Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.CARNet.hr!Iskon!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: Re: Bone tools from 1.5 MYA
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 11:03:14 +0100
Organization: Iskon Internet d.d.
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <vqjp10$mee$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
References: <55ae5a66-79a1-4ae7-984a-d6687b26e377@gmail.com>
 <vqcran$l3k$1@sunce.iskon.hr> <vqja5r$ji7b$3@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83-131-255-53.adsl.net.t-com.hr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: sunce.iskon.hr 1741514593 22990 83.131.255.53 (9 Mar 2025 10:03:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iskon.hr
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:03:13 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqja5r$ji7b$3@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250309-0, 9.3.2025.), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 5436

On 9.3.2025. 6:49, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 6.3.2025. 17:40, erik simpson wrote:
>>> Systematic bone tool production at 1.5 million years ago
>>>
>>> Ignacio de la Torre, Luc Doyon, Alfonso Benito-Calvo, Rafael Mora, 
>>> Ipyana Mwakyoma, Jackson K. Njau, Renata F. Peters, Angeliki 
>>> Theodoropoulou & Francesco d’Errico
>>>
>>> Abstract
>>> Recent evidence indicates that the emergence of stone tool technology 
>>> occurred before the appearance of the genus Homo1 and may potentially 
>>> be traced back deep into the primate evolutionary line2. Conversely, 
>>> osseous technologies are apparently exclusive of later hominins from 
>>> approximately 2 million years ago (Ma)3,4, whereas the earliest 
>>> systematic production of bone tools is currently restricted to 
>>> European Acheulean sites 400–250 thousand years ago5,6. Here we 
>>> document an assemblage of bone tools shaped by knapping found within 
>>> a single stratigraphic horizon at Olduvai Gorge dated to 1.5 Ma. 
>>> Large mammal limb bone fragments, mostly from hippopotamus and 
>>> elephant, were shaped to produce various tools, including massive 
>>> elongated implements. Before our discovery, bone artefact production 
>>> in pre-Middle Stone Age African contexts was widely considered as 
>>> episodic, expedient and unrepresentative of early Homo toolkits. 
>>> However, our results demonstrate that at the transition between the 
>>> Oldowan and the early Acheulean, East African hominins developed an 
>>> original cultural innovation that entailed a transfer and adaptation 
>>> of knapping skills from stone to bone. By producing technologically 
>>> and morphologically standardized bone tools, early Acheulean 
>>> toolmakers unravelled technological repertoires that were previously 
>>> thought to have appeared routinely more than 1 million years later.
>>>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08652-5. Open access
>>
>>          So, did those who were persuading us into thinking that this 
>> was episodic, apologize? Or should we encounter misconceptions like 
>> this over and over again, just because this is "science", and science 
>> doesn't think.
> 
> The conclusion that this used to be considered episodic
> was based on the previous body of evidence. But as the
> authors above state
> 
> "Before our discovery, bone artefact production
> in pre-Middle Stone Age African contexts was
> widely considered as episodic, expedient and
> unrepresentative of early Homo toolkits."
> 
> New finds, paradigms change

		This isn't the only evidence that we have about past, we have a lot of 
evidence. The problem is in the wrong interpretation of evidence, which 
is obvious. The interpretation of our raised forehead was that this gave 
us intelligence. The interpretation of humans and animals was that 
humans are intelligent, and animals aren't. A mountain of wrong 
interpretations, over and over again. There is no excuse for wrong 
interpretation, being so wrong is stupid there is no way around it. How 
come I had the right interpretation?
		See, they willingly choose to neglect some evidence. For example, they 
find 1.5 million old peach endocarp in China, which is identical to 
today's peach endocarp. Every plant changes when domesticated. This 
evidence says that people domesticated peaches at least 1.5 mya. They 
find ungulate tracks going parallel to lake margin 1.5 my old. The only 
interpretation can be that those ungulates were herd by humans. But 
scientists neglect this crucial evidence without blinking an eye just 
like that, and continue to support the idea that large brain gives you 
intelligence, despite the fact that they found intelligent human species 
with small brains. This all is a sea of stupidity. Wrong interpretation 
after wrong interpretation, massive negligence of crucial evidence. 
Recently a paper came out, which talks about human footprints. They do 
mention Laetoli footprints, they do mention 1.5 old human footprints 
(Koobi Fora), but not a single word about the most important of them 
all, the Trachilos footprints. And there is always some excuse for this. 
Somebody is messing big time with this science, this foul behavior has 
to be addressed, instead we constantly have excuses for such behavior.