Posted on 03/31/2007 11:03:47 AM PDT by blam
Funny what studies like this say about the one who releases the studies.
Sexual division of labor early said that in most times and places, clothing and feeding the family with basics (gathering and gardening) was for the most part women's work in most places in the world through most of human history.
Funny how some social scientists seem to want to claim the guy roles for women, in part because the status involved. Truth is women's roles just aren't considered cool enough, especially by feminist scholars. When you read ancient texts, one learns I believe that the contributions of women were more prized in the societies involved (at least as producing valuable commodities) than we do now.
I am reminded of reading the Oddyssey and how all the high born ladies spent their time at clothmaking...and how valuable the commodities themselves were in the eyes of the contemporaries.
But that's not good enough for a certain type of scholar. Some want women to be Female men and the men to be Male women, and that, for the most part, is not how the world worked.
Along as she had chocolate...the world was OK.
Probably wasn't much different from today: the cavewomen couldn't keep their hands off the bad cavemen, and the nice cavemen simply lived out their lives alone without any dates.
Now you know why so many cultures had arranged marriage rules...
From Library Journal
An anthropologist, field archaeologist, and founder and director of the Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute, Adovasio has been at the frontier of developments in archaeology since the Seventies, when the site he was excavating, Meadowcroft Rockshelter (near Pittsburgh), yielded materials thousands of years older than what was found at the Clovis sites in the Southwest.
Challenging the primacy of "Clovis Man" as the earliest settler of the Western Hemisphere was "not for the timid of heart," Adovasio explains in the introduction to this robustly written insider view of fieldwork, discovery, and warfare among specialists.
In examining various theories, beliefs, and scientific inquiries into who the first Americans were and how they got here, Adovasio touches on many aspects of this question: Native Americans; the views of Europeans, starting with Columbus; conjectures regarding the mound builders; the discovery of the Clovis culture in the 1930s, later dated from 9200 to 8500 B.C.E. by radiocarbon; and evidence from linguistics, genetics, and skeletal remains, including the recent events surrounding "Kennewick Man" (see James E. Chatters's Ancient Encounters).
Written with candor, humor, and passion, this well-documented study makes the latest findings accessible to general readers and students.
For public libraries and special collections in anthropology and archaeology. Joan W. Gartland, Detroit P.L.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.
"Palaeontologists disagree just as often and as radically as economists do, and yet they insist on describing what they do as science."
That is a powerful statement that everyone should take to heart. It only takes a little insight and asking yourself a few questions not only of palaeontologists but all science that is build on interpreting events that are no longer directly observable to lead to a healthy skepticism of that which is not supported by empirical proof.
It is amazing how often grand fairy tales are imagined to tell a story not clearly supported by the "box full of bones" presented as evidence. These stories are taught in schools and published in scientific journals and parroted in the press as if they are fact.
First Americans
http://www.abotech.com/Articles/firstamericans.htm
For years archeologists dismissed Dillehay's claim. At scientific conferences, he recalls, "others would be introduced as doctor this and doctor that. I was always 'the guy who is excavating Monte Verde.' Some people wouldn't even shake my hand." Even worse, the Clovis model had such a stranglehold that scientists "would dig until they hit the Clovis level and just stop." Few looked for older bones and tools. Four or five possible pre-Clovis sites in South America were never reported because the scientists feared that doing so would wreck their reputations. That changed two years ago, when archeology's pooh-bahs finally accepted that Monte Verde was indeed 12,500 years old. The floodgates opened. Sites once dismissed as misdated are being re-examined. At Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Avella, Pa., for instance, where for 26 years Adovasio has been excavating under an overhang that juts out from a rock face 43 feet above the ground, scientists are now reconsidering his claim that the charcoal, stone tools and woven material buried there are at least 14,000 and possibly 17,000 years old.
While I agree with you, "There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio." ws a good scientific start.
What I want to know, is in the Paleolithic, if a guy said something in the middle of nowhere, far from the presence of a woman, would she ask him about when he got back to the cave? ...was he still wrong?
(..flame roof monitor?...check...ducking in anticipation of incoming? of course!)
UM...barefoot and pregnant?
doubly appropriate...
A Weaver's View of the Catal Huyuk Controversy
Marla Mallett: Textiles | August/September 1990 | Marla Mallett
Posted on 08/25/2006 3:32:24 AM EDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1689685/posts
Years ago I used to post at a forum run by feminist scientists. They had one agenda only and that was to prove females played a more significant role than history or prehistory gave them (feminista perception problem). I could not make them understand that the role of females was hardly insignificant just because they didn't do the same things as the males. I guess as herstory progresses, the feminists still don't get it.
I'm going to guess that women also invented agriculture
Some pregnant woman got tired of walking from camp to where there was a berry bush, and got the bright idea of uprooting the bush and replanting it near camp. Then maybe decided she'd get more berries if she gave it some water
Germain Greer: Very Simple, Very Strange.
This enters in to what I call "the fortune teller's paradoxes".
A fortune teller is asked what they actually see when they look into the future. So they say to the questioner, "What do you see when you look into the present?"
"Do strangers walk up to you and tell you what's going on in the world and their lives? How hard is it to find out what's going on right now, with all the resources you have around you?"
"But," they concluded, "most people don't go to a fortune teller to find out what they're future holds. They already have a pretty good idea what it is, anyway. They go to a fortune teller hoping to get their future *changed*"
In this case, the same rule applies to anthropology. In most cases, the assumption is that people in other times and places acted pretty much like people do today. But the anthropologist wants that to *not* be the case, hoping that people there or then were more interesting than people are today.
And *that* is why people wanted to believe Margaret Mead's "Coming of Age in Samoa". It was far more enjoyable for them to imagine the Samoans as a lewd and promiscuous people than the reality, that Samoans have a great sense of humor and immensely enjoyed pulling Margaret Mead's leg.
Oppenheimer's DNA work as shown in this Journey Of Mankind places modern humans at Meadowcroft 25,000 years ago and were isolated there during the LGM. In adittion, the National Geographic DNA Map places the haplogroup X in the the same area.
Wow, Germaine Greer, talk about digging up fossils. But her article seems to hold the PC view in not much regard.
Sounds reasonable to me. And I'd also guess that men most likely invented domesticated animals...got tired of chasing fast gazelles so they tamed a bunch of slow ones to follow them around...ie goat and sheep herding. Then when the slow ones got so slow that they became easy pickins for wolves, they tamed a wolf and turned it against it's own kind...ie a shepherd dog.
Or if men didn't do it, it would've been the pregnant females that did it so they too could catch a gazelle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
