When predators acquire a taste for human
flesh, they can be devastating.

Whether or not that is true, there is no doubt
that very few wild predators attack humans
even when they would seem to have plenty of
fairly risk-free opportunity. The key, it seems,
is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Paul.

The key, it seems,
is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Really? If your pub logic were correct, then the Maasai should have
gone extinct thousands of years ago.

Really? If your pub logic were correct, then the Maasai should have
gone extinct thousands of years ago.

"They eschew all aspects of civilization and do not believe in digging
into the earth. They don't even bury their dead, preferring to allow
nature (and vultures) to take its course."

Ditto for the Hadza and numerous other H/G groups.

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167957855.981373.140780@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

The key, it seems,
is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Really? If your pub logic were correct, then the Maasai should have
gone extinct thousands of years ago.

You will get better thinking about human
evolution on any day in any pub than you
will get in 10 years of any PA 'scientific'

journal. You could disprove this by
quoting some examples of good logic from
such a source. How about: "The first
hominids stood and walked upright to
minimise the heat of the midday sun" . . .?

Or: "The first hominids stood and walked
upright to feed from trees as they gradually
moved further and further apart as the climate
grew drier" . . .?

Really? If your pub logic were correct, then the Maasai should have
gone extinct thousands of years ago.

The Maasai are pastoralists, and evolved
their way of life quite recently (certainly
NOT 'thousands of years ago'). They
moved up into the highlands (and into lion
country) only within the last century or so

http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept2/faculty/lonergan/Lectures_214_371/Kenyan_Essays.doc

"They eschew all aspects of civilization and do not believe in digging
into the earth. They don't even bury their dead, preferring to allow
nature (and vultures) to take its course."

Ditto for the Hadza and numerous other H/G groups.

It's near-impossible to get through virgin
sun-baked ground without something like
a jack-hammer.

Vultures are fine as scavengers -- from this
point of view. Even if they acquire a taste
for human flesh, they are not likely to attack
a live human in the middle of the night.

Paul.

Paul Crowley wrote:

1) chimps can't dig,
2) rocks turn to dust on an ocean beach in a matter of months,
3) that nothing grows in permafrost,
4) that Neandertals didn't hunt,
5) that there were no lions in Pleistocene Europe,
6) imagines Lucy buried her dead,
7) that ordinary animals weren't the norm on cave walls in Pleistocene
Europe,
that Neandertals lived only on the coast.

I think you ought to find a new pub.


Paul.

Lee Olsen wrote:
Paul Crowley wrote:

1) chimps can't dig,
2) rocks turn to dust on an ocean beach in a matter of months,
3) that nothing grows in permafrost,
4) that Neandertals didn't hunt,
5) that there were no lions in Pleistocene Europe,
6) imagines Lucy buried her dead,
7) that ordinary animals weren't the norm on cave walls in Pleistocene
Europe,
that Neandertals lived only on the coast.

I think you ought to find a new pub.


Paul.

he has also stated that A'piths domesticated dogs which provided
security for their scurrying bands.

spiznet wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Paul Crowley wrote:

1) chimps can't dig,
2) rocks turn to dust on an ocean beach in a matter of months,
3) that nothing grows in permafrost,
4) that Neandertals didn't hunt,
5) that there were no lions in Pleistocene Europe,
6) imagines Lucy buried her dead,
7) that ordinary animals weren't the norm on cave walls in Pleistocene
Europe,
that Neandertals lived only on the coast.

I think you ought to find a new pub.


Paul.

he has also stated that A'piths domesticated dogs which provided
security for their scurrying bands.

You've got to be kidding...

You've missed this? It's Paul's great....ahem....

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168052618.998920.50600@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

spiznet wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Paul Crowley wrote:

1) chimps can't dig,
2) rocks turn to dust on an ocean beach in a matter of months,
3) that nothing grows in permafrost,
4) that Neandertals didn't hunt,
5) that there were no lions in Pleistocene Europe,
6) imagines Lucy buried her dead,
7) that ordinary animals weren't the norm on cave walls in Pleistocene
Europe,
that Neandertals lived only on the coast.

I think you ought to find a new pub.


Paul.

he has also stated that A'piths domesticated dogs which provided
security for their scurrying bands.

You've got to be kidding...

You've missed this? It's Paul's great....ahem....
contribution to solving the mysteries of human
evolution. This and his obsession with the all
important question "When did hominids start
sleeping on the ground?" represents the lofty
perch from which he pisses all over an entire
scientific discipline. Check the Google archive
if you've got nothing better to do such as staring at
test patterns, playing Beatles songs backwards
to reveal satanic messages and the like. He's been
at it for years.

Have fun!
Rick Wagler

When predators acquire a taste for human
flesh, they can be devastating. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Corbett_(hunter)

" . . . Between 1907 and 1938, Corbett tracked and put down at
least a dozen man-eaters. It is estimated that the combined total
of men, women and children these twelve animals had killed was
in excess of 1,500. . . "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_of_Rudraprayag

One of these animals was the "Leopard of
Rudraprayag" which is claimed to have killed
over 125 people. It is said to have acquired
the taste for human flesh during the influenza
epidemic when there were too many copses
to be disposed of properly (cremation being
the standard method in India), and fresh
human bodies were left out in the open.

Whether or not that is true, there is no doubt
that very few wild predators attack humans
even when they would seem to have plenty of
fairly risk-free opportunity. The key, it seems,
is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Paul Crowley wrote:
When predators acquire a taste for human
flesh, they can be devastating.

Is that why the the human population in India outnumbers tigers 500,000
to 1?


Whether or not that is true, there is no doubt
that very few wild predators attack humans
even when they would seem to have plenty of
fairly risk-free opportunity. The key, it seems,
is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Really? If your pub logic were correct, then the Maasai should have
gone extinct thousands of years ago.

You could disprove this by
quoting some examples of good logic from
such a source. How about: "The first
hominids stood and walked upright to
minimise the heat of the midday sun" . . .?

Or: "The first hominids stood and walked
upright to feed from trees as they gradually
moved further and further apart as the climate
grew drier" . . .?

Why? You don't have the intellegence to find a library?

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Makes perfect sense.

More specifically, everything you are saying here
makes perfect sense in the context of my scenario. But that is because
my scenario successfully predicts the emergence of communalism
(society), which is a prerequisite for everything you are stating here.
Ironically, this is something your own scenario fails to predict.

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168190766.044555.307200@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

More specifically, everything you are saying here
makes perfect sense in the context of my scenario. But that is because
my scenario successfully predicts the emergence of communalism
(society), which is a prerequisite for everything you are stating here.
Ironically, this is something your own scenario fails to predict.

Not true. A ground-living species which had
bands the size of chimps could just as readily
have adopted such a strategy. (Although, I'm
sure the first hominids would have had larger
bands.)

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168190766.044555.307200@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Makes perfect sense.

Thanks.

More specifically, everything you are saying here
makes perfect sense in the context of my scenario. But that is because
my scenario successfully predicts the emergence of communalism
(society), which is a prerequisite for everything you are stating here.
Ironically, this is something your own scenario fails to predict.

Not true. A ground-living species which had
bands the size of chimps could just as readily
have adopted such a strategy.