ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (08/19/85)
I love it when some of these people who obviously don't know what they're talking about try to refute my articles point by point! Lets consider Stanley Friesen's latest such attempt, point by point. >n article <367@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >> >> >> 1. Several useful animal species including horses and camels >> became extinct in the Americas several thousand years ago. >> No ancient tribe in its right mind would exterminate all of >> the horses in it's local. > > Not deliberately, but it is quite concievable that they could >do it by accident, look what is happening to Anchovies now! Look at >the Carrier Pigeon! It is amaxing how easily a species can be driven >to extinction quite by accident. Men don't RIDE anchovies, Stanley. Ancient man protected horses to the limit of his ability. During the great catastrophies of the past, this limit was often exceeded. >> >> 2. The natives which the first white men in America encountered >> were living in perfect harmony with nature, killing only for >> food. Since one mammoth would feed a large tribe for a hell >> of a long time, there is no chance that these people >> exterminated the mammoths. > >Has it occured to you that this harmony was a result of >learning from thier mistakes! That perhaps after wiping out several >major food species they learned how to hunt without excess. > Yes it has occured to me, Stanley. So has the likelihood of the sun coming up in the West tommorrow morning. The American Indians regarded animals as their BROTHERS. They formally appeased the totem of the deers after killing a deer. The chance of them or their ancestors ever having exterminated any species by hunting is zero. Likewise, the pygmies of today make no dent in the elephant herds of Africa by their hunting. >> >> 3. There is a hell of a difference between trying to kill a >> lone elephant, a straggler or lone bull, and trying to >> exterminate elephants generally. The latter would involve >> attacking HERDS of elephants in which the females would be >> attempting to protect the young, FAR more dangerous. > > Admittedly, but the archeological evidence is unquestionable, >early man did just that! The basic method of hunting mammoths &c was >to stampede them over cliffs and then pick up the remains. There are >just too many of these massacre sites to doubt that this happened. >Of course it was dangerous, and people probably got killed doing it, >but people get killed flying airplanes, a much less necessary >activity, and we still keep doing it. Elephants, when stampeded, tend to stampede TOWARDS the stampeders, Stanley. That's why it's hard to get volunteers for stampeeding them. It is entirely possible, however, that at the times of the great catastrophies which we catastrophists believe in, that a herd of elephants occasionally got WASHED over a cliff. Tribes of men, finding all this a day or two later, might have feasted (if you could call eating elephants a feast), on the remains. "Scientists", like some on the net, finding the remains of said feast along with campfire signs and a spear point or two which someone lost or left lying around naturally assume that, at great risk to themselves and for no sensible reason, ancient tribes STAMPEDED those elephants off that cliff. Two points I would like to make: 1. I hope none of my ancestors was amongst them (i.e. I hope I am in no way related to anyone that STUPID). 2. If I was that talented at mis-interpreting evidence, I would be a lawyer instead of a computer scientist. >> >> 4. Attempting to kill the PREDATERS of the archaic world would >> require modern weapons. I just can't picture anyone killing >> a pteratorn or a north American super-lion (five feet at the >> shoulders) or an ice-age giant cave bear with spears. The >> status of archery in ancient north America is problematical >>..... >> (wood and animal horn) recurve bow. Consider also that Fred >> Bear, one of America's foremost bow hunters and owner of >> Bear Archery Co., made several attempts to kill a polar bear >> with a modern 70 lb. hunting bow using modern aluminum >> arrows with steel tips. He had a buddy backing him up with >> a 300 magnum rifle on each occasion and it was only on about >> the fifth try that he didn't NEED that friend along. >> >Actually, early man probably didn't actively hunt these >preditors, but the lion, at least, has a tendency to attempt to steal >other predators food, and I am sure early man tried to defend his >hard-won prey. Remember, early hunting was a *group* effort, so the >difficulty a *single* had in killing a bear has little bearing on >the results of 20-30 hunters shooting at the same bear. Modern sport >hunting is quite different from the subsistence hunting of early man! The super-lions and wolf-bears hunted in packs of 20 or thirty too, Stanley. And they were VERY big and had VERY BIG and SHARP teeth. > >> 5. Consider that rabbits and deer are tastier than elephants or >> super-bisons etc., have always been plentiful in north >> America, and can be trapped and killed without exposing the >> hunters to any extreme danger. Enough said. >> >No, the food value of a Bison or Elephant is far greater than >such small prey. The problem with hunting for a living is effort required >to catch the prey. The large food value of large prey means more food >for less effort, and thus maximal hunting efficiency. Ever try dragging a mammoth back home to the camp, Stanley? Or moving the camp to each new mammoth you kill? Sounds like a lot of work to me. One last note on mammoths. I'm not sure of this one, just a guess really. But if elephants taste anything even remotely like the way they SMELL, then eating elephants would have to be just marginally less painful than starving. I'd much prefer to stick with the deer and rabbits, myself.
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (08/24/85)
[This line intentionally left blank] From: ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden), Message-ID: <377@imsvax.UUCP>: >> Admittedly, but the archeological evidence is unquestionable, >>early man did just that! The basic method of hunting mammoths &c was >>to stampede them over cliffs and then pick up the remains. There are >>just too many of these massacre sites to doubt that this happened. >>Of course it was dangerous, and people probably got killed doing it, >>but people get killed flying airplanes, a much less necessary >>activity, and we still keep doing it. [Stanley Friesen] > > Elephants, when stampeded, tend to stampede TOWARDS the stampeders, >Stanley. That's why it's hard to get volunteers for stampeeding them. Maybe it's also why elephants are still alive and mammoths are all dead? [This blank line, however, was an accident] -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "Oh yeah, P.S., I...I feel...feel like...I am in a burning building And I gotta go." (Laurie Anderson)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/27/85)
In article <377@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > > Men don't RIDE anchovies, Stanley. Ancient man protected horses to >the limit of his ability. During the great catastrophies of the past, >this limit was often exceeded. > Ancient Homo sapiens in areas where hore-riding had been learned, but there is no evidence that early hominids in the Americas had ever ridden horses until *after* Europeans came and showed them it could be done. Under those conditions the horse would have been considered another food source. Actually, however, I seem to remember that the extinction of the horse in the Americas is *not* one of the ones that may be laid to man's hunting, I seem to remember that it occured before humans got to the Americas. >>Has it occured to you that this harmony was a result of >>learning from thier mistakes! That perhaps after wiping out several >>major food species they learned how to hunt without excess. >> > Yes it has occured to me, Stanley. So has the likelihood of the sun >coming up in the West tommorrow morning. The American Indians regarded >animals as their BROTHERS. They formally appeased the totem of the deers >after killing a deer. The chance of them or their ancestors ever having >exterminated any species by hunting is zero. Likewise, the pygmies of today >make no dent in the elephant herds of Africa by their hunting. > The fact that recent American Indians consider animals their brother is no evidence that their ancestors did! That attitude could easily have devloped in response to ecological disasters that tey themselves had caused. Look at the modern conservation movement and the attitudes it is starting to produce, they are very similar to the Indian attitude. > Elephants, when stampeded, tend to stampede TOWARDS the stampeders, >Stanley. That's why it's hard to get volunteers for stampeeding them. >It is entirely possible, however, that at the times of the great catastrophies >which we catastrophists believe in, that a herd of elephants occasionally got >WASHED over a cliff. Tribes of men, finding all this a day or two later, might >have feasted (if you could call eating elephants a feast), on the remains. >Scientists, like some on the net, finding the remains of said feast along with >campfire signs and a spear point or two which someone lost or left lying around >naturally assume that, at great risk to themselves and for no sensible reason, >ancient tribes STAMPEDED those elephants off that cliff. Haven't you heard of post-mortem examination to determine cause of death? A flodd kill such as you suggest would have a completely different post-mortem appearence than the sites actually found! When I said that the archaological evidence is so powerful, I meant that the sites had been studied *in depth* and other explanations had been ruled out. Or do you really think that such a concept would go unchallenged in sceintific journals? Or don't you realize how much delight some scientist take in proving each other wrong! The very points you are bringing up have already been evaluated and found inadequate. > >>Actually, early man probably didn't actively hunt these >>preditors, but the lion, at least, has a tendency to attempt to steal >>other predators food, and I am sure early man tried to defend his >>hard-won prey. Remember, early hunting was a *group* effort, so the >>difficulty a *single* had in killing a bear has little bearing on >>the results of 20-30 hunters shooting at the same bear. Modern sport >>hunting is quite different from the subsistence hunting of early man! > > The super-lions and wolf-bears hunted in packs of 20 or thirty too, >Stanley. And they were VERY big and had VERY BIG and SHARP teeth. > I never said the fight would be one-sided, early hominids probably lost such fights as often as they won. Please remember a five foot spear is every bit as dangerous as sharp teeth! > -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa