Ancient Folk and Big Stones

This post was inspired by a YouTube video I watched about a Mesoamerican site earlier today.

The author was examining the massive granite blocks at the site, some of which weighed 120 tons. In addition, these stones had been quarried 2.5 miles from a mountain, moved across a river, and then moved uphill to their final resting place. This feat of engineering would be a challenging endeavour today, given modern engineering tools and technology. Yet, a pre-metal culture managed this problem on multiple occasions.  Graham Hancock etal would argue that this was not the work of Mesoamerican Indians but a lost civilisation (c12,000 years ago) applying advanced technology. This is a serious argument that needs addressing. 

Some support the proposal that there were technologically advanced civilisations before our present system. These civilisations existed thousands of years ago (?12,000) but were destroyed by a cataclysmic event, erasing all trace except for the monolithic stones that stand today. They often point to various authors of ancient pedigree who discuss and narrate oral traditions that existed in their day. The most famous of these authors is Plato and his presentation of the lost Atlantis.   

Let us look at the claims objectively. Anatomically modern humans have existed for about 300 thousand years. These folk were as intelligent as anyone gracing Tipton High Street today (may the gods help us!).. The first civilisation, which we know, occurred around the 4th millennium BC in Mesopotamia. We might ask what humans were doing before this time, and, given the time involved, why didn't a civilisation arise before this period and flourish?  And when I mean civilisation, I mean a highly technologically advanced civilisation, perhaps even more advanced than today. Is this unreasonable given the time scale involved? Remember, much of our technical advances have been achieved over a relatively short period of 200 years. All traces of a civilisation from 12000 years ago would now be lost. Metals would corrode and deteriorate, and even persistent plastic would degrade. The only structures left are the colossal stone works that we observe today, scattered throughout the globe. It is a compelling argument, but it suffers from two fundamental problems.

Any technologically advanced civilisation requires a substantial energy source. That energy resource must come from fossil fuel exploitation—coal, oil, and oil-refined derivatives such as petrol. Natural sources of energy simply won't do the job. They are too dispersed and geographically isolated. Before the introduction of nuclear fission, oil/petrol was by far the best energy resource we had. This is because these products, especially petrol and diesel, are highly energy-dense. For instance, the energy available in a litre of petrol is 33 megajoules and is only exceeded as an energy source by diesel (39MJ/L). It is hard to comprehend how an advanced civilisation would not have exploited the large reserves of fossil fuel at least during its initial stage of development.  Now here is the rub: there is no evidence whatsoever that fossil fuels were extensively extracted until the industrial revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries. No doubt, coal was mined by the ancient Chinese and the Romans, but not to the extent that would be required to fuel the vast energy requirements of the 19th century and beyond. The same applies to oil utilisation. In certain regions, natural oil deposits bubble to the surface, and the ancients capitalised on these easily obtained resources. The point is that there is no geological evidence for extensive mining of coal or oil extraction by an unknown, very ancient, advanced civilisation. If there had been heavy exploitation from a lost age, c10000 BC, it would have certainly left a 'geological imprint' readily observable today.

My second point also relies on geology to a large extent. It is hard to consider an advanced civilisation without metallurgy. There is only so much that can be achieved with stone and wood. Metal and metal ore mining is a game changer in the evolution to become an advanced technological civilisation. Imagine a combustion engine made of wood and stone.. Metalworking is essential, particularly the science of blending metals to form alloys—alloys with particular and peculiar properties designed to overcome a specific engineering problem. Again, as with the energy issue, there should be evidence of large-scale ore exploitation going back to before known civilisation, and this is simply not the case. Gold and copper appear in their pure form on the surface or in river beds and thus were utilised by humans (c7000 BC). The first mining shafts to extract copper ore were found at Rudna Glava in the Balkans (c4000 BC), and by 3800 BC, copper mines had been excavated on the Sinai Peninsula. By 2800 BC, tin was also mined, bringing forth the amalgamation of copper and tin to herald in the Bronze Age. Iron was first mined and utilised by the Hittites (1500 BC), and further processing of iron to steel came forth in the 11th century BC. Aluminium extraction and widespread usage did not occur until the end of the 19th century. While bauxite, the ore containing aluminium, was mined for various uses in the ancient world, its extensive mining did not come about until modern times. Thus, there is no evidence in the geological record for extensive metal ore mining before known ancient cultures and certainly not the exploitation required to maintain a highly developed technological society. The evidence is in the stone. 

My final point concerns perceptions relating to our ancient ancestors. For Hancock and similar folk, an insulting stain spreads throughout their thesis. There is an underlying insinuation that known ancients were somehow inferior in intelligence to ourselves, and of course, to a lost civilisation from 12000 years ago. And this is not the case. The ancient Egyptians, the Mayans and other ancients were smart, and though they might not have had our advanced tech, they were not devoid of advanced ingenuity. Nuff said. What do my readers think?       

   

Da Papa is no more

An Old Man in a Silly Hat

I must be living in a closet of indeterminate dimensions. Yesterday, we were visited by a couple of old friends. As an aside, I am not an individual overly endowed with close mukkas. I am the archetypal loner, and I have always been so as far as I can remember. I firmly believe you should have no more friends than fingers on the left hand after a chainsaw accident. Anyway, back to the thrust of this post.

During the conversation, my friend mentioned the recent demise of the Pope. My mate expressed surprise that this was news to me. In truth, this important world event occurred without my knowledge, and my friend expressed incredulity about my ignorance of events of such cosmic importance. He has a point, as I spend a good portion of the day wedded to my laptop. Even though I use the internet to its fullest, I ignore the news snippets that appear when using Gogle. Of course, I'm aware of the images and headlines accompanying the text, but both remain blurred and unread. I have noted that lately, the images are predominantly of the Trumpanator. And yes, I'm vaguely aware of worldwide consternation concerning Trump's tariff revision. 

I purposely avoid interacting with the News for a variety of reasons. First, the news thrust upon me without my consent or choice is clearly sensationalised and, for the most part, exaggerated. Sensationalism is the order of the day, and solid facts and clear-headed interpretation are not of prime importance. There is also a consistent theme of 'Doom and Gloom', which I find depressing. You may think that my 'Ostrich head in the Sand' posturing is unhealthy and leaves me uninformed of earthshaking world events. That, of course, is simply true. However, with that said, 99% of what happens on the world stage impinges on my well-being, not at all. New Zealand is unique among Western countries in several ways. We are isolated geographically from our nearest neighbour, Australia, which is 3,000 miles away. This isolation fosters a self-sustained insularity which is both maddening and endearing in equal measure. For instance, I occasionally, whilst driving, am subjected to the news summary blaring from the radio. Invariably, the news is about New Zealand; rarely are we exposed to international reporting. At least 50% of the news report is dedicated to sport, mostly rugby. 

So, the Pope is dead, and no doubt the Cardinals will gather in conclave and vote in another incumbent to the See of St Peter. The Pope is dead; long live the Pope. His Holiness's inauguration will be an ostentatious affair resplendent with pomp and ceremony. What would Jesus make of such a gawdy, flamboyant show? An expensive display of anachronistic pomposity, and fatuous at that. How relevant is this theatre compared to Jesus' simple message of love, charity and forgiveness?  I don't think he would be impressed.

 

The Mugumbo Abduction

Artist Rendition of the Mugumbo Abduction

Breaking news from the metropolitan domain of Tipton, incorporating Netherton West and Stewpony. Mr Enoch Mugumbo a frequent patron of the local hostelry, the Felching Ferret, claims that he is oft visited by aliens and has been abducted on multiple occasions. In his own words, take it away, Mr Mugumbo: "As was my wont, I was engaged at imbibing copious amounts of, 'Ole Nipple Blurter' Ale' in the snug at the Felching Ferret public house. After partaking in the consumption of 15 Imperial pints of fine ale, 12 pickled whelks, 8 pickled eggs and a packet of crisps, I decided to wend my way home to 12 Acacia Avenue, Tipton. To assuage my nagging ravenous pangs, I went to Pong's Korean Buffet and home for stray dogs. The restaurant has a succulent selection of salivating, inducing savouries with a canine edge. I chose a menagerie of delicacies, including Poodle noodles, Chow main, Bolognese sauce with Collie vegs, washed down with a Mango Lassie. For dessert, I chose a collection of Maltesers and Afghan biscuits. The establishment owner took extreme umbrage when I failed to come forth with the required monetary equivalent to pay for my comestibles. As I left, he screamed obscenities in a dialect of unknown provenance. As I continued my way home, a flashing blue light assailed my eyes, and three alien beings suddenly manifested and impeded my further/future progress. They were bizarre creatures indeed. Naked and totally blue with large conical heads. A guttural speech emanated from one of the creatures: 'whatsallthiserethen'.  I bravely stuttered back, take me to your leader. They bundled me into their spacecraft and whisked me away to a destination unknown. At this point, I became overcome by extreme lassitude, and when I awoke, I was deep in the bowels of the alien spacecraft. Here, I became the object of their arcane, outre experiments. At one point, I was viciously anally probed by an alien with the mysterious and otherworldly name, 'Luggerlessdugless'.  After the aliens had obtained all the information that could be extracted by rectal examination (sans vaseline), they discarded me on the local Tipton midden pile. I awoke in a pitiful state, my head and arse aching aboninably from alien rays and alien probe technology". 

After this, Mr Mugumbo's testimony tailed off, although he did ask for 50 bob for beer, Preparation H and the funds to further his research into alien abductions and rectal reconstruction.  

From what we can determine, these out-of-this-world aliens came from a star system far away in the constellation Tiptonpolicestation. The hunt continues.

Reconstruction of the Aliens. Note the Probing Instruments

Arse, big sore, ARSE...

Neolithic Violence

Ancient Modern Art

There is an idea that the days of yore were somehow idyllic. I'm not talking about the Middle Ages or two thousand years ago. Any attentive student of history would be aware that such times were far from wonderful for 95% of the population. I'm talking about the proverbial 'Cave Man'. Those endowed with a wild imagination depict Neolithic humans as subsisting on berries and embracing others in an all-encompassing commune of love and peace. This quirky ancient depiction was once popular with the hippy, ultra-left-leaning types. It is as if they want the ancients to be a reflection of themselves. However, scholars have known for quite some time that this utopian depiction is complete fiction/utter bollocks.

Conveniently, we have no written records from the Neolithic period of our ancestors' existence. That said, we have images left on cave walls exquisitely rendered in ochre and charcoal, documenting everyday life. Some depict hunting scenarios, while others show obvious armed conflict between distinct groups. Humans have always had a great propensity for violence, even more so in the 'Dawn' of our existence. Aggressive behaviour is etched in our genes. In our remote past, natural selection favoured those males who were able and willing to inflict bloodshed on others. Violence is a successful life strategy. This is particularly so when resources become limited or difficult to obtain. Natural selection is not interested in what is morally or ethically sound or fair. It is just concerned with the reproductive fitness of an individual. 

Archaeology has uncovered graves from the Neolithic period, where it is clear that a significant number of the deceased were the recipients of violence inflicted by others. A recent study in the journal PNAS published in 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2209481119) examined 180 sites in northwest Europe, dated 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. Analysis of 2,300 skeletons found that 10% exhibited signs of violence inflicted by weapons. Some of the sites showed mass burials indicative of whole communities being destroyed. In certain instances, there was evidence of torture before death. Many of the graves showed a dearth of young females. The likely reason will not sit well with ardent feminists. The victors were likely sparing the young women for their own carnal purposes.  

Can we obtain wisdom from primate behaviour, especially from those species with which we have a close genetic affinity? Our closest relative, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), is the only known animal species to exhibit warlike tendencies (wot about ants?). Chimpanzee troops, which range from 20 to 150 individuals, control a territory and jealously guard the resources therein. They actively patrol perimeters, and incursions are met with gleeful violence. They are known to dismember intruders and will continue to violate their corpses over time. Groups of males are known to raid their neighbours' territory, selectively attacking lone males, females or juveniles. An instance recorded by biologists (1974-78 see Gombe Chimpanzee War) documented a conflict between neighbouring troops. Over 4 years, the larger group systematically targeted and ambushed lone males from the second group. Eventually, the smaller troop was vanquished, as all its members were killed or migrated elsewhere. The victorious troop then incorporated the now vacant territory into their own. Chimpanzees ape (sorry) our warfare behaviour in many regards, such as employing tactics and setting ambuscades. They differ in not hefting weaponry (yet).

Back to Neolithic Homo Sapiens...

Interestingly, this era of intergroup human conflict coincided with the advent of farming and crop cultivation in these regions. Is the change in lifestyle from hunter-gatherer to a cultivation/farming existence significant somehow? The settled existence based on crops and domesticated animals undoubtedly offered advantages unknown to the hunter. The hunter-gatherer life was precarious at best. The settled life involving crop cultivation and the art of animal husbandry offered a reasonable degree of resource 'certainty', allowing for the accumulation of excess foodstuffs. With excess comes population growth. However, there are disadvantages to the sedentary circumstance. The new way of living ensured that the people were tied to their patch of land, and the excess generated had to be protected from avaricious hunters who covetously watched from the periphery. This new way of living, based on land cultivation, resulted in accrued generational wealth. For the first time in prehistory, we see social stratification based on accumulated commodities such as land and livestock. And thus, this not only contributed to intergroup violence but also intragroup violence. 

At this time of societal change, we observe a concomitant loss in male genetic diversity throughout the late Neolithic. Analysis of Y-specific chromosome sequences has shown that over a 2,000-year period, there was a downturn in male genetic diversity, indicating a cumulative loss of 95% of the male population. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA did not mirror this loss, suggesting that female diversity was unaffected. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain this selective population loss. However, the most compelling proposal cites violence between patrilineal 'War Bands'. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6). According to this analysis, individual groups would be expected to exhibit a high degree of intragroup genetic homogeneity amongst the males, suggesting a 'founder effect' whereby the genes from a relatively small number of males subsequently dominate the group over generations. This model refutes the notion that distinct groups were composed of unrelated males during the late Neolithic. Computer simulations involving several different initial starting parameters support this hypothesis. This does not mean that intense and widespread warfare was continuous. The important point is that change occurred over a relatively long period. The trend would involve large patrilineal groups progressively dominating (annihilating) smaller groups over time. This tendency would aggregate, resulting in a pernicious decline in male genetic diversity. My explanation is a gross oversimplification of complex processes operating over time. For edification, please refer to the Nature article in the link. Admittedly, this paper is highly complex, long and technical- good luck.

The 17th-century savant Thomas Hobbes described life before the development of civil society as "nasty, brutish and short", and he seems right. The average lifespan was calculated to be 35 years, and clearly, intergroup conflict was a significant factor influencing lifespan. The transition from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a settled agrarian existence did not happen overnight. There was a period in prehistory where both lifestyles coexisted, but not peaceably. Eventually, the settled lifestyle prevailed, possibly due to the increase in population size it could support. At this time, farmers started to dig defensive ditches and raise earthbanks to thwart raiders. It was a tough life, and the loss of male diversity is a testament to our vicious past. We are the survivors of this crucial period in prehistory. It cannot be denied that Homo sapiens has an inordinate capacity for great violence. Studies concerning our latest shared ancestor, the chimpanzee, illustrate that intraspecies violence is ingrained in our genetic makeup stretching over aeons- but not all researchers would agree.   

I'll finish with an illustration of a somewhat controversial theory proposed by Dr David Carrier in 2015. The biologist conducted numerous studies on cadaver arms and boxers (whole live bodies in this instance). He noted that of all the animal species, Homo sapiens appears to be the only one capable of the 'balled fist' characteristic of the typical pugilist stance. His research determined that the balled fist with the overlapping thumb was optimal for preventing damage to the fist during strikes. Also, the fist is optimal for delivering blows reminiscent of wooden ball-ended clubs. Dr Carrier argued that selective evolutionary pressure might be responsible for this unique anatomical finding in man. Furthermore, he contends that humans have evolved “a suite of distinguishing characteristics that are consistent with the idea that we’re specialized, at some level, for aggressive behaviour.” Critics point out that teleological explanations* often fall short in science as they ignore the randomness and complexities inherent in natural systems. A goal-oriented model tends to oversimplify, assuming intent or design where none exists.           

The debate about whether we are innately genetically programmed for violence or whether cultural and environmental factors prevail can get rather heated. Clearly, the question has political and sociological implications. Some feel that to accept that we are genetically predestined for violence is a rather bleak analysis and prognosis for our species. Regardless of the underlying mechanisms involved, whether nurture or nature predominants, it cannot be denied that Homo sapiens, based on circumstances, have an inordinate capacity for violent and even cruel behaviour. On that depressing note, I'll end.   

*Teleology definition: Explanations are based on the idea that systems are working toward a final form. The use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena. Teleological concepts were first considered by ancient Greek philosophers and are particularly associated with Aristotle. Teleological explanations are much beloved by religious apologists as evidence for an overarching causal entity they call god. For instance, we live in a highly complex natural world. This end could only have been achieved by god working toward this goal. This explanation directly contradicts a solution based on naturalistic selective processes, culminating in change and complexity. An example of teleology in biology: Grass species exhibit continual growth to provide herbivores with a predictable and constant food resource. To my eternal intellectual discredit, I used a similar argument in an essay concerning the coevolution of herbivores and plants. To compound my shame, at the time, I was not a 'green as grass' first-year undergrad but a postgraduate working towards a Master's degree; the shame burns hot even today.