Ecological collapse and the consequences of human beings for virgin land
crunch
referenced recently but more could be brought forward.
So, just how adaptable are human beings when they
migrate a great distance to a virgin destination that
is not inhabited? I say not that much unless they are
very lucky or exceptional. Does the reader have a
considered opinion on the archaeology across a range
of cultures?
Hint - I do not consider the invention of agriculture
to be a net success over the life of the hunter-gathers.
Do you? Why? Justify civilization, please.
2nd hint - I consider the life of the First Mehrgarhans
to have been successful after a migration of a
great distance; they were not indigenous to the region.
I consider their religion to have achieved a higher life
in the higher self and never doubt their practical
competence in the ways Prof. Gregory Possehl outlined.
Much more could be said.
David Christainsen
Tom McDonald
Then you should say it.
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
Day Brown
> Hint - I do not consider the invention of agriculture
> to be a net success over the life of the hunter-gathers.
> Do you? Why? Justify civilization, please.
Who getsta define success? I read a report on the Varna graveyard, 5500
BC, which said the average age of the females was early 40's, males in
their late 30's. Dramatically longer than any hunter/gatherers.
Curious also was precisely equal numbers of men and women. The tribes
you refer to have lotsa widows because the men die in battle and dont
come back. Grave 43 is notable because of the 'gold penis sheath'. Often
they mention an axe as if its a battle weapon. But when you look at the
gold tubes that were on the handle, about the diameter of your finger,
you can see it would not have been used in battle. Too fragile.
There are spear points also, but these are the size you'd use on fish,
and Varna was a port. And again, the shafts, pinkie finger, too lite to
have any penetrating power in battle. And what's with the penis sheath?
Nobody seems to know that even in recent times Balkan hill tribes were
run by transvestite dykes. Nobody would assassinate a women in one of
their chronic blood feuds. The dyke would marry and raise a family.
Nobody asked who the sperm donors were either.
And of course, if the 'Chief' led in battle, some men'd die there, but
the graveyard numbers show that didnt happen. Are there any examples of
hunter tribes that didnt loose men in battle?
Peter Alaca
> We all have the data; the key sources have been
> referenced recently but more could be brought forward.
So, bring it forward
> So, just how adaptable are human beings when they
> migrate a great distance to a virgin destination that
> is not inhabited?
What is changing with the adaptebility of human beings when
they migrate great distances?
What is changing with the adaptebility of human beings when
they migrate to uninhabited country?
> I say not that much unless they are
> very lucky or exceptional.
WHY do you say that?
> Does the reader have a
> considered opinion on the archaeology across a range
> of cultures?
Do YOU have an opinion?
>
> Hint - I do not consider the invention of agriculture
> to be a net success over the life of the hunter-gathers.
> Do you? Why? Justify civilization, please.
Explain first why YOU don't consider the invention of agriculture
to be a net success over the life of the hunter-gathers.
>
> 2nd hint - I consider the life of the First Mehrgarhans
> to have been successful after a migration of a
> great distance; they were not indigenous to the region.
> I consider their religion to have achieved a higher life
> in the higher self and never doubt their practical
> competence in the ways Prof. Gregory Possehl outlined.
And why would anybody care for your opnion?
> Much more could be said.
Yes, but is is better to keep your mouth shut when you
are ignorant as you are.
VtSkier
> crunch wrote:
>> Hint - I do not consider the invention of agriculture
>> to be a net success over the life of the hunter-gathers.
>> Do you? Why? Justify civilization, please.
>
> Who getsta define success? I read a report on the Varna graveyard, 5500
> BC, which said the average age of the females was early 40's, males in
> their late 30's. Dramatically longer than any hunter/gatherers.
WHAT CONSTITUTED THIS AVERAGE?
Average age does NOT say how old people were when they died
because it takes into account all causes of death including
infant mortality.
And average lifespan has been in the 30's and 40's until the
advent of infection fighting drugs less than 100 years ago.
I myself would have died at 12 had it not been for penicillin
but now I'm almost 70.
As for average age of H/Gers, I don't believe we have enough
data to make even an educated guess about their average lifespan.
>
> Curious also was precisely equal numbers of men and women. The tribes
> you refer to have lotsa widows because the men die in battle and dont
> come back. Grave 43 is notable because of the 'gold penis sheath'. Often
> they mention an axe as if its a battle weapon. But when you look at the
> gold tubes that were on the handle, about the diameter of your finger,
> you can see it would not have been used in battle. Too fragile.
>
> There are spear points also, but these are the size you'd use on fish,
> and Varna was a port. And again, the shafts, pinkie finger, too lite to
> have any penetrating power in battle. And what's with the penis sheath?
> Nobody seems to know that even in recent times Balkan hill tribes were
> run by transvestite dykes. Nobody would assassinate a women in one of
> their chronic blood feuds. The dyke would marry and raise a family.
> Nobody asked who the sperm donors were either.
>
> And of course, if the 'Chief' led in battle, some men'd die there, but
> the graveyard numbers show that didnt happen. Are there any examples of
> hunter tribes that didnt loose men in battle?
I'm not sure that anyone can make a case for organized warfare
until after at least some form of sedentism had developed.
Sedentism is necessary to have a sense of place to defend.
True nomadic H/Gers are not sedentary. It's also true that
some H/Gers did indeed call a place (or group of places) home
and would defend that or try to take more from another group.
Jack Linthicum
I would think that the organization needed to hunt and kill even the
baby mammoths and mastodons would bleed over into the same concept for
hunting and killing intruders. After that "intrusion" is in the mind
of the group.
VtSkier
I believe there is an innate prohibition against one human
killing another human but that this prohibition can be
overridden by learning.Yes, the old nature vs. nurture
argument raises its head here. I believe that humans can
learn to kill one another but are not predisposed to do
so. It has been shown that this prohibition exists in
other species, sometime to an even greater degree than
it seems to exist in humans.
That 'learning' can come from need. It is a need for a
'place' to grow things if you are an agriculturalist.
If you are a nomadic H/Ger, your need for a place is
considerably less. A 'place' often demands defence.
The Chatham Islands in the south Pacific, were originally
peopled by descendants of the Maori of New Zeland. The
Austronesian suite of agricultural products would not
grow there, so the colonists reverted to a hunting and
gathering style of existence. Populations remained small,
the society was egalitarian and the people didn't have
much sense of ownership.
In historic times, upon hearing of the islands and their
people who had such a good time of it, a group of 900 Maori
set sail for the place and simply took over, killing most
of the indigenous inhabitants. The Maori, who had become
famous as warriors/fighters and who produced enough food
so that there could be part-time soldiers and other non-
producers in their culture simply took what they thought
was good and the Chatham Islanders never lifted a finger in
their own defence.
See Diamond, _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ beginning p. 53
in the trade paperback edition.
No, I don't think hunting leads to warfare.
crunch
>
> - Show quoted text -
You go first; I invite you to interest me in some worthy
aspect of the topic.
Frankly, I have gotten used to putting you off because,
for example, I have good reason to believe that you
never took in the great learning of Prof. Possehl on Mehrgarh.
Why is that, Tom? If there is a problem between us, here
is your opportunity to get to the bottom of it in short order.
David Christainsen
crunch
> crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> 15/12/2009 23:50 wrote:
>
> > We all have the data; the key sources have been
> > referenced recently but more could be brought forward.
>
> So, bring it forward
I was not baiting you and now I expect you to do it, not me,
because I know you can.
> > So, just how adaptable are human beings when they
> > migrate a great distance to a virgin destination that
> > is not inhabited?
>
> What is changing with the adaptebility of human beings when
> they migrate great distances?
What do you think? Don't you like how I set up the problem?
> What is changing with the adaptebility of human beings when
> they migrate to uninhabited country?
Can't you discern...?
> > I say not that much unless they are
>
> > very lucky or exceptional.
>
> WHY do you say that?
Just call it a working hypothesis OR make the
inspired guess for yourself that the First Mehrgarhans,
for example, were definitely exceptional. Of course,
you must have some insight into the mysterious origin
of the First Mehrgarhans.
> > Does the reader have a
> > considered opinion on the archaeology across a range
> > of cultures?
>
> Do YOU have an opinion?
I'll give it later in this thread because I sense there is
interest in the broad topic I gave out.
> > Hint - I do not consider the invention of agriculture
> > to be a net success over the life of the hunter-gathers.
> > Do you? Why? Justify civilization, please.
>
> Explain first why YOU don't consider the invention of agriculture
> to be a net success over the life of the hunter-gathers.
Ditto to the above answer.
> > 2nd hint - I consider the life of the First Mehrgarhans
> > to have been successful after a migration of a
> > great distance; they were not indigenous to the region.
> > I consider their religion to have achieved a higher life
> > in the higher self and never doubt their practical
> > competence in the ways Prof. Gregory Possehl outlined.
>
> And why would anybody care for your opnion?
You could be surprised. Wait and see.
> > Much more could be said.
>
> Yes, but is is better to keep your mouth shut when you
> are ignorant as you are.
I enjoy exposing your empty-headedness. Hopefully,
you will decide to do some work of your own on interesting
aspect of the broad topic that come up in this thread.
David Christainsen
JMB
news:QDVVm.2279$2A7....@newsfe07.iad...
Don't encourage him!!!
:-)
Day Brown
> On Dec 16, 8:45 am, VtSkier <vtsk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> Day Brown wrote:
>>> crunch wrote:
>>>> Hint - I do not consider the invention of agriculture
>>>> to be a net success over the life of the hunter-gathers.
>>>> Do you? Why? Justify civilization, please.
>>> Who getsta define success? I read a report on the Varna graveyard, 5500
>>> BC, which said the average age of the females was early 40's, males in
>>> their late 30's. Dramatically longer than any hunter/gatherers.
>> WHAT CONSTITUTED THIS AVERAGE?
>> Average age does NOT say how old people were when they died
>> because it takes into account all causes of death including
>> infant mortality.
healthy development. The graveyard dont have any kids. The bones they do
have dont show any trace of malnutrition, much less famine.
This seems to fit with Steven Pinker, "The Blank Slate" and LeBlanc
"Constant Battles" who note that the graves of the hunters show 20 times
the rate of parry injuries and trauma as the graves of Northern European
yeoman farmers. You can kinda tell the rate of violence in a group by
looking at whether the front teeth are bashed out or not.
>>> And of course, if the 'Chief' led in battle, some men'd die there, but
>>> the graveyard numbers show that didnt happen. Are there any examples of
>>> hunter tribes that didnt loose men in battle?
>> I'm not sure that anyone can make a case for organized warfare
>> until after at least some form of sedentism had developed.
>> Sedentism is necessary to have a sense of place to defend.
>> True nomadic H/Gers are not sedentary. It's also true that
>> some H/Gers did indeed call a place (or group of places) home
>> and would defend that or try to take more from another group.
>
> I would think that the organization needed to hunt and kill even the
> baby mammoths and mastodons would bleed over into the same concept for
> hunting and killing intruders. After that "intrusion" is in the mind
> of the group.
Its curious the mammoth bone long houses are so regularly spaced along
the Don, 100 km apart. The structures, 5-6 meters wide, 30 meters long,
show us bed platforms every meter or so. It would have been like living
in a dancehall. 100-150 people. Body heat, not fire in the treeless
tundra, is what kept people warm.
The real enemy was not the next tribe. Nobody goes anywhere during the
ice age other than the few short summer months. The rest of the time,
the real enemy is Old Man Winter. Being a big strong warrior did not
fucking matter. Guys with short fuses get cabin fever, and with women
and kids so close, they could not afford fights. So- the warrior types
would have been kicked out. Not that different from what Scandinavia and
then Iceland, did to Eric the Red. Who hadda move to Greenland.
Killing mammoth has been misrepresented also. Wallace, "The Forest
People" tells how an Mbuti pygmy tracks an elephant in the jungle, hits
it in the ass with his little spear, then climbs up a tree while the
beast rants. But then, it gets tired and moves on. With the spear still
in its ass. But as mentioned, nobody administers penicillin. The beast
dies 5 days later of septicemia, so the hunter goes back and the move
the whole village there to eat it all.
Only, you aint gonna have a mammoth barbi in the boonies of Ice age
Russia. The dogs would've smelled the blood and tracked the game. Then
howled as it faltered and was at bay. It mite very well be dead by the
time they get there. They used the frozen Don as an ice road to move the
meat to the long houses. The only draft animals they had at the time
were the women, and so they would've preferred huge asses (maximus
glutamus) and thunder thighs (quadriceps), which is still in the gene
pool to help pull the sleds. Which we see in their goddesses.
Jack Linthicum
Most times they butchered the beast on the spot. Then left their tools
for the next group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehner_Mammoth-Kill_Site
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-99137505.html
http://nathist.sdstate.edu/Mammoth/Mammoth.html
etc, etc, etc
Tom McDonald
There is no problem between us. You are simply incapable of
actual discussion. You are, however, expert in excuse-making.
I'm sure it has its roots deep in your pre-verbal development.
Don't sweat it. You probably can't do anything about it.
crunch
You confirm the opposite.
> You are simply incapable of
> actual discussion.
Actually, the shoe is on the other foot. Your past
interaction with me did not shed any light on who
were the First Mehrgarhans... Hint - the evidence
is their teeth. Much more could be said on Mehrgarh
but why should I bother now?
> You are, however, expert in excuse-making.
You don't deal well with your own faults.
> I'm sure it has its roots deep in your pre-verbal development.
> Don't sweat it. You probably can't do anything about it.
>
> --
> Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
A change of topic may work between us. If you would
evaluate Dillehay's current ideas on the First Americans,
that would be a worthwhile contribution because I know
you have followed his work competently. It might also
draw Peter Alaca into the discussion.
David Christainsen
Tom McDonald
You start.
crunch
I already gave Dillehay's PNAS abstract and the
SA reaction was a real bummer. No offence, Tom,
but I need other sci.archers to show interest in the
topic first. Let's have them start.
David Christainsen
Tom McDonald
Nope. You first. Discuss.
Day Brown
>> Only, you aint gonna have a mammoth barbi in the boonies of Ice age
>> Russia. The dogs would've smelled the blood and tracked the game. Then
>> howled as it faltered and was at bay. It mite very well be dead by the
>> time they get there. They used the frozen Don as an ice road to move the
>> meat to the long houses. The only draft animals they had at the time
>> were the women, and so they would've preferred huge asses (maximus
>> glutamus) and thunder thighs (quadriceps), which is still in the gene
>> pool to help pull the sleds. Which we see in their goddesses.
>
> Most times they butchered the beast on the spot. Then left their tools
> for the next group.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehner_Mammoth-Kill_Site
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGS-4CN9M08-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1138511456&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b1d7d2ee390095bebeef42101f0eb27e
>
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-99137505.html
>
> http://nathist.sdstate.edu/Mammoth/Mammoth.html
were used in both the New and Old worlds. But the Don valley, like the
Mississippi, was a very old eroded feature lacking ambush sites. It
musta been a huge shift in tactics when hunting dogs were introduced. It
seems to coincide with the demise of megafauna. However megafauna
survived in the tropics because the seasonal shift was not so fast nor
so severe in most places, and even at that, migration routes were more
dispersed.
There's also the issue of inter-tribal warfare that went on all year
around limiting hominid populations, which is reflected in the higher
rate of trauma seen in the graveyard bones than in Northern Europe.
Day Brown
> We all have the data; the key sources have been
> referenced recently but more could be brought forward.
>
> So, just how adaptable are human beings when they
> migrate a great distance to a virgin destination that
> is not inhabited? I say not that much unless they are
> very lucky or exceptional. Does the reader have a
> considered opinion on the archaeology across a range
> of cultures?
dispersal across the Steppes in 4th mil, saying that before the Aryan
stock breeders arrived (with horses, wagons, bronze, and weaving) there
were only a few tiny riverine villages in Siberia.
Reports are the horse was domesticated in Ukraine/Moldavia @4000 BC, and
EW Barber, 'The Mummies of Urumchi' says it took nearly 2000 years for
the Aryans to drift East to the oases of the Taklamakhan, in what is now
NW China (In the news because of the Uyghers, who were latecomers).
They had all these new technologies when they left Tripolye, so it wasnt
a matter of adaptation so much just gradually spreading out- south of
the Tundra where the grasslands were easier to raise stock on. This was
a range of cultures, but the others were so limited in numbers that
there was little effect. Mallory adds these original Aryans were not
conquerers, but assimilators. But I dont see much assimilation until
they reached China.
In the Taklamakhan oases, they reverted to a mixed transhumescence,
adding some new crops from the Chinese, but also founding what became
the Silk Road independent city states and running livestock up into the
Himalaya and Tien Shen mountains in summer.
Of course, all this is very obscure, and does not get nearly the press
of Levantine & Egyptian cultures even tho it predates both.
Jack Linthicum
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >> Only, you aint gonna have a mammoth barbi in the boonies of Ice age
> >> Russia. The dogs would've smelled the blood and tracked the game. Then
> >> howled as it faltered and was at bay. It mite very well be dead by the
> >> time they get there. They used the frozen Don as an ice road to move the
> >> meat to the long houses. The only draft animals they had at the time
> >> were the women, and so they would've preferred huge asses (maximus
> >> glutamus) and thunder thighs (quadriceps), which is still in the gene
> >> pool to help pull the sleds. Which we see in their goddesses.
>
> > Most times they butchered the beast on the spot. Then left their tools
> > for the next group.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehner_Mammoth-Kill_Site
>
>
> >http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-99137505.html
>
> >http://nathist.sdstate.edu/Mammoth/Mammoth.html
>
> I havent read of such killing fields along the Don, tho certainly precises
> were used in both the New and Old worlds. But the Don valley, like the
> Mississippi, was a very old eroded feature lacking ambush sites. It
> musta been a huge shift in tactics when hunting dogs were introduced. It
> seems to coincide with the demise of megafauna. However megafauna
> survived in the tropics because the seasonal shift was not so fast nor
> so severe in most places, and even at that, migration routes were more
> dispersed.
>
> There's also the issue of inter-tribal warfare that went on all year
> around limiting hominid populations, which is reflected in the higher
> rate of trauma seen in the graveyard bones than in Northern Europe.
I presume you know that the usual prey was a young mammoth or mastodon
or a sick one. Ambush is not the usual "good" idea with something
weighing out at 12 tons.A lot of the sites were in water, suggesting
the animal got stuck there, or, being sick had returned to a place
that suggested comfort.
No tribe could afford "all year" conflict. Just finding food took
enough time in the good season for hunting and warfare.
Your theory on megafauna survival is unique. Where in the tropics?
CamaradaGabriel
crunch
> crunch wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 6:59 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> crunch wrote:
> > I already gaveDillehay's PNAS abstract and the
> > SA reaction was a real bummer. No offence, Tom,
> > but I need other sci.archers to show interest in the
> > topic first. Let's have them start.
>
> Nope. You first. Discuss.
You seem determined enough that I go first despite my
extreme reluctance.
Yet, I am flexible of mind; also, I respect Dillehay's work.
So, I will extract the relevant archaeological goods out of various
Dillehay sources but give me time to do a proper job of it.
Meantime, you might helpfully provide SA with your summary
evaluation of Dillehay's archaeological career and why his
competence is compelling...
Dave
of
Day Brown
> I presume you know that the usual prey was a young mammoth or mastodon
> or a sick one. Ambush is not the usual "good" idea with something
> weighing out at 12 tons.A lot of the sites were in water, suggesting
> the animal got stuck there, or, being sick had returned to a place
> that suggested comfort.
how big, strong, and healthy the animal is, only that there's enuf meat
to be worth following for the 5 days it takes the infection to kill it.
The Greenland ice cores show several rapid climate shifts, and when it
got cold, it wiped out both most of the megafauna as well as the hunters
in Europe, with only a few survivors in Spain, Italy, and Greece. Cold
snaps happened so often populations never recovered enuf to take full
advantage of the hunting ranges,
The average tropical hunting tribe has 100 square miles of territory;
the average in ice age Europe after the ice retreated was over 100
square miles PER HUNTER. The mammoth bone longhouses along the Don were
100 km apart; the average tropical hunter village was more like 10
miles, an easy walk for a raid anytime. But during the ice age winter
along the Don, nobody went anywhere for 5 winter months. They didnt need
warriors to defend turf; what they needed was men with the self control
not to loose it and get cabin fever. To not get in fights with other men
over women or whatever.
Its revealing that the Longhouses show no sign of private bedrooms. And
that their Aryan descendants, who JP Mallory wrote of "In Search of the
Indo-Europeans" said on pag 123, there was no word for "marriage". What
the Europeans needed was cooperation, not competition; they still have
more of it than most other races.
> No tribe could afford "all year" conflict. Just finding food took
> enough time in the good season for hunting and warfare.
You could ask the tribes. Fear of raids was all the time.
> Your theory on megafauna survival is unique. Where in the tropics?
Elephants, Hippos, Rhinos.
Jack Linthicum
Where, not what. You are dead-assed ignorant.