"The remains of monkeys found buried at an ancient port in Egypt reveal that they were imported from India as household pets, say archaeologists." Source: Archaeology News Network.
"The monkeys, discovered in an animal cemetery in the ancient port of Berenice and found to have been carefully arranged like sleeping babies, were initially thought to have been local to the area.
"But by using 3D scanners and comparing the bones with others, researchers found the primates were actually rhesus macaques from India."
Note: Apparently the monkey's owners were Romans rather than native Egyptians:
"Zooarchaeologist Dr. Marta Osypińska from the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Poznań said: 'This is a unique find. Until now, no one has found Indian monkeys at archaeological sites in Africa. Interestingly, even ancient written sources don’t mention this practice.'
"She added: 'When Egypt was annexed to the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago, we believe that the wealthy Romans who stayed in Berenice, a distant outpost, in the first and second centuries AD, wanted to spend time in the company of various animals. Among them were monkeys.'"
"Unlike chimpanzees in East and West Africa, who use a single tool to extract termites, chimpanzees in Central Africa's Congo Basin use tool sets -- puncturing sticks or perforating twigs plus fishing probes -- to harvest the insects from underground nests or towering earthen mounds scattered across lowland forests." Source: Science Daily.
"'Chimpanzees have the most complex tool behaviors of any animals outside of humans, so studying how their youngsters become proficient at these tasks can help us better understand how early humans might have acquired complex technological skills,' said [Stephanie] Musgrave, an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology and lead author of the study published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology."
Note: Chimps aren't the only primates besides Man who understand the concept of tools. Macaque monkeys also make use of primitive technology and there's something eerily human about the way they use rocks to crack open shells.
The use of tools by chimps is pretty amazing, granted, but despite Science Daily's claim that they show the most complex tool behaviors of any animals other than man, they're nowhere near as advanced as crabs who have actually learned how to use weapons to defend themselves against apex predators.
"Millions of modern humans ask themselves the same question every morning while looking in the mirror: Why am I so hairy? As a society, we spend millions of dollars per year on lip waxing, eyebrow threading, laser hair removal, and face and leg shaving, not to mention the cash we hand over to Supercuts or the neighborhood salon. But it turns out we are asking the wrong question—at least according to scientists who study human genetics and evolution. For them, the big mystery is why we are so hairless." Source: Smithsonian Magazine.
Nobody has the slightest idea why humans lost their fur. Of course this question is only a mystery if you assume that humans were actually covered with fur in the first place. Nevertheless, if we did evolve (like the modern apes) from some "fruit-eating, slow-climbing primate that resembled a baby gibbon," then presumably at one time Homo Sapiens was just as furry as the gibbons of today.
I don't buy any of the explanations given in the top video. According to the new research described in the Smithsonian article, we may have lost our fur because of a genetic mutation which could also be responsible for baldness:
"A researcher studying the plantar region of rabbits noticed that an inhibitor protein, called Dickkopf 2 or Dkk2, was not present in high levels, giving the team the fist clue that Dkk2 may be fundamental to hair growth. When the team looked at the hairless plantar region of mice, they found that there were high levels of Dkk2, suggesting the protein might keep bits of skin hairless by blocking a signaling pathway called WNT, which is known to control hair growth."
According to this still speculative theory, something happened early in human evolution which led to an increase in Dkk2, which in turn inhibited the growth of hair. It's still unclear, at least to me, why a genetic mutation like this could effect an entire species, but these things can apparently spread very quickly.
"Sledge dogs are much older and have adapted to Arctic conditions much earlier than previously thought. In a new study from the QIMMEQ project, researchers from the University of Copenhagen show that ancestors of modern sledge dogs have worked and lived with humans for over 9,500 years." Source: Science Daily.
"...In addition to advancing the common understanding of the origin of sledge dogs, the new study also teaches the researchers more about the differences between sledge dogs and other dogs. Sledge dogs do not have the same genetic adaptations to a sugar and starch rich diet that other dogs have. On the other hand, they have adaptations to high-fat diets, with mechanisms that are similar to those described for polar bears and Arctic people."
"Researchers have discovered a new migration pattern (or lack of) at Pinnacle Point, a now-submerged region in South Africa. While it was first believed large omnivores would travel to follow the growth of vegetation to survive, researchers came to a completely new conclusion through studying antelope teeth. They discovered that this region was an 'Eden' to all living species that called it home, including the earliest humans." Source: Science Daily (May 2020).
"Evidence continues to mount that the Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and Asia until about 40,000 years ago, were more sophisticated people than once thought. A new study shows that Neanderthals chose to use bones from specific animals to make a tool for specific purpose: working hides into leather. " Source: Science Daily (2020).
Note: As shown in the video above, the bone tools used in this study were discovered years ago:
"Naomi Martisius, research associate in the Department of Anthropology, studied Neanderthal tools from sites in southern France for her doctoral research. The Neanderthals left behind a tool called a lissoir, a piece of animal rib with a smoothed tip used to rub animal hides to make them into leather. These lissoirs are often worn so smooth that it's impossible to tell which animal they came from just by looking at them."
Bones were used to make all sorts of weapons and tools back in the Stone Age. Next video (2019) describes several of these finds. The section on the lissoirs discovered in France starts at approximately 1:31.
In this recent discovery, researchers used "highly sensitive mass spectrometry to look at residues of collagen protein from the bones" found in France. The analysis was used to identify the species of animal that provided the bones:
"The results show that the bones used to make lissoirs mostly came from animals in the cattle family, such as bison or aurochs (a wild relative of modern cattle that is now extinct). But other animal bones from the same deposit show that reindeer were much more common and frequently hunted for food. So the Neanderthals were choosing to use only ribs from certain types of animals to make these tools."
The argument here is that the Neanderthals deliberately used cattle bones for scraping hides because these bones were larger than reindeer bones. That makes sense and while there's no real dispute that Neanderthals were highly intelligent I'm not sure that it takes a lot of brains to make a decision like that.
"A study has tracked the shift from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to early farming that occurred in prehistoric Europe over a period of around 1,500 years. An international team of scientists, led by researchers at the University of York, analysed the molecular remains of food left in pottery used by the first farmers who settled along the Atlantic Coast of Europe from 7,000 to 6,000 years ago." Source: Archaeology News Network.
"[Christopher Stringer] is one of the leading proponents of the recent African origin hypothesis or 'Out of Africa' theory, which hypothesizes that modern humans originated in Africa over 100,000 years ago and replaced, in some way, the world's archaic humans, such as Homo floresiensis and Neanderthals, after migrating within and then out of Africa to the non-African world within the last 50,000 to 100,000 years." Source: Wikipedia.
It now appears that Stringer is rethinking the Out of Africa theory, at least to some extent:
"I'm thinking a lot about species concepts as applied to humans, about the 'Out of Africa' model, and also looking back into Africa itself. I think the idea that modern humans originated in Africa is still a sound concept. Behaviorally and physically, we began our story there, but I've come around to thinking that it wasn't a simple origin." Source: Edge (2011?).
Stringer apparently still believes that modern humans evolved in Africa, but "the exact processes involved in our African origin are still unclear. We don't know exactly when it happened, we don't know exactly where it happened" and "our picture is still limited in terms of the sites that have been excavated and the information we've got from them."
The most interesting thing about this article is that Stringer seems to believe that there are different types of modern humans. These variations can be traced back to the probable interbreeding of modern humans with human ancestors like the Neanderthals. According to Stringer, "this means that in a sense some modern humans have got more archaic genes than others. [Emphasis added] That does seem to be so. So it leads us on to ask again: what is a modern human?" (1)
Stringer argues that "our evolutionary story is mostly, but not absolutely, a Recent African Origin," but the recent [2017] analysis of Graecopithecus frebergifossils discovered in Greece and Bulgaria have called this into question. According to this new study "the birthplace of modern human beings may have been the eastern Mediterranean and not Africa..." (Ancient Origins 2017) It's still too early to know whether this study is accurate, though, and some sources are already saying that there's not enough evidence to back the claim. Whatever the case, it's starting to look like the Out of Africa Theory is oversimplified, if not completely inaccurate.
(1) Stringer's conjecture that some modern humans have more archaic genes than others is a dangerous thing to say in today's toxic environment of political correctness. The idea that people aren't genetically identical is blasphemous. As for the Out of Africa Theory, the current orthodoxy regarding human origins is so mixed up with modern identity politics that a lot of people will resist the idea that it could be wrong no matter how much evidence is produced in the future.
If capturing wild pigs is dangerous today, think about what it must have been like back in the Stone Age.
"Using the wild boar as a model, a team of scientists have shown that a life spent in captivity has an identifiable effect on the shape of the calcaneus, a tarsal [foot] bone that plays a propulsive role in locomotion. This bone is well preserved in archaeological contexts, which makes it possible to obtain information about the earliest placing of wild animals in captivity." Source: Science Daily.
Captivity caused changes in the muscles attached to the boar's foot bones, making the animals slower but stronger at the same time:
"This modification is caused by changes in the animal's lifestyle, since the bone is reshaped as a result of its movement, the terrain, and muscle stress ... It appears that a captive lifestyle turned them from 'long-distance runners' into 'bodybuilders'."
This study shows how changes in an animal's lifestyle can cause morphological changes, i.e. transformations in the shape and structure of its body. I have to wonder what changes humans have gone through over the millennia as a result of our own domestication. We used to be wild animals as well, after all.
Note: Humans were domesticating wild pigs back in the Stone Age. We've been hunting these dangerous animals for thousands of years and they appear in the mythology of several different cultures.
"Humans have been hunting boar for millennia, with the earliest artistic depictions of such activities dating back to the Upper Paleolithic. The animal was seen as a source of food among the Ancient Greeks, as well as a sporting challenge and source of epic narratives. The Romans inherited this tradition, with one of its first practitioners being Scipio Aemilianus. Boar hunting became particularly popular among the young nobility during the 3rd century BC as preparation for manhood and battle. A typical Roman boar hunting tactic involved surrounding a given area with large nets, then flushing the boar with dogs and immobilizing it with smaller nets. The animal would then be dispatched with a venabulum, a short spear with a crossguard at the base of the blade." (Wikipedia)
This is the Karni Mata Temple, aka the Temple of Rats, in Rajasthan, India. According to Wikipedia, the Hindu temple to the deity / female warrior sage, Karni Mata, is famous for "the approximately 25,000 black rats that live, and are revered, in the temple. These holy rats are called kabbas, and many people travel great distances to pay their respects. The temple draws visitors from across the country for blessings, as well as curious tourists from around the world." There are also a few white rats living there and they are considered to be "manifestations of Karni Mata herself and her four sons." This makes the white rats ultra-holy.
The videos above show various food offerings made to the rats at the temple. In the top video, one worshiper is shown drinking straight from a bowl of milk set out for the sacred vermin. He claims that this is good for his health even though the milk is full of rat droppings. And this kind of lunatic behavior isn't unusual:
"The rodents move freely within the temple and can be seen eating from a huge metal bowl of milk and grains, placed there daily by devotees." Source: Daily Mail (2014).
"Small children can be seen playing and interacting with the rats - while scores of tourists flock there each day to catch a glimpse of the unique spectacle.
"Many visitors offer sweets and other candy to the vermin. The food nibbled by the rats is also considered holy and is sometimes consumed by a devotee - even if it has been half eaten by rodents."
Hindus believe that humans and animals are related through the cycles of reincarnation. We may have been animals in a previous life and we might end up coming back as animals in our next life, depending on our karma. "Humans and animals are believed to be one family and therefore, humans should treat all living creatures with respect and kindness." (Wikipedia)
Fine. I'm against animal abuse myself but worshiping rats, letting them run wild and sharing their food is flat-out disgusting. This temple is a major health hazard:
"Rats serve as outstanding vectors for transmittance of diseases because they can carry bacteria and viruses in their systems. A number of bacterial diseases are common to rats, and these include Streptococcus pneumoniae[causes pneumonia and meningitis in children and the elderly], Corynebacterium kutsheri,Bacillus piliformis [has been known to cause Tyzzer's disease in humans], Pasteurella pneumotropica, and Streptobacillus moniliformis, to name a few. All of these bacteria are disease causing agents in humans. In some cases, these diseases are incurable." (Wikipedia)
As far as I can tell, rodents are only worshiped in India. It's strange to think that this sacred animal is also responsible for wreaking havoc in the country:
"Twice a century, India is attacked by huge rat armies that devour crops in massive destructive waves and leave people without any food. Scientists long dismissed it as an urban myth...until they discovered that it really happens, and why." Source: Gizmodo (2010).
This is a weird situation. On the one hand, rats are worshiped in India; on the other hand, the country is carrying out pest control measures designed to keep the rat population under control, if not eradicate them altogether. Every fifty years these rat swarms wipe out crops, cause widespread famine and "wreak havoc on the entire ecosystem." (Gizmodo) This periodic disaster is called Mautum and it causes serious problems:
"Mautam (Mizo for 'bamboo death') is a cyclic ecological phenomenon that occurs every 48–50 years in the northeastern Indian states of Mizoram and Manipur, which are 30% covered by wild bamboo forests, as well as Chin State in Myanmar, particularly Hakha, Thantlang, Falam, Paletwa, and Matupi Towships. It begins with a rat population boom, which in turn creates a widespread famine in those areas." (Wikipedia)
As nasty as it is, the Temple of Rats at least serves a religious purpose. In the West a lot of people keep rats as pets and prattle on about how adorable they are. This is also kind of crazy, but at least these people don't eat and drink out of their rats' food bowls. Maybe I'm just being narrow-minded about this, but as far as I'm concerned rats aren't just unhygienic; they're downright evil.
The best sources for reliable information about the true nature of rats can be found in the books of the noted rodent experts, James Herbert and H.P. Lovecraft. The next video, a news clip from 1982, shows the devastation caused by rats in the New York subway system. This is real footage. Some skeptics claim that the rats are just wiener dogs dressed up in rat costumes, but that's ridiculous.