ATTENTION, good Doctor: Skip down to where
it says "SKIP TO HERE" and you will be less
annoyed.

So "Cooking" likely started with Aquatic Ape.

As I pointed out many, many times, fire is a
massive labor saving device, and a boost to
one's health... assuming one is erectus or
some earlier member of a coastal/waterside
littoral/Aquatic Ape population.

For starters, put shellfish into fire and they
open.

*Boom!*

Massive labor savings there...

If a shellfish doesn't up, that means it's bad. So
you dodged a bullet.

People eat shellfish raw all the time, they could
have gotten away with it *Forever*, but fire is a
massive labor savings and a health protector,
when consuming shellfish... yum.

People can and do eat raw meat from animals.
I recently posted two photos of children, one
would suppose a less than optimum immune
system, eating raw reindeer... (Rudolph?)

It's not the best idea, but it can be done. It almost
certainly had to have been done seeing how the
Clown Show that is paleo anthropology is pushing
back cut marks something like 3.5 million years.

Not a whole heck of a lot of evidence for controlled
fire, back then... or any evidence what so ever, for
that matter.

So the Clown Show says they were eating meat,
slicing it fresh off of game animals, and there was
no fire... raw meat.

SKIP TO HERE

Okay, so eating raw meat would not have been
viable or sustainable or whatever word you want
to use. There's disease -- bacteria and viruses --
there's parasites and... and... and, well, that pretty
much ruins your day right there.

AND, Pan isn't a huge meat eater. None of the
Great Apes are. They do eat raw meat but they're
not huge on it. So they gravitated away from their
high protein diet... very likely incentivized to do so
by the hazards of raw meat.

Raw seafood can also be hazardous but it's not
in the same league...

I sea meat as parallel to the good Doctor's "Aquaboreal."

It's a vestige.

Pan, Gorillas; all the Great Apes started off as bipedal.
They were part of the original Aquatic Ape population.
They split early, but they all split from the Aquatic Ape
parent group. They all trace themselves back to bipedal,
aquatic ape ancestors. But they split off, pushed inland
and adapted. They retained some traits inherited from
their Aquatic Ape ancestors -- genetic as well as
behavioral -- due to genetic quirkiness and continued
co fertility with other branchings, including the mother
(Aquatic Ape) population itself, or at least more and
more recent break-aways...

THAT is why we see what looks like "Aquaboreal."

It's a population in the midst of adapting to the forest
but still co fertile with, and interbreeding with, other
populations exploiting different niches...

It's also why we see something inland eating raw
meat. Raw proteins were a behavioral or cultural
norm... even going back millions of years.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726557549488439296

Op vrijdag 25 augustus 2023 om 01:33:44 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

> ATTENTION, good Doctor: Skip down to where
> it says "SKIP TO HERE" and you will be less
> annoyed.

:-) OK, thanks.

> So "Cooking" likely started with Aquatic Ape.
> As I pointed out many, many times, fire is a
> massive labor saving device, and a boost to
> one's health... assuming one is erectus or
> some earlier member of a coastal/waterside
> littoral/Aquatic Ape population.
> For starters, put shellfish into fire and they
> open.
> *Boom!*
> Massive labor savings there...
> If a shellfish doesn't up, that means it's bad. So
> you dodged a bullet.
> People eat shellfish raw all the time, they could
> have gotten away with it *Forever*, but fire is a
> massive labor savings and a health protector,
> when consuming shellfish... yum.
> People can and do eat raw meat from animals.
> I recently posted two photos of children, one
> would suppose a less than optimum immune
> system, eating raw reindeer... (Rudolph?)

Can humans digest raw meat?

> It's not the best idea, but it can be done. It almost
> certainly had to have been done seeing how the
> Clown Show that is paleo anthropology is pushing
> back cut marks something like 3.5 million years.
> Not a whole heck of a lot of evidence for controlled
> fire, back then... or any evidence what so ever, for
> that matter.
> So the Clown Show says they were eating meat,
> slicing it fresh off of game animals, and there was
> no fire... raw meat.

> SKIP TO HERE

I'll read the rest also:

> Okay, so eating raw meat would not have been
> viable or sustainable or whatever word you want
> to use. There's disease -- bacteria and viruses --
> there's parasites and... and... and, well, that pretty
> much ruins your day right there.
> AND, Pan isn't a huge meat eater. None of the
> Great Apes are. They do eat raw meat but they're
> not huge on it. So they gravitated away from their
> high protein diet... very likely incentivized to do so
> by the hazards of raw meat.
> Raw seafood can also be hazardous but it's not
> in the same league...
> I see meat as parallel to the good Doctor's "Aquarboreal."
> It's a vestige.
> Pan, Gorillas; all the Great Apes started off as bipedal.

"Bipedal" here = vertical waders-climbers.

The term "aquatic ape" (Desmond Morris already IIRC) was meant as a slogan, it's not very clear:
IMO we can roughly discern 2 (semi)aquatic "apes":
- Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
- early-Pleistocene shallow-diving Homo s.s.
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Now I skip...

> They were part of the original Aquatic Ape population.
> They split early, but they all split from the Aquatic Ape
> parent group. They all trace themselves back to bipedal,
> aquatic ape ancestors. But they split off, pushed inland
> and adapted. They retained some traits inherited from
> their Aquatic Ape ancestors -- genetic as well as
> behavioral -- due to genetic quirkiness and continued
> co fertility with other branchings, including the mother
> (Aquatic Ape) population itself, or at least more and
> more recent break-aways...
> THAT is why we see what looks like "Aquarboreal."
> It's a population in the midst of adapting to the forest
> but still co fertile with, and interbreeding with, other
> populations exploiting different niches...
> It's also why we see something inland eating raw
> meat. Raw proteins were a behavioral or cultural
> norm... even going back millions of years.
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726557549488439296

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Can humans digest raw meat?

Yes. I posted this earlier in the year, and you even replied.

https://www.academia.edu/76351480/2022_Speth_and_Morin_Putrid_Meat_in_the_Tropics_It_Wasnt_Just_for_Inuit_

Paleo Anthropology
2022:2: 327−383. https://doi.org/10.48738/2022.iss2.114

Putrid Meat in the Tropics: It Wasn’t Just for Inuit
John Speth; Eugene Morin

ABSTRACT
It is widely known that traditional northern
hunter–gatherers such as the Inuit included putrid meat,
fish, and fat in their diet, although the ubiquity and
dietary importance of decomposing animal foods seem
often to have been underappreciated. There is no evidence
that these arctic and subarctic foragers suffered from major
outbreaks of botulism (Clostridium botulinum), or from the
toxic metabolites of other pathogens such as Listeria
monocytogenes or Salmonella spp., until the 1970s and
1980s when Euroamericans introduced more "sanitary"
methods for putrefying native foods. While many ethnologists,
nutritionists, and public health officials working in these
high-latitude regions are generally aware of the importance
of putrefied foods among such peoples, most scholars,
regardless of discipline, would not expect similar practices
to have been commonplace in the tropics, especially in hot,
humid environments like the lowland rainforests of the Congo
Basin. And yet a "deep dive" into the ethnohistoric literature
of sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere in the tropics and
sub-tropics of the Old and New World, shows that both
hunter–gatherers and traditional small-scale rural farmers
commonly ate thoroughly putrefied meat, fish, and fat with
relative impunity, consuming some of it raw, frequently
cooking it, but often barely so. Not only did tropical peoples
regularly eat putrefied animal foods, these ethnohistoric
accounts make it clear that, at least in many regions, the
Indigenous populations generally preferred it that way.
Equally surprising, perhaps, is the fact that this preference
for putrid meat remained widespread in equatorial Africa
and in many other tropical and sub-tropical regions well into
the first quarter of the 20th century, only fading from view
around the time of WWI or thereabouts. Combining the
insights gained by looking at the consumption of putrid meat
in both northern and tropical environments, several
interesting implications become evident. First, it is clear that
the disgust response with regard to the taste, smell, and sight
of rotten meat and maggots is not a hardwired human
universal, but more likely a learned cultural response, one
that is closely linked to European colonization, Westernization,
urbanization, and industrialization. Second, the capacity for
both northern and tropical peoples to consume putrid meat with
impunity suggests that their ability to resist the toxic effects of
the metabolites of C. botulinum and other pathogens most likely
stems in large part from the environmental priming of their gut
floras and immune systems through early childhood exposure to
pathogens rather than from genetic factors. This conclusion fits
well with findings from recent microbiome studies, including
studies of the gut floras of monozygotic twins living in different
households. Third, putrefaction provides many of the same
benefits that one gets by cooking, because it effectively
"pre-digests" meat and fat prior to ingesting them. Moreover, in
tropical environments putrefaction occurs very rapidly and
automatically, and requires little investment of time and energy
on the part of the consumer. Finally, we suggest that, by eating
putrid meat and fat, early hominins could have acquired many of
the benefits of cooking, but at much lower cost, and quite likely
long before they gained control of fire.

This one is particularly interesting...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/meat-rotten-putrid-paleo-diet-fire-neanderthal

In a book about his travels in Africa published in
1907, British explorer Arnold Henry Savage Landor
recounted witnessing an impromptu meal that his
companions relished but that he found unimaginably
revolting.

As he coasted down a river in the Congo Basin with
several local hunter-gatherers, a dead rodent
floated near their canoe. Its decomposing body had
bloated to the size of a small pig.

Stench from the swollen corpse left Landor gasping
for breath. Unable to speak, he tried to signal his
companions to steer the canoe away from the fetid
creature. Instead, they hauled the supersize rodent
aboard and ate it.
....
Starting in the 1500s, European and then later American
explorers, traders, missionaries, government officials
and others who lived among Indigenous peoples in many
parts of the world wrote of similar food practices.
Hunter-gatherers and small-scale farmers everywhere
commonly ate putrid meat, fish and fatty parts of a
wide range of animals. From arctic tundra to tropical
rainforests, native populations consumed rotten
remains, either raw, fermented or cooked just enough
to singe off fur and create a more chewable texture.
Many groups treated maggots as a meaty bonus.

Descriptions of these practices, which still occur in
some present-day Indigenous groups and among northern
Europeans who occasionally eat fermented fish, aren’t
likely to inspire any new Food Network shows or
cookbooks from celebrity chefs.
....
Given the ethnohistorical evidence, hominids living
3 million years ago or more could have scavenged meat
from decomposing carcasses, even without stone tools
for hunting or butchery, and eaten their raw haul
safely long before fire was used for cooking, Speth
contends. If simple stone tools appeared as early as
3.4 million years ago, as some researchers have
controversially suggested, those implements may have
been made by hominids seeking raw meat and marrow
....

Limits to the amount of daily protein that can be
safely consumed meant that ancient hunting groups,
like those today, needed animal fats and carbohydrates
from plants to fulfill daily calorie and other
nutritional needs.
....

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Can humans digest raw meat?

> Yes. I posted this earlier in the year, and you even replied.

If you had any reading comprehension (you don't), you'd see that
your cite is about putrid meat, not raw meat. It does mention raw
meat but this doesn't even achieve the heights of anecdote as
it merely states that raw meat is sometimes consumed. There
are no examples.

Examples would raise it to anecdotal "evidence."

I'm probably wasting my time here so I'm gong to mock you for
your lack of reading comprehension..Oops! Too late. I already
have.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727682189199851520

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Can humans digest raw meat?
>
>> Yes. I posted this earlier in the year, and you even replied.
>
> If you had any reading comprehension (you don't), you'd see that
> your cite is about putrid meat, not raw meat. It does mention raw
> meat but this doesn't even achieve the heights of anecdote as
> it merely states that raw meat is sometimes consumed. There
> are no examples.
>
> Examples would raise it to anecdotal "evidence."
>
> I'm probably wasting my time here so I'm gong to mock you for
> your lack of reading comprehension..Oops! Too late. I already
> have.

Try reading them this time.

Putrid AND raw.

While you're at it, look "steak tartare"

https://www.academia.edu/76351480/2022_Speth_and_Morin_Putrid_Meat_in_the_Tropics_It_Wasnt_Just_for_Inuit_

Paleo Anthropology
2022:2: 327−383. https://doi.org/10.48738/2022.iss2.114

Putrid Meat in the Tropics: It Wasn’t Just for Inuit
John Speth; Eugene Morin

ABSTRACT
It is widely known that traditional northern
hunter–gatherers such as the Inuit included putrid meat,
fish, and fat in their diet, although the ubiquity and
dietary importance of decomposing animal foods seem
often to have been underappreciated. There is no evidence
that these arctic and subarctic foragers suffered from major
outbreaks of botulism (Clostridium botulinum), or from the
toxic metabolites of other pathogens such as Listeria
monocytogenes or Salmonella spp., until the 1970s and
1980s when Euroamericans introduced more "sanitary"
methods for putrefying native foods. While many ethnologists,
nutritionists, and public health officials working in these
high-latitude regions are generally aware of the importance
of putrefied foods among such peoples, most scholars,
regardless of discipline, would not expect similar practices
to have been commonplace in the tropics, especially in hot,
humid environments like the lowland rainforests of the Congo
Basin. And yet a "deep dive" into the ethnohistoric literature
of sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere in the tropics and
sub-tropics of the Old and New World, shows that both
hunter–gatherers and traditional small-scale rural farmers
commonly ate thoroughly putrefied meat, fish, and fat with
relative impunity, consuming some of it raw, frequently
cooking it, but often barely so. Not only did tropical peoples
regularly eat putrefied animal foods, these ethnohistoric
accounts make it clear that, at least in many regions, the
Indigenous populations generally preferred it that way.
Equally surprising, perhaps, is the fact that this preference
for putrid meat remained widespread in equatorial Africa
and in many other tropical and sub-tropical regions well into
the first quarter of the 20th century, only fading from view
around the time of WWI or thereabouts. Combining the
insights gained by looking at the consumption of putrid meat
in both northern and tropical environments, several
interesting implications become evident. First, it is clear that
the disgust response with regard to the taste, smell, and sight
of rotten meat and maggots is not a hardwired human
universal, but more likely a learned cultural response, one
that is closely linked to European colonization, Westernization,
urbanization, and industrialization. Second, the capacity for
both northern and tropical peoples to consume putrid meat with
impunity suggests that their ability to resist the toxic effects of
the metabolites of C. botulinum and other pathogens most likely
stems in large part from the environmental priming of their gut
floras and immune systems through early childhood exposure to
pathogens rather than from genetic factors. This conclusion fits
well with findings from recent microbiome studies, including
studies of the gut floras of monozygotic twins living in different
households. Third, putrefaction provides many of the same
benefits that one gets by cooking, because it effectively
"pre-digests" meat and fat prior to ingesting them. Moreover, in
tropical environments putrefaction occurs very rapidly and
automatically, and requires little investment of time and energy
on the part of the consumer. Finally, we suggest that, by eating
putrid meat and fat, early hominins could have acquired many of
the benefits of cooking, but at much lower cost, and quite likely
long before they gained control of fire.

This one is particularly interesting...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/meat-rotten-putrid-paleo-diet-fire-neanderthal

In a book about his travels in Africa published in
1907, British explorer Arnold Henry Savage Landor
recounted witnessing an impromptu meal that his
companions relished but that he found unimaginably
revolting.

As he coasted down a river in the Congo Basin with
several local hunter-gatherers, a dead rodent
floated near their canoe. Its decomposing body had
bloated to the size of a small pig.

Stench from the swollen corpse left Landor gasping
for breath. Unable to speak, he tried to signal his
companions to steer the canoe away from the fetid
creature. Instead, they hauled the supersize rodent
aboard and ate it.
....
Starting in the 1500s, European and then later American
explorers, traders, missionaries, government officials
and others who lived among Indigenous peoples in many
parts of the world wrote of similar food practices.
Hunter-gatherers and small-scale farmers everywhere
commonly ate putrid meat, fish and fatty parts of a
wide range of animals. From arctic tundra to tropical
rainforests, native populations consumed rotten
remains, either raw, fermented or cooked just enough
to singe off fur and create a more chewable texture.
Many groups treated maggots as a meaty bonus.

Descriptions of these practices, which still occur in
some present-day Indigenous groups and among northern
Europeans who occasionally eat fermented fish, aren’t
likely to inspire any new Food Network shows or
cookbooks from celebrity chefs.
....
Given the ethnohistorical evidence, hominids living
3 million years ago or more could have scavenged meat
from decomposing carcasses, even without stone tools
for hunting or butchery, and eaten their raw haul
safely long before fire was used for cooking, Speth
contends. If simple stone tools appeared as early as
3.4 million years ago, as some researchers have
controversially suggested, those implements may have
been made by hominids seeking raw meat and marrow
....

Limits to the amount of daily protein that can be
safely consumed meant that ancient hunting groups,
like those today, needed animal fats and carbohydrates
from plants to fulfill daily calorie and other
nutritional needs.
....

On 13.9.2023. 6:17, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>
>>> littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Can humans digest raw meat?
>>
>>> Yes. I posted this earlier in the year, and you even replied.
>>
>> If you had any reading comprehension (you don't), you'd see that
>> your cite is about putrid meat, not raw meat. It does mention raw
>> meat but this doesn't even achieve the heights of anecdote as
>> it merely states that raw meat is sometimes consumed. There
>> are no examples.
>>
>> Examples would raise it to anecdotal "evidence."
>>
>> I'm probably wasting my time here so I'm gong to mock you for
>> your lack of reading comprehension..Oops!  Too late. I already
>> have.
>
> Try reading them this time.
>
> Putrid AND raw.
>
> While you're at it, look "steak tartare"
>
>
> https://www.academia.edu/76351480/2022_Speth_and_Morin_Putrid_Meat_in_the_Tropics_It_Wasnt_Just_for_Inuit_
>
> Paleo Anthropology
> 2022:2: 327−383. https://doi.org/10.48738/2022.iss2.114
>
> Putrid Meat in the Tropics: It Wasn’t Just for Inuit
> John Speth; Eugene Morin
>
> ABSTRACT
> It is widely known that traditional northern
> hunter–gatherers such as the Inuit included putrid meat,
> fish, and fat in their diet, although the ubiquity and
> dietary importance of decomposing animal foods seem
> often to have been underappreciated. There is no evidence
> that these arctic and subarctic foragers suffered from major
> outbreaks of botulism (Clostridium botulinum), or from the
> toxic metabolites of other pathogens such as Listeria
> monocytogenes or Salmonella spp., until the 1970s and
> 1980s when Euroamericans introduced more "sanitary"
> methods for putrefying native foods. While many ethnologists,
> nutritionists, and public health officials working in these
> high-latitude regions are generally aware of the importance
> of putrefied foods among such peoples, most scholars,
> regardless of discipline, would not expect similar practices
> to have been commonplace in the tropics, especially in hot,
> humid environments like the lowland rainforests of the Congo
> Basin. And yet a "deep dive" into the ethnohistoric literature
> of sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere in the tropics and
> sub-tropics of the Old and New World, shows that both
> hunter–gatherers and traditional small-scale rural farmers
> commonly ate thoroughly putrefied meat, fish, and fat with
> relative impunity, consuming some of it raw, frequently
> cooking it, but often barely so. Not only did tropical peoples
> regularly eat putrefied animal foods, these ethnohistoric
> accounts make it clear that, at least in many regions, the
> Indigenous populations generally preferred it that way.
> Equally surprising, perhaps, is the fact that this preference
> for putrid meat remained widespread in equatorial Africa
> and in many other tropical and sub-tropical regions well into
> the first quarter of the 20th century, only fading from view
> around the time of WWI or thereabouts. Combining the
> insights gained by looking at the consumption of putrid meat
> in both northern and tropical environments, several
> interesting implications become evident. First, it is clear that
> the disgust response with regard to the taste, smell, and sight
> of rotten meat and maggots is not a hardwired human
> universal, but more likely a learned cultural response, one
> that is closely linked to European colonization, Westernization,
> urbanization, and industrialization. Second, the capacity for
> both northern and tropical peoples to consume putrid meat with
> impunity suggests that their ability to resist the toxic effects of
> the metabolites of C. botulinum and other pathogens most likely
> stems in large part from the environmental priming of their gut
> floras and immune systems through early childhood exposure to
> pathogens rather than from genetic factors. This conclusion fits
> well with findings from recent microbiome studies, including
> studies of the gut floras of monozygotic twins living in different
> households. Third, putrefaction provides many of the same
> benefits that one gets by cooking, because it effectively
> "pre-digests" meat and fat prior to ingesting them. Moreover, in
> tropical environments putrefaction occurs very rapidly and
> automatically, and requires little investment of time and energy
> on the part of the consumer. Finally, we suggest that, by eating
> putrid meat and fat, early hominins could have acquired many of
> the benefits of cooking, but at much lower cost, and quite likely
> long before they gained control of fire.
>
>
> This one is particularly interesting...
>
>
> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/meat-rotten-putrid-paleo-diet-fire-neanderthal
>
> In a book about his travels in Africa published in
> 1907, British explorer Arnold Henry Savage Landor
> recounted witnessing an impromptu meal that his
> companions relished but that he found unimaginably
> revolting.
>
> As he coasted down a river in the Congo Basin with
> several local hunter-gatherers, a dead rodent
> floated near their canoe. Its decomposing body had
> bloated to the size of a small pig.
>
> Stench from the swollen corpse left Landor gasping
> for breath. Unable to speak, he tried to signal his
> companions to steer the canoe away from the fetid
> creature. Instead, they hauled the supersize rodent
> aboard and ate it.
> ...
> Starting in the 1500s, European and then later American
> explorers, traders, missionaries, government officials
> and others who lived among Indigenous peoples in many
> parts of the world wrote of similar food practices.
> Hunter-gatherers and small-scale farmers everywhere
> commonly ate putrid meat, fish and fatty parts of a
> wide range of animals. From arctic tundra to tropical
> rainforests, native populations consumed rotten
> remains, either raw, fermented or cooked just enough
> to singe off fur and create a more chewable texture.
> Many groups treated maggots as a meaty bonus.
>
> Descriptions of these practices, which still occur in
> some present-day Indigenous groups and among northern
> Europeans who occasionally eat fermented fish, aren’t
> likely to inspire any new Food Network shows or
> cookbooks from celebrity chefs.
> ...
> Given the ethnohistorical evidence, hominids living
> 3 million years ago or more could have scavenged meat
> from decomposing carcasses, even without stone tools
> for hunting or butchery, and eaten their raw haul
> safely long before fire was used for cooking, Speth
> contends. If simple stone tools appeared as early as
> 3.4 million years ago, as some researchers have
> controversially suggested, those implements may have
> been made by hominids seeking raw meat and marrow
> ...
>
> Limits to the amount of daily protein that can be
> safely consumed meant that ancient hunting groups,
> like those today, needed animal fats and carbohydrates
> from plants to fulfill daily calorie and other
> nutritional needs.

I will not read it, but to prepare Steak Tartare you need to have metal.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Try reading them this time.

Lol! You actually have ZERO reading comprehension! ZERO!
Even after pointing out that your cite is about PUTRID meat
and not raw, you *Still* can't figure it out!

Yes, I acknowledged that it mentioned raw meat but I noted
that it had not attained the height of anecdote, as there
wasn't so much as a single example offered.

So your claim of raw meat eating, from the cite, is __Below__
anecdotal evidence... BELOW!

(Not as good as)

You are such a putz...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728166607418949632

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/meat-rotten-putrid-paleo-diet-fire-neanderthal

British explorer Arnold Henry Savage Landor (1907) recounted witnessing an impromptu meal that his companions relished, but he found unimaginably revolting.
He coasted down a river in the Congo Basin with several local HGs, a dead rodent floated near their canoe, its decomposing body bloated to the size of a small pig.
Stench from the swollen corpse left him gasping for breath. Unable to speak, he tried to signal his companions to steer the canoe away from the fetid creature. Instead, they hauled the supersize rodent aboard, and ate it.
....
Starting in the 1500s, European & then later American explorers, traders, missionaries, government officials & others who lived among Indigenous peoples in many parts of the world wrote of similar food practices.
HGs & small-scale farmers everywhere commonly ate putrid meat, fish & fatty parts of a wide range of animals.
From arctic tundra to tropical rain-forests, native populations consumed rotten remains, raw, fermented or cooked just enough to singe off fur and create a more chewable texture.
Many groups treated maggots as a meaty bonus.
Descriptions of these practices (still in some present-day Indigenous groups & N-Europeans who occasionally eat fermented fish) aren’t likely to inspire any new Food Network shows or cookbooks from celebrity chefs.
....
Given the ethno-historical evidence, hominids 3 Ma or more could have ("could have" fantasy --mv) scavenged meat from decomposing carcasses, even without stone tools for hunting or butchery, and eaten their raw haul safely long before fire was used for cooking, Speth contends.
If simple stone tools appeared as early as 3.4 Ma,("as early"?? Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were already coastal, see below --mv) as some researchers have controversially suggested, those implements may have ("may have" fantasy --mv) been made by hominids seeking raw meat & marrow ("seeking raw meat" fantasy :-DDD)
....
Limits to the amount of daily protein that can be safely consumed meant(?? --mv) that ancient hunting(?? :-DDD fish/shellfishing... --mv) groups (like those today) needed animal fats & carbohydrates from plants to fulfill daily calorie & other nutritional needs. ...

Thanks, this perfectly confirms our view:
-Miocene Hominoidea were aquarboreal omnivores,
-Pliocene Homo followed S.Asian coasts (humans lack Pliocene African retroviral DNA),
-at least 8 *independent* indications Indonesian erectus = shellfish-divers:
-- brain size x2 (DHA in seafood)
-- shell engravings in Dubois collection (Stephen Munro)
-- ear exostoses = colder water irrigation
-- pachyosteosclerotic skeleton = shallow-diving
-- colonisations of Flores, Luzon ...
-- stone tools & dexterity cf sea-otter
-- fossilisation amid corals & barnacles in Mojokerto
-- amid edible Pseudodon & Elongaria in Trinil
-- Sangiran-17 in "brackish marsh near the coast"
-- tooth-wear caused by sand & shells (Towle cs 2022)
-- projecting midface & nose (for smelling savanna kudus?? :-DDD)
-- etc.etc.
IOW, erectus s.s. were waterside frugi-omni-molluscivores (+ sometimes putrid fish, see above):
one must be *incredibly idiotic* to assume flat-footed & sweating ancestors ran after antelopes over Afr.savannas!
:-DDD

How can self-declared "anthropologists" remain sooooooo stupid??

David Attenborough BBC 15.9.2016 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b07v2ysg
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 13.9.2023. 6:17, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>

>         I will not read it, but to prepare Steak Tartare you need to
> have metal.

Not a problem, main takeaway is that its raw.

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>

[OCPD]

Yeah, the FBI has been informed about you... can't take any risks.

So, anyway, you are a blithering idiot, quoting things you never read,
much less understood, and that's why you can't answer even basis
questions.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Not a problem, main takeaway is that its raw.

No. The main take-away of your cite was that the meat was
putrid.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728480911625240576

"Putrid" is not French or Latin for "Raw."

Grow up.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728480911625240576

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Not a problem, main takeaway is that its raw.
>
> No. The main take-away of your cite was that the meat was
> putrid.

It was raw to begin with. See "cooked" anywhere
in the following?

https://www.academia.edu/76351480/2022_Speth_and_Morin_Putrid_Meat_in_the_Tropics_It_Wasnt_Just_for_Inuit_

Paleo Anthropology
2022:2: 327−383. https://doi.org/10.48738/2022.iss2.114

Putrid Meat in the Tropics: It Wasn’t Just for Inuit
John Speth; Eugene Morin

ABSTRACT
It is widely known that traditional northern
hunter–gatherers such as the Inuit included putrid meat,
fish, and fat in their diet, although the ubiquity and
dietary importance of decomposing animal foods seem
often to have been underappreciated. There is no evidence
that these arctic and subarctic foragers suffered from major
outbreaks of botulism (Clostridium botulinum), or from the
toxic metabolites of other pathogens such as Listeria
monocytogenes or Salmonella spp., until the 1970s and
1980s when Euroamericans introduced more "sanitary"
methods for putrefying native foods. While many ethnologists,
nutritionists, and public health officials working in these
high-latitude regions are generally aware of the importance
of putrefied foods among such peoples, most scholars,
regardless of discipline, would not expect similar practices
to have been commonplace in the tropics, especially in hot,
humid environments like the lowland rainforests of the Congo
Basin. And yet a "deep dive" into the ethnohistoric literature
of sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere in the tropics and
sub-tropics of the Old and New World, shows that both
hunter–gatherers and traditional small-scale rural farmers
commonly ate thoroughly putrefied meat, fish, and fat with
relative impunity, consuming some of it raw, frequently
cooking it, but often barely so. Not only did tropical peoples
regularly eat putrefied animal foods, these ethnohistoric
accounts make it clear that, at least in many regions, the
Indigenous populations generally preferred it that way.
Equally surprising, perhaps, is the fact that this preference
for putrid meat remained widespread in equatorial Africa
and in many other tropical and sub-tropical regions well into
the first quarter of the 20th century, only fading from view
around the time of WWI or thereabouts. Combining the
insights gained by looking at the consumption of putrid meat
in both northern and tropical environments, several
interesting implications become evident. First, it is clear that
the disgust response with regard to the taste, smell, and sight
of rotten meat and maggots is not a hardwired human
universal, but more likely a learned cultural response, one
that is closely linked to European colonization, Westernization,
urbanization, and industrialization. Second, the capacity for
both northern and tropical peoples to consume putrid meat with
impunity suggests that their ability to resist the toxic effects of
the metabolites of C. botulinum and other pathogens most likely
stems in large part from the environmental priming of their gut
floras and immune systems through early childhood exposure to
pathogens rather than from genetic factors. This conclusion fits
well with findings from recent microbiome studies, including
studies of the gut floras of monozygotic twins living in different
households. Third, putrefaction provides many of the same
benefits that one gets by cooking, because it effectively
"pre-digests" meat and fat prior to ingesting them. Moreover, in
tropical environments putrefaction occurs very rapidly and
automatically, and requires little investment of time and energy
on the part of the consumer. Finally, we suggest that, by eating
putrid meat and fat, early hominins could have acquired many of
the benefits of cooking, but at much lower cost, and quite likely
long before they gained control of fire.

This one is particularly interesting...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/meat-rotten-putrid-paleo-diet-fire-neanderthal

In a book about his travels in Africa published in
1907, British explorer Arnold Henry Savage Landor
recounted witnessing an impromptu meal that his
companions relished but that he found unimaginably
revolting.

As he coasted down a river in the Congo Basin with
several local hunter-gatherers, a dead rodent
floated near their canoe. Its decomposing body had
bloated to the size of a small pig.

Stench from the swollen corpse left Landor gasping
for breath. Unable to speak, he tried to signal his
companions to steer the canoe away from the fetid
creature. Instead, they hauled the supersize rodent
aboard and ate it.
....
Starting in the 1500s, European and then later American
explorers, traders, missionaries, government officials
and others who lived among Indigenous peoples in many
parts of the world wrote of similar food practices.
Hunter-gatherers and small-scale farmers everywhere
commonly ate putrid meat, fish and fatty parts of a
wide range of animals. From arctic tundra to tropical
rainforests, native populations consumed rotten
remains, either raw, fermented or cooked just enough
to singe off fur and create a more chewable texture.
Many groups treated maggots as a meaty bonus.

Descriptions of these practices, which still occur in
some present-day Indigenous groups and among northern
Europeans who occasionally eat fermented fish, aren’t
likely to inspire any new Food Network shows or
cookbooks from celebrity chefs.
....
Given the ethnohistorical evidence, hominids living
3 million years ago or more could have scavenged meat
from decomposing carcasses, even without stone tools
for hunting or butchery, and eaten their raw haul
safely long before fire was used for cooking, Speth
contends. If simple stone tools appeared as early as
3.4 million years ago, as some researchers have
controversially suggested, those implements may have
been made by hominids seeking raw meat and marrow
....

Limits to the amount of daily protein that can be
safely consumed meant that ancient hunting groups,
like those today, needed animal fats and carbohydrates
from plants to fulfill daily calorie and other
nutritional needs.
....

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>

[OCPD]

Yeah, the FBI has been informed about you... can't take any risks.

So, anyway, you are a blithering idiot, quoting things you never read,
much less understood, and that's why you can't answer even basis
questions.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> It was raw to begin with.

"Before they cooked it, it wasn't cooked!"

If any of your alters had reading comprehension, you'd know
that the cite was about putrid meats and not raw meats. It
mentions raw but never achieves the heights of anecdote as
it fails to so much as cite an example.

You can't eat meat with maggots. Well you can but the
maggots will survive and chew into your digestive system.
If you eat maggots you have to chew them carefully to make
sure they're dead. No room for error.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/732735565734248448

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>

[OCPD]

Yeah, the FBI has been informed about you... can't
take any risks.

So, anyway, you are a blithering idiot, quoting
things you never read, much less understood, and
that's why you can't answer even basis questions.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

[---OCPD---]

Nothing has changed. Your cite, the one you never read or understood,
was speaking of putrid meats. Not raw meats. There was a mention of
raw meats but only a mention. It in no way implied that all the examples
they gave were eaten raw. Because they weren't.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/733754887680196608