HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Pliestocene extinctions
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:03:43 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Bu7sos.76F@acsu.buffalo.edu> dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark) writes:
|
|  Mastodons,
|which were rather short-legged elephants, lived in the eastern deciduous
|forests of the US well after the Pleistocene, I think with some specimens
|as recently as about 8000 years ago.  Mammoths were taller, hairy elephants
|taht were in the arctic tundra.  I think that they became extinct in North
|America somewhat earlier (12,000 B.P.?), and I'm not sure how far south they
|extended.

Essentially right.  Except that not all mammoths were particularly hairy.
Only the Wooly Mammoth was really any hairier than a modern elephant.

Another difference is in the teeth.  Mammoths had teeth rather similar to
those of modern elephants, mastodons had different, less specialized,
browsing teeth.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,talk.origins
From: bgiven@alfred.carleton.ca (Brian Given)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Evolution
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:42:00 GMT

You might take a look at Jerome Barkow's latest book DARWIN, SEX AND
STATUS for an up-to-date discussion.  I would hesitate to summarize
the argument since the book is at my office - he is much more
sophisticated than Wilson though.

Regards,  
          Brian
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Evolution
Date: 9 Sep 1992 19:17:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep9.182140.17527@javelin.sim.es.com> SJOSEPHS@130.187.170.178
(STEVEN JOSEPHSON) writes:
}                       Then again bonobos do alot of what we do and some things
}that humans frown on (i.e. sex with juveniles).

What's a bonobo?
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,talk.origins
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Polyandry
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:14:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <2AB528F5.9716@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <BuL5Mw.1Dt@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>  In the west
>>  sexual adventures by males, especially high-status males, has
>>  always been part of the culture, despite there allegedly being 
>>  strictures against it. 
>
>If it's that common, it's part of the culture, and I'm not disputing
>that.  All I'm saying is that when people start talking about marriages
>in other societies, they must be aware of the fact that these
>"marriages" do not always include the regulation of sexual freedoms for
>EITHER partner. 

  Fine, but you still haven't responded to my repeated requests for 
  examples of specific reasonably well-studied cultures featuring
  the characteristics you cite, so we know what's being discussed
  here.


---peter



Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: dcleek@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dick Cleek)
Subject: Re: Pliestocene extinctions
Originator: dcleek@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: dcleek@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:38:59 GMT

From article <BuB3A7.76K@agora.rain.com>, by trifid@agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks):
> 
> Have there been any studies of climate changes possibly wrought by man in one
> of our more exploitive modes in the past?
> 
sure, look up "desertification" and you'll find 20 or more major  sources.
-- 
..........   .........................         .......................
: |_|\/\/ :   Dick Cleek                        dcleek@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
:.centers.:   Univ.of Wisconsin Centers         dcleek@uwcmail.uwc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: mcke@unixg.ubc.ca (William McKellin )
Subject: Re: Suspicious Text
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:39:22 GMT

Bill McKellin                             mcke@unixg.ubc.ca
Department of Anthropology and Sociology
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, B.C. 
V6T 1Z1 

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: SJOSEPHS@130.187.170.178 (STEVEN JOSEPHSON)
Subject: Re: Pliestocene extinctions
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:08:25 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11


In <BuB3A7.76K@agora.rain.com> trifid@agora.rain.com writes:

> 
> 
> Living in the Pacific Northwest, I find the Chaco Canyon model particularly
> disturbing. I haven't seen any discussion among all the talk of spotted owls
> and the timber economy about possible climate changes that might come form
> deforesting such a large area as we have so far, much less continuing. Yet if
> one goes out on a hot day, and enters a large stand (say a couple acres) of
> fairly dense forest, one is immediately struck by how much cooler and damper
> it is there.
> 
> Have there been any studies of climate changes possibly wrought by man in one
> of our more exploitive modes in the past?
> 
> Suze Hammond
> trifid@agora.rain.com

	I don't know any studies of big climatic changes brought on by human
action, but I do know some other things that might be interesting to you.  
	First, a number of places like Iceland, southern England, continental
Europe and large portions of Africa were once well forested.  The reason they
are not now is certainly human action in the recent past. The same can be said
of vast stretches of various large islands in the pacific.  Certainly, these
produced small-scale regional changes - many of these places have never
returned to what they were before nor will they, as most of the nutrients are
gone with the soil.  Also, human intervention affects the biotic communities
that do survive.  One of better studies of this that I am aware of concerns
shifts towards fire-resistant plants in late Pleistocene Australia.  One
of the earliest indications of humans being in Australia (~40 K or a litte
earlier) is lots of carbon showing up in lake cores, indicating a change in the
fire regime at this time, quite probably through humans intentionally altering
the landscape with brushfires.  My point is that these landscapes are forever
altered; what we think of as a "natural" is a result of human activity.  I
think that you are right to fear for the Pacific Northwest.  It will never be
the same again after the loggers have been through, and replanting is an
exceptionally poor substitute for a razed biotic community.  Something the
Yellowstone folks are finding out way too late is that a few hundred thousand
isolated acres are not enough to sustain an ecosystem that involves large
mammals.
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Polyandry
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:44:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <2AB4CB9E.1969@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <BuKnsD.2D0@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <2AB3D3E6.26637@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>>>The ideas being advanced about polyandry are interesting, but I think
>>>that we are a little shaky on what we CALL polyandry.  In matrilineal
>>>cultures in the past and in the present, there is frequently not even
>>>any marriage.  The woman will have many partners, but since the
>>>paternity of the child is not important, the subsequent activities of
>>>the men are not regulated.
>>
>>   By "not regulated" I assume you mean that males are not presumed to 
>>   have any responsibility for the care, protection, etc of the 
>>   child or family.  What are some examples you can cite of reasonably
>>   well-studied cultures where there are no marriage rituals + multiple
>>   partners for the females + no paternal responsibilities?   I'd be 
>>   especially interested in agrarian (i.e., post h-g instances).
>
>
>Actually, I meant (and I went on to say this in the post) that no sexual
>liberites were curtailed.  The men usually do take some part in raising
>the children, even if the "father" is a sort of appointee. 
>
>Again, by "not regulated," I meant that the man's sexual liberties were
>not regulated.


  That's OK.  I'm still curious what you're using for instances (no
  marriage rituals, multiple partners for the females, and only the 
  sort of distant, tentative provider role you describe above for 
  the father.)     BTW, lots of cultures including many that we're
  familiar with, tolerate sexual promiscuity for males.  It's im-
  portant when studying a culture to distinguish between the formal
  rules, and people's actual behavior in a society.   In the west
  sexual adventures by males, especially high-status males, has
  always been part of the culture, despite there allegedly being 
  strictures against it. 

  Margaret Meade among others discovered the risks of relying on
  what people *say* happens in a culture instead of studying
  what actually happens.


---peter
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Suspicious Text
Date: 9 Sep 1992 19:07:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep9.171450.11974@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Jane.R.Deering@dartmouth.edu (Jane R. Deering) writes:
}I'm at work, and don't have my references here, but recall reading
}about polyandry in Tibet.  However, it occurs for very practical
}reasons, not due to female domination as the author of the book you
}(Andrew Clifton) found would seem to suggest.  If I remember correctly,
}occasionally a single woman will marry an entire family of brothers in
}order to keep the family land together; if the brothers married
}seperately, the land would be split between the households and within a
}few generations no one in the family line would have much more than a
}garden plot.  I'm sure there's more to the situation than that, and I
}will take a look at the article as soon as I can (since I've just
}moved, all my books are still *sigh* packed away in boxes).  I suspect
}a great deal of the other 'references' have similarly mundane
}explanations, if true at all.

This seems consistant with what I remember from the segment they
did on Tibetan polyandry on that Millenium TV series.
Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:859 talk.origins:11266
From: enute1@cc.swarthmore.edu ()
Subject: Re: Suspicious Text
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:10:01 GMT

	This past year, in the March, April or May issue of either Omni or
Discovery I read and article the parralled the polyandrous survival
practices of some coastal birds, Amazon monkeys and Tibetian humans.  If
someone is interested, it may shed some light.
From: Jane.R.Deering@dartmouth.edu (Jane R. Deering)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Evolution
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:05:43 GMT
 <BuB3J5.78C@agora.rain.com> <1992Sep9.182140.17527@javelin.sim.es.com> 
  <2AB3D157.26438@news.service.uci.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <2AB3D157.26438@news.service.uci.edu>
cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

> >Then again bonobos do alot of what we do and some things
> >that humans frown on (i.e. sex with juveniles).  It also seems obvious that alot
> 
> Again, this is a culturally loaded issue.  You can't make blanket
> evolutionary conclusions from something like this.  In many old
> cultures, the chiefest of deities would queen it over a VERY young man,
> a boy sometimes (on Crete, he was called the Kouros, lit. "boy"), and
> have sex with her son to produce her offspring.  It is not inconceivable
> that this behavior was mirrored in the culture, at least a bit and
> probably quite a lot in the ruling classes.  

Perhaps an even more straightforward example comes from ancient Greek
society.  Not only was homosexual activity between grown men and young
boys allowed, the love it was supposed to be inspired by was looked
upon as more honorable and deeply rooted than the love between husbands
and wives.  One of the best texts for those who are curious about this
is Plato's _Symposium_.  This should clear up the question of whether
or not approval of sexual practices such as homosexuality and pederasty
is biological or cultural - it is cultural.

Jane Deering
fury.eyes@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: trimper@edsi.plexus.COM (Greg Trimper)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Evolution
Organization: Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton WI
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 04:35:04 GMT

thinman@netcom.com (Technically Sweet) writes:

>It is important to note that the discussion so far
>has been based on the thoroughly bogus premise that
>hetero/homo is a binary situation.  This is an
>odd belief common in America, and has no basis
>in fact.

Right, there is a resistance on BOTH sides to accepting Bisexuallity.

My question is:

since as early as 20 years ago, the general American public viewed
homosexuality (grouping bi in here) as a psychologicall illness.  These
days, we don't consider it such (or at least most of us).  BUT, Beastiality
is considered an illness still.  Does anyone think in 20 years we will
see
"Beastiallity Awareness" groups, and equal rights and understanding 
for 'beastialitists'?

I personally don't think so, but its a strange world...
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Evolution
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:40:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.182140.17527@javelin.sim.es.com> SJOSEPHS@130.187.170.178 (STEVEN JOSEPHSON) writes:
>
>I think that the answer lies in the direction of the fact that sex is
>more than just a way to make babies.  

It has also been loaded as I said previously  with a lot of cultural
stuff.  Since there isn't any "control" group, making blanket statements
about the nature of sexual behavior -- which has been so rigidly
proscribed for a long time -- is dangerous. 

>Humans are weird creatures sexually - we
>have sex alot, we have some exaggerated equipment 

Humans are also upright, and this brings the vagina more deeply into the
body.  Hominids with penises that were too short just couldn't get to
what was out of reach.  That is more likely than simple display
purposes, though display can't be ruled out totally.  The males of many
species, some primate, have structures used solely for display purposes.

>(a male gorilla has a tiny 
>penis by human standards, but chimps have larger testicles than us) and we 
>don't fuck in public.  

Again, we don't fuck in public NOWADAYS.  However, for a ver-r-r-r-r-ry
long portion of human history, this may not have been the case, as in
many cultures where sex was deemed very important for fructifying the
ground.  Sex was performed publicly for this purpose, and in many very
old cultures, it was partly sacramental -- read about the qadishtu or
the nu-gig. 

>Then again bonobos do alot of what we do and some things
>that humans frown on (i.e. sex with juveniles).  It also seems obvious that alot

Again, this is a culturally loaded issue.  You can't make blanket
evolutionary conclusions from something like this.  In many old
cultures, the chiefest of deities would queen it over a VERY young man,
a boy sometimes (on Crete, he was called the Kouros, lit. "boy"), and
have sex with her son to produce her offspring.  It is not inconceivable
that this behavior was mirrored in the culture, at least a bit and
probably quite a lot in the ruling classes.  

>of their sexual activity is clearly not an attempt to simply procreate.  Just
>like us.  

And you must wonder again at how many of our conclusions are impossible
to defend since we are dealing with a subject without a control.

Regards,
Janis C.


Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:869 talk.origins:11304
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Polyandry
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:10:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <JMC.92Sep14151617@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>The simple picture of the sexual freedom of a matrilineal society
>has to be modified by the need to get some work out of males to
>support the children.  There are apparently some societies in which
>men do little but gossip and occasionally fight other tribes.
>Under most conditions such a society wouldn't survive in competition
>with those that get more work out of men.

I wonder why so many modern people have failed to extrapolate that to
modern women . . .

Anyway (I'm not accusing you, but what you said just made me think of
that), in many societies there are of course constructive things for men
to do.  Hunting springs to mind, and not just for h-g'ers.

>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

How about "Those who don't know calculus . . . "  Sorry to those who may
not have learned it, but I thought he'd get a kick out of it.  

Regards,
Janis C.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: SJOSEPHS@130.187.170.178 (STEVEN JOSEPHSON)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Evolution
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:21:40 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11


In <BuB3J5.78C@agora.rain.com> trifid@agora.rain.com writes:

> 
> 
> I think common sense shows one possible biological "rationale" for the
> appearance of homosexual behavior among a species: overpopulation.
> 
> In fact, didn't the recent experiment{ with the huge, purposefully overpopulated
> colony of lab mice tend to show an increase in same-sex behaviors as the
> population density went up? Seems like a fairly good scheme for reducing the
> population to me...
> 
> Suze

	Well, evolution doesn't work that way.  Evolution never acts to reduce
ones change of reproducing, but it can act to limit it if limiting now means
enhancing in the long run.  I have to agree with the fella who pointed out that
homosexuality isn't an all-or-nothing thing - lots of animals show homosexual
behavior. I think that the answer lies in the direction of the fact that sex is
more than just a way to make babies.  Humans are weird creatures sexually - we
have sex alot, we have some exaggerated equipment (a male gorilla has a tiny 
penis by human standards, but chimps have larger testicles than us) and we 
don't fuck in public.  Then again bonobos do alot of what we do and some things
that humans frown on (i.e. sex with juveniles).  It also seems obvious that alot
of their sexual activity is clearly not an attempt to simply procreate.  Just
like us.  
Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:863 talk.origins:11288
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Polyandry
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,talk.origins
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:27:58 GMT

In article <BuKnsD.2D0@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <2AB3D3E6.26637@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>>The ideas being advanced about polyandry are interesting, but I think
>>that we are a little shaky on what we CALL polyandry.  In matrilineal
>>cultures in the past and in the present, there is frequently not even
>>any marriage.  The woman will have many partners, but since the
>>paternity of the child is not important, the subsequent activities of
>>the men are not regulated.
>
>   By "not regulated" I assume you mean that males are not presumed to 
>   have any responsibility for the care, protection, etc of the 
>   child or family.  What are some examples you can cite of reasonably
>   well-studied cultures where there are no marriage rituals + multiple
>   partners for the females + no paternal responsibilities?   I'd be 
>   especially interested in agrarian (i.e., post h-g instances).


Actually, I meant (and I went on to say this in the post) that no sexual
liberites were curtailed.  The men usually do take some part in raising
the children, even if the "father" is a sort of appointee. 

Again, by "not regulated," I meant that the man's sexual liberties were
not regulated.

Regards,
Janis C.
 
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: mimir@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: Studying Religious Groups
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:14:54 GMT

 Does anyone have any advice for studying religious groups (in North
America) for a Masters Thesis? It is my area of interest but I don't know
where to start (I'll have my BA in a year) or what schools would be good
for it. Suggestions? I'm planning on focussing on new religions, not
Christianity.

Wassail,
Al Billings


Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: trifid@agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks)
Subject: Re: Pliestocene extinctions
Keywords: Exploitation, Drought
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:18:01 GMT



Living in the Pacific Northwest, I find the Chaco Canyon model particularly
disturbing. I haven't seen any discussion among all the talk of spotted owls
and the timber economy about possible climate changes that might come form
deforesting such a large area as we have so far, much less continuing. Yet if
one goes out on a hot day, and enters a large stand (say a couple acres) of
fairly dense forest, one is immediately struck by how much cooler and damper
it is there.

Have there been any studies of climate changes possibly wrought by man in one
of our more exploitive modes in the past?

Suze Hammond
trifid@agora.rain.com

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,talk.origins
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Polyandry
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:19:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <2AB3D3E6.26637@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>The ideas being advanced about polyandry are interesting, but I think
>that we are a little shaky on what we CALL polyandry.  In matrilineal
>cultures in the past and in the present, there is frequently not even
>any marriage.  The woman will have many partners, but since the
>paternity of the child is not important, the subsequent activities of
>the men are not regulated.

   By "not regulated" I assume you mean that males are not presumed to 
   have any responsibility for the care, protection, etc of the 
   child or family.  What are some examples you can cite of reasonably
   well-studied cultures where there are no marriage rituals + multiple
   partners for the females + no paternal responsibilities?   I'd be 
   especially interested in agrarian (i.e., post h-g instances).

   Thanks in advance.


---peter




Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: rspear@sookit (Richard Spear)
Subject: Re: Pliestocene extinctions
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:22:25 GMT

dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark) writes:
: In article <1992Sep4.150049.4724@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> rspear@sookit (Richard Spear) writes:
: >..mastodons...
: >
: >the pleistocene creature was a mammoth...mastodons became extinct in the
: >oligocene...
: >
: 
: Sorry to do this from memory, but I am 99% sure that this is right.  Mastodons,
: which were rather short-legged elephants, lived in the eastern deciduous
: forests of the US well after the Pleistocene, I think with some specimens
: as recently as about 8000 years ago.  Mammoths were taller, hairy elephants
: taht were in the arctic tundra.  I think that they became extinct in North
: America somewhat earlier (12,000 B.P.?), and I'm not sure how far south they
: extended.
: 
: David Mark
: dmark@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu
: 
: PS: I'm a geographer, not an anthropologist, so if I'm wrong please don't
: blame our wonderful anthropologists!


yup...david's memory serves him well (mine didn't!).  both mastodons and
mammoths survived into the upper pleistocene and even into the holocene...
sorrrry about that!!
--
richard
rspear@sookit.jpl.nasa.gov
all disclaimers apply