I'll buy that the idea of shoes may have spread in the mentioned 14,000 interval (40,000 - 26,000 BCE). But I can't buy the notion that the necessity to wear shoes due to evolutionary changes in human anatomy happened world wide in that period.
By time of the emergence of modern humans (175,000 - 200,000 years ago), we had evolved the capability of running/jogging 35-50 miles per day on a near perpetual basis. An attribute Darwinism tells us wouldn't have occurred unless this ability was necessary to survive. IOW, those who couldn't keep up didn't live to mate. The one question I have about this running man theory of mine is the practical necessity of shoes or some type of foot protection to run that consistently. I seem to have found the answer in Steven Oppenhiemer's "The Real Eve" which postulates that modern humans were almost exclusively beach combers up until at least 60,000 years ago. It's a lot easier to run barefoot on soft sand than inland terrain.
He found Neanderthals and early moderns living in Middle Palaeolithic times (100,000 to 40,000 years ago) had thicker, and therefore stronger, lesser toes than those of Upper Palaeolithic people living 26,000 years ago.
Since again, Darwinism implies that physical evolution wouldn't occur unless it was necessary to survive over an extended period, the stretched dates seem logical for the inland move away from the beach for modern humans, the cold weather suggestion seems more appropriate for the neatherdhals?
This is absurd. People stopped growing strong toes because shoes came along? No one could make that argument with a straight face. They would need to argue that strong toed people were not sexually desirable so didn't pass along their strong toes...that would at least make evolutionary sense.
How can they tell how strong a toe was without having muscle tissue to examine? Bone size seems irrelevant. Europeans typically have larger bones in their feet than Asians do. So what?
Spirit Cave Man had shoes and he is 9,400 years old and is from Nevada.
They might also check my theory that shorter toes are the result of people with long toes dying off the evolutionary ladder when their long toes overhung paleolithic footwear and stubbed their toes with killing effect.
Birgenstocks?
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Ancient shoes....hmmmmmm.......
Those wouldn't be Red Ball Jets, would they?
The Neandertals
by Erik Trinkaus
and Pat ShipmanThe Neandertal Enigma
by James Shreeve
I'd bet money it was a woman...
I read an article years ago that claimed ancient Romans had exceedingly long toes. I guess this guy didn't read the article or check out any Roman statues.
Shoes for industry..
Bones? He's dead, Jim.
The shoes to have, when I was a child, were made by a Mr. Tenny.
Of modest cost, they would enable a young lad to climb mountains, cross deserts, peddle bikes, fish in safety, find mystery, adventure and fun, while allowing a speedy retreat.
Mothers and Teachers called a new pair Jim Shoes, and we kids, not allowed to call adults by their first name, naturally assumed Mr. Tenny's first name was Jim.
I would love to find a new pair of the finest adventure footwear ever made, a pair of Mr.Tenny's Shoes.
Sounds like junk science to me.