For Now We See Through A Glass, Darkly...
Recently, the Guardian World News published an article about an abundance of stone tools that were found in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and which have prompted a rethink about when humans left Africa. According to Michael Petraglia, an archaeologist at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work, "This is really quite spectacular. It breaks the back of the current consensus view" (Guardian World News).
And thus begins my rant. As a student of history and anthropology I have a few quibbles with the "current consensus view" held by the establishment. For some unfathomable reason historians and anthropologists/archeologists (hereafter referred to as HAA) seem to be laboring under two very erroneous beliefs:
Evidence dispelling these long-held, baseless claims can be found everywhere, and yet the establishment has seen fit to completely ignore this evidence. HAA's tend to base all of their hypotheses on these two beliefs while not even considering the obvious. A perfect example was aired on PBS in February of 2006. The Nova special titled, The Perfect Corpse, details the discovery, and subsequent investigation into, two bog bodies found in Ireland, Old Croghan Man and Clonycavan Man. Throughout the course of the program two scenarios were advanced in an attempt to explain the purpose of these interments:
After analyzing both sets of remains, certain commonalities became evident and were subsequently used by supporters of the premises to prove their point. That evidence is as follows:
1. Both bodies were dismembered.
a. Old Croghan is a torso with full arms.
b. Clonycavan is a torso with head and upper arms.
2. Both bodies showed evidence of being brutalized prior to death.
a. Old Croghan had numerous stab wounds, cut marks and one of his nipples was nearly severed.
b. Clonycavan had been battered at least 3 times in the head with what appeared to be a heavy,
sharp-edged weapon.
3. Both showed signs of wealth.
a. Old Croghan had manicured fingernails and few signs of physical labor.
b. Clonycavan had a "gel" in his hair, whose primary ingredient, pine sap, came from tress found only in the
south of France/north of Spain (a possible indication that he was wealthy enough to import).
4. Both were well nourished prior to death.
a. Old Croghan's stomach contents were indicative of a winter diet, containing wheat and milk products.
b. Clonycavan's hair showed a summer diet rich with vegetables.
5. Both were buried in bogs spanning tribal boundaries.
At first glance this all seems to suggest that the "experts" are correct in their assumptions; if both men were the victims of ritual sacrifice or criminal execution, one would expect them to be very similar. The problem is, this supposition ignores some very obvious points: if they're executed criminals then why are all the criminals apparently wealthy, and, if Clonycavan's hair gel comes from France, why can't he (there being no evidence to suggest he isn't)?
Both of these questions (and, to be sure, I have other issues with this whole thing that we just won't go into right now) lead us back to my original rant. When HAA's succumb to the above mentioned beliefs, they miss the most obvious, in-your-face conclusions, and wind up looking like fools. Thankfully, there are a few HAAs that don't go in for sensationalism and jumping to conclusions based on slim, or no, evidence. Archaeologist Moten Ravn of Denmark's Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, is one of the few. As far as bog bodies go, he has recommended (what to me is totally obvious) that all bog bodies (that includes the completely skeletonized ones as well as the fleshy ones) should be examined and taken in context. Only then can we begin to unravel the mysteries of these people.
All too often we view the past through the lens of our modern prejudice. What needs to be taken heavily into account is that we genuinely don't know what life was like during periods in which we, ourselves, didn't live. We cannot judge people based on what we don't know, and to the victor goes the privilege of writing the history books. That means that we can't really trust the scribes, either, as the vast majority were writing about events that took place sometimes centuries before they were even born, writing down stories that had come down, through generations, by word of mouth. And, as anyone who has ever played Chinese Whispers knows, an oral story can change quite dramatically with each retelling.
So, what does all this mean? It means that we need to stop making stuff up and start with the evidence. Examining it with an objective eye, looking at it from every angle and not just the one we prefer. Though I've focused on the bog bodies my rant extends to all corners of the histo-anthro-archaeo realm.
And thus begins my rant. As a student of history and anthropology I have a few quibbles with the "current consensus view" held by the establishment. For some unfathomable reason historians and anthropologists/archeologists (hereafter referred to as HAA) seem to be laboring under two very erroneous beliefs:
- That people didn't ever move around, and if they did, it wasn't further than the village down the road.
- That we "modern" humans possess far superior intelligence.
Evidence dispelling these long-held, baseless claims can be found everywhere, and yet the establishment has seen fit to completely ignore this evidence. HAA's tend to base all of their hypotheses on these two beliefs while not even considering the obvious. A perfect example was aired on PBS in February of 2006. The Nova special titled, The Perfect Corpse, details the discovery, and subsequent investigation into, two bog bodies found in Ireland, Old Croghan Man and Clonycavan Man. Throughout the course of the program two scenarios were advanced in an attempt to explain the purpose of these interments:
- These people were the victims of ritual sacrifice; OR
- They were executed criminals.
(above from left: Clonycavan Man, Old Croghan Man)
After analyzing both sets of remains, certain commonalities became evident and were subsequently used by supporters of the premises to prove their point. That evidence is as follows:
1. Both bodies were dismembered.
a. Old Croghan is a torso with full arms.
b. Clonycavan is a torso with head and upper arms.
2. Both bodies showed evidence of being brutalized prior to death.
a. Old Croghan had numerous stab wounds, cut marks and one of his nipples was nearly severed.
b. Clonycavan had been battered at least 3 times in the head with what appeared to be a heavy,
sharp-edged weapon.
3. Both showed signs of wealth.
a. Old Croghan had manicured fingernails and few signs of physical labor.
b. Clonycavan had a "gel" in his hair, whose primary ingredient, pine sap, came from tress found only in the
south of France/north of Spain (a possible indication that he was wealthy enough to import).
4. Both were well nourished prior to death.
a. Old Croghan's stomach contents were indicative of a winter diet, containing wheat and milk products.
b. Clonycavan's hair showed a summer diet rich with vegetables.
5. Both were buried in bogs spanning tribal boundaries.
At first glance this all seems to suggest that the "experts" are correct in their assumptions; if both men were the victims of ritual sacrifice or criminal execution, one would expect them to be very similar. The problem is, this supposition ignores some very obvious points: if they're executed criminals then why are all the criminals apparently wealthy, and, if Clonycavan's hair gel comes from France, why can't he (there being no evidence to suggest he isn't)?
Both of these questions (and, to be sure, I have other issues with this whole thing that we just won't go into right now) lead us back to my original rant. When HAA's succumb to the above mentioned beliefs, they miss the most obvious, in-your-face conclusions, and wind up looking like fools. Thankfully, there are a few HAAs that don't go in for sensationalism and jumping to conclusions based on slim, or no, evidence. Archaeologist Moten Ravn of Denmark's Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, is one of the few. As far as bog bodies go, he has recommended (what to me is totally obvious) that all bog bodies (that includes the completely skeletonized ones as well as the fleshy ones) should be examined and taken in context. Only then can we begin to unravel the mysteries of these people.
All too often we view the past through the lens of our modern prejudice. What needs to be taken heavily into account is that we genuinely don't know what life was like during periods in which we, ourselves, didn't live. We cannot judge people based on what we don't know, and to the victor goes the privilege of writing the history books. That means that we can't really trust the scribes, either, as the vast majority were writing about events that took place sometimes centuries before they were even born, writing down stories that had come down, through generations, by word of mouth. And, as anyone who has ever played Chinese Whispers knows, an oral story can change quite dramatically with each retelling.
So, what does all this mean? It means that we need to stop making stuff up and start with the evidence. Examining it with an objective eye, looking at it from every angle and not just the one we prefer. Though I've focused on the bog bodies my rant extends to all corners of the histo-anthro-archaeo realm.
Wake Up People!
Now I know the über liberals are completely out of their minds. In a news story posted earlier today (by several sources) the über liberal agenda was again spewed forth. Washington University in St. Louis is holding a Sexual Responsibility Week and were looking for Bristol Palin, the Candie's Foundation Teen Abstinence Ambassador, to give her speech about abstinence. When Kate Walsh, of "Private Practice" and a member of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, heard the news she posted the following tweet: “Welcome to the Idiocracy! RT @elliekirsh: @katewalsh please join students at Wash.U. to boycott Bristol Palin's speech on abstinence. What does she know about college or abstaining?”
Some points I must make about this:
1. Why does someone have to "know about college" in order to speak at a college function? There are actors and self-help gurus and all sorts of people who regularly speak at college functions who have never gone to college a day in their lives. In fact, there are people who've never been to college who have received honorary doctorate degrees! So suggesting that someone shouldn't speak at a college function just because they don't "know [anything] about college," is asinine.
2. Yes, it's true that Bristol didn't abstain from sex, and yes she got pregnant, but it seems to me that someone who has made a mistake and learned from it would be the perfect advocate for not doing it in the first place! Parents are constantly trying to tell their children not the make the same mistakes that they made, so why is it inappropriate for Bristol Palin to do the same thing? Wouldn't it make more sense for someone who has gone through the experience, and therefore knows a thing or two about the consequences of those actions, to speak about NOT doing the same thing? Hello, duh!
3. In a followup story it was reported that Palin will not be attending, due to the controversy. The list of attendees reported didn't directly indicate that a replacement abstinence speaker would attend, though it did mention the Catholic Student Center, which I imagine would be heavily pro-abstinence. If this "Sexual Responsibility Week" event does not have someone discussing abstinence then the whole thing is a complete farce. Kate Walsh's comments (and her affiliation with Planned Parenthood) suggest that she is anti-abstinence. Her comments make it sound as if abstinence is some sort of egregious violation of the natural order. Despite Planned Parenthood's contention that they do teach abstinence they say they want abstinence to be taught "properly" without the "misinformation" that is "generally" given out by pro-abstinence advocates (a specifically cited example is, "condoms don't work"). Walsh's attitude, and the attitude of many, particularly liberals, is not only irresponsible, it's dangerous.
Plenty of evidence shows that abstinence is truly the only way in which to prevent pregnancy and the transmission or development of disease (e.g. AIDS, and cervical or penile cancer, respectively). But that's not even the end of it. Society has degenerated to such a degree that sex has become completely meaningless. For many it has almost become a rite of passage. A recent letter to Dear Annie showed this perfectly. A mother was writing in to complain about her daughter's boyfriend and how he was "withholding" himself from her daughter. She couldn't understand why her daughter was putting up with this attitude and desperately wanted help to know what she should do. Thankfully, Dear Annie is far more intelligent than this mother, and told her that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the situation and, far from that, the mother should back off and understand that they are perfectly within their rights to not have sex! The idea that someone would have to be told that NOT having sex is perfectly alright, is mind-boggling!
Another recent news report noted that more and more people don't understand why they are even getting married. The present rate of divorce bears this out. The lack of understanding of what marriage truly is and is for, is a the root of the problem. Because people no longer understand the concept of marriage, they have no respect for it. The ease with which a divorce can be obtained helps to fuel the problem. The only solution is education. Marriage isn't meant to be a hostile take-over, nor is it meant to be an excuse for receipt of benefits (of any kind). Marriage is also not easy, nor was it ever meant to be easy. Marriage is a lot of work - work that too many people just don't want to put forth. But until people understand this, accept this, and actually start working...then society is going to continue to spiral into the pit of Hell.
Some points I must make about this:
1. Why does someone have to "know about college" in order to speak at a college function? There are actors and self-help gurus and all sorts of people who regularly speak at college functions who have never gone to college a day in their lives. In fact, there are people who've never been to college who have received honorary doctorate degrees! So suggesting that someone shouldn't speak at a college function just because they don't "know [anything] about college," is asinine.
2. Yes, it's true that Bristol didn't abstain from sex, and yes she got pregnant, but it seems to me that someone who has made a mistake and learned from it would be the perfect advocate for not doing it in the first place! Parents are constantly trying to tell their children not the make the same mistakes that they made, so why is it inappropriate for Bristol Palin to do the same thing? Wouldn't it make more sense for someone who has gone through the experience, and therefore knows a thing or two about the consequences of those actions, to speak about NOT doing the same thing? Hello, duh!
3. In a followup story it was reported that Palin will not be attending, due to the controversy. The list of attendees reported didn't directly indicate that a replacement abstinence speaker would attend, though it did mention the Catholic Student Center, which I imagine would be heavily pro-abstinence. If this "Sexual Responsibility Week" event does not have someone discussing abstinence then the whole thing is a complete farce. Kate Walsh's comments (and her affiliation with Planned Parenthood) suggest that she is anti-abstinence. Her comments make it sound as if abstinence is some sort of egregious violation of the natural order. Despite Planned Parenthood's contention that they do teach abstinence they say they want abstinence to be taught "properly" without the "misinformation" that is "generally" given out by pro-abstinence advocates (a specifically cited example is, "condoms don't work"). Walsh's attitude, and the attitude of many, particularly liberals, is not only irresponsible, it's dangerous.
Plenty of evidence shows that abstinence is truly the only way in which to prevent pregnancy and the transmission or development of disease (e.g. AIDS, and cervical or penile cancer, respectively). But that's not even the end of it. Society has degenerated to such a degree that sex has become completely meaningless. For many it has almost become a rite of passage. A recent letter to Dear Annie showed this perfectly. A mother was writing in to complain about her daughter's boyfriend and how he was "withholding" himself from her daughter. She couldn't understand why her daughter was putting up with this attitude and desperately wanted help to know what she should do. Thankfully, Dear Annie is far more intelligent than this mother, and told her that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the situation and, far from that, the mother should back off and understand that they are perfectly within their rights to not have sex! The idea that someone would have to be told that NOT having sex is perfectly alright, is mind-boggling!
Another recent news report noted that more and more people don't understand why they are even getting married. The present rate of divorce bears this out. The lack of understanding of what marriage truly is and is for, is a the root of the problem. Because people no longer understand the concept of marriage, they have no respect for it. The ease with which a divorce can be obtained helps to fuel the problem. The only solution is education. Marriage isn't meant to be a hostile take-over, nor is it meant to be an excuse for receipt of benefits (of any kind). Marriage is also not easy, nor was it ever meant to be easy. Marriage is a lot of work - work that too many people just don't want to put forth. But until people understand this, accept this, and actually start working...then society is going to continue to spiral into the pit of Hell.
Experience Hell - Learn Danish
The other day Demonia posted a video about some people who are so into Black Metal that thay are learning Norwegian. It reminded me of a post by Humon about how messed up the Danish language is. Even if you don't speak a word of Danish this video is hilarious. For those of you who don't know anything about Danish - well, apparently it's becoming increasingly more difficult for even Danes to understand each other (let alone foreigners to learn it) and from what I've seen, just forget about learning the Danish number system. Being of Danish extraction this is all fascinating to me, so I post those videos for your enjoyment now. (I've also included a second part to the Danish language video that Humon didn't have)
