https://youtu.be/CA3lIuN_zVE?t=82

The topic of the video may be mildly interesting,
though I'm certain that melting & casting Obsidian
was *Oodles* beyond our early ancestors, but
look at that knife he's holding!

It's precisely what I have speculated about! It seems
like early man would have been building such tools,
and all we'd find remaining in the archaeological
record is some crudely knapped off cutting blade(s).

But, you know, flint can be sharper than steel, and
obsidian is sharper than even flint. So if they were
knapping off sharper-than-razor flakes, does that
not imply foot protection?

You know, to keep from these shards tearing into
their vulnerable flesh and producing all kinds of
bloody, infectious wounds?

I mean, does it sort of kind of almost tell us they
had shoes or something maybe akin to shoes?

Hmm?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/679136273466900480

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 12:26:26 AM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> https://youtu.be/CA3lIuN_zVE?t=82
>
> The topic of the video may be mildly interesting,
> though I'm certain that melting & casting Obsidian
> was *Oodles* beyond our early ancestors, but
> look at that knife he's holding!
>
> It's precisely what I have speculated about! It seems
> like early man would have been building such tools,
> and all we'd find remaining in the archaeological
> record is some crudely knapped off cutting blade(s).
>
> But, you know, flint can be sharper than steel, and
> obsidian is sharper than even flint. So if they were
> knapping off sharper-than-razor flakes, does that
> not imply foot protection?
>
> You know, to keep from these shards tearing into
> their vulnerable flesh and producing all kinds of
> bloody, infectious wounds?
>
> I mean, does it sort of kind of almost tell us they
> had shoes or something maybe akin to shoes?
>
> Hmm?
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/679136273466900480
How could they shave if their toes are shod?

Shush! Adults are talking. Go play in your room.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/679579880888958976

I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
> https://youtu.be/CA3lIuN_zVE?t=82
>
> The topic of the video may be mildly interesting,
> though I'm certain that melting & casting Obsidian
> was *Oodles* beyond our early ancestors, but
> look at that knife he's holding!
>
> It's precisely what I have speculated about! It seems
> like early man would have been building such tools,
> and all we'd find remaining in the archaeological
> record is some crudely knapped off cutting blade(s).
>
> But, you know, flint can be sharper than steel, and
> obsidian is sharper than even flint. So if they were
> knapping off sharper-than-razor flakes, does that
> not imply foot protection?

Not necessarily, if they already had foot wear of some kind.

> You know, to keep from these shards tearing into
> their vulnerable flesh and producing all kinds of
> bloody, infectious wounds?
>
> I mean, does it sort of kind of almost tell us they
> had shoes or something maybe akin to shoes?

No. Have you ever watched someone knapping, or at least a video or two?
Here's
a decent one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nJKqNjXDkU
Living in the Stone Age: Flint Knapping (making flint tools)

Pretty much sitting down. Foot wear with this activity would not be needed
and
in any case these are cultures that probably went bare foot most or all
the time
anyway if they had foot wear. You can still see that in cultures around
the world
today. Of course, there may be an economic aspect, as in affordability.
Feet get
toughened up from years of going bare foot and of course, if they're
capable of
knapping then they're capable of watching where they're stepping.

From 2008 (there might be something more recent but this will do)

https://refs.ahcuah.com/papers/trinkaus2.pdf
Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear:
Tianyuan and Sunghir

Of course, moving into colder climes like Siberia would almost guarantee
foot wear of
some kind. Something the AA crowd won't like is that leather from hunting
would be involved (as opposed to mv's usual bleat that only drowned
animals would be available).

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> > But, you know, flint can be sharper than steel, and
> > obsidian is sharper than even flint. So if they were
> > knapping off sharper-than-razor flakes, does that
> > not imply foot protection?

> Not necessarily, if they already had foot wear of some kind.

The real question here is if they could have been knapping all
these hyper sharp bits onto the ground if they didn't have
shoes?

Whether they developed foot coverings first or came up with
them in response to shredding their feet & toes it all adds up
to the same thing: Shoes!

> > You know, to keep from these shards tearing into
> > their vulnerable flesh and producing all kinds of
> > bloody, infectious wounds?
> >
> > I mean, does it sort of kind of almost tell us they
> > had shoes or something maybe akin to shoes?

> No. Have you ever watched someone knapping, or at least a video or two?
> Here's
> a decent one
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nJKqNjXDkU

He's not naked and he is wearing shoes. Boots, I think.

> Pretty much sitting down. Foot wear with this activity would not be needed

He's wearing it. And a shirt. And pants. Have you seen any videos of naked,
barefoot people knapping sharper-than-a-razors stone?

> and
> in any case these are cultures that probably went bare foot most or all
> the time

But that's an assumption. It's what is called an a-priori assumption. It
could evenly be called a bias: The human element. Science exists to
eliminate exactly that.

"Does the fact that people were knapping super sharp stones imply that
they had shoes/foot protection?"

Well, the video posted here is certainly consistent with this notion, as
the man is clearly not barefoot while knapping.

> Of course, moving into colder climes like Siberia would almost guarantee
> foot wear of
> some kind.

Of course /Reaching/ those colder climates would guarantee Aquatic Ape,
as we all agree on "Coastal Dispersal."

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/684450379115675648

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>>> But, you know, flint can be sharper than steel, and
>>> obsidian is sharper than even flint. So if they were
>>> knapping off sharper-than-razor flakes, does that
>>> not imply foot protection?
>
>> Not necessarily, if they already had foot wear of some kind.
>
> The real question here is if they could have been knapping all
> these hyper sharp bits onto the ground if they didn't have
> shoes?
>
> Whether they developed foot coverings first or came up with
> them in response to shredding their feet & toes it all adds up
> to the same thing: Shoes!
>
>>> You know, to keep from these shards tearing into
>>> their vulnerable flesh and producing all kinds of
>>> bloody, infectious wounds?
>>>
>>> I mean, does it sort of kind of almost tell us they
>>> had shoes or something maybe akin to shoes?
>
>> No. Have you ever watched someone knapping, or at least a video or two?
>> Here's
>> a decent one
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nJKqNjXDkU
>
> He's not naked and he is wearing shoes. Boots, I think.

Ok, and?

>> Pretty much sitting down. Foot wear with this activity would not be needed
>
> He's wearing it. And a shirt. And pants. Have you seen any videos of naked,
> barefoot people knapping sharper-than-a-razors stone?

There's some nice pictures at the bottom of this link ("THE LANGDA
ADZE-MAKERS OF IRIAN JAYA, NEW GUINEA (FIGURES 83 -97)" )

https://www.stoneageinstitute.org/pdfs/cutting-edge-ch13-toth.pdf

See, for example

<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kathy-Schick/publication/281465698/figure/fig44/AS:645712148721698@1530961181496/A-view-over-the-shoulder-of-the-Langda-knapper-Note-the-spatial-pattern-of-fl-akes-and.png>

>> and
>> in any case these are cultures that probably went bare foot most or all
>> the time
>
> But that's an assumption. It's what is called an a-priori assumption. It
> could evenly be called a bias: The human element. Science exists to
> eliminate exactly that.
>
> "Does the fact that people were knapping super sharp stones imply that
> they had shoes/foot protection?"
>
> Well, the video posted here is certainly consistent with this notion, as
> the man is clearly not barefoot while knapping.

There are plenty of sharp objects on the ground besides debitage. Where do
you think the lithics came from? They have to be gathered from somewhere.

>> Of course, moving into colder climes like Siberia would almost guarantee
>> foot wear of
>> some kind.
>
> Of course /Reaching/ those colder climates would guarantee Aquatic Ape,
> as we all agree on "Coastal Dispersal."

aa in colder climes? Swimming? LOL They chop holes in the ice? LOL

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> > He's not naked and he is wearing shoes. Boots, I think.

> Ok, and?

Do you not understand this? The "Evidence" you presented is consistent with
the idea that knapping sharper-than-razer flakes means they had footwear. The
evidence you presented is NOT consistent with the claim that footwear is
unnecessary, as the man in your video is wearing shoes (boots?).

> There's some nice pictures

What would be "Nice" is if you believe an image establishes something you
would identify the image and what you think it establishes.

> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kathy-Schick/publication/281465698/figure/fig44/AS:645712148721698@1530961181496/A-view-over-the-shoulder-of-the-Langda-knapper-Note-the-spatial-pattern-of-fl-akes-and.png>

Cool. What kind of stone is it? It's not obsidian, which is the specific stone
I mentioned but what kind is it?

> > "Does the fact that people were knapping super sharp stones imply that
> > they had shoes/foot protection?"

As you read for comprehension, to an impressive extant, would you mind
blowing us all away by spelling out what specifically this "super sharp
stone" was?

> > Well, the video posted here is certainly consistent with this notion, as
> > the man is clearly not barefoot while knapping.

> There are plenty of sharp objects on the ground besides debitage.

Okay. So I repeat: Flint is sharper than a razor, obsidian is sharper than is
flint. The video depicts an obsidian "knife" that I stated I was certain they
were producing, or tools very similar. What sharp objects are sharper than
the sharper-than-a-razor obsidian flakes?

> Where do
> you think the lithics came from?

Why do you believe the source matters here? Explain.

> > Of course /Reaching/ those colder climates would guarantee Aquatic Ape,
> > as we all agree on "Coastal Dispersal."

> aa in colder climes?

Lord know's you're not bright but, how are you pretending that they left their
point of origin? Whether out of Africa or out of Asia, they started in the
tropics and left... by way of flying carpet? Everyone else on the planet, including
Out of Africa purists, agree it was coastal dispersal, which REQUIRES Aquatic
Ape because there were no seaside McDonald's restaurants for them to stop at.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/685240631321411584

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>>> He's not naked and he is wearing shoes. Boots, I think.
>
>> Ok, and?
>
> Do you not understand this? The "Evidence" you presented is consistent with
> the idea that knapping sharper-than-razer flakes means they had footwear. The
> evidence you presented is NOT consistent with the claim that footwear is
> unnecessary, as the man in your video is wearing shoes (boots?).

Even the picture of the barefoot knapper? :D

>> There's some nice pictures
>
> What would be "Nice" is if you believe an image establishes something you
> would identify the image and what you think it establishes.

That do you think the guy is doing? Flossing his cat?

>> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kathy-Schick/publication/281465698/figure/fig44/AS:645712148721698@1530961181496/A-view-over-the-shoulder-of-the-Langda-knapper-Note-the-spatial-pattern-of-fl-akes-and.png>
>
> Cool. What kind of stone is it? It's not obsidian, which is the specific stone
> I mentioned but what kind is it?

You mean not all stone flakes are sharp?

>>> "Does the fact that people were knapping super sharp stones imply that
>>> they had shoes/foot protection?"
>
> As you read for comprehension, to an impressive extant, would you mind
> blowing us all away by spelling out what specifically this "super sharp
> stone" was?

You mean not all stone flakes are sharp?

>>> Well, the video posted here is certainly consistent with this notion, as
>>> the man is clearly not barefoot while knapping.
>
>> There are plenty of sharp objects on the ground besides debitage.
>
> Okay. So I repeat: Flint is sharper than a razor, obsidian is sharper than is
> flint. The video depicts an obsidian "knife" that I stated I was certain they
> were producing, or tools very similar. What sharp objects are sharper than
> the sharper-than-a-razor obsidian flakes?

But still sharp. Thanks.

>> Where do
>> you think the lithics came from?
>
> Why do you believe the source matters here? Explain.

Australopiths carried lithics for tens of kilometers.

The paper is public.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.551.142&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Oldowan behavior and raw material transport: perspectives from the Kanjera
Formation

"These data show that hominins selected raw materials for transport at
frequencies that are significantly different from their availability on
ancient
landscapes. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of the assemblage
represents transport over relatively long distances (>10 km). Our study
further suggests that in the early stages of stone tool use hominins used
a wide variety of raw materials and selected these materials at some
distance from their eventual discard locations."

"The location of these silica rich Nyanzian cherts is restricted to
a few hills at the foot of the Kisii Highlands (Fig. 5), and therefore
the closest primary source outcrop to Kanjera South is approximately
35 km from the archaeological site."

Do you think there were sharp objects they might have stepped, or will
you claim shoes for traveling?

>>> Of course /Reaching/ those colder climates would guarantee Aquatic Ape,
>>> as we all agree on "Coastal Dispersal."
>
>> aa in colder climes?
>
> Lord know's you're not bright but, how are you pretending that they left their
> point of origin? Whether out of Africa or out of Asia, they started in the
> tropics and left... by way of flying carpet? Everyone else on the planet, including
> Out of Africa purists, agree it was coastal dispersal, which REQUIRES Aquatic
> Ape because there were no seaside McDonald's restaurants for them to stop at.

Hominid remains are found well into Siberia. Tends to get cold there.
Water freezes
making aa a bit hard...

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Even the picture of the barefoot knapper? :D

What's he knapping? Be specific. Is it wood? Marshmallow? Are you saying
it's rock? What kind of rock?

Be specific.

> > What would be "Nice" is if you believe an image establishes something you
> > would identify the image and what you think it establishes.

> That do you think the guy is doing? Flossing his cat?

Okay. So you don't know what you believe an imagine establishes?

> > Cool. What kind of stone is it? It's not obsidian, which is the specific stone
> > I mentioned but what kind is it?

> You mean not all stone flakes are sharp?

You have trouble following along, or rudimentary English for that matter but,
saying "Obsidian is sharper than a razor" is not a Latin phrase meaning "All
rocks are exactly alike and they're all sharper than a razor."

As this is a CRITICAL flaw of in your position, and someone may help you
Google the definition of "Critical," now would be a good time to stop. No
sense in proceeding beyond a critical failure such as above.

Kisses.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/685829083109720064

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Even the picture of the barefoot knapper? :D
>
> What's he knapping? Be specific. Is it wood? Marshmallow? Are you saying
> it's rock? What kind of rock?
>
> Be specific.

Jermy, are you going to claim that some rock debitage is NOT sharp? :=D

>>> What would be "Nice" is if you believe an image establishes something you
>>> would identify the image and what you think it establishes.
>
>> That do you think the guy is doing? Flossing his cat?
>
> Okay. So you don't know what you believe an imagine establishes?

<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kathy-Schick/publication/281465698/figure/fig44/AS:645712148721698@1530961181496/A-view-over-the-shoulder-of-the-Langda-knapper-Note-the-spatial-pattern-of-fl-akes-and.png>

Knapping. You mean you can't tell? Explains a LOT.

>>> Cool. What kind of stone is it? It's not obsidian, which is the specific stone
>>> I mentioned but what kind is it?
>
>> You mean not all stone flakes are sharp?
>
> You have trouble following along, or rudimentary English for that matter but,
> saying "Obsidian is sharper than a razor" is not a Latin phrase meaning "All
> rocks are exactly alike and they're all sharper than a razor."

You really should take a break from making hack videos and go to an
archaeological
fair or something and watch a knapper. Flakes are sharp and are also used.

https://www.thoughtco.com/debitage-waste-flakes-stone-tool-processing-170697
Debitage, pronounced in English roughly DEB-ih-tahzhs, is an artifact
type, the collective
term used by archaeologists to refer to the sharp-edged waste material
left over when a
flintknapper creates a stone tool (that is, knaps flint).

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

"Lithic reduction may be performed in order to obtain sharp flakes, of
which a variety of
tools can be made, or to rough out a blank for later refinement into a
projectile point, knife,
or other object. Flakes of regular size that are at least twice as long as
they are broad are
called blades. Lithic tools produced this way may be bifacial (exhibiting
flaking on both sides) or unifacial (exhibiting flaking on one side only)."

> As this is a CRITICAL flaw of in your position, and someone may help you
> Google the definition of "Critical," now would be a good time to stop. No
> sense in proceeding beyond a critical failure such as above.
>
> Kisses.
>