Archaeologica.org

I have argued here, and on usenet that birthing problems in the hybridization process wiped out HNS,

As I said earlier, I have had a basic disagreement with that assertion. I guess I'll go in search of Daybrowns original post on this and post it. Then I'll give my thoughts. Apologies in advance if I don't find the best quote.

Like the HNS, I doubt that any of their females would have survived birthing an HSS hybrid, whereas the wider and more flexible pelvis of the HSS female would have permitted both mother and hybrid baby to survive, such as was found in Portugal.

I found this quote from Daybrown, although it may not state her case very well. But her basic assertion is here.

Firstly, HNS had a larger brain volume than HSS. So, if anything, the reverse would seem to be the case.

Secondly, women throughout history have unfortunately died in childbirth. This trend has only been reversed by modern medicine in the last century, and as a result, women now live longer than men on the average - for the first time in history.

Thirdly, there are many reasons that a culture may have more newborn deaths than other cultures. This is especially true in cultures living in extreme/harsh climates. In recent history, it has been documented that Eskimos, living on the edge of survival, would often place newborns "out on the ice". This form of birth control helped ensure the survival of the family.

Fourthly, the physical ability of the mother and child to ensure a successful birth is amazing. Not only does the mother have awesome abilities to morph into large shapes (vaginally), but the baby has non-fused cranial sutures, allowing for the babies' head to change shape as it is squeezed into the world.

However, if Daybrowns' scenario was correct, it would account for the mDNA being HSS. That would be convenient, but it doesn't ring true.

Apologies again to Daybrown if I didn't represent her position correctly.

But PS, I'm a dude. my photo's on the bottom of http://www.dc-pc.org ; I've been pretty busy, still am, writing software shown there as well as the ebooks used to demonstrate it.

I'm just the messenger, but a lotta guys seem to be angry with me outlining the history and pre-history of matriarchy. A lotta women seem to dislike me showing how ancient women used the cunts to motivate men. There are two ways to control the behavior of men: sex or violence. Pick one. Given that modern weapons have so many more 'ancillary casualties', never mind WMD, there's more consideration of the former method.

When you look at the ancient and prehistoric artifacts, cunts are just everywhere. And now that internet porn is evolving so rapidly, women better get a grip, or the corporate vendors of that form of sexual service will, in effect, disempower them. Sex is, after all, mostly in the mind. That's why there was so much sexual iconography in the first place.

I note that since the bronze age weapon iconography has proliferted. But after all this history of male dominated empire and warfare, the brave heart, stong right arm, sword in hand... just dont cut it anymore.

Increasingly as well, women are becoming internet widows with men paying more attention to porn, which dont deliver as much, but then does deliver what it pomises, whereas so often women have not.

your language is a tad offensive you know
and your understanding of male motivation limited to your own experience apparently

you missed out
Money
Food
Honour
Children
Madness
Agression
Other men
and the all time number one power


Its not all just about pussy unless you want it to be

and internet porn whether you like it or not does more to empower women than degrade them
Porn is porn its always been neccesary in a society that doesnt pair couples off at birth and then dictate what should turn them on (i.e. ours)
women get paid ten times as much as men do for starring in it
Most of the more sexual people I know ARE women
perhaps you're just mixing with the wrong crowd
eh eh

the brave heart, stong right arm, sword in hand... just dont cut it anymore.

go ask a woman if thats true
better yet go ask a hollywood film director if its pointless making movies with strong right arms holding swords
it doesnt cut it any more on the modern battlefield thats true
but heads up buddy we have machine guns and rifles now instead and they still require a strong arm to use them
and you know what most women think of soldiers in uniform don't you

Blooming heck! Me and Marduk agree again.

But PS, I'm a dude.

D/B I never would have guessed that. I think most other peple assume that you are female (feminist).

I knew that you agree with Gimbutas and...well never mind.

Interesting to hear your thoughts. I still don't agree with a lot of it.

Later.

D/B I never would have guessed that. I think most other people assume that you are female (feminist).

taken from the government pamphlet
How to insult someones manhood 101

I'm just the messenger, but a lotta guys seem to be angry with me outlining the history and pre-history of matriarchy. A lotta women seem to dislike me showing how ancient women used the cunts to motivate men. There are two ways to control the behavior of men: sex or violence. Pick one. Given that modern weapons have so many more 'ancillary casualties', never mind WMD, there's more consideration of the former method.

Well D/B, I think if someone has a strong opinion on sex or religion they will have people upset with them. Personally I think it's because people are afraid of both.

While disagreeing with you on Neandertals, I was fascinated with your thoughts on the Proto-Indo-Europeans (PIE).

So don't be a stranger.

I sense a battle looming between Marduk and Daybrown...
I hope they will both keep it civil. Their ideas are interesting, but
no need to trade insults over it. So far, I think Marduk is the more
aggressive.

stan wrote:I sense a battle looming between Marduk and Daybrown...
I hope they will both keep it civil. Your ideas are interesting, but
no need to trade insults over it. So far, I think Marduk is the more
aggressive.

Stan, quick question. Who are you addressing?

Thank you, Beagle, I meant to say "their"...
i changed my other pronoun references to the third person, but forgot that one.
I went back and made the correction.
YOU, Beagle, are sharp today!

Pulled this comment out of a book entitled "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" Page 184.

In the Sumerian and Babylonian versions of the Garden of Eden myth, from which the Hebrew one is also derived, the original couple were created equal in stature by the great Goddess. When the fervent patriarchy took over the story, it changed it to make women not only inferior but also guilty of the downfall of all manking.

BTW, it also points out that the Hindu version of the story, the first couple name Adima and Heva, preceeded the Hebraic version by "hundreds if not thousands of years."

Ixnay on the sharp today, but I wanted to make sure that you didn't mean me.

Later

Minimalist wrote:Pulled this comment out of a book entitled "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" Page 184.

In the Sumerian and Babylonian versions of the Garden of Eden myth, from which the Hebrew one is also derived, the original couple were created equal in stature by the great Goddess. When the fervent patriarchy took over the story, it changed it to make women not only inferior but also guilty of the downfall of all manking.

BTW, it also points out that the Hindu version of the story, the first couple name Adima and Heva, preceeded the Hebraic version by "hundreds if not thousands of years."

In the Sumerian King's List discussion group, Marduk and I have chatted about similar things, i.e. the origins of hebraic traditions. I think if we opened a separate thread to discuss (not argue) these issues, it could be very interesting to a lot of folks. I have some views and some evidence and everyone else does also. Problem is, I need some prep time and still want to bring our other discussion to some conclusions.

In the Sumerian and Babylonian versions of the Garden of Eden myth, from which the Hebrew one is also derived, the original couple were created equal in stature by the great Goddess. When the fervent patriarchy took over the story, it changed it to make women not only inferior but also guilty of the downfall of all manking.

there is no Sumerian and Babylonian story of the Garden of Eden
the main reason for this is because Eden is not a Noun in mesopotamian languages.
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e1199.html
there is no original couple as all men were created to serve the gods at the same time and not one by one
When she refers to the Patriarchy I take it she is referring to the early catholic church
in which case that statement is also incorrect
the original Hebrew garden of eden story had Adam and Lillith being created at the same time
Lillith left the garden because as Adams equal she didn't want him on top all the time
this neccesitated the creation of Eve to stop Adam moping.
it was this part that was cut by the Catholics and which continues today in modern christianity
Lilith it is said went off and mated with Devils by the red sea
it was the offspring of these unions who Cain and Abel married when they in turn went forth into the world
so
It was the Hebrews cursing Lillith for having her own mind that treads down on women
and It was the Hebrews creating Eve as a less equal replacement that reinforces that belief,
Lillith achieved the status of Demon in Hebrew belief and is now blamed for cot death syndrome.

BTW, it also points out that the Hindu version of the story, the first couple name Adima and Heva, preceeded the Hebraic version by "hundreds if not thousands of years."

thats total crap

There is no single Hindu myth of origin. There are as many myths as there are texts; sometimes, the same text has more than one. The earliest myths date back to the Rig Veda, the first of the four Vedas, composed over a period of time, though certainly before 1000 BC, and eventually committed to writing many centuries later.

the names Adima and Heva appear in only one work based on Hindu beliefs
it was "Isis unveiled" by the famous crap talker Madame Blavatsky and in it she claims that it was mentioned in a book called "Prophecies," by someone called Ramatsariar
this book doesnt exist and never did

In the Sumerian King's List discussion group

theres a discussion group now
well why the hell didn't anyone tell me about it