “Did our species come face to face with these creatures? What is the nature of that contact?” wonders Brumm.

These and other questions remain to be answered, but researchers say that study of the human story in Luzon—and the South Pacific writ large—is only just beginning.

Social Food / The Social Pyramid / Chinese Culture

I admit to an estrangement from “food obsession” – the social cult of food. I’m fuel-efficiency oriented about consumption. I don’t know if this is a common Asperger trait or not. I eat almost continually – small snacks punctuated by larger meals. Breakfast is big: I literally eat two breakfasts; one to get the engine started; another to “top off the tank” and get ready for the day. When I’m hungry, I get shaky, weak and confused, so I snack all day. My diet is high protein; few carbohydrates. Lots of fruit and dairy; nuts. Vegetables? Yuck! (Not in Wyoming, where pitiful dead plants are trucked in from far away.) My food choices in childhood were typical of mid-western U.S. “farm” food. I could be a porkaholic…..
The intense effort, repetition, skill and time consumption devoted to “feeding humans” in many cultures baffles me. And the incessant need for applause, praise and attention on the part of preparers, cooks, chefs, etc. Yes, I’m Asperger. I’m weird. 
____________________________________________________________________________
Original article:Food, eating behavior, and culture in Chinese society
Open Access funded by Korea Food Research Institute
Under a Creative Commons license

Abstract

Humans need to obtain nutrients from foods in order to survive and be healthy. The requirements of energy and nutrients are different due to differences in race, age, sex, and physical activity level. People living in different places take nutrients from different kinds of food; therefore, nutrition is a cultural biological process rather than a simple physiological and biochemical process. Food intake can directly influence one’s biological function through life, as its results are on a biological level. When people eat, the process can be influenced by economic, politics, culture, and many other factors.

1. The social functions of food

Food is not only the source of nutrition for human, but also plays various roles in our daily life, beliefs, and socioeconomics.

1.1. Establish and maintain interpersonal relationship

Food has many symbolic meanings; it not only expresses but also establishes the relationship between people and their environment as well as between people and what they believe. Therefore, food is an important component of a society.

Food consumed by one person alone is not a social food. However, when it is consumed by a group of people together or eaten in a religious ceremony, the sociality of food is identified. In human society, food is a means for people to establish and express relationships between one another. This relationship can exist among individuals, community members, religious groups, and ethnic groups. For instance, in the Spring Festival in China, people eat dumplings to express the relationship between themselves and God (Fig. 1). 

In Chinese society, people usually treat others with meals in order to make new friends or enhance established relationships. Cantonese breakfast is known as morning tea and lots of people talk about business and exchange information while having morning tea together.

1.2. Express the degree of interpersonal relationship

Different foods convey different meanings among the eaters and indicate the closeness of the relationship. In Chinese culture, service of expensive and rare foods usually shows the respect to the guests. A formal dinner includes 4–6 cold dishes, 8–10 hot dishes, served with soup and fruits. A usual family dinner serves close friends. Close friends or colleagues usually go to food stalls for dining and drinking. Eating a lunch box together is a normal work relationship, and intimate lovers will have candlelit dinner together.

1.3. Represent social status

Foods can be used by people to express their social status. Rare and expensive food is frequently used to represent wealth and high social economic status. These foods are normally animal food and rich in protein, and are hard to obtain because of the rareness, expensiveness, or the need for importation. This custom is mainly related to the upper class living style, for instance, bird’s nest, shark’s fin, bear’s paw, and lobster in traditional Chinese society. (And is depopulating common and rare species to the brink of extinction!)

1.4. As a group characteristic

Food can not only indicate the social status, but also can be used as a character of one group, divided by regions, families, races or religions. Each country has a State Banquet. Some countries such as China, France, and Italy are famous for their cuisine, delicious food, and food culture.

Eating behavior, once formed, has continuity. When people moving to other regional or countries, will continue keeping their traditional eating habit, taste, and cooking methods, unless in very special cases, otherwise it is hard to change.

In China, rice is usually the staple food for people living in the south of China, while food made of wheat flour such as steamed bread, bread, and buns is the staple for people living in the north (Fig. 2). Even when travelling or moving to a foreign country, people tend to eat the food which eating usually as the first choice. Many Chinese people in foreign countries, even after years of migration, still maintain the habit of eating Chinese food, which is very difficult to change.

1.5. Celebrate important event

Owing to its function to express the central position in the representation and relationship, a dinner or banquet can be used as a symbol of the important events in human life, such as wedding, baptism, and religious belief. The symbolic significance of food eaten in religion is more important than the nutritional value; for example, the consumption of these foods can determine and reestablish the relationship between man and God, and between people.

People eat special food to celebrate important events or festivals, such as Americans eating turkey for Thanksgiving in the USA, while specific food will be served for specific social events in China, for example, rice dumplings for the Dragon Boat Festival, moon cakes for the Mid-autumn Festival, and dumplings for the Spring Festival (Fig. 3).

Food customs will be affected by different society and culture each other. For example, the traditional food for celebrating one’s birthday in China is noodles and peaches. Influenced by western culture, many people eat cake, light candles, and sing birthday songs at their birthday party. Interestingly, some people combine the traditional and western ways together, eating noodles and cake at the same time.

1.6. Symbolic significance

Magic word syndrome – It’s not only confined to western social typicals; it’s common to all NTs. 

In Chinese culture, foods have been used as symbols of meaning in many occasions, to impart different information. Chinese dates mean that the couples can have children early; peanuts, also known as the longevity fruit, mean longevity; oranges and chestnuts mean good luck; rice cakes, promotion year; seaweed is a homonym of rich; noodle is long, which means health and longevity; and glutinous rice balls means the family stay together. In Chinese wedding customs, the man has to send to the woman’s home wine (long and long) or fish (annual and superabundant). However, egg (more and more strange) or lotus root (a section of arrowroot is separated, but the clinging fiber remains) must not be used as a gift. In some areas, however, after the birth of a child, eggs dyed red by parents are sent to relatives and friends, to show auspiciousness. Some foods are a symbol of bad luck, such as pear, which sounds like away, and eating it could mean separation.

1.7. Means of reward or punishment

Food is often used as a means of reward or punishment. For example, when a child has good school performance, parents may take them to a western fast food restaurant as a reward. While a child does not have good performance, then their parents do not give the child the food they want by way of punishment. (Wow! The very substances necessary to life and health are used to abuse children. It’s everywhere NTs exist.)

A survey conducted among children’s mothers or caregivers found that they often use food as a reward or punishment. The method of giving food to reward the children’s correct behavior, and using the method of deprive the food to punish the children’s wrong behavior. The survey found that 29% of parents use foods to comfort the child, 23% of parents use the foods as a reward, and 10% of parents take the method of depriving food as a punishment. Sweets and desserts are the most commonly used foods for these purposes, 62% of mothers often use sweets as reward or comfort, and withhold sweets as punishment. (Just like the U.S.)

2. Purchase, production, and distribution of food

Cultural differences in cultivation, harvest, production, serving, and consumption of food are significant. Written or unwritten rules exist in every culture, such as who is responsible for cooking and serving, for whom they do the cooking, what kind of people have a meal together, where to eat, in what kind of occasions, serving order, and courtesy of the diet. All the behavior that is related to food consumption is constrained by culture. (So alien to this Asperger!)

2.1. Food preparation

Of course, all this obsession with “social eating” is made possible by women as a captive / forced labor source: 

In many societies, women play an important role in food production, selection, purchase, and processing. It is usually women’s responsibility to cook; some women are responsible for milking, breeding poultry and livestock, and also sowing and harvesting. As a wife and mother, she is the family food provider. Most of the woman’s life depends on fulfilling these traditional obligations. Women engage in the trade of the market, and in the decision making of type, quantity, and quality of food purchased. It is reported that in Kenya 85% of women older than 16 years are engaged in housework, compared with only 54% of men; while 90% of women are responsible for cooking, and 71.4% of women are responsible for the purchase of food. Since women play a fundamental role in their children’s food supply, nutrition education for women is significant for their children’s diet and health, with consideration of the food nutrition, taste, and sanitation while making food. (Something forgotten and abandoned in U.S. fast food crap culture)

2.2. The purchase and production of food

A survey conducted in four cities of China indicated that mothers in 69.8% households are usually responsible for food purchase, while this percentage was only 26.3% for fathers. Food freshness, sanitation, nutrition, and preference of children are the main factors considered for food purchase. Children are also involved in the choice of food and purchases in families: 20.7% of young children often ask parents to buy certain foods, while 49.9% of parents would take children’s requests.

Men and women have different social responsibilities in the traditional Chinese culture. There is a saying of ‘men outside the home, women inside’ to express this. In the family, adult men are generally responsible for external affairs and work, such as farming and harvest; while women are responsible for the household work, such as doing laundry, cooking, and cleaning. In this traditional culture point of view, women are responsible for cooking, a tradition which is continued in many families, especially in rural areas. In urban areas, however, men and women’s social division of labor has changed; in many families, men and women take on housework together; in some families, wives take care of food purchases and cleaning, while husbands cook. In other families wives and husbands either cook or wash dishes; in certain families, men are responsible for most of the housework, which promotes the word househusband.

Compared with other countries, Chinese people spend much more time on cooking, with an average of 2–3 hours every day. Along with socioeconomic and income increases, the lifestyles of people continue to change. Especially in urban areas, people are unwilling to spend too much time in food preparation and cooking; therefore, the frequency of outside eating increases. The popularity of new technologies and new cooking instruments, such as a microwave oven, electromagnetic cooker furnace, and so on, has shortened the time spent on cooking, which saves more time for recreation.

2.3. Food distribution

Generally, within a family, women are responsible for the distribution of food. When adequate foods are available, each family members can get enough food. However, in the situation when foods are in short supply, different members of the family receive different amounts of foods. Usually, the needs of elders and men are met first, while women often might not get enough; therefore, women in the family are susceptible to nutritional problems. (Not fair, sensible or compassionate) 

There are two modes in food distribution within a family: demand and contribution. The demand mode refers that the distribution of food is based on different physical demands of all family members; and who need more nutrition intake is decided by the food distributor. For example, the mother, the distributor, is likely to feed the last amount of milk to a sick infant; while the healthy, although hungry babies might not get any milk. The contribution mode indicates that the distribution of food is in accordance with the family members’ contribution to the family. Members who earn money for the family receive more compared with their counterparts who do not earn money, while the former has the priority of choosing food and also having the largest amount and the best part of the food, in order to save enough energy to support the family. This kind of distribution is used more when there is lack of food supply, because it is a necessary means to maintain family survival. (Unpaid female work = lack of nutrition)

Sex difference exists when food distributed within the family. Generally, male members within the family are given more food as compared with the female members. These differences in food distribution in a family would affect the health of FEMALE family members.

Age can also play an important role in food distribution within a family. Children receive more foods compared with their adult counterparts. Young children, both boys and girls, have the priority to receive food and their food quality is always the best. The older members in a family are very much valued in food distribution. They get first access to food and greater amounts than the other family members. This food distribution partially reflects the traditional Oriental culture virtue of respecting the senior. (In contrast to U.S. culture, in which a high rate of poverty exists, along with institutional abuse)

3. Eating behavior

Human nutrition investigates nutrients requirements, their function, their contents in different foods, and their relationship with health. As all the nutrients that human needs are obtained from various foods, the behaviors related to food choice and consumption affects the nutrient intake directly, whereas these behaviors are influenced by social, economic, and cultural factors. Therefore, the research areas of human nutrition should not be limited to biological sciences, but should also be extended to eating behavior and its relevant factors. This area of research is as important as chemical and biological studies in the effects of preventing disease, and improving health.

3.1. The way of serving foods

Dishes are placed in the middle of the table for people to share. Members have to wait to eat until the whole family is seated. There are orders of serving rice, porridge, and soup. Usually the elders and the young are first served, followed by men, children, and women. Habits vary in different regions. In some places, the whole family eat together; in others, men and women eat separately; there are also places where women eat after men. Women are also responsible for the housework of cleaning the table and washing dishes. (Asperger reaction? Too many social rules. Nutrition is an absolute necessity for every human, and no one ought to be underfed.)

Separate dining is common in western culture, while in China’s dining culture, whether dining at home or eating out, a grouped dining system is used in most situations. While sharing the food, culture and atmosphere are shared. The biggest disadvantage of the group dining system may be the possibility of causing the spread of infectious diseases; therefore, one should promote the advantages of a separate dining system. Nevertheless, due to the conflict against traditional dining culture, eating separately is not likely to be implemented and promoted in China.

3.2. Number of meals

Most Chinese people (94%) have three meals a day, while 5% have two meals a day. However, the situation varies from urban to rural area. One quarter of residents living in the poor rural areas have two meals a day. In some rural areas in the north residents usually have three meals a day in the harvest season, and two meals a day in other seasons.

The China National Nutrition Survey indicated that residents with different ethnic groups differ in eating behaviors. The proportion of three meals per day was more than 95% in Tibet, Korea, Manchu, Bai, Kazakh, and Uighur. In the Han, Hui, Zhuang, and Mongolia the proportion was about 80%, while in Buyi and Yi that were 61% and 51%, respectively. The proportion of two meals a day at the Hani and Lahu were 88% and 82%, respectively.

The time of breakfast for Chinese people is generally between 6:00 am and 8:00 am, and later at weekends. A few people take breakfast and lunch together as brunch. Some people have their breakfast at home, while some of them at a restaurant or the workplace. A few people eat on their way to work.

A survey conducted in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou found that, the proportion of having breakfast every day were 74.8%, 86.8%, and 90.5%, respectively. Some people usually skip their breakfast. (Very common in the U.S.) The proportion of having breakfast every day in people over 35 years old was higher than their counterparts aged <35 years, while women are more frequently having breakfast than men. The reasons for skipping breakfast including limited time, lack of appetite, and the way to lose weight.

The foods eaten for breakfast vary in different regions. The Cantonese take breakfast as morning tea, including shrimp dumpling, steamed bun, chicken leg, vegetable, fritter, and soy milk. In north part of China, people usually eat bread, porridge, noodles, also including dumpling, fried fritter, etc. Most of them do not have vegetables and fruits for breakfast. (Nutritious breakfasts compared to U.S.)

In order to open up the market to meet the needs of human consumption, western-style fast food has launched a series of breakfast products and combinations, including spinach-egg-chicken burgers, egg custard fort, green onion cakes, and green tea. (Bad news!)

People usually have lunch between 11:30 am and 1:00 pm. In small towns and rural areas of China, people go home for lunch. In the large and medium cities, due to the far distance and limited time, some people have their lunch at the canteen, whole some eat in nearby restaurants or fast-food shops. A few bring a lunch box from home, which is prepared and packed the day before.

People usually have dinner between 6:30 pm and 7:30 pm. In urban areas, dinner is usually the only chance to sit together and have a family meal. Therefore, dinner is usually abundant, including two to four dishes, and one soup. It generally takes 1–2 hours to make a dinner.

Food is a necessity for life: the distribution of quality and quantity of adequate nutrition ought not to be the “social pyramid”.

 

Diagnosing Mental Illness in Ancient Greece and Rome

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/diagnosing-mental-illness-in-ancient-greece-and-rome/282856/

Greek: Gnothi sauton, “know thyself” Roman mosaic

Gods-given hallucinations and suppressing anger for the greater good: How what’s considered “abnormal” has changed.

We can put a rover on Mars but we’re still figuring out our own brains. Mental illness is stigmatized, potentially overdiagnosed, and often misunderstood. Scientists are still learning new things about where conditions come from, while sufferers figure out how to cope.
x
 x
Could you start by explaining how attitudes toward mental illness were different in the classical world than they are today?
x
Many people in antiquity thought that mental disorders came from the gods. The Greek gods are a touchy lot, quick to take offense. For instance, they took a hard line with Orestes after his matricide. [Ed. Note: After killing his mother, Orestes was tormented by the Furies.] And in a world where many important phenomena such as mental illness were not readily explicable, the whims of the gods were the fallback explanation. Physicians and others fought against this idea from an early date (the 5th century B.C.), giving physiological explanations instead. Many people sought magical/religious remedies—such as going to spend the night in a temple of the healing god Asclepius, in the hope that he would work a cure or tell you how to get cured—[while physicians sought] mainly medical ones. No one thought that it was the duty of the state to care for the insane. Either their families looked after them, or they ended up on the street—a nightmare situation. (…that persists today. How far we’ve come as empathetic-compassionate modern social typicals…)
x
In the introduction you wrote to Mental Disorders in the Classical World, you talk about “medicalizing mental illness.” When and why did people start to be seen as sick instead of crazy?
xxx
x
Greek doctors did not distinguish sharply between physical and mental disorders, and they did not have concepts that correspond simply with “depression” or “schizophrenia.” Roberto Lo Presti, in the book we are talking about, examines at length the development of Greek thinking about epilepsy. Greek doctors always tended to think that what we call psychoses were physiological in nature.
x
How did doctors diagnose the mentally ill back then? What were the criteria they used? And how did they go about treating them?
x
They were mostly (not entirely) concerned with psychoses (externalizing disorders such as antisocial personality disorder and drug and alcohol use disorders) rather than neuroses (internalizing disorders such as depression and anxiety), and they took into account a full range of hard-to-define symptoms including inappropriate behavior in public, delusions, delirium, and hallucinations. Treatments also covered a whole range from physical restraint to counseling; they did not make much use of pharmaceuticals.
x
In the essay you contributed about hallucinations, you mention that in the classical world, people often saw gods and otherworldly things. Was there an evolution of hallucinations from being seen as a supernatural experience to as a symptom of something medically wrong?
x
There was no simple evolution: the Hippocratic doctors already recognized hallucinations as a purely human phenomenon, but many ordinary people went on supposing that the gods were involved.
x

Does this mean that hallucinations were more commonplace and less stigmatized than today?

No more commonplace, I think. Less stigmatized, yes, somewhat. One would not have sought treatment.

Socrates had hallucinations, right? Did that affect how he was perceived?

Socrates seems to have had recurrent hallucinations of one particular type: A voice spoke to him, usually advising him not to do things. His disciples were in awe of this phenomenon, but some of his later admirers thought they needed to explain it away—they thought it suggested that he was slightly cracked.

One of your older books is about rage—why was anger seen as an illness, or something to be controlled?

It took me about 400 pages to answer this question! Partly because it was seen as dangerous in the state, partly because it was seen as a danger in the family (especially because of slavery), partly later because excessive anger came to be seen as a personal moral failure.

Anger was dangerous to the state above all because it led to political violence, including tyrannical behavior by absolute rulers; dangerous to the family because of its potential to cause feuding and violence (as for slavery, the angry slave-owner could generally treat the slaves as he wished—but they might and did react). The moral idea arises out of these concrete political and social imperatives I think, but it also forms part of the widespread ancient idea that the essence of good behavior is self-control.

Are there difficulties applying today’s conceptions of what is “abnormal” to historical figures? Or vice versa?

There sure are, both ways. The conceptual and moral differences are huge. People have argued that, for example, Herod the Great and Caligula were schizophrenics, but tracing the way they actually behaved is rendered difficult by the inadequate sources [available]. And in the Roman world, a great deal of violence was normal, (as it is today) as was much of what we consider pedophilia. But this makes the work of scholars such as me more interesting as well as more difficult. (Child abuse and domestic violence are common today.)

Are there any ideas the ancient Greeks or Romans held that would be helpful for us to think about in the discussion surrounding mental illness today?

Yes, as far as neuroses are concerned, see in particular Chris Gill’s contribution
to the book I edited, with his emphasis on character. He looks at the idea that we should train our characters so that we are ready for life’s disasters and can face them robustly.

Article on Jebel Irhoud 300 K fossils / Participating researcher

New Moroccan fossils suggest humans lived and evolved across Africa 100,000 years earlier than we thought

by Senior research fellow, Southern Cross University

https://theconversation.com/new-moroccan-fossils-suggest-humans-lived-and-evolved-across-africa-100-000-years-earlier-than-we-thought-78826

See original for photos

The earliest known existence of modern humans, or Homo sapiens, was previously dated to be around 200,000 years ago. It’s a view supported by genetic analysis and dated Homo sapiens fossils (Omo Kibish, estimated age 195,000 years, and Herto, estimated age 160,000 years), both found in modern-day Ethiopia, East Africa.

But new research, published today in two Nature papers, offers a fresh perspective. The latest studies suggest that Homo sapiens spread across the entire African continent more than 100,000 years earlier than previously thought.

This evidence pushes back the origins of our species to 300,000 years ago, and supports the idea that important changes in our biology and behaviour had already taken place across most of Africa by that time.

Our work focused on samples collected at the archaeological site Jebel Irhoud in Morocco. It’s a place that is well known for hominin fossils – that is, bones from early humans – first excavated in the 1960s.

However, the interpretation of the first fossils and identification of their age was compromised previously, due to uncertainty about the geological dating of the sediment layers in which the remains had been found.

More than 40 years later, in 2004, an international team of scientists reopened the excavation. They discovered 16 new Homo sapiens fossils and a large number of Middle Stone Age artefacts. Now in 2017 we’re able to report on these remains thanks to improved dating techniques.

The new analysis proposes a revised version of the evolutionary history of modern humans that involves the entire African continent, and long before the “out-of-Africa” spread of Homo sapiens to other continents (dated at around 100,000 years ago).

Jebel Irhoud is the richest African Middle Stone Age site associated with the earliest known representative of our species.

Bones with modern and ancient features

The fossil remains excavated included numerous skulls and jawbones, long bones such as femur (from the leg) and humerus (from the arm), and teeth of several individuals. They reveal a mixture of modern human and more archaic, or ancient, features.

Of particular note is the slim, “gracile” face seen in living humans, which is also present in Jebel Irhoud specimens. Compared with the more robust face and elongated skull of Neanderthals or older hominins, the faces of Jebel Irhoud specimens are slender, relatively short, and sit under a rounder braincase (the part of the skull in which the brain sits).

However, while tomographic scans (which create 3D images through digital sectioning) reveal that the facial shape in the fossil samples is practically indistinguishable from humans nowadays, there are differences in the skull structure. In particular, the structure of the cranium, or skull bone, is different.

Compared with modern humans, in the Jebel Irhoud specimens we see a more elongated shape of the braincase, plus elongated temporal bones (on the sides of the skull, forming the temple), flatter parietal bones (along the sides and top of the skull) and different occipital shape (at the rear of the skull). This results in a longer and lower braincase.

Anatomically, this analysis places the 300,000-year-old Jebel Irhoud Homo sapiens somewhere between Homo erectus and African archaic Middle Pleistocene hominins. In this way it challenges the hypothesis that Homo sapiens derived from a later intermediate species that lead to the emergence of both the modern human and Neanderthal lineages.

These differences have implications for our understanding of Homo sapiens evolution. They suggest that our facial shape was established early in our history, whereas certain cognitive functions may have appeared later with the evolution of the Homo sapiens lineage and modifications of the braincase.

How we dated the Jebel Irhoud samples

In addition to the fossils, stone artefacts found at the Jebel Irhoud site consisted of Middle Stone Age material of Levallois technology (a distinct method of creating stone tools), with a high proportion of retouched tools, especially pointed forms.

Materials from Jebel Irhoud were accurately dated using two distinct techniques.

Thermoluminescence (TL), which works by measuring the irradiation dose received from the surrounding sediment since the material was last exposed to heat or fire, was applied to the stone artefacts.

Techniques known as Coupled Uranium-Series and Electron Spin Resonance (together referred to as US-ESR) were applied to the fossil remains directly. By calculating the diffusion of natural elements (uranium and thorium) into the dental tissues as fossilisation occurred over time, combined with the amount of surrounding radiation from the sediment the enamel crystal has been exposed to, we are able to work out the burial time of the remains.

While TL established clearly a chronology for the sediment layers which contained the hominin fossil remains, the US-ESR dates gave a direct age of one of the Jebel Irhoud jawbones (Irhoud 3 mandible). This was possible through new high-resolution radioactivity measurements of the geological context and important methodological improvements which allowed us to understand the impact of irradiation onto the tooth enamel crystal structure.

Both dating of the jaw bone and the dating of the stone artefacts gave us an age of 300,000 years.

A complex human journey

The new find is consistent with a picture of complex, Africa-wide origin of Homo sapiens.

The observed skull shapes and calculated ages of the bones and tools have implications for interpreting other human-like fossils found in Africa. The enigmatic partial skull of Florisbad from South Africa is also a very important Middle Stone age sample, and presents a mix of modern and ancient features.

Whether Florisbad should be classified as Homo heidelbergensis or Homo helmei has been a subject of prolonged debate. But with the anatomical features observed in Jebel Irhoud specimen, Florisbad skull can be more securely described as an early Homo sapiens form.

This discovery is also interesting in light of the newly dated Homo naledi from South Africa. This species, which survived until 250,000 years ago, overlaps in time with the Jebel Irhoud specimens. As Homo naledi represents a different branch of the genus Homo (not a direct ancestor to Homo sapiens), this is evidence that more archaic forms of hominins coexisted with the early representative of our species.

Similarly, Homo erectus Salé – also discovered in Morocco, not far from Jebel Irhoud – dates back to 250,000 years ago and might have coexisted with the early form of Homo sapiens, although the identification and age of the Salé specimen remains highly debated.

More than ever, as humans our complex evolutionary journey to end up as the lone surviving hominid species appears to be anything but linear. With African archaic Middle Pleistocene hominins overlapping in time with the Jebel Irhoud specimens, our discovery advocates for a complex African-wide evolutionary history of Homo sapiens. This new evidence adds more detail to the debate around the birthplace not only for our species, but also for the entire genus homo.

The famous drawing of a linear and simplistic evolution from ape-like individual morphing to an upright modern human is anything but accurate.


This work was performed by teams of scientists from around the world, including those in Australia, Germany, USA, Morocco, France, UK and Italy.

Anthro Wars / Will Earliest H. sapiens please stand up?

Reconstruction 300,000 y.o. Jebel Irhoud by John Bavarro

reconstruction by Kennis & Kennis

______________________________________

A post on Dienike’s Anthropology Blog from 2011, before Jebel Irhoud site in  Morocco was reopened and new fossils identified as earliest Homo sapiens (to date) were dated to 300,000 y.a. 

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/is-jebel-irhoud-father-of-mankind.html

May 20, 2011

Is Jebel Irhoud the Father of mankind?

The redating of the human Y-chromosome phylogeny to about 142 thousand years ago and the relocation of its most ancient lineages from east and south Africa to the Northwest marks a watershed moment in our understanding of human prehistory.

It is a fortuitous coincidence that there actually is a sample of humans from Northwest Africa from around the same time: Jebel Irhoud, about 160 thousand years ago from Morocco:

Jebel Irhoud is a cave site located about 100 km west of Marrakech, Morocco. The site is known for the numerous hominid fossils discovered there. Currently, the site has yielded seven specimens. The best known of these are portions of two adult skulls, Irhoud 1 and 2, a child’s mandible (Irhoud 3), and a child’s humerus (Irhoud 4). Fossils 1-3 were discovered while the cave was being quarried for barytes and thus their exact context and age has been subject to debate. Originally the Irhoud hominids were considered North African Neandertals. It is now clear that they are best grouped with other early anatomically modern humans such as Qafzeh (Israel) and Skhul (Israel).

A 2007 article by Smith et al. is extremely important for this population: (of course, other Anthropologists disagree) 

Earliest evidence of modern human life history in North African early Homo sapiens

Tanya M. Smith et al.

Recent developmental studies demonstrate that early fossil hominins possessed shorter growth periods than living humans, implying disparate life histories. Analyses of incremental features in teeth provide an accurate means of assessing the age at death of developing dentitions, facilitating direct comparisons with fossil and modern humans.

It is currently unknown when and where the prolonged modern human developmental condition originated. Here, an application of x-ray synchrotron microtomography reveals that an early Homo sapiens juvenile from Morocco dated at 160,000 years before present displays an equivalent degree of tooth development to modern European children at the same age. Crown formation times in the juvenile’s macrodont dentition are higher than modern human mean values, whereas root development is accelerated relative to modern humans but is less than living apes and some fossil hominins. The juvenile from Jebel Irhoud is currently the oldest-known member of Homo with a developmental pattern (degree of eruption, developmental stage, and crown formation time) that ismore similar to modern H. sapiens than to earlier members of Homo. This study also underscores the continuing importance of North Africa for understanding the origins of human anatomical and behavioral modernity. Corresponding biological and cultural changes may have appeared relatively late in the course of human evolution.

In the recent paper on the Ceprano calvarium, Irhoud 1 clearly belonged in the modern human cluster, and so it was in my re-analysis of that data, as were skulls from the Sudan and Tanzania in Africa, and the Qafzeh/Skhul early skulls from the Levant.

It thus seems to me, that the earliest modern human skulls are found in North/East Africa and West Asia, while the root of the Y-chromosome phylogeny is provisionally in Northwest Africa and seems to be in agreement with the autosomal evidence for a bottleneck in the human population at around 150,000 years ago.
Here is the interesting part: Irhoud had been once seen as a Neandertal. Indeed, it displayed some Neandertal-like leanings in a previous analysis. The consensus now (supported by the results of Mounier et al.) seems to be that it was modern human, but the Neandertal connection does not stop there:
The lithic industries of Jebel Irhoud were Mousterian, the same as Neandertals.Mousterian industries link European Neandertals, with modern humans in North Africa and the Near East. The Mousterian industries represented a genuine progress over the Acheulean tools that archaic humans had been using for hundreds of thousands of years before, and they, in turn, were replaced by the Aurignacian at exactly the time that Cruciani et al. date the main Y-chromosome CT clade that encompasses all Eurasians and most Africans.
The evidence seems to be in astonishing agreement with my hypothesis about the so-called “Neandertal admixture” in modern humans:
  • Early modern humans originated in North Africa, or at least somewhere between North and East Africa. Their traces may very well be hidden under the sands of the once (or thrice) green Sahara
  • They formed a clade with Neandertals, and used the same Mousterian tools, while humans elsewhere continued to use the older Acheulean ones. Both of them could very well have descended from Homoheidelbergensis, although the transition is not yet clear.
  • They expanded briefly into West Asia after Marine Isotope Stage 5, 120,000 years or so ago, and appeared in the Levant (Skhul/Qafzeh). As the Sahara dried up, they must’ve spread both to West Asia, and deeper into Africa, and, not surprisingly, the next major branching of the Y-chromosome phylogeny dates to about that time; this accounts for the deep (but not deepest) Y-chromosome lineages in modern day San.
  • Eventually (around 40,000 years ago, after the end of wet Marine Isotope Stage 3), they developed the even more advanced Aurignacian technology, and went on to conquer most of the world, driving the Neandertals to extinction. As the Sahara dried up, they expanded into Sub-Saharan Africa once again, and this time they inundated it with their genes.

Hence, the Modern-Neandertal affinity is not the result of any hypothetical admixture event between the two: Sub-Saharan Africans have also preserved some of the genetic legacy of the older Acheulean-using populations of the continent which shifts them somewhat away from other modern humans and Neandertals.

see original for more…

________________________________________________________________________________

A photo identified by John Hawks (2017 tweet) as Jebel Irhoud Homo sapiens left, (assume it’s the “new” 300 K model) and La Ferrassie Neanderthal (50-70,000 K)

La Ferrassie 1 Neanderthal (approx. date 50-70,000 y.a.)

Below: A Jebel Irhoud skull identified (Smithsonian) as 160,000 y.o. Homo sapiens. Ryan Somma.

Above: (see abstract below) 300,000 y.o. Jebel Irhoud composite: Philipp Gunz/MPI EVA Leipzig Image caption: A reconstruction of the earliest known Homo sapiens skull based on scans of multiple original fossils (this is not a complete skull from an individual)

And, let’s not forget: A Homo erectus reconstruction. (there are many…)

Confused yet?

__________________________________________________________________
Abstract of paper introducing new Jebel Irhoud fossil finds and 300,000 y.a. date

New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapien

Jean-Jacques Hublin (see original for authors)

Nature volume 546, pages 289–292 (08 June 2017) doi:10.1038/nature22336

Fossil evidence points to an African origin of Homo sapiens from a group called either H. heidelbergensis or H. rhodesiensis. However, the exact place and time of emergence of H. sapiens remain obscure because the fossil record is scarce and the chronological age of many key specimens remains uncertain. In particular, it is unclear whether the present day ‘modern’ morphology rapidly emerged approximately 200 thousand years ago (ka) among earlier representatives of H. sapiens1 or evolved gradually over the last 400 thousand years2. Here we report newly discovered human fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and interpret the affinities of the hominins from this site with other archaic and recent human groups. We identified a mosaic of features including facial, mandibular and dental morphology that aligns the Jebel Irhoud material with early or recent anatomically modern humans and more primitive neurocranial and endocranial morphology. In combination with an age of 315 ± 34 thousand years (as determined by thermoluminescence dating)3, this evidence makes Jebel Irhoud the oldest and richest African Middle Stone Age hominin site that documents early stages of the H. sapiens clade in which key features of modern morphology were established. Furthermore, it shows that the evolutionary processes behind the emergence of H. sapiens involved the whole African continent.

More to come…

 

Neanderthal Cave Art? / Anthropology Wars

Why is it that in any anthropologic scenario, one group must win and “the other” group must become extinct? There is a difference between one community of people (let’s say the Roanoke Colony), failing to thrive, and this “failure” being proof that all English people became extinct.  We project the “winner versus looser” plot onto evolutionary history, that as yet, we do not understand. 

Video from the scientific article “U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neanderthal origin of Iberian cave art” (www.sciencemag.org)

One comment: It continues to baffle the logical Asperger, as to why neurotypicals insist that any intentional mark on a rock, or any other object, is automatically “symbolic” expression and “proves” abstract thought in the brain of the “mark maker” when a drawing can be (and usually is) concrete and literal: the drawing of a cave lion is a lion. The arrangement of lines in a drawing into which animals are being driven, is a corral; the animals are specific animals. “Bad” prehistoric drawings (inept person attempting to draw an object) are not 20th C. abstract art!

John Hawks on evidence of Neanderthal / H. sapiens occupation and cultural sharing  in the Carmel area of northern Israel.

The always sane and rational John Hawks…

________________________________________________

And for two other narratives, go to: 

http://discovermagazine.com/2016/june/15-when-neanderthals-replaced-us

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/were-neanderthals-earliest-cave-artists-new-research-spain-points-possibility-180968236/