Subject: Re: Yumpin' Yiminy! Conrad and Holden are taking over!
From: sho@tannis.sho.net (Sho Nakagama)
Date: 12 Dec 1996 09:53:07 GMT
In article <58bvbm$h0g@news.ptd.net>, Ed Conrad wrote:
>First of all, I don't THINK I have human fossils. I KNOW I have
>human fossils.
>Are you or the others out there MORE knowledgeable in the
>identification of human skeletal remans (petrified or otherwise) than
>the late, great Wilton M. Krogman.
>HE -- not any of you -- wrote THE book, ``The Human Skeleton in
>Forensic Medicine."
>
>You've seen a photo of this great scientist holding one of my key
>specimens. He had examined it very patiently and very carefully, then
>admitted -- in astonishment -- that it is a human calvarium (a cranium
>with the eye sockets broken off).
A verification from someone who is *alive* and reputable would
be nice...
>Secondly, it's wrong to state that no one is listening or paying
>attention to this exchange of nasty dialogue. You'd be very, very
>surprised to learn how many people ARE listening -- and in exotic
>far-away places.
It sure does carry, I'll grant you that, I'm usually trying
to help nuts on other newsgroups.
>True, the vast majority of folks DON'T agree with me. But this is
>quite understandable because I have tossed my hat in the lions' den
>(and they're damn hungry).
Glad to see you're following the rules Ed, I quote you rule number
one from the USENET Guide to Power Posting
The USENET Guide to Power Posting
1. Conspiracies abound: If everyone's against you, the reason
can't *possibly* be that you're a fuckhead. There's obviously
a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire
net a favor by exposing it. Be sure to mention the CIA, FBI
Oliver North and the Army as co-conspiritors.
Here's another you seem to follow quite well...
3. Force them to document their claims: Even if Jane Jones
states outright that she has menstrual cramps, you should demand
documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Jane's
cramps, then Jane's obviously lying.
And this one goes without saying....
5. Tell 'em how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to
convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them?
State that you're a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks of America.
Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school.
"I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell
the word 'premeiotic' ".
And you seem to follow the most of the other rules....
6. Be an armchair psychologist: You're a smart person. You've heard of
Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you're
qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent. "Polly Purebread, by
using the word 'zucchini' in her posting, shows she has a bad case
of penis envy."
7. Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American
citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as guaranteed
by the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries to limit your
cross-posting or move a flame war to email is either a Communist, a
fascist, or both.
10. When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other rules, remember
this one. At some point during your wonderful career on USENET
you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is
better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your
arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At this point,
there's only one thing to do: insult the dirtbag!!! "Oh yeah?
Well, you do strange things with vegetables."
14. Make things up about your opponent: It's important to make your lies
sound true. Preface your argument with the word "clearly."
"Clearly, Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot."
sci.bio.* loves your the way you religiously follow this one...
15. Cross-post your article: Everyone on the net is just waiting for
the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal. From
rec.arts.wobegon to alt.gourmand, they're all holding their breaths
until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.
And in response you used this rule...
19. A really cheap shot is to call you opponent a "facist". By itself, it
really does nothing. But, when used often, and in enough articles,
it can make you a net-legend.
And Ed, you're the king of this one as certainly everyone knows your
name now....
20. And finally, never edit your newsgroup line when following up (unless
you're expanding it). This drives 'em wild. Be sure to follow up as
many articles as possible, even if you have nothing to say. The
important thing is to get "exposure" so that you can be called a
"regular" in your pet newsgroup. Never change the ">" symbol when
following up; that's for wimps. Dump a hundred lines of "INEWS FODDER"
in every article.
Well, we certainly can't fault Ed for following most of the
rules, can we?
>True, most howlers have a scientific educational background. But this
>doesn't mean a damn thing if what they were taught (about man's origin
>and ancestry) was dinosaur manure, which indeed it is.
Hey, so they rejected my theory that the dinosaurs were carried
away by spacecraft from a planet ruled by apes, even after I
showed them a picture of General Urko. I was crushed, but
I learned to deal with it.
>Many more photos and much more information continually have been
>added.
>
Does that mean I should show them a picture of Dr Zeus as well?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Next time I'll be more cautious, next time I won't be fooled
It's another of those basic things you're never taught in school
Let this be a warning, as you wander through the world
It makes no difference who you are, be you boy or be you girl
Be very, very careful when people seem so nice
It's not now when it's expensive, later on you pay the price
There's no Hope Road" -Anne Clark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I may not live past 31 but-whoa! What a way to die!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GBH(tm) [your secret society ad here] KoX ARSCC
Subject: Re: Antarctica as Top of the World.
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:15:27 -0600
In message
Rich Spelker ootheca@sirius.com (Ootheca) wrote
>Plato said that Alantis was out beyond the Gates of Hercules,
>(Gibraltor). It is a pet theory of Graham Hancock that antarctica
>was Alantis, he offers proof of a 1737 map of Antarctica. (Before
>it was fully discovered in 1818 and shows it without ice-cover
>showing the only recently known landmass underneath!)
>Graham Hancock writes,
>"...a 1737 map by the French geographer Philippe Buache
>shows a remarkably accurate view of the continent (antarctica) -
>and moreover as it would have looked in an ice-free state.
>Geographers who designed such maps claimed they were merely
>copies of much more ancient ones. From 'Fingerprints of the Gods.'"
>from 'Gnosis' Magazine, Interview with Graham Hancock. p.19,
>No.38, Winter 1996.
.....material omitted....
This post analyzes in detail the source of the above claim
that the Buaches Map shows an ice-free Antarctica. The
claim is explained in detail by Mr. Graham hancock in his
Exhibit 9 of the "Fingerprints of the Gods."
= Introduction - The Problem =====
A central thesis of the _Fingerprints of the Gods_ (FOG), by
Mr. Graham Hancock, and its explanation of why artifacts and
remains of his hypothetical civilization are lacking is
that this civilization occupied Antarctica when it was warm
and temperate. Later, FOG claims that this civilization was
buried beneath a couple of miles of ice when an abrupt
crustal movement moved Antarctica into the Antarctic circle.
Talking about this idea as advocated by Rand and Rose
Flem-Ath in their book _When the Sky Fell_, FOG claims:
1. a complete slippage of the Earth¼s thirty-mile-thick forced
large parts of the western hemisphere southward towards
the equator and towards Antarctic Circle,
2. work by Hapgood (1970) shows that in the southern
hemisphere, the continent of Antarctica was mostly at
temperate or even warm latitudes until this crustal shift
moved it completely inside the Antarctic Circle,
3. this overall crustal shift had a magnitude of 30 degrees
(approximately 2000 miles or 1220 kilometers), and
4. this crustal shift occurred between 14,500 BC and 12,500 BC
with _massive aftershocks on a planetary scale continuing
at widely-separated intervals_ until 9,500 BC.
In relation to the above claims, the Buache map mentioned
in Exhibit 9 is use as evidence that Antarctica was ice free at
sometime between 6,000 to 40,000 B.P.
= Exhibit 9 ====
In Exhibit 9, FOG very simply states:
_The Buache Map, also reviewed in Part 1, accurately
depicts the subglacial topography of Antarctica. 13_
Footnote 13 refers to Part 1 of _Fingerprints of the Gods_.
Then FOG rhetorically asks whether this map depicts the
subglacial topography by chance or was Antarctica entirely
ice-free recently enough for the cartographers of a lost
civilization to have mapped it.
In Part 1, page 18, of FOG, similar claims are made without
giving proof to back them up:
_Buache gives us is an eerily precise representation of
Antarctica as it must have looked when there was no
ice on it at all. 13_
Footnote 13 refers to Hapgood (1966, p. 93).
Next on page 18, FOG claims that the Buache map reveals
the subglacial topography of the entire Antarctica continent
which remained unknown until seismic surveys were carried
out in the 1958 International Geophysical Year. In summary,
FOG claims that the Buache Map shows both the subglacial
(bedrock) topography and the topography of Antarctica when
it was ice-free.
II. The Buache Map
The Buache Map is an eighteenth century map prepared by
the French geographer, Philippe Buache, in 1873.
The Buache map shows two southern continents separated by
an interior polar sea with two straits on either end (Hapgood
1979, Figure 53 and page 19 of FOG). The _Interior Sea_ is
centered on the South Pole and its axis, including one strait,
lies roughly at 90 degree angle to the north-south axis of South
America. The larger of these continents forms a 220 degree
arc that surrounds the Interior Sea. A large peninsula juts
northward near one end. For the sake of discussion, it is called
the _Large Continent_. The smaller continent, which is called
the _Small Continent_ lies with a flat side across the concave
side of the Large Continent separated by two narrow straits and
the Interior Sea from it. Except for the large peninsula of the
Large Continent, the northern edge of both continents lies
generally lie south of 50 to 55 degree south latitude.
III. Discussion
There are four major problems with the above questions
and statements of FOG. First, the Buache Map fails miserably
to accurately depict the subglacial topography of Antarctica.
Second, although from 50 to over 700 meters of uplift as a
result of isostatic rebound would have altered the
subglacial topography of Antarctica when had been ice-free,
the Buache map still fails to remotely resemble a hypothetical
ice-free topography of Antarctica. Third, numerous paleoclimatic
and sedimentologic studies shows Antarctica was ice-covered and
glaciated when Hapgood (1979) and FOG claim that it was
ice-free and temperate 40,000 to 6,000 B.P. Finally, Antarctica
was totally ice-free over 14 million years ago.
A. Subglacial Topography
Comparison of the Buache map of 1873 to the subglacial
topography illustrated by Drewry (1983) and LeMasier and Rex
(1991, Fig. 7-2), clearly demonstrates that there is little, if
any resemblance between each map. The fit between the Large
Continent, the Small Continent, and the Interior Sea and the
subglacial topography of Antarctica is poor to nonexistent.
1. The Interior Sea. The Interior Sea as shown by the Buache
Map of 1873 according to the subglacial topography map of Drewry
(1983) simply does not exist. The bedrock topography lying above
sea level beneath East Antarctica lacks the concave _coastline_
that forms the Interior Sea. Furthermore, the Buache map of
1873 shows the South Pole to be centered on the Interior Sea while
the South Pole in Drewry lies well within the above sea level
bedrock high beneath East Antarctica. Finally, large bedrock
_islands_ occur within that part of the Interior Sea which lies
within parts of Antarctica that has bedrock topography lying
below sea level. The well-defined waterways that FOG claims
connects the Ross, Weddell, and Bellinghausen Seas simply
do not exist.
Hapgood (1966, 1979) claims that the Interior Sea shown by the
Buache map of 1873 is misoriented by 90 degrees. Because
according the subglacial topography maps, e.g. Drewry (1983) and
LeMasier and Rex (1991, Fig. 7-2) demonstrates that this sea does
not exist, these claims are mute. Still, the Buache map shows the
concave edge of Large Continent cutting perpendicular across
the above sea level bedrock underlying East Antarctica. Hapgood
(1966, 1979) characteristically attributes this major discrepancy
between the Buache map and the subglacial topography
map to both an _apparent error in the orientation of the
continent_ and the original source map being drawn with
curved meridians without producing any proof or evidence
for these speculations at all.
2. The Small Continent. The subglacial topography map of
Drewry (1983) lacks any possible equivalent to the Small
Continent illustrated by the Buache map of 1873. As shown
by Drewry (1983), West Antarctica is underlain by only an
_archipelago_ of bedrock highs that rise in elevation above
sea level. In fact, three of these bedrock highs which include
the Holick and Whitmore Mountains lie right where the
Buache map shows part of the Interior Sea to be. They
clearly obstruct the seaway that FOG falsely claims to exist.
3. The Large Continent. The Large Continent of the Buache map
is also a mismatch with the subglacial topography shown by Drewry
(1983). The subglacial topography underlying East Antarctica fails
to match the shape and size of the Large Continent. Among many
mismatches, the subglacial topography beneath East Antarctica
lacks the concave edge shown by Buache for the Large Continent.
Also, the prominent northward extending peninsula of the Large
Continent is completely absent. In fact, where Buache shows this
peninsula to exist, the subglacial topography of Wilkes Land is
characterized by two large subglacial basins that lie hundreds
of meters below sea level and extend as much as 1500 kilometers
inland from the modern shoreline. Only an _archipelago_ of
bedrock highs rise above sea level beneath the coastal region of
Wilkes Land (Drewry 1983).
Clearly, there is absolutely no correspondence between the
subglacial bed topography of Antarctica and the southern
continents and interior seaway shown by the Buache map of
1873. In can only be concluded that the claims of both FOG and
Hapgood (1966, 1979) that the Buache map shows the subglacial
topography of Antarctica are clearly falsified by the subglacial
topography shown by Drewry (1983) and LeMasier and Rex
(1991, Fig. 7-2).
B. Ice-Free Topography
As previously noted, both FOG and Hapgood (1966, 1979) are
unaware of isostatic rebound and depression associated with very
thick ice caps. Their disregard of this fundamental principle of
glaciology is illustrated by way in which they consider the
subglacial topography of Antarctica to be the same as the ice-free
topography of Antarctica. Many studies, e.g. Drewry (1983),
Heezen et al. (1973), and Bentley and Ostenso (1961), have long
recognized that the weight of the Antarctic ice cap has depressed
the continental crust on which it lies as much as 700 meters
within portions of West and East Antarctica to just less than 50
meters along the exposed edges.
Thus, prior to the formation of the ice cap and during any
hypothetical ice-free periods, Antarctica would have been
or would eventually rise by 50 to over 700 meters higher than
it is now. Since the melting of the Antarctica ice-caps would
have raised sea level by 66 meters (Skinner and Porter 1995),
isostatic rebound eventually would more than compensate
for any sea level rise within Antarctica. However, the difference
between rapid sea level rise and slow isostatic rebound would
for thousands of years create a shifting shoreline.
At maximum isostatic rebound, there would be several
significant differences between subglacial topography and a
hypothetical ice-free topography as illustrated by Drewry (1983),
Heezen et al. (1973), and Bentley (1991). In case of a
hypothetical ice-free Antarctica, the Palmer Peninsula would
extend, interrupted only by two deep, but narrow straits, from its
present location back to the Transantarctica Mountains. These
mountains would form the shoreline of Antarctica. The rest
of West Antarctica would remain an archipelago. As a result
of isostatic rebound most of East Antarctica would be above
sea level, except a prominent south-trending bay beneath
Wilkes Land and a few shallow bays along its coastline. Despite
these changes, the resulting coastline would still bear little,
if any resemblance to the Buache map of 1873 proving the
claims of FOG and Hapgood (1966, 1979) about this map again
to be clearly incorrect.
C. Late Quaternary Climate of Antarctica
As previously discussed, there is an abundance of evidence that
demonstrates that Antarctica was covered by a fully developed
ice cap between 40,000 to 6,000 B.P. contrary to the claims of
FOG and Hapgood (1966, 1979). This evidence includes ice core
data (Jouzel et al 1987, Lorius et al. 1979), cores from the Ross
Sea (Licht et al. 1996, Kellogg 1979), palynological data from tip
of South America (Heusser 1989), and numerous radiocarbon
dates from glacio-lacustrine deposits and deltas (Stuvier et al.
1981). In fact, these and other studies show that a maximum
development of the ice cap and Ross Ice Shelf occurred during
that period, 21,000 to 16,000 B.P. (Denton et al. 1991), which
falsifies all of the claims made by FOG, _The Mysterious
Origins of Man_, and Hapgood (1966, 1979) about the glacial
history of Antarctica.
D. Youngest Ice-Free Period
As I have reviewed in previous posts, numerous studies, e.g.
Denton et al. (1991) and Marchant et al. (1966) present an
abundance of evidence that Antarctica was last completely
ice-free over 14 million years ago. Deep cores and borings made
into sediments filling deep basins within and thousands of
kilometers of seismic data from the continental shelf of
Antarctica confirm these studies (Cooper et al. 1995).
= Conclusions =====
>From the preceding discussion, it can be concluded that
statements by FOG such as:
_The Buache Map, also reviewed in Part 1, accurately
depicts the subglacial topography of Antarctica. 13_
and:
_Buache gives us is an eerily precise representation of
Antarctica as it must have looked when there was no
ice on it at all. 13_
are completely false and have no basis in fact. Therefore, the
Buache map of 1873 contrary to the claims of FOG and Hapgood
(1966, 1979) fails to contain any evidence that the Antarctic was
mapped when it was ice-free. Therefore, the Buach map fails as
evidence of Earth crustal displacement. It should also be noted
that both FOG and Hapgood (1966, 1979) are also incorrect, as
demonstrated in a previous review of Exhibit 7, in claiming that
Antarctica was ice-free between 40,000 to 6,000 B.P. Rather
the last ice-free period was sometime before 14 million years ago.
= References =====
Bentley, C. R., 1991, Configuration and structure of the
subglacial crust. in R. T. Tingey (ed.), pp. 336-368, The
Geology of Antarctica. Claredon Press, Oxford.
Bentley, C. R., and Ostenso N. A., 1961, Glacial and subglacial
topography of West Antarctica. Journal of Glaciology. vol. 3,
no. 29, pp. 882-912.
Cooper, A. K., Barker, P. F., Brancolini, G. (eds.), 1995,
Geology and seismic stratigraphy of the Antarctic Margin.
Antarctic Research Series, vol. 68, American Geophysical Union,
Washington, D.C., 303 pp.
Denton, G. H., Prentice, M. L., and Burkle, L. H., 1991,
Cainozoic history of the Antarctic ice sheet. in R. T.
Tingey (ed.), pp. 366-433, The Geology of Antarctica.
Claredon Press, Oxford.
Drewry, D. J. (ed.), 1983, Antarctica: Glaciological and
Geophysical Folio. Scott Polar Research Institute,
Cambridge.
Hapgood, C. H., 1966, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, 1st
Edition, Chilton Books, Philadelphia.
Hapgood, C. H., 1979, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, 2nd
Edition, E. P. Dutton, New York.
Heezen, B. C., Tharp, M., and Bentley, C. R., 1973, Morphology
of the Earth in the Antarctic and Subantarctic. National
Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
Heusser, C. J., 1989, Climate and chronology of Antarctica and
adjacent South America over the past 30,000 years.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, vol. 76,
no. 1/2, pp. 31-37.
Jouzel, S. J., Dansgaard, W., and many others, 1987, Vostok ice
core: a continuous isotopic temperature record over the last
climatic cycle (160,000 years). Nature. vol. 239, pp. 403-408.
LeMasier, W. E., and Rex, D. C., 1991, The Marie Byrd Land
volcanic province and its relation to Cainozoic West Antarctic
rift system. in R. T. Tingey (ed.), pp. 249-256, The Geology of
Antarctica. Claredon Press, Oxford.
Licht, K. J., Jennings, A. E., and others, 1996, Chronology of late
Wisconsin ice retreat from the western Ross Sea, Antarctica.
Geology. vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 223-226.
Lorius, C., Jouzel, S. J., and many others, 1979, A 150,000-yr
isotopic climatic record from Antarctic ice. Nature, vol. 316,
pp. 644-648.
Kellogg, T. B., Truesdale, R. S., and Osterman, L. E., 1979, Late
Quaternary extent of the West Antarctic ice sheet: New
evidence from Ross sea cores. Geology. vol. 7, pp. 249-253.
Marchant, D. R., Denton, G. H., Swisher, C. C., and
Potter, N., 1996, Late Cenozoic Antarctic paleoclimate
reconstructed from volcanic ashes in the Dry Valleys
region of southern Victoria Land. Geological Society
of America Bulletin, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 181-194.
Skinner and Porter, 1995, Dynamic Earth, 3rd edition, John
Wiley and Sons.
Stuvier, M., Denton, G. H., and others, 1981, History of marine
ice sheet in Antarctica during the last glaciation: a working
hypothesis. In G. H. Denton and T. J. Hughes (eds.), pp. 319-
436, The Last Great Ice Sheets. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
heinrich@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
"Afterall, if the present is *not* the key to
the past, it is at least *a* key to the past."
-Flessa (1993) in Taphonomic Approaches to
Time Resolution in Fossil Assemblages (The
Paleontological Society)
Subject: Re: Intercourse /vs/ Offspring
From: vivacuba@ix.netcom.com(E Douglas Kihn)
Date: 12 Dec 1996 07:59:09 GMT
In <58kism$qu3@news.sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl)
writes:
>
>In article <58hjao$81c@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
vivacuba@ix.netcom.com(E Douglas Kihn) writes:
>
>|> In <19961209142700.JAA12391@ladder01.news.aol.com>
ehutchison@aol.com
>|> writes:
>
>|> >Hugh Hoskin wonders "When did man first recognize the correlation
>|> between
>|> >intercourse and the birth of babies three seasons later?"
>
>|> >Malinowski worked among the Trobrian Islanders in the 1930's and
found
>|> >that they still had puzzled out the connection. They believed
that
>|> >ancestor spirits resided in the fog and vapors surrounding their
>|> islands
>|> >and that these spirits would come ashore, invade women through
their
>|> >heads, lodge in their bellies, and eventually be reborn as
children.
>|> >
>|> >Malinowski, no doubt feeling the white man's burden to educate the
>|> savages
>|> >(as he called them), tried to point out the relationship between
sex
>|> and
>|> >childbirth. He asked if they had noticed that no virgins became
>|> >pregnant. The natives, not being imbued with the Judao-Christian
>|> ethic,
>|> >of course, responded that they didn't know any virgins. Finally,
one
>|> of
>|> >the Chiefs settled the argument by declaring that he had recently
>|> returned
>|> >home from a two year stay on a neighboring island only to find his
>|> wife
>|> >was pregnant, thus proving that sex and childbirth are not
correlated.
>
>I hate to see a perfectly good (anthropological) joke spoiled - the
>way I heard it, malinowski's thesis was disproved by reference to a
>woman who was so ugly that no man would touch her with a ten foot
>pole, and yet who had three children!
>
>The real question is, who is on the receiving end of the punchline?
>A large majority of individuals in judeo-christian-moslem societies
>will profess to belief in an afterlife, but do they *really* believe
>it? Malinowski may have been informed that sex has nothing to do with
>conception, but there is belief and then there is belief. Some beliefs
>are held as a social fiction, and the advantages of such fictions are
>plain to see. As a way of diffusing potentially explosive jealousy,
>the fiction that womenare impregnated by local spirits is very useful.
>As to whether anybody actually *believes* that - hard to say. I think
>there's a very good chance that the islanders were having a bit of fun
>with their friend.
>
>|> In pre-technological
>|> societies, sex is completely open, and children are not denied
their
>|> sexual freedom, but are "doing it" to the best of their abilities
from
>|> the gitgo.
>
>Well - not really. Some cultures do permit a higher degree of
>sexual licence than we are accustomed to, but most do not. Regulation
>of sexual activity is one of the most important functions of culture,
>regardless of technology.
>
>|> When life is precarious, pregnancy must take place as soon
>|> as possible.
>
>My impression is that very few human cultures exist in such a
>precarious state, except during unusual periods of instability.
>A more general pattern seems to be one where culture provides man with
>more-than-adequate means for survival; the most pressing long-term
>survival requirement is to ensure that numbers do not increase beyond
>technological carrying capacity.
>
>And the entire tribe raises the children. This is why
>|> Mother, for 100,000 years, was the only parent, the Fertility
Godess
>|> was worshiped universally, and women and men shared power equally.
>|> This all changed with animal husbandry, agriculture, food surplus,
and
>|> the first division of haves/have nots.
>
>Careful - this golden age looks just as mythological as all the
>others. what data exists to support such a view?
>
>--
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of
meself,
>me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you
won't.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @
..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf
Thankyou Gerold!
I was wondering when someone was going to give my ramblings some
serious criticism. I'm an historian and a
wanna-be-an-anthropologist-someday. My anthro research is not very
extensive, but this is something I intend to remedy over the next
couple of years. A lot of this theory is pieced together using my
knowlege of medicine, biology, politics, history, and some
anthropology.
I certainly do not intend to imply that our pre-historical
ancestors lived in a Golden Age. Life was very tough and short - no
anti-biotics, no modern surgery, no agriculture to assure adequate food
supply. But culturally, to us, some aspects may appear to have been
golden. That's simply because the times we live in are so socially
disjointed and uncomfortable (but absolutely neccessary for the advance
of technology), and I don't believe evolution prepared us physically or
emotionally to live in class society for more than 6,000 years.
As late as the last century, it was generally believed in
scientific circles that women were merely repositories for sperm, which
supposedly carried the entire genetic potential. It's quite easy to
visualize pre-technological people being mislead on this, especially
considering the incest taboo. The incest taboo is the only sexual
taboo which is biologically and evolutionarily necessary - necessary to
expand the gene pool and resist parasites. In order to be successful,
people in clans must breed with strangers from other clans, especially
in nomadic societies. Does the evidence not indicate that our
ancestors were larely nomadic?
A nomadic existence is precarious without animal husbandry. Imagine
our ancestors looking for food all day, then bringing it back to the
collective and dividing it up. Hand-to-mouth. I suspect that most of
the pre-tecnological peoples we are privileged to study are sedentary
or semi-sedentary. Which means some measure of success at food
gathering, and therefore often the beginnings of social stratification.
Therefore the beginnings of private ownership of children and sexual
rules that are not biologically necessary. What think you all?
Some questions to better-informed anthropologists than I. . .
Before 4500 BCE in Europe and the Near East:
1. Were people (including men and women) buried in egalitarian graves?
2. Were female fertility figures produced in all times and places?
3. Were no fortifications built?
4. Is there any evidence of male war gods being worshiped?
5. Is there physical evidence that women waited any length of time
before getting pregnant in order to PREVENT overpopulation?
Thanks for you patience.
Dr. Doug
