Science and Technology news... :: View topic - News: Archaeologists trace early irrigation farming in ancie

Robert Karl Stonjek · Guest

Archaeologists trace early irrigation farming in ancient Yemen

In the remote desert highlands of southern Yemen, a team of archaeologists have discovered new evidence of ancient transitions from hunting and herding to irrigation agriculture 5,200 years ago.

As part of a larger programme of archaeological research, Michael Harrower from the University of Toronto and The Roots of Agriculture in Southern Arabia (RASA) team explored the Wadi Sana watershed documenting 174 ancient irrigation structures, modeled topography and hydrology, and interviewed contemporary camel and goat herders and irrigation farmers.

"Agriculture in Yemen appeared relatively late in comparison with other areas of the Middle East, where farming first developed near the end of the last ice age about 12,000 years ago," says author Michael Harrower, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto. "It>s clear early farmers in Yemen faced unique environmental and social opportunities and challenges. Our findings show farming in southern Yemen required runoff diversion technologies that were adapted to harness monsoon (summer) runoff from the rugged terrain along with new understandings of social landscapes and rights to scarce water resources."

The researchers used computer Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping to determine that ancient forager-herders developed expert knowledge of hydrology and targeted particular small watersheds and landforms for irrigation. Studies of contemporary land and water rights, including principles enshrined in Islamic law, suggest their origins lie at the very beginnings of water management as tribal principles of water equity intertwined with changing ideologies and culture.

These and other discoveries in southern Arabia have recently helped document the diversity of transitions from foraging to agriculture that in Yemen later gave rise to powerful ancient cities and states with advanced irrigation technologies that transformed deserts into lush, bountiful oases.

The study findings are published in the current issue of the journal Current Anthropology.

Source: University of Toronto
http://www.physorg.com/news135432835.html

--
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:z0Afk.20345$IK1.6403@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[..]
[quote]"Agriculture in Yemen appeared relatively late in comparison with
other areas of the Middle East, where farming first developed near
the end of the last ice age about 12,000 years ago," says author
Michael Harrower, Department of Anthropology, University of
Toronto.
[/quote]
Something else happened at the end of the
last ice age -- something which, curiously,
is known but not absorbed. (Heck, it>s only
been known for about 150 years -- if only
fully understood for about 60 years.)

Sea-levels rose.

This meant that nearly all former human
habitations were now under water. That
is why there is no trace of farming before
~12 kya.

It is the only reason why there is, apparently,
no trace of farming before ~12 kya.

Paul.

Tom McDonald · Guest

Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:z0Afk.20345$IK1.6403@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[..]
"Agriculture in Yemen appeared relatively late in comparison with
other areas of the Middle East, where farming first developed near
the end of the last ice age about 12,000 years ago," says author
Michael Harrower, Department of Anthropology, University of
Toronto.

Something else happened at the end of the
last ice age -- something which, curiously,
is known but not absorbed. (Heck, it>s only
been known for about 150 years -- if only
fully understood for about 60 years.)

Sea-levels rose.

This meant that nearly all former human
habitations were now under water. That
is why there is no trace of farming before
~12 kya.

It is the only reason why there is, apparently,
no trace of farming before ~12 kya.
[/quote]
On the off chance that you are serious, how do you explain all
the archaeological finds of human remains, artifacts and features
in the period prior to the rise of sea level at the end of the
last ice which do not indicate the use of agriculture? Surely you
do not suggest that those finds are but a tithe of the sites that
have been submerged by the rise in sea level at the end of the
Pleistocene?

Or do you suggest that farming *only* occurred in sea-side
regions lying below ~300 feet above then-contemporary sea level,
and never above it?

And further, how do you explain the fact that most early
agriculture (in western Eurasia and the Americas, at any rate) is
noted to have occurred in areas significantly above
then-contemporary sea level?

IOW, why did folks not migrate inland with their agricultural
systems when sea level rose? Why do nearly all examples of the
rise of agriculture show in situ development, instead of mature
agriculture? Were they so despondent at the sea>s encroachment
that they just sat down and died? Everywhere? Without significant
exception?

But then, perhaps you were not serious.

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:dlHfk.1627$_J5.445@newsfe02.iad...

[quote]"Agriculture in Yemen appeared relatively late in comparison with
other areas of the Middle East, where farming first developed near
the end of the last ice age about 12,000 years ago," says author
Michael Harrower, Department of Anthropology, University of
Toronto.

Something else happened at the end of the
last ice age -- something which, curiously,
is known but not absorbed. (Heck, it>s only
been known for about 150 years -- if only
fully understood for about 60 years.)

Sea-levels rose.

This meant that nearly all former human
habitations were now under water. That
is why there is no trace of farming before
~12 kya.

On the off chance that you are serious, how do you explain all the archaeological finds of
human remains, artifacts and features in the period prior to the rise of sea level at the end
of the last ice which do not indicate the use of agriculture? Surely you do not suggest that
those finds are but a tithe of the sites that have been submerged by the rise in sea level at
the end of the Pleistocene?
[/quote]
Exactly so. Hunters in the summer going
into the uplands. Traders, warriors and
refugees crossing (or fighting over)
mountain passes. The predominance of
males and scarcity of young and infants
among the fossils back this up. Some
have proposed whole species practices
female infanticide as an explanation.
What is yours?

[quote]Or do you suggest that farming *only* occurred in sea-side regions lying below ~300 feet above
then-contemporary sea level, and never above it?
[/quote]
Rarely above it.

[quote]And further, how do you explain the fact that most early agriculture (in western Eurasia and
the Americas, at any rate) is noted to have occurred in areas significantly above
then-contemporary sea level?
[/quote]
Such as . . . ?

[quote]IOW, why did folks not migrate inland with their agricultural systems when sea level rose?
Why do nearly all examples of the rise of agriculture show in situ development, instead of
mature agriculture? Were they so despondent at the sea>s encroachment that they just sat down
and died? Everywhere? Without significant exception?
[/quote]
The collapse of social systems at that
time would have made the end of the
Roman Empire seem like a summer picnic.
Populations would have fallen to a
fraction of their former numbers.
Perhaps all who managed to survive
had to revert to hunter/gathering for
while.

[quote]But then, perhaps you were not serious.
[/quote]
You>re right. I really believe that agriculture
started simultaneously around 12 kya, in
widely dispersed locations on almost every
continent, as the result of fairy dust spread
by aliens from outer space.

Have you a better theory?

Paul.

Tom McDonald · Guest

Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:dlHfk.1627$_J5.445@newsfe02.iad...

"Agriculture in Yemen appeared relatively late in comparison with
other areas of the Middle East, where farming first developed near
the end of the last ice age about 12,000 years ago," says author
Michael Harrower, Department of Anthropology, University of
Toronto.
Something else happened at the end of the
last ice age -- something which, curiously,
is known but not absorbed. (Heck, it>s only
been known for about 150 years -- if only
fully understood for about 60 years.)

Sea-levels rose.

This meant that nearly all former human
habitations were now under water. That
is why there is no trace of farming before
~12 kya.

On the off chance that you are serious, how do you explain all the archaeological finds of
human remains, artifacts and features in the period prior to the rise of sea level at the end
of the last ice which do not indicate the use of agriculture? Surely you do not suggest that
those finds are but a tithe of the sites that have been submerged by the rise in sea level at
the end of the Pleistocene?

Exactly so. Hunters in the summer going
into the uplands. Traders, warriors and
refugees crossing (or fighting over)
mountain passes. The predominance of
males and scarcity of young and infants
among the fossils back this up. Some
have proposed whole species practices
female infanticide as an explanation.
What is yours?
[/quote]
I don>t think you can support the contention that most of the
fossil humans before ca. 12 kya were men, and that there is a
scarcity of young ones. If you can, please do so. Otherwise,
there is nothing to explain.

[quote]
Or do you suggest that farming *only* occurred in sea-side regions lying below ~300 feet above
then-contemporary sea level, and never above it?

Rarely above it.
[/quote]
Name some of the rare situations before ca. 12 kya.

[quote]
And further, how do you explain the fact that most early agriculture (in western Eurasia and
the Americas, at any rate) is noted to have occurred in areas significantly above
then-contemporary sea level?

Such as . . . ?
[/quote]
Highland Anatolia and northwestern Syria. The central Mexican
highlands. Coastal western South America (though there, there was
a strong connection between folks who worked the sea and
agriculturists, albeit the agriculturists were in moderate
elevations in the Andes).

[quote]
IOW, why did folks not migrate inland with their agricultural systems when sea level rose?
Why do nearly all examples of the rise of agriculture show in situ development, instead of
mature agriculture? Were they so despondent at the sea>s encroachment that they just sat down
and died? Everywhere? Without significant exception?

The collapse of social systems at that
time would have made the end of the
Roman Empire seem like a summer picnic.
Populations would have fallen to a
fraction of their former numbers.
Perhaps all who managed to survive
had to revert to hunter/gathering for
while.
[/quote]
Why? Sea level rise was not so rapid that folks couldn>t have
moved inland ahead of it very, very easily. It is likely that
generations would pass between moves. Why would this collapse
vibrant societies?

Your view suggests that all the sea-level farmers just threw up
their hands and quit farming. All over the world. At the same time.

[quote]
But then, perhaps you were not serious.

You>re right. I really believe that agriculture
started simultaneously around 12 kya, in
widely dispersed locations on almost every
continent, as the result of fairy dust spread
by aliens from outer space.

Have you a better theory?
[/quote]
Yup. The concatenation of changes at the end of the
Wisconsinan/Wurm glaciation (climate changes, changes in floral
and faunal regimes, sea level rise, etc.) required new
adaptations by humans. They also provided new opportunities for
gaining food and other resources; opportunities that lead to
agriculture and herding.

Oh, and the origin of agriculture isn>t temporally uniform around
the world. Unless you have the evidence to support that it was?

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message news:I7Rfk.15$Dw3.4@newsfe04.iad...

[quote]This meant that nearly all former human
habitations were now under water. That
is why there is no trace of farming before
~12 kya.

On the off chance that you are serious, how do you explain all the archaeological finds of
human remains, artifacts and features in the period prior to the rise of sea level at the
end
of the last ice which do not indicate the use of agriculture? Surely you do not suggest that
those finds are but a tithe of the sites that have been submerged by the rise in sea level
at
the end of the Pleistocene?

Exactly so. Hunters in the summer going
into the uplands. Traders, warriors and
refugees crossing (or fighting over)
mountain passes. The predominance of
males and scarcity of young and infants
among the fossils back this up. Some
have proposed whole species practices
female infanticide as an explanation.
What is yours?

I don>t think you can support the contention that most of the fossil humans before ca. 12 kya
were men, and that there is a scarcity of young ones. If you can, please do so. Otherwise,
there is nothing to explain.
[/quote]
It is a routine observation. Simply
count up the males versus the females
and the young. There is plenty that
needs explaining.

[quote]Or do you suggest that farming *only* occurred in sea-side regions lying below ~300 feet
above
then-contemporary sea level, and never above it?

Rarely above it.

Name some of the rare situations before ca. 12 kya.
[/quote]
The preference for low-lying sites would
be partly to avoid cold at night. Better huts
or houses and the use of fire could alleviate
that, but at a cost. A major consideration
is the exclusion of wild herbivores which
would destroy crops. The higher and wilder
you go (on continents), the harder that gets.
All I am saying is that perhaps there were
a few farming societies before ~12 kya
which did at an altitude above ~300ft -- but
they were probably rare. PNG highlanders
are one likely example

[quote]And further, how do you explain the fact that most early agriculture (in western Eurasia and
the Americas, at any rate) is noted to have occurred in areas significantly above
then-contemporary sea level?

Such as . . . ?

Highland Anatolia and northwestern Syria. The central Mexican highlands.
[/quote]
I doubt if those should properly be
described as 'early agriculture'. They
rapidly became advanced civilisations

[quote]IOW, why did folks not migrate inland with their agricultural systems when sea level rose?
Why do nearly all examples of the rise of agriculture show in situ development, instead of
mature agriculture? Were they so despondent at the sea>s encroachment that they just sat
down
and died? Everywhere? Without significant exception?

The collapse of social systems at that
time would have made the end of the
Roman Empire seem like a summer picnic.
Populations would have fallen to a
fraction of their former numbers.
Perhaps all who managed to survive
had to revert to hunter/gathering for
while.

Why? Sea level rise was not so rapid that folks couldn>t have moved inland ahead of it very,
very easily.
[/quote]
Much opinion now is that the rise was
very fast.

[quote]It is likely that generations would pass between moves. Why would this collapse vibrant
societies?
[/quote]
When you wake up in the morning to see
that your crops, and all those of your tribe,
are under a metre or two of sea-water, there
is nothing you can do except leave, and
try to take the land of another tribe. That
means war -- never a happy companion of
agriculture.

'Vitbrant societies' often do collapse -- for
reasons that seem relatively minor. They
become complacent and corrupt. But here
we have major catastrophes.

[quote]Your view suggests that all the sea-level farmers just threw up their hands and quit farming.
All over the world. At the same time.
[/quote]
If the rise (of about 300 feet) took place
within a few centuries, it would mean
the end of all farming in the affected
areas. That would be pretty much all of
them -- excepting a few places like PNG.

[quote]But then, perhaps you were not serious.

You>re right. I really believe that agriculture
started simultaneously around 12 kya, in
widely dispersed locations on almost every
continent, as the result of fairy dust spread
by aliens from outer space.

Have you a better theory?

Yup. The concatenation of changes at the end of the Wisconsinan/Wurm glaciation (climate
changes, changes in floral and faunal regimes, sea level rise, etc.) required new adaptations
by humans.
[/quote]
A ridiculous theory -- on several levels.
Firstly, climate changes occur quite
frequently, and merely to pick on the last
one is like saying that an earthquake was
caused by the last shower of rain.
Secondly, such changes are _disastrous_
for local populations -- for humans as
much as any other species. They lead
to famine, war, destruction and death.
Thirdly, to propose that widely dispersed
human populations -- with no contact --
reacted spontaneously to such events
in near-identical but highly sophisticated
ways, in each case, using extraordinarily
different techniques -- is to go far beyond
credibility.

[quote]They also provided new opportunities for gaining food and other resources; opportunities that
lead to agriculture and herding.
[/quote]
Pure crap. Those activities require peace,
stablity, organisation and calm -- i.e. a
complex structured hierarchical society.
There would have been plenty of them
before 12 kya. The fresh (and world-wide)
start soon afterwards was certainly not
the first foray out of hunter-gathering.

[quote]Oh, and the origin of agriculture isn>t temporally uniform around the world. Unless you have
the evidence to support that it was?
[/quote]
It was uniform enough -- unless you have
some account of how the how the central
Americans got the idea of growing maize
from seeing the Europeans produce wheat
and barley, or from seeing how the Chinese
grew rice.

The 'fairy dust spread by aliens' theory
is a lot more probable than anything
you>ve come up with

Paul.

Tom McDonald · Guest

Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message news:I7Rfk.15$Dw3.4@newsfe04.iad...

This meant that nearly all former human
habitations were now under water. That
is why there is no trace of farming before
~12 kya.
On the off chance that you are serious, how do you explain all the archaeological finds of
human remains, artifacts and features in the period prior to the rise of sea level at the
end
of the last ice which do not indicate the use of agriculture? Surely you do not suggest that
those finds are but a tithe of the sites that have been submerged by the rise in sea level
at
the end of the Pleistocene?
Exactly so. Hunters in the summer going
into the uplands. Traders, warriors and
refugees crossing (or fighting over)
mountain passes. The predominance of
males and scarcity of young and infants
among the fossils back this up. Some
have proposed whole species practices
female infanticide as an explanation.
What is yours?
I don>t think you can support the contention that most of the fossil humans before ca. 12 kya
were men, and that there is a scarcity of young ones. If you can, please do so. Otherwise,
there is nothing to explain.

It is a routine observation. Simply
count up the males versus the females
and the young. There is plenty that
needs explaining.

Or do you suggest that farming *only* occurred in sea-side regions lying below ~300 feet
above
then-contemporary sea level, and never above it?
Rarely above it.
Name some of the rare situations before ca. 12 kya.

The preference for low-lying sites would
be partly to avoid cold at night. Better huts
or houses and the use of fire could alleviate
that, but at a cost. A major consideration
is the exclusion of wild herbivores which
would destroy crops. The higher and wilder
you go (on continents), the harder that gets.
All I am saying is that perhaps there were
a few farming societies before ~12 kya
which did at an altitude above ~300ft -- but
they were probably rare. PNG highlanders
are one likely example

And further, how do you explain the fact that most early agriculture (in western Eurasia and
the Americas, at any rate) is noted to have occurred in areas significantly above
then-contemporary sea level?
Such as . . . ?
Highland Anatolia and northwestern Syria. The central Mexican highlands.

I doubt if those should properly be
described as 'early agriculture'. They
rapidly became advanced civilisations

IOW, why did folks not migrate inland with their agricultural systems when sea level rose?
Why do nearly all examples of the rise of agriculture show in situ development, instead of
mature agriculture? Were they so despondent at the sea>s encroachment that they just sat
down
and died? Everywhere? Without significant exception?
The collapse of social systems at that
time would have made the end of the
Roman Empire seem like a summer picnic.
Populations would have fallen to a
fraction of their former numbers.
Perhaps all who managed to survive
had to revert to hunter/gathering for
while.
Why? Sea level rise was not so rapid that folks couldn>t have moved inland ahead of it very,
very easily.

Much opinion now is that the rise was
very fast.

It is likely that generations would pass between moves. Why would this collapse vibrant
societies?

When you wake up in the morning to see
that your crops, and all those of your tribe,
are under a metre or two of sea-water, there
is nothing you can do except leave, and
try to take the land of another tribe. That
means war -- never a happy companion of
agriculture.

'Vitbrant societies' often do collapse -- for
reasons that seem relatively minor. They
become complacent and corrupt. But here
we have major catastrophes.

Your view suggests that all the sea-level farmers just threw up their hands and quit farming.
All over the world. At the same time.

If the rise (of about 300 feet) took place
within a few centuries, it would mean
the end of all farming in the affected
areas. That would be pretty much all of
them -- excepting a few places like PNG.

But then, perhaps you were not serious.
You>re right. I really believe that agriculture
started simultaneously around 12 kya, in
widely dispersed locations on almost every
continent, as the result of fairy dust spread
by aliens from outer space.

Have you a better theory?
Yup. The concatenation of changes at the end of the Wisconsinan/Wurm glaciation (climate
changes, changes in floral and faunal regimes, sea level rise, etc.) required new adaptations
by humans.

A ridiculous theory -- on several levels.
Firstly, climate changes occur quite
frequently, and merely to pick on the last
one is like saying that an earthquake was
caused by the last shower of rain.
Secondly, such changes are _disastrous_
for local populations -- for humans as
much as any other species. They lead
to famine, war, destruction and death.
Thirdly, to propose that widely dispersed
human populations -- with no contact --
reacted spontaneously to such events
in near-identical but highly sophisticated
ways, in each case, using extraordinarily
different techniques -- is to go far beyond
credibility.

They also provided new opportunities for gaining food and other resources; opportunities that
lead to agriculture and herding.

Pure crap. Those activities require peace,
stablity, organisation and calm -- i.e. a
complex structured hierarchical society.
There would have been plenty of them
before 12 kya. The fresh (and world-wide)
start soon afterwards was certainly not
the first foray out of hunter-gathering.

Oh, and the origin of agriculture isn>t temporally uniform around the world. Unless you have
the evidence to support that it was?

It was uniform enough -- unless you have
some account of how the how the central
Americans got the idea of growing maize
from seeing the Europeans produce wheat
and barley, or from seeing how the Chinese
grew rice.

The 'fairy dust spread by aliens' theory
is a lot more probable than anything
you>ve come up with
[/quote]
You assert much but support nothing with evidence.

You are the one making the assertion that there was lots of
agriculture before the end of the last glaciation, none of which
was preserved in the archaeological record. It>s up to you to
support your assertion with *evidence*. Evidence you can point me
to so I can read it and decide for myself whether it does support
your contentions. Or not.

If you do so, I>ll follow up as well as I can. If you don>t, this
conversation is pretty much navel-gazing, and I can do that by
myself.

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ri1gk.839$KI7.252@newsfe08.iad...

[quote]The 'fairy dust spread by aliens' theory
is a lot more probable than anything
you>ve come up with

You assert much but support nothing with evidence.
[/quote]
What evidence would you expect?

My main point is that the evidence found
so far does not make sense, and I propose
that the reason is that it is systematically
distorted. That can be seen in numerous
ways, even from something as basic as the
sex- and age-distribution of the fossils.

The major problem with the standard PA
conception is that it was established before
other sciences had developed (such as
Biology) and it has not changed to
accommodate their findings. It is 100 to
150 years out of date, not having moved
significantly since Darwinian times and
often being pre-Darwinian (having forgotten
much of his work).

The basic assumptions of paleo-
anthropology were established well before
1900, and have not alerted since.

Take its Eurocentrism: the notion of small
groups of peripatetic hunter-gatherers
discovering agriculture around 10 kya was
a conceivable (if far-fetched) idea -- until
it was realised that numerous other
populations all over the world had
apparently done the same thing at the
same time. But, of course, there was no
change to accommodate this remarkable
information.

Then there is the failure to grasp the concept
of niche. The dodge here is, of course, the
ludicrous 'humans (and their ancestors) were,
yet again, an exception to the whole of nature
and were always niche-independent'.

Another extraordinary blindness was its
failure to adopt the concept of 'territory'
Since the Victorians believed that all animals
wandered at will, PA assumed the same for
early humans and their ancestors. So naturally,
there was no possibility that it could ever
incorporate the concept of 'territoriality' into
its thinking even if it has been known for 100
years or so that most animal species are
territorial, and humans are especially so.

The list could be extended almost indefinitely
-- to include, for example. rises in sea-level.

Paul.

Tom McDonald · Guest

Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ri1gk.839$KI7.252@newsfe08.iad...

The 'fairy dust spread by aliens' theory
is a lot more probable than anything
you>ve come up with
You assert much but support nothing with evidence.

What evidence would you expect?
[/quote]
Evidence to support your assertions. Such as, the business about
the relative dearth of skeletal material for women and kids
before the sea level rise; the evidence that early agriculture
hugged the coastlines (and the corollary, why we don>t see, for
instance, scads of pollen from the vast amount of domesticated
plants that ought to have been blown inland over the millennia of
the purported Pleistocene agriculture); failure of even one
domesticated crop to make it inland as the sea level rose; that
the speed of sea level rise was so swift that it was common for
crops planted in the spring to be under a foot of sea water by
harvest.

Those will be enough to be going forward with.

[quote]My main point is that the evidence found
so far does not make sense, and I propose
that the reason is that it is systematically
distorted. That can be seen in numerous
ways, even from something as basic as the
sex- and age-distribution of the fossils.

The major problem with the standard PA
conception is that it was established before
other sciences had developed (such as
Biology) and it has not changed to
accommodate their findings. It is 100 to
150 years out of date, not having moved
significantly since Darwinian times and
often being pre-Darwinian (having forgotten
much of his work).

The basic assumptions of paleo-
anthropology were established well before
1900, and have not alerted since.

Take its Eurocentrism: the notion of small
groups of peripatetic hunter-gatherers
discovering agriculture around 10 kya was
a conceivable (if far-fetched) idea -- until
it was realised that numerous other
populations all over the world had
apparently done the same thing at the
same time. But, of course, there was no
change to accommodate this remarkable
information.

Then there is the failure to grasp the concept
of niche. The dodge here is, of course, the
ludicrous 'humans (and their ancestors) were,
yet again, an exception to the whole of nature
and were always niche-independent'.

Another extraordinary blindness was its
failure to adopt the concept of 'territory'
Since the Victorians believed that all animals
wandered at will, PA assumed the same for
early humans and their ancestors. So naturally,
there was no possibility that it could ever
incorporate the concept of 'territoriality' into
its thinking even if it has been known for 100
years or so that most animal species are
territorial, and humans are especially so.

The list could be extended almost indefinitely
-- to include, for example. rises in sea-level.
[/quote]
The list could be endless. As long as it completely ignored
modern archaeological theory, that is.

I begin to think you have somehow arrived at a theory, and are
very selective about how you choose your evidence to test it. (I
give you credit here for actually testing it, though that might
be over-generous.)

Tom McDonald · Guest

Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ri1gk.839$KI7.252@newsfe08.iad...

The 'fairy dust spread by aliens' theory
is a lot more probable than anything
you>ve come up with
You assert much but support nothing with evidence.

What evidence would you expect?
[/quote]
Evidence to support your assertions. Such as, the business about
the relative dearth of skeletal material for women and kids
before the sea level rise; the evidence that early agriculture
hugged the coastlines (and the corollary, why we don>t see, for
instance, scads of pollen from the vast amount of domesticated
plants that ought to have been blown inland over the millennia of
the purported Pleistocene agriculture); failure of even one
domesticated crop to make it inland as the sea level rose; that
the speed of sea level rise was so swift that it was common for
crops planted in the spring to be under a foot of sea water by
harvest.

Those will be enough to be going forward with.

[quote]My main point is that the evidence found
so far does not make sense, and I propose
that the reason is that it is systematically
distorted. That can be seen in numerous
ways, even from something as basic as the
sex- and age-distribution of the fossils.

The major problem with the standard PA
conception is that it was established before
other sciences had developed (such as
Biology) and it has not changed to
accommodate their findings. It is 100 to
150 years out of date, not having moved
significantly since Darwinian times and
often being pre-Darwinian (having forgotten
much of his work).

The basic assumptions of paleo-
anthropology were established well before
1900, and have not alerted since.

Take its Eurocentrism: the notion of small
groups of peripatetic hunter-gatherers
discovering agriculture around 10 kya was
a conceivable (if far-fetched) idea -- until
it was realised that numerous other
populations all over the world had
apparently done the same thing at the
same time. But, of course, there was no
change to accommodate this remarkable
information.

Then there is the failure to grasp the concept
of niche. The dodge here is, of course, the
ludicrous 'humans (and their ancestors) were,
yet again, an exception to the whole of nature
and were always niche-independent'.

Another extraordinary blindness was its
failure to adopt the concept of 'territory'
Since the Victorians believed that all animals
wandered at will, PA assumed the same for
early humans and their ancestors. So naturally,
there was no possibility that it could ever
incorporate the concept of 'territoriality' into
its thinking even if it has been known for 100
years or so that most animal species are
territorial, and humans are especially so.

The list could be extended almost indefinitely
-- to include, for example. rises in sea-level.
[/quote]
The list could be endless. As long as it completely ignored
modern archaeological theory, that is.

I begin to think you have somehow arrived at a theory, and are
very selective about how you choose your evidence to test it. (I
give you credit here for actually testing it, though that might
be over-generous.)

Tom McDonald · Guest

[Sorry for posting late, and apologies if this doesn>t thread
correctly. Meltdown in my news server.]

Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ri1gk.839$KI7.252@newsfe08.iad...

The 'fairy dust spread by aliens' theory
is a lot more probable than anything
you>ve come up with
You assert much but support nothing with evidence.

What evidence would you expect?
[/quote]
Evidence to support your assertions. Surely you can tell me where you
read the stuff that gave you the ideas you assert in this thread?

Such as, the business about the relative dearth of skeletal material
for women and kids before the sea level rise; the evidence that early
agriculture hugged the coastlines (and the corollary, why we don>t
see, for instance, scads of pollen from the vast amount of
domesticated plants that ought to have been blown inland over the
millennia of the purported Pleistocene agriculture); failure of even
one domesticated crop to make it inland as the sea level rose; that
the speed of sea level rise was so swift that it was common for crops
planted in the spring to be under a foot of sea water by harvest.

Those will be enough to be going forward with.

[quote]My main point is that the evidence found
so far does not make sense, and I propose
that the reason is that it is systematically
distorted. That can be seen in numerous
ways, even from something as basic as the
sex- and age-distribution of the fossils.

The major problem with the standard PA
conception is that it was established before
other sciences had developed (such as
Biology) and it has not changed to
accommodate their findings. It is 100 to
150 years out of date, not having moved
significantly since Darwinian times and
often being pre-Darwinian (having forgotten
much of his work).

The basic assumptions of paleo-
anthropology were established well before
1900, and have not alerted since.

Take its Eurocentrism: the notion of small
groups of peripatetic hunter-gatherers
discovering agriculture around 10 kya was
a conceivable (if far-fetched) idea -- until
it was realised that numerous other
populations all over the world had
apparently done the same thing at the
same time. But, of course, there was no
change to accommodate this remarkable
information.

Then there is the failure to grasp the concept
of niche. The dodge here is, of course, the
ludicrous 'humans (and their ancestors) were,
yet again, an exception to the whole of nature
and were always niche-independent'.

Another extraordinary blindness was its
failure to adopt the concept of 'territory'
Since the Victorians believed that all animals
wandered at will, PA assumed the same for
early humans and their ancestors. So naturally,
there was no possibility that it could ever
incorporate the concept of 'territoriality' into
its thinking even if it has been known for 100
years or so that most animal species are
territorial, and humans are especially so.

The list could be extended almost indefinitely
-- to include, for example. rises in sea-level.
[/quote]
The list could be endless. As long as it completely ignored modern
archaeological theory, that is.

I begin to think you have somehow arrived at a theory, and are very
selective about how you choose your evidence to test it. (I give you
credit here for actually testing it, though that might be over-
generous.)

Makouli · Guest

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:Rp_fk.26414$j7.470798@news.indigo.ie...
[quote]"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:I7Rfk.15$Dw3.4@newsfe04.iad...
[/quote]
[Tom tries to educate Pauly]

[quote]The 'fairy dust spread by aliens' theory
is a lot more probable than anything
you>ve come up with.
[/quote]
Pauly puts another one over the fence:

"The 'fairy dust spread by aliens' theory
is a lot more probable than anything
you>ve come up with." Pauly 07/18/08

> Paul.

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 19, 3:03 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]
Paul Crowley wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ri1gk.839$KI7.252@newsfe08.iad...

The 'fairy dust spread by aliens' theory
is a lot more probable than anything
you>ve come up with
You assert much but support nothing with evidence.

What evidence would you expect?

Surely you can tell me where you
read the stuff that gave you the ideas you assert in this thread?
[/quote]
Message-ID: <Kk_jh.17117$j7.336852@news.indigo.ie>
Crowley: "You>d get better observations in any pub in
Dublin on any day in any week."

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37f8abe5-50a0-41bc-806d-b2b90a8a1084@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

[quote]The 'fairy dust spread by aliens' theory
is a lot more probable than anything
you>ve come up with
You assert much but support nothing with evidence.

What evidence would you expect?

Evidence to support your assertions. Surely you can tell me where you
read the stuff that gave you the ideas you assert in this thread?

Such as, the business about the relative dearth of skeletal material
for women and kids before the sea level rise;
[/quote]
It used to be briefly alluded to in some
books, when I was last looking -- about
20 years ago -- and admittedly those books
were old even then. You>re probably right
that the broad picture of the sex-distribution
of hominid fossils is now never mentioned.
When very obvious facts have no explanation,
they tend to slide out of the discipline --
especially if it is sinking into corruption and
worthlessness. Lecturers don>t mention such
facts to their students because, if they did,
their only answer to the inevitable questions
would be "We haven>t a clue" -- and that is
not something they like to say.

[quote]the evidence that early agriculture hugged the coastlines
[/quote]
Since such early coastlines would now be
around 300 feet under water, and since
most of the land on which they existed
would have been churned up by advancing
coastlines, there would be little physical
evidence remaining.

[quote](and the corollary, why we don>t
see, for instance, scads of pollen from the vast amount of
domesticated plants that ought to have been blown inland
[/quote]
Is the pollen of domesticated plants
distinguishable from that of their wild
ancestors? I very much doubt it.
It would be like saying that chimp
sperm is distinguishable from human.
Perhaps, in some modern -- and highly
bred -- cases, it is. But that hardly
applied to earlier crops. Would the
sweet potatoes of the New Guinea
highlanders be much different from
their wild relations?

[quote]over the
millennia of the purported Pleistocene agriculture); failure of even
one domesticated crop to make it inland as the sea level rose; that
the speed of sea level rise was so swift that it was common for crops
planted in the spring to be under a foot of sea water by harvest.
[/quote]
IMHO the primary cause would have
been the social disruption, brought about
by all significant rises and their consequent
flooding. Larger and more successful tribes
would generally populate areas closer to the
sea. When they were driven from them, they
would seek to occupy lands of other tribes,
leading to war, and to the end of local
agriculture. Each surviving tribal population
would have had to come through this process
many hundreds of times in the period 14 kya
to 8 kya.

The sea-level rise was around 300 feet in
6,000 years, or one foot every 20 years, or
20 feet every 400 years. Few societies near
the sea could survive that. In the modern
world, many cities, such as London, Miami,
Paris, New York, all those in Holland, would
drown -- without special and very expensive
tidal barriers.

While war is a constant feature of human
populations, some societies can experience
hundreds of years of substantial peace,
allowing for the steady development of
the culture and the building of towns and
large cities. The steady encroachment of
the sea would have ensured that wars
were almost constant and devastating
over thousands of years. It would also
have destroyed all settlements and any
towns.

One prediction from this is that human
populations would have declined drastically
over that period, and this should be apparent
in the DNA -- in that there should be
'bottlenecks' in many local populations
~8 kya in contrast to the absence from ones
before ~15 kya.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Humans have not changed genetically in
140 kya or so, and had the capacity to form
complex civilisations from that time -- in the
right circumstances. Those circumstances
probably occurred many times before 14 kya,
and traces of their drowned cities may well
be found. Many hominid societies would have
been 'farmers' after the pattern of New Guinea
highlanders or American Indians, often with
small growing crops within stockaded
enclosures.

Paul.

Tom McDonald · Guest

Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]"Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37f8abe5-50a0-41bc-806d-b2b90a8a1084@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

The 'fairy dust spread by aliens' theory
is a lot more probable than anything
you>ve come up with
You assert much but support nothing with evidence.
What evidence would you expect?
Evidence to support your assertions. Surely you can tell me where you
read the stuff that gave you the ideas you assert in this thread?

Such as, the business about the relative dearth of skeletal material
for women and kids before the sea level rise;

It used to be briefly alluded to in some
books, when I was last looking -- about
20 years ago -- and admittedly those books
were old even then. You>re probably right
that the broad picture of the sex-distribution
of hominid fossils is now never mentioned.
[/quote]
I never wrote that, or anything like that. I was asking *you* to
support *your* assertion with facts.

[quote]When very obvious facts have no explanation,
they tend to slide out of the discipline --
especially if it is sinking into corruption and
worthlessness. Lecturers don>t mention such
facts to their students because, if they did,
their only answer to the inevitable questions
would be "We haven>t a clue" -- and that is
not something they like to say.
[/quote]
If you think archaeologists don>t like to say, "We haven>t a
clue", you haven>t met any archaeologists. Archies love that sort
of ignorance, because it tends to drive new discovery.

As to the gender distribution of, I assume, Upper Pleistocene
humans, if you wished, you could go to site reports as well as
general areal surveys about sites of the relevant ages. In those
works, you could write down on a piece of paper the numbers of
individuals (often reported as the 'MNI' or Minimum Number of
Individuals, since pre-Holocene sites often don>t involve clear,
discrete individual burials), along with the age and sex of the
skeletal remains. I have done this sort of study, and this
information is *always* reported.

Then you could go to more site reports and areal studies, adding
information from those works to the piece of paper you started with.

Then, when you had a good sample of the actual data, you could
add up the numbers by age and sex.

The information is there; it is not hidden; and it is available
to anyone who wishes to get it.

But that would yield data--data that would test your assertion
that archaeologists are craven crooks.

[quote]
the evidence that early agriculture hugged the coastlines

Since such early coastlines would now be
around 300 feet under water, and since
most of the land on which they existed
would have been churned up by advancing
coastlines, there would be little physical
evidence remaining.
[/quote]
That does not explain why you ignore the inconvenient fact that
there are lots of Upper Pleistocene inland sites with both male
and female remains. The existence of sites far from any seashore
at the relevant times puts paid to your view. Well, that, and the
fact that not one single human culture had the capacity or desire
to take their highly productive agriculture uphill when the sea
level rose, oh so very, very slowly.

Not one. No one. And no inland groups thought to snag some of the
agricultural techniques from the suicidal lowlanders. Not one. No
one. Over the whole world.

[quote]
(and the corollary, why we don>t
see, for instance, scads of pollen from the vast amount of
domesticated plants that ought to have been blown inland

Is the pollen of domesticated plants
distinguishable from that of their wild
ancestors? I very much doubt it.
[/quote]
You would be quite wrong.

[quote]It would be like saying that chimp
sperm is distinguishable from human.
Perhaps, in some modern -- and highly
bred -- cases, it is. But that hardly
applied to earlier crops. Would the
sweet potatoes of the New Guinea
highlanders be much different from
their wild relations?
[/quote]
Domesticated crops are highly modified versions of their wild
precursors. If they were not, in most cases, they would not be
worth cultivating.

[quote]
over the
millennia of the purported Pleistocene agriculture); failure of even
one domesticated crop to make it inland as the sea level rose; that
the speed of sea level rise was so swift that it was common for crops
planted in the spring to be under a foot of sea water by harvest.

IMHO the primary cause would have
been the social disruption, brought about
by all significant rises and their consequent
flooding. Larger and more successful tribes
would generally populate areas closer to the
sea. When they were driven from them, they
would seek to occupy lands of other tribes,
leading to war, and to the end of local
agriculture.
[/quote]
Why?

[quote]Each surviving tribal population
would have had to come through this process
many hundreds of times in the period 14 kya
to 8 kya.
[/quote]
Why?

[quote]
The sea-level rise was around 300 feet in
6,000 years, or one foot every 20 years, or
20 feet every 400 years. Few societies near
the sea could survive that. In the modern
world, many cities, such as London, Miami,
Paris, New York, all those in Holland, would
drown -- without special and very expensive
tidal barriers.
[/quote]
So, slow enough that folks could easily move their fields uphill.

[quote]
While war is a constant feature of human
populations, some societies can experience
hundreds of years of substantial peace,
allowing for the steady development of
the culture and the building of towns and
large cities. The steady encroachment of
the sea would have ensured that wars
were almost constant and devastating
over thousands of years. It would also
have destroyed all settlements and any
towns.
[/quote]
Destroyed settlements and towns are like meat and drink to an
archaeologist. They don>t go away; they become puzzles to solve.

And every successful agricultural culture we know of has
relations with inland groups, and that result in stuff being
traded both ways. Why would your postulated Upper Pleistocene
folks be different?

[quote]
One prediction from this is that human
populations would have declined drastically
over that period, and this should be apparent
in the DNA -- in that there should be
'bottlenecks' in many local populations
~8 kya in contrast to the absence from ones
before ~15 kya.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Humans have not changed genetically in
140 kya or so, and had the capacity to form
complex civilisations from that time -- in the
right circumstances. Those circumstances
probably occurred many times before 14 kya,
and traces of their drowned cities may well
be found. Many hominid societies would have
been 'farmers' after the pattern of New Guinea
highlanders or American Indians, often with
small growing crops within stockaded
enclosures.
[/quote]
Nice story. Back it up with archaeology. Your musings are not
evidence.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology - Paleo Forum	Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2