Archaeologica.org

Digit wrote:And returning to human evolution, I would point out that I have yet to hear from you, or anyone else, a workable alternative to main stream Darwinism.

Then you didn't listen to Arch! His alternative has been proven to work for at least 2,000 years!

I think Dig had the good fortune to miss Arch.

WXBY. The main snag with that is that Iron pyrites, used with flint to produce sparks, is usually found in rocks somewhat unsuitable as tools or hammer stones.
The quantity of hot sparks is also abysmal! Bush men use the fire stick as I understand it.

I have doubts the discovery of starting a fire came via rubbing sticks together. I just can't picture it. I can throw a small rock against a big rock and see sparks. I've never been able to start a fire with rocks or been able to rub sticks together to start one (unless one was a match), but I thinks the odds go with rocks, not sticks. Flint and steel work very well, but rock vs. rock was probably the original.

I have doubts the discovery of starting a fire came via rubbing sticks together.

Frankly, so have I. As you say, flint and steel work well, but they had no steel.
I recently watched a demo with flint and pyrites, and as I said, the quality and quantity of sparks was abysmal.
A recent film of two Bushmen and a fire stick was actually quicker.
At least Arch has a theory gentlemen.

Roy.

Unless I'm missing something, evolutionary development is linear and incremental. A matter of 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 eventually adding up.

Conceptual leaps like the atlatl would be multiplicative.

Making fire with a fire drill would be exponential.

There's no plausible way to get from an upright monkey mind to human accomplishments using evolutionary assumptions.

Given enough time and necessity, the incremental advances from 1 to the next 1 could be handled.

From 2 to (X 2 =) 4 would be quite a stretch.

Fire from anything ? Good luck on that one.

evolutionary development is linear and incremental.

Is it? Who says?
And attempting to pick holes in something is a lot less effective than offering a workable alternative.
Stop telling me what you think is wrong about Darwinism and tell us what to replace it with.

There's no plausible way to get from an upright monkey mind to human accomplishments using evolutionary assumptions.

What assumptions, and why not from one to the other, and where does the Monkey come into it?

Roy.

evolutionary development is linear and incremental.

You need to read more Richard Dawkins and a lot less of the Creationist Museum.

Besides, human culture has interfered with strict Darwinian concepts of evolution for a long time. Many animals live in herds or packs but do not care for injured members. We have skeletal evidence of injured HEs (broken bones) living long enough for their bones to heal. A lion injured in a hunt either recovers or dies with no help from the rest of the pride. Further, many animals engage in dominance rituals where the strongest gets to mate and the loser does not. Human culture has interfered with this concept as well. We have HE in Asia nearly 2 million years ago. That's a long time.

However, as Dig said, what is your alternative to evolution?

We have about ten different threads going here:
1) netting and weaving
2) spears and their use
3) traps
4) the relationship of hominids and elephantidae
5) atlatls
6) fire
7) fundamental evolution of the hominid brain
population movements
9) The effects of the YD impacts
10) The difference between Clovis technology and "A" clovis people

By a remarable coincidence I am watching a TV programme about atlatl darts versus a big boy's spears against a Columbian mammoth.
First both spear types were used on a side of beef at about 30ft, and the atlatl dart penetrated deeper, then they were used as thrusting weapons, and the spear won.
Next they put a piece of Elephant hide onto a frame, half the atlatl darts bounced off! This by the way was minus the subcuntaneous fat!
The weapons used were Clovis copies.
The conclusion the experts came to was the only way to kill such a beast was to crawl under it and stab upwards!!!
I kid you not!
The only part of the show that made sense was the statement that atlatl darts lacked the mass/inertia to penetrate.
Now what they didn't say. An atlatl dart from 30ft did not penetrate deep enough to reach any vital organs, neither did the spear, hence the stab it in the guts idea.
An atlatl dart slammed into the muscles would probably piss the animal off IMO, and the one point totally ignored was the size of wound inflicted by the spear, in all the sims the shafts stayed as they struck. Now the big boy's spear is about 5-6ft long, inch and half-two inches in dia witha slab of rock on the end. IMO the shaft will droop, enlarging the wound, if it remained in place for a while every movement of the animal is going to enlarge that wound.
Further I see no reason why each hunter would be limited to a single spear.
Withing two minutes my animal would look like a Porcupine and be bleeding and in pain from dozens of wounds.
And no need for Kamikazi hunters either.

Roy.

wxsby wrote:I've never been able to start a fire [by rubbing] sticks together to start one (unless one was a match).

You haven't? What's wrong with you? Got no hands?
The first time I made fire rubbing sticks together was half a century ago when I was 8 years old (in the Scouts). And I've done it many times since, just for the hell of it, to demonstrate that a) it can be done, and b) how it can be done. It's really easy.
But not for some, it appears...

Digit wrote:At least Arch has a theory gentlemen.

For God's sake don't tell him he's got a 'theory', Roy! He'll go crazy (again)!

I expect Min to come on any minute now RS to query the again bit!

Roy.

Atlatl shafts are not limited to the seven-foot general purpose type made of cane. The ones the Aussie Blackfellows used (at least the one in the old, ca. 1930 filming of a kangaroo kill with one) not only impaled it, but hit in full bound, sending it sprawling sideways.

There's too much @&%$#^& theoretically-based speculation here. Really.

And yes, you could probably accomplish the same bounce of an arrow, provided you made a similar trampoline of the skin, rather than having it (as it would be on the animal) backed with muscle and bone.

Ye Elephant hide is thick but as any Bushman knows one goes for the heel tendons to cripple then one kills the beast-full on assaults aren't part of the strategy.

If you've got friends and you can make fire fast enough, you can chase 'm over some edge. Two is enough. Let the rest escape. Much more effective than all spears, atlatls, and bows and arrows combined.

But I promise you that antelope's fillet steak is much more tender than elephant's rump! So that's what spears, atlatls, and bows and arrows were used for. Not for elephants/mammoths.

In the southern Russian and Ukranian steppes millions of mammoth were killed by man! They built big chief houses consisting of hundreds of tusks. That was slaughter on an almost industrial scale. Somewhat akin to the senseless mass bison slaughter from the trains in the 19th century.
They would never have had enough spears, atlatls, and bows and arrows to kill all those mammoths. That's not what spears, atlatls, and bows and arrows were for.