Here's the real abstract (Have you ever just
considered just copying and pasting instead
of trying to rewrite everything?)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265605768_Beneath_Still_Waters_-Multistage_Aquatic_Exploitation_of_Euryale_ferox_Salisb_during_the_Acheulian

Abstract
Remains of the highly nutritious aquatic plant
Fox nut – Euryale ferox Salisb. (Nymphaeaceae)
– were found at the Acheulian site of Gesher
Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Here, we present new
evidence for complex cognitive strategies of
hominins as seen in their exploitation of E.
ferox nuts. We draw on excavated data and on
parallels observed in traditional collecting
and processing practices from Bihar, India.
We suggest that during the early Middle
Pleistocene, hominins implemented multistage
procedures comprising underwater gathering
and subsequent processing (drying, roasting
and popping) of E. ferox nuts. Hierarchical
processing strategies are observed in the
Acheulian lithic reduction sequences and
butchering of game at this and other sites,
but are poorly understood as regards the
exploitation of aquatic plant resources. We
highlight the ability of Acheulian hominins
to resolve issues related to underwater
gathering of E. ferox nuts during the plant's
life cycle and to adopt strategies to enhance
their nutritive value.

Waterside is a great place for predators and
hunters to find game:

"Studies of the 15 excavated archaeological
horizons indicate that Acheulian hominins
repeatedly occupied lake margins, produced
stone tools, systematically butchered and
exploited animals, gathered plant food, and
controlled fire."

Gesher Benot Ya'aqov? Oh yes:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17868780/
Systematic butchering of fallow deer (Dama)
at the early middle Pleistocene Acheulian
site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (Israel)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Here's the real abstract

What do you think it means?

It could be argued, accurately, that this is the origins of
agriculture: Proto agriculture. Because if (and later
when) found on land, that is EXACTLY how this
behavior is identified.

Compare your idiocy here to your idiocy with chimps,
where you stare are behavior and think you see
objects! Here you stare at behavior and think you see
nothing.

Science is consistent. You're not consistent.

P.S. Proto agriculture isn't agriculture. Agriculture
changes the people and the plants. "Tools" changes
the people and the natural objects (rocks, bones, etc).

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/740591652167663616

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Here's the real abstract
>
> What do you think it means?

mv rewrites things to suit his agenda.

Snorkel Nose wrote:
> Imbecilic antelope runner:
>
>> Here's the real abstract (Have you ever just
>> considered just copying and pasting instead
>> of trying to rewrite everything?)
>
> My little little little boy (grow up!), this is to show that I have read
it (+ made it more surveyable).

It only means you creatively rewrote the abstract and
thuse distorted the authors intent.

> Keep running after your kudu, imbecil!

Found those snorkel noses yet? Babies that can
cover their noses with their upper lip?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> mv rewrites things to suit his agenda.

Again, and this is becoming habit but, do the Google
on 'non sequitur'.

The good Doctor got things absolutely right. The find
is interesting and not only established the exploitation
of marine resources, but suggests a marine origins
for habits later seen inland.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/741355563147984896

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op maandag 5 februari 2024 om 22:17:21 UTC+1 schreef Primum Sapienti:
>
>> Babies can cover their noses with their upper lip
>
> :-DDD
> Do you really *think* that, my boy???

You do. You think the philtrum is only for
fitting up against the nose!

> Already caught your kudu?

Ever find a snorkel nose, or nostrils on the end
of a neanderthal nose?

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op donderdag 15 februari 2024 om 03:00:15 UTC+1 schreef Primum Sapienti:
>
>>>> Babies can cover their noses with their upper lip
>
>>> :-DDD Do you really *think* that, my boy???
>
>> You do. You think the philtrum is only for
>> fitting up against the nose!
>
> For what else, my little little boy??
> I'll receive no answer, of course.

You have been educated on this before, child.
You really want to expose your gums to what's
in the water???

MANY mammals have a philtrum.

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

The philtrum (Latin: philtrum from Ancient Greek
φίλτρον phíltron, lit. "love charm"), or medial
cleft, is a vertical indentation in the middle
area of the upper lip, common to many mammals,
extending in humans from the nasal septum to the
tubercle of the upper lip. Together with a glandular
rhinarium and slit-like nostrils, it is believed to
constitute the primitive condition for at least
therian mammals."

In most mammals, the philtrum is a narrow groove
that may carry dissolved odorants from the rhinarium
or nose pad to the vomeronasal organ via ducts inside
the mouth.

For humans and most primates, the philtrum survives
only as a vestigial medial depression between the nose
and upper lip.

The human philtrum, bordered by ridges, also is known
as the infranasal depression, but has no apparent
function. That may be because most higher primates rely
more on vision than on smell. Strepsirrhine primates,
such as lemurs, still retain the philtrum and the
rhinarium, unlike monkeys and apes.

https://advetresearch.com/index.php/AVR/article/view/487/432

The philtrum is a median groove in the upper lip
of domestic animals (Nickelet al.,1979). It
usually found in animals that possessed a
rhinarium or a nasalplane (NP) such as
carnivores and small ruminants (Nickelet al.,
1979; Evans and Christensen, 1979). The nasal
plane is a wet glabrous skin area, which covers
the medial wings of the nostrils (Nickelet al.,
1979). The philtrum in such species is deep and
sometimes extends to the nostrils. On the other
hand, it’s shallow or absent in animals that
lack NP, a sequine (Nickelet al., 1979). This
anatomical association is also indicating
functional correlations between the philtrum and
the NP (Hillenius and Rehorek, 2005). The
philtrum proposed to drain the odoront molecules
that dissolved in the fluid covering the NP to
reach the incisive papillae and then into the
nasopalatine ducts (Wöhrmann-Repenning and
Bergmann, 2001). While the nasopalatine ducts or
incisive ducts are the oro-nasal passage of the
vomeronasal duct system (VNO), the philtrum
thereby is considered the communication canal
between the NP and the VNO (Hillenius and
Rehorek, 2005; Eshrah, 2019).

>>> Already caught your kudu?
>
> Kudu runner can't answer, of course:
>
>> Ever find a snorkel nose, or nostrils on the end
>> of a neanderthal nose?
>
> Our little imbecile thinks neanderthals had no nostrils???

Our big dummy thinks nostrils are on the end of the
nose

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.anthropology.paleo/keXw4ZrlaXQ/iVgHgZWRUYkJ

From AAT:

> This is where I used the word snorkel: "Aquatic ape
theory and fossil hominids" Med.Hypotheses 35:108-114,
1991: "While apes and australopiths (OH-62 included)
have flat noses, all Homo specimens (ER-1470 included)
show external noses (54,55). The Neandertal midface
and piriform aperture strongly protruded ventrally
(33,55,56). When the Moustier Neandertal was
excavated (1908), the nostrils, which could still be
discerned then, were situated at the top instead of
underneath the nose as in H.sapiens (55).
[Do you have picture of this?]

No. It was 1907 (photos??). I got it from ref.55, a
very detailed & accurate book on Hn (P.Moerman "1977
Op het spoor van de Neanderthal-mens" Boekerij Baarn).
I haven't read the original publications, but some dry
apers nicely provided the texts (perhaps I have them
somewhere on file), which confirmed what Moerman said.
Otto Hauser (one of the excavators, a very controversial
man at the time) said that, although the soft parts were
long desintegrated, the outer form of the nose (not the
nostrils themselves, as I said in my paper) was still
recognisable by stones arranged around the head, and
the nostrils were directed more anteriorly rather than
inferiorly:
"Rondom het hoofd lagen grote vuursteenschilfers die
naar het scheen
zorgvuldig waren uitgezocht en waarschijnlijk als een
soort kussen ter bescherming van het hoofd daar waren
neergelegd. Zelfs beweerde Hauser dat, hoewel de weke
delen van het de schedel natuurlijk allang vergaan
waren, de uiterlijke form van de neus door dit kussen
nog herkend kon worden! De neusgaten zouden bij de
Neanderthaler niet naar beneden, doch veel meer naar
Voren gericht moeten geweest zijn!" It might have been
an imprecise impression Hauser got at the moment of
the discovery, but as long as we don't have
counter-arguments, we have to provisionally accept
what he said.

SHEER NONSENSE. Pandora found the actual reference
and it completely makes a fool of you. What Pandora
wrote:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/HnxzEgh2Tw0/m/UBbBbgwKCgAJ

Jun 28, 2022, 1:25:27 PM

Again, let's see what Hauser really said. The
original paper "Découverte d’un squelette du type
du Neandertal sous l’abri inférieur
du Moustier" is available here:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5864483g/f16.image.r=hauser?rk=42918;4#

On page 6 it reads:
"le nez avait été protégé par deux morceaux de
silex, dont l'un appliqué sur le dos du nez et
l'autre.sur sa base. La position de ce dernier
silex, qui est en forme de plaque, montre que
les narines n'étaient pas dirigées de haut en
bas, mais d'arrière en avant, avec
une légère inclinaison de haut en bas."

(the nose had been protected by two pieces of
flint, one of which is applied to the back of
the nose and the other on its base. The
position of this last flint, which is
plate-shaped, shows that the nostrils were not
directed downwards, but forwards, with a slight
tilt downwards.)

In other words, Hauser did not infer the shape
of the nose from an original soft tissue
impression, but indirectly from the position of
two pieces of flint. That's a highly questionable
approach to soft tissue reconstruction.
We don't even know if the flints were in their
original position around the profile of the nose.
Fig. 5 in that paper does not all justify any
reconstruction of the nose on the basis of these
flints (labeled 1 and 2), or the suggestion that
the nostrils were pointing forward.

And that's the whole pack of idiocy of AA.

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> mv rewrites things to suit his agenda.
>
> Again, and this is becoming habit but, do the Google
> on 'non sequitur'.
>
> The good Doctor got things absolutely right. The find
> is interesting and not only established the exploitation
> of marine resources, but suggests a marine origins
> for habits later seen inland.

What's a doctor of? heh heh he won't say.

Here's that paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265605768_Beneath_Still_Waters_-Multistage_Aquatic_Exploitation_of_Euryale_ferox_Salisb_during_the_Acheulian

From the abstract
"Remains of the highly nutritious aquatic plant
Fox nut – Euryale ferox Salisb. (Nymphaeaceae)
– were found at the Acheulian site of Gesher
Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. "

The Gesher Benot Ya'aqov? Oh yes:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17868780/
Systematic butchering of fallow deer (Dama)
at the early middle Pleistocene Acheulian
site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (Israel)

How about that. Hunting.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>> Again, and this is becoming habit but, do the Google
>> on 'non sequitur'.
>>
>> The good Doctor got things absolutely right. The find
>> is interesting and not only established the exploitation
>> of marine resources, but suggests a marine origins
>> for habits later seen inland.

> What's a doctor of? heh heh he won't say.

Wow you said that and suddenly this isn't strong evidence
for proto agriculture even though it is.

It's amazing how you keep doing this: You fail miserably
at deconstructing a problem, say something stupid then
relish every moment of the negative attention it wins you.

> How about that. Hunting.

What is it you think you're saying, and why?

It's like you spin a wheel, pick something at random then
run off like it's significant...

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>
>>> Here's the real abstract
>>
>> What do you think it means?

> mv rewrites things to suit his agenda.

Oh. That's right; you're an idiot.

You think you identified some different words and
that this requires a change in meaning.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus

Go ahead, wade right in there. It's not a difficult
concept, once you get the hang of things.