tesa ttd manual

tesa ttd manual LINK 1 ENTER SITE >>> http://gg.gg/12dm62 <<< Download LINK 2 ENTER SITE >>> http://chilp.it/1a499f6 <<< Download PDF File Name:tesa ttd manual.pdf Size: 3552 KB Type: PDF, ePub, eBook Uploaded: 12 May 2019, 19:38 Rating: 4.6/5 from 707 votes. Status: AVAILABLE Last checked: 7 Minutes ago! eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version In order to read or download tesa ttd manual ebook, you need to create a FREE account. ✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account. ✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use) ✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied. ✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers tesa ttd manual And by having access to our ebooks online or by storing it on your computer, you have convenient answers with Viewcontent Php3Farticle3Dhumans Study Guide Answers26context3Dlibpubs. To get started finding Viewcontent Php3Farticle3Dhumans Study Guide Answers26context3Dlibpubs, you are right to find our website which has a comprehensive collection of manuals listed. Our library is the biggest of these that have literally hundreds of thousands of different products represented. I get my most wanted eBook Many thanks If there is a survey it only takes 5 minutes, try any survey which works for you. We walk upright and build cities. We travel from continent to continent in hours. We communicate across the globe in an instant. We alone can build bombs and invent medicines. Why can we do all these things that other creatures can’t? What makes us so different from other species. Investigating how early humans evolved and lived helps us answer these questions. Most people give our big brains all the credit, but that’s only part of the story. To more fully understand our success as a species, we need to look closely at our ancestors and the world they lived in. You’ll learn how foraging humans prospered and formed communities, and you’ll uncover the uniquely human ability to preserve, share, and build upon each other’s ideas to learn collectively. Our mission is to provide a free, world-class education to anyone, anywhere. Khan Academy is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Donate or volunteer today. It looks like your browser needs updating. For the best experience on Quizlet, please update your browser. Learn More. Lucy the 1st Australopithicus Which were the first continents to be populated by humans. Africa, Europe, and Asia Why were people nomadic (migrate) during the Paleolithic Era. They had to travel in order to find their food. What types of tools did people use during the Paleolithic Era. http://www.brachet.com.mx/archivos/bosch-shv55m03gb-user-manual.xml tesa ttd manual pdf, tesa ttd manual download, tesa ttd manuals, tesa ttd manual 2020. Ice Age How did the people during the Ice Age get across the Pacific Ocean. There was a land-bridge that was visible because SO MUCH water was frozen in glaciers. What is significant about the Neolithic Revolution. People began farming and had permanent homes. We no longer had to be hunters and gatherers. Identify 5 effects of the Agricultural Revolution Permanent Homes, Domestication, Farming(Surplus), Trade, Job Specialization Define Job Specialization When people spend most of their time working at a single job or craft. Did civilizations develop before or after the Agricultural Revolution. After (We would not be able to support job specialization without a food surplus) Which cultural trait is often illustrated by using a pyramid. With extra food we can get other goods we need by trading OUR food for their. Tools, Jewelry, Building Materials, Services, etc.) What is the difference between prehistory and history. PREHISTORY describes the time period BEFORE there is written evidence or documents to help historians study the past. HISTORY describes the period of time where there ARE written documents to help historians study the past. Circa means about or around. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites. Learn how to update your browser Humans continue to search for the answer to this fundamental question. Over the years, we've turned to both religion and science to explain where our species came from. Innovators of their time, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, used science to explain where humans came from, posing the theory of evolution. Then, Mary and Louis Leaky explored the fossil record to see if they could piece together the story of humans. Evolutionary science and archaeology continue today. Use these materials in your classroom to teach your students about the origins of the homo sapien. http://www.bedrucken24.de/userfiles/bosch-shv46c03uc-manual.xml The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine. Nature Education Knowledge 4( 6 ):1 Slicing meat off a bone with a sharp-edged tool can leave cut marks (Figure 1). Pounding a bone with a large stone to break it open and extract the marrow inside can leave percussion marks. All rights reserved. Three sites at Koobi Fora, Kenya, preserve evidence of several butchered mammals from about 1.5 Ma but are not found in association with any stone tools (Pobiner et al. 2008). Perhaps this signals a shift toward intentional specialization of activities, such as animal butchery and stone tool making, in different areas across the landscape. All rights reserved. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, routinely hunt, capture by hand, and eat meat from colobus or other smaller monkeys (e.g. Mitani and Watts 2001), but meat is a small proportion of their diet and they rarely scavenge (Watts 2008), most likely because they cannot efficiently digest carrion (Ragir et al. 2000). How this novel source of food was first recognized by hominins remains unknown. Hominins would likely not have been able to directly exploit grass as grassland expanded habitats across Africa - (though see Sponheimer et al. 2013) but an increase in large (grazing) animal resources would have been useful for any species that could procure and digest them (Plummer 2004). All rights reserved. But what was the frequency and quantity of nutrients obtained by hominins from animal tissues versus other foods. This indicates that by at least 1.8 million years ago, carcass-processing decisions may have taken into account the energy yield of a variety of foods. http://www.drupalitalia.org/node/75625 Persistence hunting has been suggested as a mode of hunting that would have been possible without advanced technology, but it's not clear how we would recognize this behavior in the fossil or archaeological record. Many zooarchaeologists who study Early Stone Age faunal assemblages think it's likely that at least some animal carcasses that were butchered by hominins, especially the larger ones, were obtained by scavenging. Experimental models of the frequency and location of cut, percussion, and tooth marks (e.g., Blumenschine 1988) are most often used to inform us about the timing of access ( early access vs.Would any of these variables affect frequency and location of butchery marks, and if so, how (e.g., Pobiner and Braun 2005)? What if more than one mode of carcass procurement took place. How did the acquisition of carcasses vary with different ecological affordances at different sites. How does the mode of carcass procurement relate to the timing of hominin access to animal resources (early access or late access)? This word comes from Hominini, a formal biological term in between the level of genus (e.g., Homo, Australopithecus ) and the level of family (Hominidae) The Early Stone Age in Africa is roughly equivalent to what is called the Lower Paleolithic in Europe and Asia. Can yield a variety of amounts of different carcass resources (e.g. meat, marrow, brains) depending on whether another predator(s) had access to that carcass first and the sizes and species of the predator(s) and prey carcass. Can yield a variety of amounts of different carcass resources (meat, marrow, brains) depending on whether another predator(s) had access to that carcass first and the sizes and species of other predator(s) and prey carcass. Often (incorrectly) assumed to yield more resources than passive scavenging. http://afhobiecat.com/images/bose-lifestyle-12-home-theater-system-manual.pdf Late access predators can obtain a variety of amounts of different carcass resources (meat, marrow, brains) depending on the size and species of other predator(s) had access to that carcass first and size of the prey carcass. C. C. et al. Genomic signatures of diet-related shifts during human origins. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences 278, 961-969 (2011). FxJj 20 Main, Koobi Fora. Journal of Human Evolution 27, 173-195L. R. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern. Myths. Academic Press, New YorkL. R. Fact and fiction about the ZinajnthropusCurrent Anthropology 29,R. J. Carcass consumption sequences and theJournal of Human Evolution 15, R. J. An experimental model of the timing of hominid and carnivore influence onJournal of Archaeological Science 15, 483-502 (1988). R. J. Percussion marks, tooth marks, and experimental determinations of theOlduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Human. Evolution 29, 21-51 (1995). African ungulates and its zooarchaeological implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 20, 555-587 (1993). Diets: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable. Oxford. University Press, Oxford, pp. 167-190 (2006). R. J. et al. Vertebrate taphonomicTanzania. In Breathing Life into Fossils. Taphonomic Studies in Honor of C. K. (Bob) Brain. eds. Pickering. Stone Age Institute Press, 2007). 161-180. Nature 336, 464-466Anthropological Archaeology 17, 327-353 (1998). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and. Molecular Biology 131(4), 653-673. D. R. et al. Early hominin dietProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107, 10002-10007K. S. et al. An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in. South Africa.T. Archaeological evidence for meat-eating by Plio-Pleistocene hominids from. Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge. Nature 291, 547-577 (1981). H. T. A taphonomic perspective on the archaeology of human origins. Annual Review of Anthropology 20, 433-467 (1991). http://www.infranetltd.com/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/1627165852536a---bradley-digital-smoker-user-manual.pdf Plio-Pleistocene hominids: nutritional constraints, archaeological patterns andJournal of Archaeological Science 20, 365-398 (1993). Current Anthropology 29, 135-149 (1988). S. D. Inferring hominid and carnivoreRutgers University (1995). S. D. Experimental determinations of carcass processing by Plio-PleistoceneJournal of Human Evolution 18, 393-399 (1989). Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2597-2608 (2009). Journal of Human Evolution 33, 669-690 (1997). M. Flesh availability and bone modifications in carcasses consumed by lions:Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, and Palaeoecology 149, 373-388 (1999). Journal of World Prehistory 16, 1-54 (2002). Pickering, T. R. Early hominid hunting and scavenging: a zooarchaeologicalProceedingsImplications for the functions of the world's oldest stone tools. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 109-121 (2005). Springer, NetherlandsC. P. et al. Disentangling Early Stone Age palimpsests:Human Evolution 47, 343-357PLoS ONE 8, e62174 (2013). N. et al. EvidenceJ. A. J. et al. Early archaeological sites, hominid remains andNature 294, 125-129S. R. Hominid use of fire in the lower and middle Pleistocene: a review of theC. J. The seed-eaters: a new model of hominid differentiation based on a baboonM. J. Tooth marks and human consumption: ethnoarchaeological masticationNutrition 30, 291-314 (2010). H. M. Body size and proportions in early hominids. American Journal of Physical Anthropoogy 87, 407-431 (1992). S. P. et al. Evidence for stone-tool-assisted consumption of animal tissues beforeAnthropology 8, 11-21 (1999). Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 1295-1309 (2013). Modification and Early Pleistocene Archaeofaunas (Koobi Fora, Kenya; OlduvaiJournal of Taphonomy 1, 115-141 (2003). Fora, Kenya.S. et al. Gut morphology and theJournal of Anthropological Research 56, 477-512 (2000). M. M. Evidence from carnivore tooth marksPh.D. dissertation, RutgersJournal of Human Evolution 45, 169-177 (2003). Anthropologist 88, 27-43 (1986). BANGTAIPVC.COM/upload/files/car-sales-manual.pdf Journal of Human Evolution 18, 329-343 (1989). National Academy of Sciences USA 97, 13506-13511 (2000). Ngogo and the relevance of chimpanzee scavenging to early hominin behavioralJournal of the Linnean Society 144, Science 338, 942-946. Do you want to LearnCast this session. Nature Education Knowledge 4( 2 ):9 What can old stone tools, ancient fire pits, and painted cave walls tell us about our evolutionary past? We are ubiquitous, ecologically dominant, and technologically unrivaled. And yet, three million years ago, our ancestors were a rather unremarkable species of ape — albeit one that walked around on two legs rather than all fours. What happened? How did we become so dominant, so pervasive, so quickly. The goal of Paleolithic archaeology is to describe and explain the evolution of these interrelated suites of adaptations (as well as associated aspects of our biology and culture) through studies of the material record of past human behavior. These are the tangible items mentioned at the onset: stone tools, fire pits, cave paintings, and the like. But technology is far more than just physical items created to accomplish various tasks.As a result, technologies will vary according to the task at hand, the possible solutions known to the population, the cost of failure, as well as myriad other factors (see below).In relatively short order, a few of these cultures then evolve into early states and empires. If one is interested in understanding the course and context of human evolutionary history, why not focus on this later time period, with its fine archaeological record of cities, pyramids, written records, and the like. The answer is clear. Those artifacts were created by peoples and cultures that were fully modern in every meaningful respect. When studying a pyramid, one can address questions about ancient socio-political organization, architectural skills, mobilization of labor — really an infinite number of interesting topics. http://asesoriagarpe.com/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/162716594272a1---bradley-4-rack-digital-smoker-manual.pdf If these issues are of paramount interest to a researcher, then a pyramid is an appropriate source of information for generating and testing hypotheses about the human past. Rather, it is the Paleolithic era that saw the emergence of the genus Homo and the rise of our species, Homo sapiens. The Paleolithic witnessed dramatic changes in our anatomy, our ecology, and our capacity for cultural learning and symbolic thought. Paleolithic technologies accompanied us on our migrations out of Africa, were present at the initial rise of regional culture groups, and were featured in some of the earliest ceremonial rituals. From an archaeological perspective, if we are interested in studying the emergence and evolution of these and related adaptations, then it is to the Paleolithic record that we must turn. Studies of Paleolithic technologies help inform each of these subject areas. Some are optimally designed for spearing large game, others are much more useful for carrying honeycomb, while still others are best employed when fishing, etc. With an eye toward inferring aspects of ancient hominin diets (and with it perhaps gaining new insights into associated features of their anatomy, ecology, sociality, etc.), functional analyses of artifacts provide a means with which to formulate and test specific hypotheses about the foraging behaviors and dietary practices of past toolmaking populations. Researchers can use this data to explore the dynamics structuring past hominin biogeographies (i.e., their distribution(s) in relation to time, space, ecology, historical constraints, etc.). Under what circumstance(s) did it emerge and fluoresce, and how might we use inferences of prehistoric culture to better understand the human past — as well as perhaps inform the present and future. But how does the toolmaker know that particular sequence. https://www.projectorrentals.com/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/1627165a656485---bradley-digital-smoker-manual.pdf Is it something individually learned, is it the product of social learning, is it a combination of the two, or is it something else entirely — perhaps genetically-encoded instructions. With this data in hand, and with numerous populations sampled, researchers can then begin to address really interesting questions: when, where, and why do cultural capacities seemingly improve or decline. The resulting material differences figure prominently in studies of prehistoric hominin culture, society, migration, trade, etc. Simply stated, adaptations do not evolve in isolation — a slight improvement in one feature will often lead to modifications in others. At issue for the Paleolithic archaeologist: how — if at all — are specific biological and cultural adaptations interrelated. For instance, are there deep causal relationships amongst the evolution of material culture (e.g., Paleolithic technology) and profound changes in past hominin diets, anatomies, and cognitive abilities. Did technology, diet, intellect, and cultural capacity co-evolve in a series of feedback loops, ultimately resulting in modern humanity. Painting with very broad strokes: yes they almost certainly did — although fleshing out many of the specific details will require further investigation and debate. Greater sophistication reflects the deep interplay of brains (i.e., raw intellect), demography (i.e., population size and composition), culture, as well as the technologies required to sustain populations. Its conception, production, use, and long-term retention within a culture will require a baseline amount of cognitive and cultural capacity on the part of the toolmaking population. Thus, with sufficient time and a sustained improvement in foraging success (perhaps due to the introduction of harpoon-based fishing) — meaning more food for everybody — our hypothetical population may increase in size, as would their ability to produce and retain additional innovations. BANGLENHOSPITAL.COM/UserFiles/File/car-sales-manual-transmission.pdf In turn, this advance may initiate and support additional bouts of evolutionary change. Note though that such feedback loops can also work in reverse — a decrease in population parameters (size, density, etc.) may result in vital technologies being lost. The Paleolithic is traditionally subdivided into a series of Periods or stages (e.g., Earlier Stone Age, Lower Paleolithic ). These are useful bookkeeping devices, a means with which to initially describe the record in relation to time, space, and technology. At an introductory level, Stone Ages (historically used in Africa) and Paleolithic Periods (used almost everywhere else) can be treated as roughly synonymous terms — although with several important caveats as the record approaches more recent times (see below). Rather, they are general impressions, rough approximations aimed at reducing a highly complex record to a few overarching categories. This raises three non-trivial questions: (1) what does the record look like (in part and in whole), (2) why does it look that way, and (3) how can we use this information to better understand the human condition (past, present, and future)? Why not a fairly homogenous record of just a few useful tool types. The record is the sum of billions of individual technological decisions, each of which reflects the highly-localized interplay of some or all of the issues touched upon previously (e.g., aspects of biology, culture, raw material availability, the influence of local economic and historical constraints, differing goals, varied tasks, etc.). As outlined below, there is general trend towards increased sophistication through time. The trend, however, is not linear. So what happened? How did the Paleolithic archaeological record actually unfold? With sharp flakes and simple core tools, early hominins could easily slice through the thickened hides of larger-bodied animals (e.g., antelope and zebra), and readily access nutritious meat, organs, and marrow. In turn, an increased dietary reliance on animal remains is linked to key developments in hominin evolution: brain expansion, dramatic changes in social and behavioral ecologies, and — widely-accepted — the emergence and early evolutionary success of the genus Homo. An increasingly carnivorous diet also led to the enlargement of home ranges and, eventually, to hominin biogeographic expansion out of Africa.LCTs are effective all-purpose artifacts: Swiss Army knives of sorts, and useful for a wide range of cutting tasks. LCT technology first appears in Africa, and then spreads out across much of southern and western Eurasia. Smash them together with a somewhat glancing blow and, with a little practice, you may detach a sharp sliver of rock (a flake ) from one of the two (now termed the core; the other stone being the hammerstone ). Repeat liberally, producing numerous knife-like flakes through the process of flake removal (or knapping ). Flakes can be used to slice through meat, fruits, vegetables, roots, or wood. Cores and hammerstones too can be used for heavy-duty processing of plant and animal resources. Roughly speaking, LCTs approximate the size and shape of a large, flattened, adult human hand (sometimes substantially larger or smaller; sometimes a bit more oval, u-shaped, or pointy). To fashion LCTs, rough templates are fashioned from large flakes or relatively flat cobbles. These templates are then knapped into fairly standardized forms (e.g., handaxes, picks, or cleavers ). LCTs are effective tools for the heavy-duty processing of plant and animal materials. They can also serve as useful cores (i.e., potential sources of simple flakes).Populations accumulated knowledge over time, tinkered with the past successes of others, and then collectively produced technologies far more sophisticated than what any individual could invent on their own. The importance of this adaptation cannot be overstated. In relatively short order, cumulative culture would produce schools, space travel, as well as the internet and all of its contents (including this article). Feedback loops involving biology, culture, technology, and demography would — when conditions were favorable — lead to the rapid evolution of local innovations. These include the earliest evidence of jewelry, small razor-like geometric flakes, and sophisticated compound tools. Many of these artifacts predate equivalent regional technologies by tens of thousands of years (see below). Then, just as suddenly as they appear, these innovations vanish from their local records for millennia, perhaps again reflecting the delicate interplay between demography, culture, and technology. Portions of the African record also provide the occasional glimpse at a few seemingly quite precocious technologies: early instances of shell jewelry, small geometric flakes, and highly sophisticated bone tools. Following this approach, blocks of stone are knapped into predetermined sizes and shapes (e.g., something resembling a turtle shell). One or more flakes of a set morphology are then detached from the core. Some of this variation is likely 'operational' in nature (e.g., populations fine-tuning technologies to best suit local ecological conditions). Other aspects though almost certainly reflect the presence (and stylistic preferences) of distinct culture groups.It is perhaps akin to repeatedly turning over a stalled engine — one that just fails to start each time. One or more African populations embodied a particular suite of ecological, cultural, and demographic characteristics that facilitated an extraordinary feedback loop (e.g., Powell et al. 2009), one that has been actively maintained to the present day. In turn, ever-improving technologies fuelled population growth, forcing populations to intensify hunting and gathering practices. With local food resources under increased pressures, some groups dispersed in search of new lands. Cultural adaptations (including sophisticated technologies) facilitated the rapid exploitation of an extraordinarily large range of habitats — extending from the desert to the near-arctic, and almost everywhere in between. Building upon technological origins that extend deep into the MSA, toolmakers begin to emphasize the production and use of prismatic blades ( mode 4 ) and geometric microliths ( mode 5 ), two technologies that employ fairly sophisticated prepared core techniques. The former yields a series of elongated cutting edges; the latter returns, in effect, a number of disposable razors. Either could be embedded along the working edge of a spear, harpoon, or knife. They also document an increased reliance on cultural adaptations.What is outlined above is, at best, a fair sketch to be revisited and revised over the coming decades. Rather than being utterly demoralizing, this actually makes for incredibly interesting and exciting times in Paleolithic studies. Important new discoveries are made every day; new analytical techniques provide windows to the past that were all but inconceivable even a few short years ago, and the widespread adoption of an increasingly rigorous scientific approach provides archaeologists with a sound methodological foundation upon which to fashion a cutting-edge 21 st century discipline.A hallmark of mode 4 technology, blades are usually detached from prepared cores. In some variants, the resulting core resembles a prism (or cone). Handaxes have a series of flake removals along both side margins, creating a pointed tip and a pair of long cutting edges. Harpoons are sharp, often barbed points, commonly carved from bone and affixed to the end of a wooden shaft. In some cases, cordage attached to the harpoon would allow hunters to easily recover their catch and tool. Most LCT's have a series of flake removals along the two side margins, creating a pair of long cutting edges. Large cutting tools first appear in the Acheulean and are the hallmark of mode 2 lithic technology. Specific LCT forms include handaxes, picks, and cleavers. Mode 5 technologies (geometric microliths) are particularly emphasized. In addition, the LSA is characterized by the widespread use of jewelry, ochre (for paint and glue), bone tools, etc. Mode 3 technologies are particularly emphasized. Mode 3 technologies are particularly emphasized. The MSA also contains early examples of mode 4 and 5 technologies. Modes are categorical and progressive (i.e., they build upon technological advances made in previous modes). Some core forms may serve as heavy-duty cutting or bashing tools. Picks have a series of flake removals along both side margins, creating a pointed tip and pair of long cutting edges. Mode 4 technologies (blades, etc.) are particularly emphasized. In addition, the UP is characterized by the widespread use of art, bone tools, etc. Proceedings of the British Academy J. Demography and cultural evolution, why adaptive cultural processes producedR. G. The Human Career. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Movius Line. Quaternary International S. et al. Evidence for stone toolScience 324, 1298-1301 (2009). How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago. IL: UniversityS. et al. 2.5 million-year-old stoneNature 385, 333-336Speak: Human Evolution and the Dawn of Technology. New York, NY. Simon and Schuster, 1993. S. Demography and cultural innovation: A model and its implications for theCambridge Archaeological Journal 11, 5-16 (2001). Did primates raft from Africa to South America. What influences the evolution of humans and our primate relatives today. What is it like to search for hominin fossils or to study wild apes. What tools can we use to study rare, endangered primates and help to conserve them in a rapidly changing world. These are some of the diverse questions answered in this topic room. Look at an unfolding embryo, a genome, or a skeleton and you will see our inner fishes, our inner mammals, our inner apes. We carry within us physical evidence of the developmental processes and biological traits that humans share with all — yes, all — other organisms. What did the earliest primates look like and how are they related to modern forms? How has climate change influenced the diversification of different primate groups. How do primates navigate arboreal and terrestrial habitats. What processes are involved in fossilization and in dating fossils from the distant past? Why do some male primates commit infanticide. Why do some females form strong bonds. What do primates eat and how do they live in ecological communities with other animals. How do primates communicate. Do primates deceive each other. Unraveling the sociality and ecology of our closest living relatives, the non-human primates, can help us shed light on the selective pressures that shaped humans through evolutionary time. Do you want to LearnCast this session. Our knack for collective learning — preserving information, sharing it with one another, and passing it to the next generation — helps us create entirely new forms of complexity. Around for only 250,000 years, we are truly one of the most complex things in the cosmos. We all descended from a common shrew-like ancestor. After a slow 7 million years of evolving, developing bipedalism, collectively learning, and tinkering with primitive tools, a powerful new species ruled the Earth. They're thought to be the first of our ancestors to have migrated out of Africa. That's not all that's shared, either. Jane Goodall's scientific observations have shown that chimps make and use tools, and their social interactions mirror those of humans. Stone tools were used for digging, cutting wood, and cutting and skinning game. Sites like Blombos Cave, above, have given researchers a glimpse into their daily lives.