Raising Deadly Chickens

[Occams Barber]

Note for the Geographically challenged: New Guinea is a short canoe trip north of northern Australia.
Unsurprisingly Australia is also full of deadly cassowaries. - OB

Cassowaries: Ancient humans may have reared deadly birds 18,000 years ago
Often called modern-day dinosaurs, cassowaries are one of only a few birds known to have killed humans.

It is no wonder cassowaries are often called modern-day dinosaurs. Like some theropod dinosaurs, from which all birds descend, cassowaries sport a helmet-like structure, called a casque, atop their colorfully feathered heads. They can tower nearly six feet tall and weigh up to 167 pounds, outsizing all other modern birds besides emus and ostriches.

But it is the cassowary’s power and three sharp claws that most distinguish it from other modern birds. Cassowaries are one of a few birds known to have killed humans. With their powerful legs, which can propel them to speeds up to 30 mph, the birds can kick humans and other animals, slicing flesh in the process.

In his 1958 book Living Birds of the World, the ornithologist Ernest Thomas Gilliard wrote: “The inner or second of the three toes is fitted with a long, straight, murderous nail which can sever an arm or eviscerate an abdomen with ease. There are many records of natives being killed by this bird.”

So it may seem that the cassowary, territorial and potentially lethal, would be a poor choice of animal for ancient humans to rear. But a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that hunter-gatherers in the rainforests of eastern New Guinea did just that some 18,000 years ago. The findings mark what could be the earliest case of humans breeding birds, preceding the domestication of chickens by millennia.

More
Cassowaries: Ancient humans reared deadly birds 18,000 years ago? - Big Think

OB

 

[J_B_]

Is this more proof people are stupid, or is there another point?

 

[Occams Barber]

Is this more proof people are stupid, or is there another point?

It's evidence that cassowaries were once farmed like chickens around 18,000 years ago. Doesn't that excite you?

Anyway...its not as dangerous as it sounds. Little cassowaries tend to 'imprint' on humans if they are kept in contact in the period just after hatching.

This means they can grow up thinking that a human is their Mum.

OB

 

[J_B_]

It's evidence that cassowaries were once farmed like chickens around 18,000 years ago. Doesn't that excite you?

I guess aviary history is something I've not explored yet. Are they agitating for the end of chicken exploitation yet? Demanding agency? That's when it gets interesting. I've heard there's an upcoming movie: Planet of the Chickens

 

[Belk]

Hated those things in Far Cry 3.

 

[chilehed]

This makes me shake my head:

"Still, the researchers are not sure exactly how the hunter-gatherers went about collecting the eggs. The researchers noted that cassowary nests are typically hard to find. What’s more, male cassowaries, who watch over the nests almost nonstop until the eggs hatch, have been known to become violently territorial when approached by humans and other animals. Hunter-gatherers might have sometimes opted to hunt the male and then collect the eggs."​

They think this is a mystery? How dense can people be?

 

[Goonie]

In Australia even the chickens are lethal.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This makes me shake my head:

"Still, the researchers are not sure exactly how the hunter-gatherers went about collecting the eggs. The researchers noted that cassowary nests are typically hard to find. What’s more, male cassowaries, who watch over the nests almost nonstop until the eggs hatch, have been known to become violently territorial when approached by humans and other animals. Hunter-gatherers might have sometimes opted to hunt the male and then collect the eggs."​

They think this is a mystery? How dense can people be?

Are you saying you're sure you know exactly how the hunter-gatherers went about collecting the eggs?

If so, how?

 

[chilehed]

Are you saying you're sure you know exactly how the hunter-gatherers went about collecting the eggs?

If so, how?

Seriously? You've only ever bought food in packages in stores? Bless your heart.

You find a nest, kill the adult so you can eat it, and take the eggs. It's not rocket science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Seriously? You've only ever bought food in packages in stores? Bless your heart.

Less of the snark, please.

You find a nest, kill the adult so you can eat it, and take the eggs. It's not rocket science.

That's one way it could be done. But what makes you absolutely certain this is what the hunter-gatherers actually did? What evidence convinced you?

 

[chilehed]

Less of the snark, please.

That's one way it could be done. But what makes you absolutely certain this is what the hunter-gatherers actually did? What evidence convinced you?

Wow, you really have never hunted for your food!

Some things are so simple and obvious that it takes an advanced degree to be mystified by them.

 

[Goonie]

Deleted

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Wow, you really have never hunted for your food!

As a matter of fact, I have (with limited success); but that's irrelevant - I certainly haven't collected eggs from the most dangerous and aggressive bird around - and, I seriously doubt you have either.

Some things are so simple and obvious that it takes an advanced degree to be mystified by them.

This is the difference between scientific study and the assumptions of everyday life. It may well be simple and obvious to you, and it's plausible, even probable, that the ancient hunter-gatherers did as you suggest. But several hundred years of scientific study have shown how easy it is to be mistaken by assuming that what seems simple and obvious is what actually happened.

So in order to make a statement about what actually happened with a reasonable degree of certainty, scientific research requires supporting evidence. Without that, it's just speculation, not science.

 

[chilehed]

This is the difference between scientific study and the assumptions of everyday life.

Assumptions? I invite you to propose a way for them to possess the eggs, which doesn't involve finding the nests and taking the eggs.

 

[renniks]

Assumptions? I invite you to propose a way for them to possess the eggs, which doesn't involve finding the nests and taking the eggs.

Just be very, verry sneaky... and carry a big stick just in case.

 

[chilehed]

Just be very, verry sneaky... and carry a big stick just in case.

But don't find the nest or take the eggs?

 

[renniks]

But don't find the nest or take the eggs?

Of course you have to find the nest in order to take the eggs.
I have survived many attack chickens in my life, but they were much smaller.
Still hurts when you are just a kid and stuck in a hay mow pulling eggs from under a vicious attack chicken. It's a wonder I don't have permanent psychological scars

 

[J_B_]

Some things are so simple and obvious that it takes an advanced degree to be mystified by them.

This conversation has me imagining a Rube Goldberg device for hunting/gathering.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Assumptions? I invite you to propose a way for them to possess the eggs, which doesn't involve finding the nests and taking the eggs.

The issue was not that they didn't know whether the hunter-gatherers found the nests and took the eggs, but that they were "not sure exactly how the hunter-gatherers went about collecting the eggs" [my bolding]

 

[ripple the car]

Are we seriously arguing about how ancient people may or may not have raised cassowaries and harvested their eggs? Cool. Viva la internet!