Ruphus -> RE: AE911Truth (Feb. 11 2013 20:41:06)
|
Some bad hours behind me, thought I might have to put my old cat to sleep. Your questions are good ones, but apparently not to be backed up by quick internet search. ( Besides of that some sites seem blocked from my place.) What I am stating is a derivate of decades long interest into the matter, comprised of mainly articles and interviews as updates on anthropological themes. Thus, I am convinced that there exist special works that deal with the main attributes I named and the background, but on todays search I couldn´t find any. If I can inspire you to leave obsolete yet persisting stereotypes behind which claim the opposite, you might find the string of consciousness yourself over time. It all starts with evolutionary benefit of cooperative behaviour as observable with monkeys already, then with apes and with the efficient difference between chimpanzees and bonobos. A prove over and over again of how empathical quality will return and benfit the individual in the long run. Next, there is evidence of how physcially inferiour species benefit from hoarding ( the more heads the better) whether in terms of hunting big game or of defence against superior predators. ( Having said that you might find interesting what I came accross here: Socioterritorial Units among Carnivores and Early Hominids http://www.academia.edu/attachments/3431955/download_file ) For some reason numbers of hunting / gathering hominid communities appear to have ranged around one dozen, seldomly reaching sizes of 30 individuals. Such small groups in an environment that commonly was stuffed with a high density of large predators only consequently had to be under great pressure with providing food and under steady risk of falling prey themselves. So, just as meat consumption allowed for greater leisure and grey cell allocation from guts to brain for developing symbolic thinking, artwork, tooling and language, the huge risk for small communities enhanced the awareness of mutual dependency and the empathic and solidary skills. Such a living of common pressure, high dependency and must of association represented hominids´conditions for pretty much all of the 7 million years since coming down from the trees to roam the plains. This changed only very lately for those individuals who left the hunter & gatherer existance behind for farming. With farming there came up: # safety from the predators direct threat # less leisure, the specialisation of femals on housekeeping tasks and their loss of gender parity # more patriarchically and less democratically structured culture # rising priority of individual possession # separation of food and commodities from efforts # exploitation The unnatural situation of long term advantage through exploitation of fellow humans must have started with first settling and farming, and come to regular exploitation with the first domains of about 5000 years ago. For an overlook on destructiveness and constructiveness of behavioural variatons with social species, there simply remains no practical option for a guileful "human nature" as painted by established exploiting and clerical beneficiaries, that could had prevailed through the times and challenges. Instead the immense socialisation of hominids is being evident throughout their legacy ( from physical specialisation like mirror cells or speech enabling shift of larynx, to gained transmitting of skills and to empathical prowess, everything pointing to cooperative specialisation). And yet, with all the complimenting skills several demographic bottlenecks occured, threatening to extinct homo sapiens. ( Last one around 40 000 years ago, when our stem was reduced to about 60 000 worldwide.) Our ancestors denied of their cooperation and sketched as more trivial than what even monkeys are being discovered as by modern faculties, could simply not had survived their million of years as highly vulnerable gatherers and hunters. I am certain that there will exist works that ascertain this; eventhough still today noone wants to hear of it, simply for collision of trusted `good´old stereotype and quick ressort. On this internet search what I came accross as entertaining for general anthropological interest has been: quote:
It is now becoming clear that the Neandertals had cultures and social organizations developed to the point that community members unable to provide for themselves were fed and cared for. The La Chapelle-aux-Saints man lived to well beyond the normal life expectancy of 30-35. He was 40-50 years old and had severe crippling arthritis that would have made walking difficult. In addition, he would have been limited to soft foods, or other people chewed his food for him, because he only had 2 remaining teeth. It is likely that his last years were made possible only because others were compassionate and provided food and protection for him. The same pattern of group support for those unable to take care of themselves was found at Shanidar Cave. The man who had been so carefully buried there in a ritual manner had major orthopedic problems. Crushing injuries earlier in life resulted in multiple broken bones. This apparently caused degenerative joint disease, the withering of one of his arms, and blindness in one eye. Like the La Chapelle-aux-Saints man, he would have been severely handicapped, yet he lived 30-45 years. To do this, he must have had considerable family and community support. http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_3.htm And "How Culture Makes US Human" http://www.lcoastpress.com/book.php?id=363 Both sites apparently full of interesting lecture / worth bookmarking for who might be interested in paleohistory and development of hominids. Ruphus
|
|
|
|