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

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:iFFjk.3529$Bt6.1309@newsfe04.iad...

[quote]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.

I never wrote that, or anything like that. I was asking *you* to support *your* assertion with
facts.
[/quote]
You implied it. You admit that you have never
seen gross figures . . . not even for any group,
such as Neanderthals, or for Cro-Magnon or
for Africa. Isn>t that amazing?

[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.

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.
[/quote]
So how come you have never seen this
discussed in the literature? I don>t know
the reason for the 'censorship', and can
only guess at it. What do you think the
reason is?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Agreed. All any investigator has to do is
add up the figures. How come you have
never seen this done?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
It>s like sex in Victorian times. Not hidden,
but too embarrassing to discuss openly.

[quote]But that would yield data--data that would test your assertion that archaeologists are craven
crooks.
[/quote]
I don>t think the Victorians were crooks
about sex. I would like to understand the
nature of both their embarrassment and
that of modern PA people.

[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.

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.
[/quote]
Of course not. On that 'logic', the evidence
of human remains on the top of Everest would
put paid to any view that humans live at lower
altitudes.

Clearly humans and other hominids travelled
and often went inland and uphill. Sometimes
they did not make it to the other side of the
pass. Sometimes they stopped in caves and
died.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Very, very wrong. The sea occasionally
causes catastrophes -- typically when there
is a spring tide, allied to an unfavourable
wind, storms, low pressure, and river flooding.
(Remember New Orleans and Katrina?). An
increase in the rate of such catastrophes is
how rising sea-levels become manifest to
human life.

[quote]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]
You have not the slightest conception of
natural history, ordinary history, or how
these things work. They did not understand
what was happening, except that things were
going badly wrong. Also there are no 'inland
groups', any more than there are mountain
ostriches, coastal condors, desert hippos,
highland elephants, savanna gibbons . . .
and so on and on.

[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]
Modern domesticated crops are. The
question is whether the pollen of early
domesticated ones were distinguishable
from that of their wild ancestors.

[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.

Why?
[/quote]
What else would they do? Tamely die off?
Imagine what would happen today, if
most the major coastal cities of a country
were flooded -- in the case of the UK:
London, Portsmouth, Southampton,
Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, etc.
All those people would move inland,
where they would not be welcome.

[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.

Why?
[/quote]
A serious war every ten years is fairly
minimal for South-sea islanders, New Guinea
Highlanders and most H/G societies. The
disruption caused by fairly regular destruction
of the local habitat would make things much
worse. Once in ten years is 600 times in
6,000 years

[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.

So, slow enough that folks could easily move their fields uphill.
[/quote]
You have no idea. Can you imagine the
result if London>s Thames Barrier was
destroyed? Do you think the rats would
understand what was going on? Early
humans would have had about the same
level of comprehension.

[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.

Destroyed settlements and towns are like meat and drink to an archaeologist. They don>t go
away; they become puzzles to solve.
[/quote]
Have you ever studied a settlement that
was destroyed by a moving beach, taking
(say) about five years to pass over it?
If not, about how much of it do you think
would be left?

[quote]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]
I>m sure that there was always trade, but
I doubt if there was much in the way of
inland societies. Maybe there were a
few inland specialist stone-knapping
groups.

[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.

Nice story. Back it up with archaeology. Your musings are not evidence.
[/quote]
The absence of meaningful archaeology
is apparent to all with eyes to see. Fairy
dust from aliens provides a better theory
for the appearance of civilisations at
much the same time all over the world.
I am explaining the reasons for that absence.
When are you going to wake up? When is
PA generally going to wake up?

Paul.

Tom McDonald · Guest

Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:iFFjk.3529$Bt6.1309@newsfe04.iad...

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.
I never wrote that, or anything like that. I was asking *you* to support *your* assertion with
facts.

You implied it.
[/quote]
Not so much implied as never even came close to suggesting.

[quote]You admit that you have never
seen gross figures . . . not even for any group,
such as Neanderthals, or for Cro-Magnon or
for Africa.
[/quote]
I did not admit any such thing. I *have* seen such figures; but
that was mostly back 20 years or so ago when I was in archie grad
school. I haven>t paid much attention to that since then.

[quote]Isn>t that amazing?
[/quote]
Hmm.

[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.
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.

So how come you have never seen this
discussed in the literature?
[/quote]
Do you mean relative gender distributions at inland sites, or the
fact that archies love to cure ignorance? Both are quite widely
discussed, and I>ve never said or implied differently.

[quote]I don>t know
the reason for the 'censorship', and can
only guess at it. What do you think the
reason is?
[/quote]
I think the reason you think this is a combination of a
reading/comprehension problem and a very, very bad understanding
of the archaeology (and other disciplines) involved.

[quote]
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.

Agreed. All any investigator has to do is
add up the figures. How come you have
never seen this done?
[/quote]
<sigh>

[quote]
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.

It>s like sex in Victorian times. Not hidden,
but too embarrassing to discuss openly.
[/quote]
<heavy sigh>

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

I don>t think the Victorians were crooks
about sex. I would like to understand the
nature of both their embarrassment and
that of modern PA people.
[/quote]
Bad simile.

[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.
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.

Of course not. On that 'logic', the evidence
of human remains on the top of Everest would
put paid to any view that humans live at lower
altitudes.

Clearly humans and other hominids travelled
and often went inland and uphill. Sometimes
they did not make it to the other side of the
pass. Sometimes they stopped in caves and
died.
[/quote]
Ah. Gotcha.

[quote]
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.

Very, very wrong. The sea occasionally
causes catastrophes -- typically when there
is a spring tide, allied to an unfavourable
wind, storms, low pressure, and river flooding.
(Remember New Orleans and Katrina?). An
increase in the rate of such catastrophes is
how rising sea-levels become manifest to
human life.
[/quote]
Occasional catastrophes world-wide, such that *every* sea-side
agricultural group quit farming at about the same time. Right.

[quote]
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.

You have not the slightest conception of
natural history, ordinary history, or how
these things work. They did not understand
what was happening, except that things were
going badly wrong. Also there are no 'inland
groups', any more than there are mountain
ostriches, coastal condors, desert hippos,
highland elephants, savanna gibbons . . .
and so on and on.
[/quote]
<boggle>

[quote]
Domesticated crops are highly modified versions of their wild precursors. If they were not, in
most cases, they would not be worth cultivating.

Modern domesticated crops are. The
question is whether the pollen of early
domesticated ones were distinguishable
from that of their wild ancestors.
[/quote]
Do you know what makes domesticated crops domesticated?

Thought not.

[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.
Why?

What else would they do? Tamely die off?
[/quote]
So they would go to war with the higher-landers, and either lose
the battles (though being far, far more numerous), or win the
battles and lose the war--lose their agriculture.

And no inland victors would take up farming?

[quote]Imagine what would happen today, if
most the major coastal cities of a country
were flooded -- in the case of the UK:
London, Portsmouth, Southampton,
Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, etc.
All those people would move inland,
where they would not be welcome.

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

A serious war every ten years is fairly
minimal for South-sea islanders, New Guinea
Highlanders and most H/G societies. The
disruption caused by fairly regular destruction
of the local habitat would make things much
worse. Once in ten years is 600 times in
6,000 years

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.
So, slow enough that folks could easily move their fields uphill.

You have no idea. Can you imagine the
result if London>s Thames Barrier was
destroyed? Do you think the rats would
understand what was going on? Early
humans would have had about the same
level of comprehension.
[/quote]
*Early* humans?

How old do you think H.s.s. is? How long do you think we have
been capable of modern behavior?

What time-depth do you postulate for these farmers? I thought you
were talking about the Upper Pleistocene, near the Holocene; but
if you are talking about the Lower or Middle Pleistocene, then
you have a significant problem.

Unless you are a Young Earth Creationist...?

[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.
Destroyed settlements and towns are like meat and drink to an archaeologist. They don>t go
away; they become puzzles to solve.

Have you ever studied a settlement that
was destroyed by a moving beach, taking
(say) about five years to pass over it?
If not, about how much of it do you think
would be left?

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?

I>m sure that there was always trade, but
I doubt if there was much in the way of
inland societies. Maybe there were a
few inland specialist stone-knapping
groups.

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.
Nice story. Back it up with archaeology. Your musings are not evidence.

The absence of meaningful archaeology
is apparent to all with eyes to see. Fairy
dust from aliens provides a better theory
for the appearance of civilisations at
much the same time all over the world.
I am explaining the reasons for that absence.
When are you going to wake up? When is
PA generally going to wake up?
[/quote]
I apologize. You do not appear to be willing to take in new
information, and you seem to willfully misunderstand what I write.

If you have something that you are actually willing to discuss,
and are willing to challenge your own preconceptions, maybe then
we could talk.

Daryl Krupa · Guest

On Jul 30, 5:07 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
<snip>
[quote] Can you imagine the
result if London>s Thames Barrier was
destroyed? Do you think the rats would
understand what was going on? Early
humans would have had about the same
level of comprehension.
snip[/quote]

Paul, are you implying that rats have
a sufficient level of comprehension to
practice coastal agriculture?

- Daryl Krupa

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d361153d-7fb9-4356-9acc-713417bc9e96@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

[quote]On Jul 30, 5:07 am, "Paul Crowley"
slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
snip
Can you imagine the
result if London>s Thames Barrier was
destroyed? Do you think the rats would
understand what was going on? Early
humans would have had about the same
level of comprehension.
snip

Paul, are you implying that rats have
a sufficient level of comprehension to
practice coastal agriculture?
[/quote]
Firstly, there is no such thing as 'coastal
agriculture'. There is merely 'agriculture'.

Secondly, I was saying nothing there about
any kind of agriculture.

Thirdly, I was talking only about catastrophic
flooding -- of the kind that destroys wide areas
of local habitat, either drowning inhabitants
or forcing them to flee.

Humans around 14 kya ('early humans' was
a bit of a typo) did not have TV nor
helicopters, and would have experienced
such catastrophes only at a local level,
knowing only that they and their neigh-
bours had been flooded out, and all of
their plantations destroyed The local
rats would have had about the same
appreciation of what was going on.

With about a ten-foot rise in sea-level
over 200 years, they would hardly know
about the last similar catastrophe that
had happened to their ancestors about
(say) 8 generations earlier. Are you
familiar with the life-experiences of your
ancestors around 1800 AD?

Paul.

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:WiZjk.6129$1N1.6048@newsfe07.iad...

[quote]You admit that you have never
seen gross figures . . . not even for any group,
such as Neanderthals, or for Cro-Magnon or
for Africa.

I did not admit any such thing. I *have* seen such figures; but that was mostly back 20 years
or so ago when I was in archie grad school. I haven>t paid much attention to that since then.
[/quote]
A refreshing (if very faint) glimmer of
honesty! Why did you not say this
earlier, instead of pretending to doubt it?

The FACTS are extraordinary, and had
you been following the 'discipline' at any
level you would have noticed that they
are never mentioned.

[quote]So how come you have never seen this
discussed in the literature?

Do you mean relative gender distributions at inland sites, or the fact that archies love to
cure ignorance? Both are quite widely discussed, and I>ve never said or implied differently.
[/quote]
Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question.

[quote]I don>t know
the reason for the 'censorship', and can
only guess at it. What do you think the
reason is?

I think the reason you think this is a combination of a reading/comprehension problem and a
very, very bad understanding of the archaeology (and other disciplines) involved.
[/quote]
Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question.

[quote]Agreed. All any investigator has to do is
add up the figures. How come you have
never seen this done?

sigh
[/quote]
Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question.

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

It>s like sex in Victorian times. Not hidden,
but too embarrassing to discuss openly.

heavy sigh
[/quote]
Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question.
[..]

[quote]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.

Very, very wrong. The sea occasionally
causes catastrophes -- typically when there
is a spring tide, allied to an unfavourable
wind, storms, low pressure, and river flooding.
(Remember New Orleans and Katrina?). An
increase in the rate of such catastrophes is
how rising sea-levels become manifest to
human life.

Occasional catastrophes world-wide, such that *every* sea-side agricultural group quit farming
at about the same time. Right.
[/quote]
Regular catastrophes world-wide (which
would appear as 'occasional' to each local
population). That>s what happens when
eustatic sea-levels rise by ~300 feet in
6,000 years. 'Eustatic' means 'world-wide'.

[quote]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.

You have not the slightest conception of
natural history, ordinary history, or how
these things work. They did not understand
what was happening, except that things were
going badly wrong. Also there are no 'inland
groups', any more than there are mountain
ostriches, coastal condors, desert hippos,
highland elephants, savanna gibbons . . .
and so on and on.

boggle
[/quote]
And rightly so. The change in thinking
required is drastic.
[..]

[quote]What else would they do? Tamely die off?

So they would go to war with the higher-landers, and either lose the battles (though being
far, far more numerous), or win the battles and lose the war--lose their agriculture.
[/quote]
Your inability to comprehend continues
to astonish. Any 'highlanders' would be
few and not be agricultural. But, to try
to use a very crude modern analogy,
suppose the Thames Barrier was lost,
London flooded, and law and order gone.
Say five million Londoners move into what
is left of Esses, which can provide for (say)
100,000 over the next two years. Essex
locals are soon dead. Are those five
million going to co-operate happily as
most of them slowly die of starvation?

[quote]And no inland victors would take up farming?
[/quote]
Farming land takes a long time to develop
especially in the absence of powerful
ploughs. First the trees have to be cut
down. I doubt if many warring tribes
would have managed to get that done.

[quote]You have no idea. Can you imagine the
result if London>s Thames Barrier was
destroyed? Do you think the rats would
understand what was going on? Early
humans would have had about the same
level of comprehension.

*Early* humans?
[/quote]
Sorry, 'early' was a typo. I>m talking of the
period 14 kya to 8 kya.
[..]

[quote]I apologize. You do not appear to be willing to take in new information, and you seem to
willfully misunderstand what I write.

If you have something that you are actually willing to discuss, and are willing to challenge
your own preconceptions, maybe then we could talk.
[/quote]
Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question of the sex-ratio of fossil
humans and hominids.

Paul.

Tom McDonald · Guest

Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:WiZjk.6129$1N1.6048@newsfe07.iad...

You admit that you have never
seen gross figures . . . not even for any group,
such as Neanderthals, or for Cro-Magnon or
for Africa.
I did not admit any such thing. I *have* seen such figures; but that was mostly back 20 years
or so ago when I was in archie grad school. I haven>t paid much attention to that since then.

A refreshing (if very faint) glimmer of
honesty! Why did you not say this
earlier, instead of pretending to doubt it?
[/quote]
My, you are dense. Or perhaps so taken up with your own internal
dialog on this matter that you imagine things that are not in
evidence.

20 year old books and journals are still available. The
information in them about human skeletal remains would still be
relatively valid, if perhaps superceeded by newer information.

That *I* haven>t kept up on this issue doesn>t mean no one else
has. I am struck by your demands for citations to the literature,
while you yourself provide nothing but your own WAGs about how
things were.

[quote]The FACTS are extraordinary, and had
you been following the 'discipline' at any
level you would have noticed that they
are never mentioned.
[/quote]
How have you arrived at this view? Did you do an exhaustive
review of the professional literature and discover this prodigy;
or did you come by this view in some other, less rigorous way.

[quote]
So how come you have never seen this
discussed in the literature?
Do you mean relative gender distributions at inland sites, or the fact that archies love to
cure ignorance? Both are quite widely discussed, and I>ve never said or implied differently.

Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question.
[/quote]
You first. Provide actual evidence, from the professional
archaeological literature, via actual and full citations, to any
of the main elements of your views about the late Pleistocene
population distribution of H.s.s., and their agriculture.

If you show your work, and if I can find the citations, and if
the citations support your views in any way, then we can talk.

Until then, your demand that I provide citations, especially when
I have told you that I haven>t kept up on the literature, is
nothing more than an invitation to me to waste my time on
something you are quite likely to wave away in a cloud of alien
fairy dust.

<snip>

Rick Wagler · Guest

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:gujkk.4442$QX3.1812@newsfe02.iad...
[quote]Paul Crowley wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:WiZjk.6129$1N1.6048@newsfe07.iad...

You admit that you have never
seen gross figures . . . not even for any group,
such as Neanderthals, or for Cro-Magnon or
for Africa.
I did not admit any such thing. I *have* seen such figures; but that was
mostly back 20 years
or so ago when I was in archie grad school. I haven>t paid much
attention to that since then.

A refreshing (if very faint) glimmer of
honesty! Why did you not say this
earlier, instead of pretending to doubt it?

My, you are dense. Or perhaps so taken up with your own internal dialog on
this matter that you imagine things that are not in evidence.

20 year old books and journals are still available. The information in
them about human skeletal remains would still be relatively valid, if
perhaps superceeded by newer information.

That *I* haven>t kept up on this issue doesn>t mean no one else has. I am
struck by your demands for citations to the literature, while you yourself
provide nothing but your own WAGs about how things were.

The FACTS are extraordinary, and had
you been following the 'discipline' at any
level you would have noticed that they
are never mentioned.

How have you arrived at this view? Did you do an exhaustive review of the
professional literature and discover this prodigy; or did you come by this
view in some other, less rigorous way.

So how come you have never seen this
discussed in the literature?
Do you mean relative gender distributions at inland sites, or the fact
that archies love to
cure ignorance? Both are quite widely discussed, and I>ve never said or
implied differently.

Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question.

You first. Provide actual evidence, from the professional archaeological
literature, via actual and full citations, to any of the main elements of
your views about the late Pleistocene population distribution of H.s.s.,
and their agriculture.

If you show your work, and if I can find the citations, and if the
citations support your views in any way, then we can talk.

Until then, your demand that I provide citations, especially when I have
told you that I haven>t kept up on the literature, is nothing more than an
invitation to me to waste my time on something you are quite likely to
wave away in a cloud of alien fairy dust.

snip
[/quote]
Don>t waste time with Paul on this point. He famously
observed that he never reads the professional literature
and thinks it nothing better than toilet paper. For him
to demand citations to a body of research he has nothing
but contempt for is disingenuous to say the least. Crowley
has a deeply emotional hate-on for archaeology and PA
and his being on this group has nothing to do with
engaging in a debate on any topic. He is the opportunity
for some cheap, greasy fun nothing more.

Rick Wagler

Tom McDonald · Guest

Rick Wagler wrote:
[quote]"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:gujkk.4442$QX3.1812@newsfe02.iad...
Paul Crowley wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>

[quote]Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question.
You first. Provide actual evidence, from the professional archaeological
literature, via actual and full citations, to any of the main elements of
your views about the late Pleistocene population distribution of H.s.s.,
and their agriculture.

If you show your work, and if I can find the citations, and if the
citations support your views in any way, then we can talk.

Until then, your demand that I provide citations, especially when I have
told you that I haven>t kept up on the literature, is nothing more than an
invitation to me to waste my time on something you are quite likely to
wave away in a cloud of alien fairy dust.

snip

Don>t waste time with Paul on this point. He famously
observed that he never reads the professional literature
and thinks it nothing better than toilet paper. For him
to demand citations to a body of research he has nothing
but contempt for is disingenuous to say the least. Crowley
has a deeply emotional hate-on for archaeology and PA
and his being on this group has nothing to do with
engaging in a debate on any topic. He is the opportunity
for some cheap, greasy fun nothing more.
[/quote]
Sort of what I figured. But one ought not to underrate cheap,
greasy fun. Especially at my age!

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:DZkkk.46661$nD.9286@pd7urf1no...

[quote]That *I* haven>t kept up on this issue doesn>t mean no one else has. I am struck by your
demands for citations to the literature, while you yourself provide nothing but your own WAGs
about how things were.

Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question.

Don>t waste time with Paul on this point. He famously
observed that he never reads the professional literature
and thinks it nothing better than toilet paper.
[/quote]
Ah, wonderful -- all is not lost. We have in
this newsgroup a whole tribe of posters who
have kept up with the 'scientific' literature
over the past twenty years and more.

While I maintain that the discipline has
degenerated into a political-correct mire
of ignorance and corruption, and has not
changed any significant opinion since
before Darwin, they are only too anxious
to defend its reputation.

So -- Rick and every one else --

Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question (of the sex-distribution of
fossil humans before 14 kya and of
fossil hominids since 6 mya).

Paul.

mclark · Guest

On Jul 31, 2:13 pm, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
[quote]"Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote in messagenews:DZkkk.46661$nD.9286@pd7urf1no...
That *I* haven>t kept up on this issue doesn>t mean no one else has. I am struck by your
demands for citations to the literature, while you yourself provide nothing but your own WAGs
about how things were.
Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question.
Don>t waste time with Paul on this point. He famously
observed that he never reads the professional literature
and thinks it nothing better than toilet paper.

Ah, wonderful -- all is not lost. We have in
this newsgroup a whole tribe of posters who
have kept up with the 'scientific' literature
over the past twenty years and more.

While I maintain that the discipline has
degenerated into a political-correct mire
of ignorance and corruption, and has not
changed any significant opinion since
before Darwin, they are only too anxious
to defend its reputation.

So -- Rick and every one else --

Name a paper in a scientific journal in
the last ten years which has discussed
the question (of the sex-distribution of
fossil humans before 14 kya and of
fossil hominids since 6 mya).

Paul.
[/quote]
Cheap, greasy fun it is. Pauly, you>re a riot.
Do you>re own homework, nose-picker, --all you>ve
done so far is assert.

============================"I would not use 'the published literature'
for toilet paper." Paul Crowley 11/02/06


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 Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2