Worse than Asperger’s / Other things that limit my life

I hate to fly. I really, really hate to fly. The last time I used an airplane for travel, was to return from a visit to my very ill mother. A thunderstorm struck; there was severe turbulence and the heat in the cabin failed. I hid under a blanket (too small) that only covered my head. A sixteen year-old boy in the seat next to me (and some gin) had to talk me through the flight. Combo: severe emotional stress (family) plus lightning, thunder and unstable airplane = Never fly again.

In fact, the only flight I ever enjoyed was a return trip from a business meeting in LA: the client took us to every Hell hole in Hollywood. Too much food, booze and bizarre behavior. I was so hung over that I didn’t care if the plane crashed and we all died.

People who fly all the time may not think about it, but much of modern life is unattainable if one doesn’t fly.

The childhood corollary to this handicap was a fear of heights, in particular roller coasters, Ferris wheels and amusement rides. This pretty much eliminated summer  entertainment. I stood around holding everyone’s food, drinks and jackets and purses. People made fun of me and tried to trick or shame me into “not being a party pooper” Being an Asperger child, none of this manipulation had any effect on me. I learned to take a camera with me – it was a convenient excuse to wander off by myself and avoid being harassed. And I eventually turned into a photographer, an activity that has enriched my life, whereas the lack of amusement park rides has not affected me at all.

Fortunately, I love trains and driving, although trains just aren’t what they used to be. I drove all over the U.S., but once I moved to Wyoming, I’ve stayed put. I guess all that time I spent traveling around, I was just looking for Wyoming.

Advertisements

Homo erectus in Middle East / Emergence of “Fat Hunters”

New ideas on Homo erectus and an evolutionary shift to “a new hominin lineage” in the Middle East. 

Go to original paper for details and much more…

See also an interesting commentary on H. erectus by John Hawks

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/erectus/changing-height-homo-erectus-2010.html

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028689

Man the Fat Hunter: The Demise of Homo erectus and the Emergence of a New Hominin Lineage in the Middle Pleistocene (ca. 400 kyr) Levant

  • Miki Ben-Dor, Avi Gopher, Israel Hershkovitz, Ran Barkai
  • Published: December 9, 2011

Introduction

It is our contention that two distinct elements combined in the Levant to propel the evolutionary process of replacing H. erectus by a new hominin lineage ([1], As the classification of varieties of the genus Homo is problematic, we refrain in this paper from any taxonomic designations that would indicate species or subspecies affiliation for the hominins of Qesem Cave. (Thank-you!) 

The Qesem Cave hominin, based on the analysis of teeth shares dental characteristics with the Skhul/Qafzeh Middle Paleolithic populations and to some extent also with Neandertals). One was the disappearance of the elephant (Elephas antiquus) – an ideal food-package in terms of fat and protein content throughout the year – which was until then a main calorie contributor to the diet of the H. erectus in the Levant. The second was the continuous necessity of H. erectus to consume animal fat as part of their diet, especially when taking into account their large brains [2]. The need to consume animal fat is the result of the physiological ceiling on the consumption of protein and plant foods. The obligatory nature of animal fat consumption turned the alleged large prey preference [3], [4] of H. erectus into a large prey dependence. Daily energy expenditure (DEE) of the hominins would have increased when very large animals such as the elephant had diminished and a larger number of smaller, faster animals had to be captured to provide the same amount of calories and required fat. This fitness pressure would have been considerably more acute during the dry seasons that prevail in the Levant. Such an eventuality, we suggest, led to the evolution of a better equipped species, in comparison with H. erectus, that also had a lighter body [5], a greater lower limb to weight ratio ([6]:194), and improved levels of knowledge, skill, and coordination ([7]:63) allowing it to better handle the hunting of an increased number of smaller animals and most probably also develop a new supporting social organization. (Chicken or egg? Did the environmental change “promote” a newer, leaner, more coordinated version of Homo erectus, or did a “new hominin” move in from elsewhere?)

We also suggest that this evolutionary process was related to the appearance of a new and innovative local cultural complex – the Levantine Acheulo-Yabrudian [8], [9]. Moreover, a recent study of dental remains from the Acheulo-Yabrudian site of Qesem Cave in Israel dated to 400-200 kyr ago [10], [11] has indicated that the hominins inhabiting the cave were not H. erectus but were rather most similar to later populations (e.g., Skhul/Qafzeh) of this region ([1] and references therein).

The Broader Context

Our direct ancestor, H. erectus, was equipped with a thick and large skull, a large brain (900 cc on average), impressive brow ridges and a strong and heavy body, heavier than that of its H. sapiens successor (e.g., [12], [13], [14]). Inhabiting the old world for some 1.5 million years, H. erectus is commonly associated with the Acheulian cultural complex, which is characterized by the production of large flakes and handaxes – large tools shaped by bifacial flaking. Handaxes are interpreted as tools associated with the butchering of large game (e.g., [15], [16]). H. erectus was also suggested in recent years to have used fire [17], [18]; however the supporting evidence is inconclusive. Albeit the positive archaeological evidence from the site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov (henceforth GBY) dated to around 780 kyr [19], [20], [21], the habitual use of fire became widely spread only after 400 kyr [22], [23], [24], [25].

Archaeological evidence seems to associate H. erectus with large and medium-sized game {Namely, Body Size Group A (BSGA Elephant, >1000 kg), BSGB (Hippopotamus, rhinoceros approx. 1000 kg), and BSGC (Giant deer, red deer, boar, bovine, 80–250 kg); (after [26])}, most conspicuously elephants, whose remains are commonly found at Acheulian sites throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe (e.g., [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]). In some instances elephant bones and tusks were also transformed into shaped tools, specifically artifacts reminiscent of the characteristic Acheulian stone handaxes [31].

In Africa, H. sapiens appears around 200 kyr ago, most probably replacing H. erectus and/or H. heidelbergensis [32], [33], [34]. Early African H. sapiens used both handaxes and the sophisticated tool-manufacturing technologies known as the Levallois technique (e.g., [35], [36]) while its sites are devoid of elephants [32], [35]. The presence of elephants in many Acheulian African sites and their absence from later Middle Stone Age sites [29], [37], evoked an overkill hypothesis ([38]:382), which was never convincingly demonstrated. Thus no link was proposed, in the case of Africa, between human evolution and the exclusion of elephants from the human diet, and no evolutionary reasoning was offered for the emergence of H. sapiens in Africa [39].

In Europe, H. erectus was replaced by H. heidelbergensis [40] and later by hominins associated with the Neanderthal evolutionary lineage [41]. In spite of significant cultural changes, such as the adoption of the Levallois technique and the common use of fire, the manufacture and use of handaxes and the association with large game persisted in post-erectus Europe until the demise of the Neandertals, around 30 kyr BP (e.g., [42]). H. sapiens did not evolve in Europe but migrated to it no earlier than 40 kyr BP (e.g., [43]).

In the Levant, dental remains from the Acheulo-Yabrudian site of Qesem Cave, Israel [10], [11] demonstrate resemblance to dental records of later, Middle Paleolithic populations in the region [1] indicating that H. erectus was replaced some 400 kyr ago by a new hominin ancestral to later populations in the Levant. A rich and well-dated (400-200 kyr) archaeological dataset known from the Levant offers a glimpse into this significant process and a better understanding of the circumstances leading to the later emergence of modern humans thus suggesting a possible link between the cultural and biological processes. This dataset pertains to the unique local cultural complex known as the Acheulo-Yabrudian, a diversified and innovative cultural complex (e.g., [8], [44], [45]), which appeared some 400 kyr ago, immediately following the Acheulian cultural complex [10], [11], and which lasted some 200 kyr. Acheulo-Yabrudian sites as well as sites associated with subsequent cultures in the Levant show no elephant remains in their faunal assemblages.

Conclusion

For more than two decades a view dominated anthropological discussions that all modern human variation derived from Africa within a relatively recent chronological framework. Recent years challenged this paradigm with new discoveries from Europe, China, and other localities, as well as by new advances in theory and methodology. These developments are now setting the stage for a new understanding of the human story in general and the emergence of modern humans in particular (e.g., [1], [39], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146]). In this respect, the Qesem hominins may play an important role. Analysis of their dental remains [1] suggests a much deeper time frame between at least some of the ancestral populations and modern humans than that which is assumed by the “Out of Africa” model. This, combined with previous genetic studies (e.g., [147], [148], [149], [150]), lends support to the notion of assimilation (e.g., [144]) between populations migrating “out of Africa” and populations already established in these parts of Eurasia.

It is still premature to indicate whether the Qesem hominin ancestors evolved in Africa prior to 400 kyr [136], developed blade technologies [151], [152], and then migrated to the Levant to establish the new and unique Acheulo-Yabrudian cultural complex; or whether (as may be derived from our model) we face a local, Levantine emergence of a new hominin lineage. (If it’s local, from which species did the “new hominin” evolve? Is this the putative location where H. erectus “became” H. sapiens?) The plethora of hominins in the Levantine Middle Paleolithic fossil record (Qafzeh, Skhul, Zuttiyeh, Tabun) and the fact that the Acheulo-Yabrudian cultural complex has no counterparts in Africa may hint in favor of local cultural and biological developments. This notion gains indirect support from the Denisova finds that raise the possibility that several different hominin groups spread out across Europe and Asia for hundreds of thousands of years, probably contributing to the emergence of modern human populations [153], [154], [155].

It should not come as a surprise that H. erectus, and its successors managed, and in fact evolved, to obtain a substantial amount of the densest form of nutritional energy available in nature – fat – to the point that it became an obligatory food source. Animal fat was an essential food source necessary in order to meet the daily energy expenditure of these Pleistocene hominins, especially taking into account their large energy-demanding brains. It should also not come as a surprise that for a predator, the disappearance of a major prey animal may be a significant reason for evolutionary change. The elephant was a uniquely large and fat-rich food-package and therefore a most attractive target during the Levantine Lower Palaeolithic Acheulian. Our calculations show that the elephant’s disappearance from the Levant just before 400 kyr was significant enough an event to have triggered the evolution of a species that was more adept, both physically and mentally, to obtain dense energy (such as fat) from a higher number of smaller, more evasive animals. The concomitant emergence of a new and innovative cultural complex – the Acheulo-Yabrudian, heralds a new set of behavioral habits including changes in hunting and sharing practices [9], [23], [45] that are relevant to our model.

Thus, the particular dietary developments and cultural innovations joined together at the end of the Lower Paleolithic period in the Levant, reflecting a link between human biological and cultural/behavioral evolution. If indeed, as we tried to show, the dependence of humans on fat was so fundamental to their existence, the application is made possible, perhaps after some refinement, of this proposed bioenergetic model to the understanding of other important developments in human evolutionary history.

 

Confrontational scavenging of large vertebrate carcasses / Early Homo

Freshly scavenged elk carcass

OXFORD ACADEMIC

Humans and Scavengers: The Evolution of Interactions and Ecosystem Services

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/5/394/2754213

BioScience, Volume 64, Issue 5, 1 May 2014, Pages 394–403, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu034
Published: 22 March 2014

Excerpt: Diet of early humans: Food provisioning and the onset of cultural services

Around the time of the Pliocene–Pleistocene transition, increasing seasonality in precipitation occurred in African savannas (Cerling et al. 2011a). This forced the australopithecine ancestors of humans to diversify their diet in order to cope with the developing seasonal bottleneck in fruits and other soft plant foods. While hominins of the genus Paranthropus became adapted to exploit durable seeds, roots, and sedges (Cerling et al. 2011b, Klein 2013, Sponheimer et al. 2013), the lineage leading to Homo turned to the meat provided by large vertebrate carcasses to overcome the effects of the increasingly seasonal production of fruits and new plant growth (Foley and Lee 1989, Bunn and Ezzo 1993, Ungar et al. 2006, Klein 2013). Although the relative role of hunting and scavenging by early humans remains controversial (Domínguez-Rodrigo 2002, Ungar et al. 2006, Pickering 2013), many anthropologists contend that the earliest humans obtained animal food largely through confrontational scavenging (also called power scavenging and aggressive scavenging) by driving large carnivores from their kills (figure 1; O’Connell et al. 1988, Bunn and Ezzo 1993, Brantingham 1998, Ragir 2000, Domínguez-Rodrigo and Pickering 2003, Klein 2009, Bickerton and Szathmáry 2011). Indeed, it has been proposed that the emergence of endurance running could have helped early humans to secure sufficient access to the scattered and ephemeral resource that is carrion, although this might have been a later feature facilitating the hunting of live ungulate prey (Bramble and Lieberman 2011).

Figure 1.

Major meat acquisition strategies of humans (Homo spp.) in relation to key events during the Quaternary Period. (a) A logarithmic time scale (in thousands of years ago) showing the main human-related events that occurred during the Quaternary Period that shaped the interactions between humans and scavenging vertebrates. (b) The major means of meat acquisition by humans during the Quaternary Period. See the text for further details.

Major meat acquisition strategies of humans (Homo spp.) in relation to key events during the Quaternary Period. (a) A logarithmic time scale (in thousands of years ago) showing the main human-related events that occurred during the Quaternary Period that shaped the interactions between humans and scavenging vertebrates. (b) The major means of meat acquisition by humans during the Quaternary Period. See the text for further details.

Interference and resource competition probably accounted for most of the interactions among the earliest humans, vultures, bone-cracking hyenids, and other vertebrate scavengers (Bunn and Ezzo 1993, Owen-Smith 1999, Bickerton and Szathmáry 2011, Bramble and Lieberman 2011). In addition, confrontational scavenging would have exposed early humans to increased risks of injury or death while they were driving away the large carnivores that had killed the carcasses or driving away other fearsome scavengers present at them (Bunn and Ezzo 1993, Bickerton and Szathmáry 2011). But facilitatory interactions could also have been a feature, as it happens in current vertebrate scavenger guilds (Cortés-Avizanda et al. 2012, Pereira et al. 2014). For instance, observations of contemporary hunter–gatherers who actively exploit scavenging opportunities suggest that watching the behavior of vultures and large mammalian carnivores could have helped early humans locate carcasses (O’Connell et al. 1988). Such food provisioning probably represents the first ecosystem service that humans gained from scavenging vertebrates.

Moreover, a major function of the earliest stone tools crafted by early hominins was the processing of large carcasses to yield meat and marrow, a pattern of butchery that extended well into the Pleistocene (de Heinzelin et al. 1999). Competition with other scavengers probably contributed to the refinement of these tools and their use and, therefore, to cultural diversity. In addition, selective pressures associated with confrontational scavenging—specifically, the spatiotemporal unpredictability of carcasses and exposure to predation—probably contributed to the most distinctive features of humans: collaborative cooperation and language development (both of which were used to express where the resource was imagined to be awaiting; Bickerton and Szathmáry 2011). In turn, the improved diet quality due to increasing meat consumption has been related, along with other factors, to the extraordinary brain enlargement within the human lineage (Bramble and Lieberman 2011, Navarrete et al. 2011). Therefore, (confrontational) scavenging helped shape our modern cognitive identity.

Glossary

Amensalism: any interaction between two individuals or groups of the same or different species in which one organism or group is harmed but the other is unaffected.

Carrion: any type of dead animal tissue.

Coevolution: reciprocal selective pressure that makes the evolution of one taxon partially dependent on the evolution of another (Brantingham 1998).

Commensalism: any interaction between two individuals or groups of the same or different species in which one organism or group benefits without affecting the other.

Competition: any interaction between two individuals or groups of the same or different species that reduces access to a shared resource or set of resources. Competition is direct (interference) if one organism or group affects the ability of another to consume a given limiting resource or indirect (exploitation) if the consumption of a given limiting resource by one organism or group makes the resource unavailable for another.

Ecosystem services: benefits people obtain from ecosystems (MA 2005) or the set of ecosystem functions that are useful to humans (Kremen 2005). These include provisioning (products obtained from ecosystems), regulating (related to the regulation of ecosystem processes), and cultural (nonmaterial benefits) services that directly affect people, as well as the supporting services needed to maintain other services. Provisioning, regulating, and cultural services typically have relatively direct and short-term impacts on people, whereas the impact of supporting services is often indirect or occurs over a very long time period (MA 2005).

Facilitative processes: those processes whose effects on a given organism are beneficial and increase its development or fitness.

Facultative scavenger: an animal that scavenges at variable rates but that can subsist on other food resources in the absence of carrion. All mammalian predators (e.g., jackals, hyenas, and lions in Africa and southern Asia; foxes, raccoons, wolves, and bears in temperate ecosystems), numerous birds of prey (e.g., kites, most large eagles), and corvids (e.g., ravens, crows), as well as other vertebrates (e.g., crocodiles), can be considered, to a greater or lesser extent, facultative scavengers (DeVault et al. 2003, Pereira et al. 2014).

Mutualism: any beneficial and reciprocal interaction between two individuals or groups of different species. This relationship of mutual dependence can be obligate (when a given organism or group cannot survive or reproduce without its mutualistic partner).

Obligate scavenger: a scavenger that relies entirely or near entirely on carrion as food resource. Among Quaternary terrestrial vertebrates, only vultures (both Old and New World species—families Accipitridae and Cathartidae, respectively) are considered obligate scavengers.

Predation: an interaction in which one animal kills and eats all or part of another. Predation can affect prey through the two fundamental mechanisms of direct consumption and capture risk.

Scavenging: an interaction in which one animal eats all or part of a dead animal. Scavenging is active (also called confrontational, aggressive, or power scavenging) when the predator that was responsible for the kill is chased away and most of the meat on the carcass is procured, or it is passive when the bones, which may contain fragments of meat, marrow, and skull contents, are collected.

Much, much, more…

John Hawks on NEW Homo naledi research “So Human”

Naledi dated to? Ask a geologist! Nice demonstration of how one’s point of view (academic discipline) “changes” what you get from the fossils… and other problems of location, spatial relationships, genetics, time. 

 

CARTA Video / Origin Genus Homo – History of Confusion

This discussion makes my Asperger brain go into a state of utter bafflement and disbelief, that this BLAH, BLAH, BLAH is believed to be about the evolution of actual “creatures” in nature.

The presentations are about the “evolution” of a flawed intellectual system that does not remotely address or explain “how the real world works”. There is no “Homo genus” in the real world – only specific living creatures coping with actual physical environments. How we organize our “ideas” about reality, is not reality. This lack of awareness by Western intellectuals of their “supernatural” imposition of cultural ideas onto reality is a huge flaw. 

What does all this “quibbling” over a socially-motivated “I’m right, you’re wrong” argument, which is the legacy of western academic bad habits, have to do with nature?

Trying to “arrange” scant fossils, scant concrete evidence, oodles of bad reconstructions and irresponsible speculation into a pre-conceived and ill-conceived intellectual framework is NONSENSE.

Evolution is about reproduction; the generation by individuals, of offspring, successfully adapted to changes in the environment – not about what a few random (scattered across time and space), poorly preserved, fragmentary skeletal remains “look like” when cobbled together into “fanciful” creatures, configured by a history of misinterpretation.

It’s this persistent, and fatal-to-knowledge, Western “religious conceit” that there is a supernatural domain, in which an absolute model of the universe, and everything in it, is pre-determined and pre-existing; the very idea of an evolving reality is “dead on arrival” in the Western academic brain. Discovery of reality is denied; intellectual contraptions are kept “alive” by transparently inadequate fixes of archaic ideas – a monstrosity is held up as scientifically valid.

Predator Behavior / H. sapiens compared to H. Neanderthalensis

I’ve been thinking about H. sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis as predator types who both had to contend with the local competition, whether in Africa, Eurasia, or the far north. This video on Yellowstone demonstrates competition between grizzlies, wolves, coyote, and carnivorous birds. For each type, it’s not “either or” scavenger, hunter or opportunist: it’s all opportunistic, actually, whether hunting to kill, hunting to drive off a competitor from a kill, or grabbing whatever part or leftover can be had. Prey animals such as bison and elk are not passive victims; predators and prey are making instaneous ongoing assessments of risk and reward; of flexible strategies that utilize environmental topography, water, snow, plant type and distribution, forested areas and seasonal change.

It’s tempting to try to place H. sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis into similar environments. Bear versus wolf is an interesting comparison: bears possess individual size, strength and speed and compete with each other. Wolves hunt singly, in pairs and in packs, with size of prey a major factor. Picking off the young, injured and old is a major theme, as well as stealing carcasses and eating rotten carcasses, for both wolves and bears; bears hibernate in winter leaving excellent opportunity for wolves to thrive. Bears and wolves otherwise compete directly for food.

As much or more time and energy is spent harassing and exhausting opponents and prey – our concept of swift kills is usually all wrong. Endurance, persistence, luck and knowing when to quit, are vital knowledge learned from adults and by daily experience.  Successful hunting occurs in stages, more like boxing rounds, than swift kills as seen in predatory birds.

While thinking about all this, I watched the following video, because the idea of Neanderthal as an apex predator is currently favored; if so, would its behavior be more like big cats, in which sheer mass, size, ambush, stealth and short bursts of speed overwhelm prey, or the behavior of wolves? Persistent wearing down of an isolated target, tactical wounding, stress from the chase and mobbing, with ultimate death by exhaustion the goal? Of course, the advent of projectiles radically changed all this.

I have no opinion overall of the video’s presentation as accurate, but appreciate many points that xxx brings up; especially the massive muscular body of Neanderthal. I object to  the inky black skin, head position, red eyes and chimp-gorilla face as unnecessarily extreme. Body hair – very possible. I do believe that our “obsession with monsters” is a phantom of the collective memory in Homo sapiens, as are fears of snakes, spiders, and the  irrational hatred of wolves – I have suggested that some types of “giants” in myths could be a memory of Neanderthal overlap with Homo sapiens; even the models for early “gods”. 

I think the notion that we must “re-orient” our analysis to predatory behavior in both H. neanderthal and H. sapiens, in competition with other top predators, in various environments, is the point here.

Two myths need to be challenged: that injuries in Neanderthals were like those of contemporary rodeo athletes (they are not, and in fact are no different than those found in AMH, who were their contemporaries) and that ARCHAIC AMH were “just like us” both physically and mentally. ARCHAIC AMH were more similar to Neanderthal, than to Modern Social Humans (neurotypicals). It is nearly impossible to identify many archaic fossil skulls as definitely H. sapiens or H. neanderthaliensis.

The Them and Us Theory is no more fanciful that most “official narratives” that downplay the wildness of Archaic AMH, both in appearance and behavior – for me, what the Them and Us Theory points to, and misses entirely, is that,

Modern Social Humans are the “oddity”.

That modern social humans are JUVENALIZED AND DOMESTICATED in relation to both H. Neanderthal and Archaic H. sapiens.

The present-day “modern human skull” is an “infantile” skull. 

Intro to Stone Age Environment / Intelligence of Wild Human Ancestors

Imagine, as a puny human, that this is your daily environment – and mega competition for food. The tools and “weapons” made by Stone Age humans would indicate a scavenger lifestyle based on tools as compensation for a lack of “predatory” equipment; sprint speed, mass, size, jaw strength, ripping, stabbing, crushing or cutting teeth, and “close up and personal” contact killing that is required of predators.

The Stone Age tool kit is perfect for butchering, skinning, and bone-breaking after the fact of the animal having been disabled or killed. Even spears, presumed to be attack weapons, may have been used for jabbing and thrusting as defense against large predators – in imitation of the “look how big I am” bipedal stance used by bears, combined with a spear point of either hardened wood or shaped stone, attached to a long shaft, to compensate for the deadly claws of both predator and prey animals, which humans lack. Distance from the “natural weapons” of the large animal would be paramount in any scavenging, stealing or hunting strategy, as would be pack behavior, with specific tasks assigned (just like wolves) to pack members.

Harassing of the animal with non-lethal wounds and threatening behavior, including a prolonged chase (the persistent application of stress), would be an “intelligent” and far less dangerous method than the “heroic” man against beast myth of “single combat” popular in pop culture narratives.

Sure! Run up to that massive bear, grab it by the “face” … and then what? Stupid hunting ideas by neurotypicals.

Still think that our Wild Human ancestors were just like us? The majority of modern social humans would never have succeeded in a Stone Age environment that required inventive visual intelligence, “animal cunning”, self-control, and a judicious balance of risk and benefit. And, significantly, the ability to copy the successful physical equipment and behaviors of other animals (and natural phenomena) and to utilize materials available in nature, to rapidly override the incredibly slow rate of evolutionary adaptation, with immediate, short term technical innovation.

Wild Human Ancestors: 

The Creationist version, the Infantile American and Creationist version…

The powerless proto-male adolescent fantasy version… 

The entertainment industry “bonehead” version…

and the current “Paleo-idiot” marketing version…

CavemenWorld is the Internet’s leading resource for Paleo lifestyle information. Nobody knew better how to survive the trials of living than the cavemen. Our Articles and Insights cover the entire gamut of human endeavors from a Stone Age perspective, showing you how to Eat, Move, Explore and Thrive like our cave-dwelling ancestors did, so that you can be just as healthy, strong and full of life as they were.

Let’s see what Stone Age women were doing…neurotypical idiot version…

“Cavewoman Makeover”

Totally unrealistic, but who cares?  

And, Where’s that mass extinction event, when we so desperately need it?