Cut marks are seen on this early human bone recovered from southeastern Europe.
L. Crépin - S. Prat / MNHN - CNRS)
Cut marks are seen on this early human bone recovered from southeastern Europe.
L. Crépin - S. Prat / MNHN - CNRS)
Paleocannibal ping.
Little scratch marks, bib, big conclusions.
Well today we kill millions of the most helpless of our species every year....guess we’ve regressed.
Or the person was in a fight which resulted in the cut marks.
Two cannibals were eating a clown. One says to the other, “Does this taste funny to you?”
I just read the scientific article since I wanted to know how the researchers could conclude that the cut marks were from cannibalism.
The original article simply puts forth cannibalism as a possible explanation. The analysis does not go further than comparing that butchered animal bones were treated differently than human bones.
Just another example of poor science journalism. The journalist has taken a speculative statement from a scientific article and made it into more than what it really is. This does a great disservice to science.
As soon as I see or hear a word like “bling”, the credibility of the presenter is gone.
Headline: July, 34012
Early humans harvested their unborn, cuts on unborn remains show
Mostly Like Early Humans Ate Their Unborn
Scientists find gruesome evidence from the 1900s
What did one Cro-Magon cannibal say to the other Cro-Magnon cannibal?
`Oh do you remember that Neanderthal guy that always hung around the bone pit?
Well, I had him over for lunch on Saturday.`
I suspect ‘bling’ is really a practical innovation in an archaic society where wearing your most valuable/sacred possessions around your neck and carrying them everywhere were simply the only means of securing them.
“Wow, look at the size of that rock Ugg is wearing! Is that a genuine Fossil sundial he’s got on?”
“I don’t know, but he looks good enough to eat!”
;)