https://statemuseum.arizona.edu/online-exhibit/handaxes-rock-stone-age

"Acheulean stone tools have been found over much of the Old World, from
southern
Africa to northern Europe and to the Indian sub-continent. Studies of
surface-wear
patterns reveal hand axes were used to butcher and skin game, dig in soil,
and cut
wood or other plant materials. Additionally, Acheulean tools are sometimes
found
with animal bones that show signs of having been butchered."

https://magazine.scienceconnected.org/2015/03/prehistoric-stone-tools-with-animal-residue/

"Now, evidence of human carnivorous behavior has been found among elephant
remains at a Lower Paleolithic site in Revadim, Israel. Archaeologists
from Tel Aviv
University, the University of Rome, and the University of Negev have analyzed
prehistoric stone tools known as “handaxes” and “scrapers,” coated with
residue
from animals butchered more than 500,000 years ago."

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/found-a-bloody-stone-axe-from-250000-years-ago

"A test revealed residue of blood and tissue from horses, cattle, camels
and rhinos."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150319150753.htm

"Among elephant remains some 500,000 years old at a Lower Paleolithic site in
Revadim, Israel, Prof. Ran Barkai and his graduate students Natasha Solodenko
and Andrea Zupanchich of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and
Ancient Near Eastern Cultures recently analyzed "handaxes" and "scrapers,"
universally shaped and sized prehistoric stone tools, replete with animal
residue."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11312582/

"J Hum Evol. 2001 Apr;40(4):289-99. doi: 10.1006/jhev.2000.0466.
Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant residue analysis on
Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania)"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49650-8

"Published: 10 September 2019
Animal residues found on tiny Lower Paleolithic tools reveal their use in
butchery"

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/31/18393
"PNAS August 4, 2020"

"A 1.4-million-year-old bone handaxe from Konso, Ethiopia, shows advanced
tool
technology in the early Acheulean"

"Edge damage, polish, and striae patterns are consistent with use in
longitudinal
motions, such as in butchering."

On Sunday 9 January 2022 at 05:01:36 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:

https://statemuseum.arizona.edu/online-exhibit/handaxes-rock-stone-age
"Additionally, Acheulean tools are sometimes found with animal bones that
show signs of having been butchered."

https://magazine.scienceconnected.org/2015/03/prehistoric-stone-tools-with-animal-residue/
". . . prehistoric stone tools known as “handaxes” and “scrapers,” coated with
residue from animals butchered more than 500,000 years ago."

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/found-a-bloody-stone-axe-from-250000-years-ago
"A test revealed residue of blood and tissue from horses, cattle, camels
and rhinos."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150319150753.htm
"Ancient Near Eastern Cultures recently analyzed "handaxes" and "scrapers,"
universally shaped and sized prehistoric stone tools, replete with animal
residue."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11312582/
"J Hum Evol. 2001 Apr;40(4):289-99. doi: 10.1006/jhev.2000.0466.
Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant residue analysis on
Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania)"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49650-8
"Published: 10 September 2019 Animal residues found on tiny Lower
Paleolithic tools reveal their use in butchery"

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/31/18393
"PNAS August 4, 2020"
"Edge damage, polish, and striae patterns are consistent with use in
longitudinal motions, such as in butchering."

All a bit like "proving" that God exists by quoting
a set of religious websites
Or like "proving" that the FBI and Antifa were
behind the Jan 6th Capitol invasion by quoting
Republican party sites.

.. . . . . What else would you expect them to say?

All the above PA quotes (and, no doubt, the rest
of each article/webpage) ignore all the relevant
facts:
1) That these 'hand-axes' exist in vast deposits, often
of billions.
2) That most have sharp edges all the way around,
making them wholly unsuitable to be held in any
hominin hand
3) That they vary enormously in size, with a broad
trend to getting smaller over time
4) That they disappear from ~200 ka.

On Sunday 9 January 2022 at 05:01:36 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:

> https://statemuseum.arizona.edu/online-exhibit/handaxes-rock-stone-age
> "Additionally, Acheulean tools are sometimes found with animal bones that
> show signs of having been butchered."
>
> https://magazine.scienceconnected.org/2015/03/prehistoric-stone-tools-with-animal-residue/
> ". . . prehistoric stone tools known as “handaxes” and “scrapers,” coated with
> residue from animals butchered more than 500,000 years ago."
>
> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/found-a-bloody-stone-axe-from-250000-years-ago
> "A test revealed residue of blood and tissue from horses, cattle, camels
> and rhinos."
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150319150753.htm
> "Ancient Near Eastern Cultures recently analyzed "handaxes" and "scrapers,"
> universally shaped and sized prehistoric stone tools, replete with animal
> residue."
>
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11312582/
> "J Hum Evol. 2001 Apr;40(4):289-99. doi: 10.1006/jhev.2000.0466.
> Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant residue analysis on
> Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania)"
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49650-8
> "Published: 10 September 2019 Animal residues found on tiny Lower
> Paleolithic tools reveal their use in butchery"
>
> https://www.pnas.org/content/117/31/18393
> "PNAS August 4, 2020"
> "Edge damage, polish, and striae patterns are consistent with use in
> longitudinal motions, such as in butchering."

All a bit like "proving" that God exists by quoting
a set of religious websites
Or like "proving" that the FBI and Antifa were
behind the Jan 6th Capitol invasion by quoting
Republican party sites.

.. . . . . What else would you expect them to say?

All the above PA quotes (and, no doubt, the rest
of each article/webpage) ignore all the relevant
facts:
1) That these 'hand-axes' exist in vast deposits, often
of billions.
2) That most have sharp edges all the way around,
making them wholly unsuitable to be held in any
hominin hand
3) That they vary enormously in size, with a broad
trend towards getting smaller over time
4) That they disappear from ~200 ka.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> "Now, evidence of human carnivorous behavior has been found

Wow. They FINALLY have evidence that humans eat meat. This is remarkable.

> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/found-a-bloody-stone-axe-from-250000-years-ago
>
> "A test revealed residue of blood and tissue from horses, cattle, camels
> and rhinos."

It's also important to remember that these tests can (usually are) bullshit.

For example, numerous tests have found cocaine and tobacco on ancient
Egyptian mummies, even though BOTH those plants are from the Americas,
and there's absolutely ZERO evidence for any trans Atlantic trade nor even
for the plants themselves within America.

In fact, if Egyptians did have access to these plants, and used them, you
would think that SOMEBODY would have wanted to carry them into the
next life, and had them buried within their tomb and/or given as offerings.

Right?

Or even just DEPICT THEM on their tomb walls...

Now multiply their age by like 100 and SUDDENLY these tests are infallible?

Is that your story? I mean, you're going to stick with THAT?

"Well, okay, we're wrong as shit with our testing if it's a few thousand years
old, but it it's more than 200 thousand years old then you know it's accurate!"

The point is that you shouldn't have to "Trust" the science. Nobody should
ever ask you to do. And this is a case where you are being told that you do
have to trust it.

This isn't supposed to be a religion. There isn't supposed to be any faith
involved...

So the question here is: Does any of this matter?

Seriously. Does it change anything?

Does it actually add anything to the body of knowledge knowing whether or
not a broken rock was used to butcher the ancestor to a horse or a duck, or
if it's just a goddamn broken rock?

No. And because it doesn't matter so much as a mouse fart, why bother?
Why commit to an act of faith or an active disbelief?

Why bother with any of this at all?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/672928215302586368

Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Sunday 9 January 2022 at 05:01:36 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> https://statemuseum.arizona.edu/online-exhibit/handaxes-rock-stone-age
> "Additionally, Acheulean tools are sometimes found with animal bones that
> show signs of having been butchered."
>
> https://magazine.scienceconnected.org/2015/03/prehistoric-stone-tools-with-animal-residue/
> ". . . prehistoric stone tools known as “handaxes” and “scrapers,” coated with
> residue from animals butchered more than 500,000 years ago."
>
> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/found-a-bloody-stone-axe-from-250000-years-ago
> "A test revealed residue of blood and tissue from horses, cattle, camels
> and rhinos."
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150319150753.htm
> "Ancient Near Eastern Cultures recently analyzed "handaxes" and "scrapers,"
> universally shaped and sized prehistoric stone tools, replete with animal
> residue."
>
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11312582/
> "J Hum Evol. 2001 Apr;40(4):289-99. doi: 10.1006/jhev.2000.0466.
> Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant residue analysis on
> Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania)"
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49650-8
> "Published: 10 September 2019 Animal residues found on tiny Lower
> Paleolithic tools reveal their use in butchery"
>
> https://www.pnas.org/content/117/31/18393
> "PNAS August 4, 2020"
> "Edge damage, polish, and striae patterns are consistent with use in
> longitudinal motions, such as in butchering."
>
> All a bit like "proving" that God exists by quoting
> a set of religious websites
> Or like "proving" that the FBI and Antifa were
> behind the Jan 6th Capitol invasion by quoting
> Republican party sites.

"quoting" as opposed to analyzing residues?????

> . . . . . What else would you expect them to say?
>
> All the above PA quotes (and, no doubt, the rest
> of each article/webpage) ignore all the relevant
> facts:
> 1) That these 'hand-axes' exist in vast deposits, often
> of billions.
> 2) That most have sharp edges all the way around,
> making them wholly unsuitable to be held in any
> hominin hand
> 3) That they vary enormously in size, with a broad
> trend to getting smaller over time
> 4) That they disappear from ~200 ka.
>

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> "Now, evidence of human carnivorous behavior has been found
>
> Wow. They FINALLY have evidence that humans eat meat. This is remarkable.

The *full* quote runs:

"Now, evidence of human carnivorous behavior has been found among elephant
remains at a Lower Paleolithic site in Revadim, Israel."

They are referring to the remains at ONE site.

>> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/found-a-bloody-stone-axe-from-250000-years-ago
>>
>> "A test revealed residue of blood and tissue from horses, cattle, camels
>> and rhinos."
>
> It's also important to remember that these tests can (usually are) bullshit.

Oh?

> For example, numerous tests have found cocaine and tobacco on ancient
> Egyptian mummies, even though BOTH those plants are from the Americas,
> and there's absolutely ZERO evidence for any trans Atlantic trade nor even
> for the plants themselves within America.
>
> In fact, if Egyptians did have access to these plants, and used them, you
> would think that SOMEBODY would have wanted to carry them into the
> next life, and had them buried within their tomb and/or given as offerings.
>
> Right?
>
> Or even just DEPICT THEM on their tomb walls...
>
> Now multiply their age by like 100 and SUDDENLY these tests are infallible?
>
> Is that your story? I mean, you're going to stick with THAT?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henut_Taui

"Henut Taui, or Henuttaui, Henuttawy (fl. ca 1000 BCE) was an Ancient
Egyptian
priestess during the 21st Dynasty whose remains were mummified. She is mainly
known for being one of the so-called "cocaine mummies"."

"...various plants other than tobacco are a source of nicotine and two of
these,
Withania somnifera and Apium graveolens, were known and used by ancient
Egyptians. Sources of nicotine other than tobacco and sources of cocaine
in the
Old World are discussed by the British biologist Duncan Edlin."

> "Well, okay, we're wrong as shit with our testing if it's a few thousand years
> old, but it it's more than 200 thousand years old then you know it's accurate!"
>
> The point is that you shouldn't have to "Trust" the science. Nobody should
> ever ask you to do. And this is a case where you are being told that you do
> have to trust it.
>
> This isn't supposed to be a religion. There isn't supposed to be any faith
> involved...
>
> So the question here is: Does any of this matter?
>
> Seriously. Does it change anything?
>
> Does it actually add anything to the body of knowledge knowing whether or
> not a broken rock was used to butcher the ancestor to a horse or a duck, or
> if it's just a goddamn broken rock?
>
> No. And because it doesn't matter so much as a mouse fart, why bother?
> Why commit to an act of faith or an active disbelief?
>
> Why bother with any of this at all?

Then why are you here?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:

> > Wow. They FINALLY have evidence that humans eat meat. This is remarkable.

> The *full* quote runs:
> "Now, evidence of human carnivorous behavior has been found

Wow. They FINALLY have evidence that humans eat meat! This is incredible.

> > It's also important to remember that these tests can (usually are) bullshit.

> Oh?

Yes. And I just gave you an example where EVERYONE who isn't an idiot agrees:

> > For example, numerous tests have found cocaine and tobacco on ancient
> > Egyptian mummies, even though BOTH those plants are from the Americas,
> > and there's absolutely ZERO evidence for any trans Atlantic trade nor even
> > for the plants themselves within America.

So the testing sucks eggs on samples that are only a few thousand years old,
and you want to pretending it's Spot-On in the case of samples that are 100x
older?

That's crazy. Insane.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henut_Taui

Wow, so you offer a cite to "Prove" to me exactly what I just said. You continue
to astound me...
> "Henut Taui, or Henuttaui, Henuttawy (fl. ca 1000 BCE) was an Ancient
> Egyptian
> priestess during the 21st Dynasty whose remains were mummified. She is mainly
> known for being one of the so-called "cocaine mummies"."

And yet I had just told you that such testing claimed to find cocaine & tobacco on
ancient Egyptian mummies, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Amazing. You proved me correct.

> "...various plants other than tobacco are a source of nicotine and two of
> these,
> Withania somnifera and Apium graveolens, were known and used by ancient
> Egyptians. Sources of nicotine other than tobacco and sources of cocaine
> in the
> Old World are discussed by the British biologist Duncan Edlin."

So THE FACT is that they claimed to have found cocaine and tobacco on mummies.

What is NOT a fact is that they found any other particular plant(s).

And what was I saying? That the testing sucks eggs? That they claimed to find
cocaine & tobacco when they did not? And you just proved that I was right,
even though I already knew that?

Sir, I'm in awe of your brilliance! And even though I am being totally sarcastic
I know I can count on your to miss this fact.

-- --

https://rumble.com/vqwxtc-the-worst-of-watch-this-volume-ii.html

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
>>> Wow. They FINALLY have evidence that humans eat meat. This is remarkable.
>
>> The *full* quote runs:
>> "Now, evidence of human carnivorous behavior has been found
>
> Wow. They FINALLY have evidence that humans eat meat! This is incredible.

Thisn is just a report from one site. Evidence was found before.

>>> It's also important to remember that these tests can (usually are) bullshit.
>
>> Oh?
>
> Yes. And I just gave you an example where EVERYONE who isn't an idiot agrees:

You declaring it doesn't make it so.

>>> For example, numerous tests have found cocaine and tobacco on ancient
>>> Egyptian mummies, even though BOTH those plants are from the Americas,
>>> and there's absolutely ZERO evidence for any trans Atlantic trade nor even
>>> for the plants themselves within America.
>
> So the testing sucks eggs on samples that are only a few thousand years old,
> and you want to pretending it's Spot-On in the case of samples that are 100x
> older?
>
> That's crazy. Insane.
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henut_Taui
>
> Wow, so you offer a cite to "Prove" to me exactly what I just said. You continue
> to astound me...
>
>> "Henut Taui, or Henuttaui, Henuttawy (fl. ca 1000 BCE) was an Ancient
>> Egyptian
>> priestess during the 21st Dynasty whose remains were mummified. She is mainly
>> known for being one of the so-called "cocaine mummies"."
>
> And yet I had just told you that such testing claimed to find cocaine & tobacco on
> ancient Egyptian mummies, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> Amazing. You proved me correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henut_Taui

"Henut Taui, or Henuttaui, Henuttawy (fl. ca 1000 BCE) was an Ancient Egyptian
priestess during the 21st Dynasty whose remains were mummified. She is mainly
known for being one of the so-called "cocaine mummies"."

"...various plants other than tobacco are a source of nicotine and two of
these,
Withania somnifera and Apium graveolens, were known and used by ancient
Egyptians. Sources of nicotine other than tobacco and sources of cocaine
in the
Old World are discussed by the British biologist Duncan Edlin."

>> "...various plants other than tobacco are a source of nicotine and two of
>> these,
>> Withania somnifera and Apium graveolens, were known and used by ancient
>> Egyptians. Sources of nicotine other than tobacco and sources of cocaine
>> in the
>> Old World are discussed by the British biologist Duncan Edlin."
>
> So THE FACT is that they claimed to have found cocaine and tobacco on mummies.

No. The fact is that there are other sources.

> What is NOT a fact is that they found any other particular plant(s).
>
> And what was I saying? That the testing sucks eggs? That they claimed to find
> cocaine & tobacco when they did not? And you just proved that I was right,
> even though I already knew that?
>
> Sir, I'm in awe of your brilliance! And even though I am being totally sarcastic
> I know I can count on your to miss this fact.

Look up Withania somnifera and Apium graveolens...

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > Wow. They FINALLY have evidence that humans eat meat! This is incredible.

> Thisn is just a report from one site. Evidence was found before.

Well that's money well spent. They should get a couple million more in grant
money, so if there's any evidence that humans poop...

> > Yes. And I just gave you an example where EVERYONE who isn't an idiot agrees:

> You declaring

Nope. Wrong. You're pretending it's about me, even AFTER you posted a cite
proving what I said is true. That is stupid. That is incredibly stupid.

You're spazzing out here, emotionally, instead of thinking.

Again: YOU already posted a cite proving what I said is true.

-- --

https://rumble.com/vr5fsv-confessions-of-an-ex-hippie.html

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:25:34 AM UTC-5, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> > I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > > Wow. They FINALLY have evidence that humans eat meat! This is incredible.
>
> > Thisn is just a report from one site. Evidence was found before.
> Well that's money well spent. They should get a couple million more in grant
> money, so if there's any evidence that humans poop...
> > > Yes. And I just gave you an example where EVERYONE who isn't an idiot agrees:
>
> > You declaring
> Nope. Wrong. You're pretending it's about me, even AFTER you posted a cite
> proving what I said is true. That is stupid. That is incredibly stupid.
>
> You're spazzing out here, emotionally, instead of thinking.
>
> Again: YOU already posted a cite proving what I said is true.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://rumble.com/vr5fsv-confessions-of-an-ex-hippie.html

Skipping the Jerm's gibberish...

Pygmies slit the stems of large broad-leaves and clothespin them to the wicker frame of their dome huts. Ancient Homo did the same with their domeshield, and used the same slit & pin method to hang and cure ultra-thin meat slices at streamside (sunnier there than under the forest canopy) before fire was domesticated. Killing a boar or sow required a strong sharp spear, the hunters stood behind shields next to trees, if charged they climbed 2' up the tree, safe since the boar couldn't raise it's head, unlike a bull or stag. (Russians do this, they cling to tree trunks just above the ground, no need to climb higher.)