Carrhae Part I

Parthian Shot

Rome of 59 BC was in a state of political flux. The Republican system was coming to an end. Ambitious Romans were vying for ultimate rule. The first Triumvirate, which consisted of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, was an informal association between these talented, rich and powerful men. Crassus was the richest man in Rome, while Pompey was a highly successful general. Caesar was the junior member of the group, but the other two recognised Caesar's undoubted political and burgeoning military ability. The idea of the Triumvirate was to influence and dominate the political scene using their wealth and political reach. They utilised this combined power to ensure each member was assigned a province to maximise their political ends. In 55 BC, Crassus secured the governorship of Syria. At this time, Caesar was busy conquering Gaul while Pompey was sent to govern Spain,

Although Crassus was extremely rich and immensely influential on the political scene, he wanted to increase his gravitas by a spectacular military victory. He felt inferior to his two political colleagues in this regard. Pompey was an acclaimed general with many important victories under his belt, and Caesar was making a name for himself during the conquest of Gaul. That said, Crassus was no military slouch himself, although his greatest feats were decades ago- he needed to burnish his military reputation with a great victory.  It was no secret that once ensconced as the governor of Syria, Crassus intended to provoke war with the powerful Parthian empire to the east. Thus, in the autumn of 54 BC, Crassus crossed the Euphrates River with an army of 50,000 men. He quickly overcame several towns in Mesopotamia. Many of the towns in the region contained a large Greek contingent sympathetic to Rome, greatly aiding his success. After leaving garrisons in the subdued towns, he retreated back over the Euphrates and retired into winter quarters. Crassus was puzzled. During the campaign, the Parthian army was nowhere to be seen, leaving the Roman army unmolested.

Whilst in winter quarters, Crassus was approached by the king of Armenia. The king offered to supply 36,000 men for the campaign if Crassus invaded Parthia from Armenian territory. Undoubtedly, the wily Armenian king hoped his help would aid in annexing territory from the Parthians. The alliance made good military sense, but was rejected by Crassus. Perhaps Crassus did not want to share and dilute his military victory by invoking the help of a foreign power. Thus, Crassus crossed the Euphrates again in the summer of 53 BC. It was hoped that this time he could provoke the Parthians to battle, undoubtedly securing a decisive Roman victory and bringing glory and accolades that Crassus thought were rightly his. However, the Parthians had other ideas. A traitorous Arab guide persuaded Crassus that the best route was through desert territory, but this was a ploy to draw out the Romans into a waterless wasteland.  

The Roman way of making war was the standard Western method of war inherited from the Greeks. Large infantry armies would face off and engage while cavalry occupied a subordinate role. Here, Roman discipline, training and arms would prevail over the ragtag Eastern army. Once again, Roman arms would sweep all before it- a new Roman province would be born. While marching east, Crassus' scouts encountered a Parthian army on its way to battle. Crassus' day of glory had arrived. But unlike his expectations, he was not to face an infantry army. The army, 10,000 strong, was mostly comprised of mounted horse archers. The remaining contingent consisted of heavily armoured horsemen (Cataphracts).           

To counter the archers, Crassus had his men form an open square. In this way, he sought to avoid envelopment as he continued his march. The archers surrounded the Romans and shot volley after volley into the Roman square. The large scutum carried by the soldiers protected them well from the arrows, but an arrow would occasionally find a foot or hand. Crassus surmised that the arrow storm would soon end as the archers exhausted their supply of missiles. However, the cunning Parthian general, Surena, had ensured that his men would be well supplied as he had organised teams of camels laden/burdened with replacement arrows. Crassus hadn't bargained for this continuous barrage, and the casualties were starting to add up. It must have been infuriating for the troops as they could not reply. At this stage, Crassus reasoned that the only way to get to grips with the enemy was to utilise his cavalry. Under Crassus' son, Publius, the cavalry stormed out of the square. In response, the archers took flight and retreated. As the archers retreated, they twisted and delivered a backwards parting shot. This technique became known as the 'Parthian Shot'. The retreat was a feint, and soon Publius and his men faced archers and heavy Parthian cavalry. The Roman troop became surrounded, and in desperation, Publius beseeched one of his men to kill him lest he fall into the clutches of a cruel enemy. The defeat became known to Crassus when a lone Parthian rider paraded in front of the Roman line holding Publius' severed head.   

At the sight of his son's detached noggin so carelessly displayed, Cassius suffered a bout of 'Nervous Prostration' and lost the will to command.  Two legates took control and issued orders for a night march back to Roman-controlled territory. As night fell, an eerie silence descended upon the Roman camp as the Parthians called a halt to all offensive activities. The Romans took advantage of the lull and set out in the dark, desperately seeking to reach friendly lines. It was a pitiful sight as the wounded were abandoned, knowing that morning would bring certain death.   

By the morning, the battered remnants of the Roman army had reached the Roman-held town of Carrhae. During the night march, wounded men and stragglers had been left behind only to fall into the hands of a vengeful enemy in the morning. Eventually, the Parthian general, Surena, arrived outside the town and demanded that Crassus be sent to him in chains. It was deemed that the town could not be defended from the Parthians, and Crassus decided that his men should split up into separate groups and make a forced night march to reach the Euphrates. However, a traitorous guide led Crassus's ragtag army into a swamp. Under these dire conditions, the Romans took refuge on a hill. In the morning, Crassus agreed to treat with the Parthians. Surena offered safe passage from Parthian territory if Crassus signed a peace treaty. During the meet, the Parthains placed Crassus on a horse draped in rich trappings, clearly mocking Crassus for his wealth. The Roman party recognised the insult, and a fight broke out between the opposing troops, and during the melee, Crassus was killed. It is said that molten gold was poured down Crassus' mouth, but this report is likely hyperbole on behalf of the reporter.    

This post is already too long, and I haven't started on my analysis. It will have to await until the next post, coming soon.            

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. 

    

     

Flaxen Babbling About Life and Death, Once Again

Looks a Bit Like My Mate Barry After a Night on the Ale

I've touched on this topic previously in my blog. The meaning of life, and of course, death, should intrigue everyone, and to a certain extent, it does. Regarding death, most folk barely scratch the surface of the problem without digging deep. It comes as a dark thought (or dream) when we wake at 4 am slathered in cold sweat. Philosophers have pondered this intertwined duality of life/death for the past 2,500 years without any clear answer. If you want certainty, then you must turn to religion. Depending on the religion concerned and the denomination, the answer is different. Consider Judaism. Interestingly, unlike most religions, Judaism focuses heavily on this life, and their conception of the afterlife is often vague or none existent. Their Tanakh, the Christian Old Testament, is virtually bereft of commentary about what happens when we die. Apparently, due to Jewish tradition, we all have souls that leave the body at death. What happens after that is somewhat murky. Ask the Rabbi, but don't expect a clear answer. Christian tradition is murky as hell. This is where Judaism meets Platonic philosophy. But it is not apparent to the simple believer. The Priest and Vicar know this but are reluctant to share. Christianity has inherited the nebulous soul from Judaism but can be vague on its post-mortem destination. That's not strictly the case. Some Christian denominations are reassuringly certain about what happens. Consider Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance; righteous JWs receive heaven on Earth except for the 144,000 elect who go to heaven. The rest of humanity is annihilated- seems fair. According to the folk who collect this information, 61%  of Americans believe in an actual Heaven and Hell; no comment. Considering how many Christians believe in Heaven and Hell, they can be surprisingly inarticulate about what happens in the actual and final destination. This is interesting as, according to tradition, they are expected to reside there forever. Tis strange that some Christians believe their god to be just and benevolent but are happy to accept that sinners deserve to be punished for eternity. Likewise, Heaven is seen as a place of perpetual bliss. Surely, eternal bliss must become staid and banal after a couple millennia. 

Hinduism is highly explicit when it comes to what happens when we die. According to the Garuda Purana, the soul leaves the body at death. What happens to the soul depends on the accumulated karma achieved when alive. Most fall short, and the soul enters another body for reincarnation. Those souls that have accrued sufficient karma merge with the Divine (? enter Heaven), and the life/death cycle ends. There is also a concept of Hell for the very naughty. Hell has gradations of nasty experiences. But unlike the concept of Christian Hell, the punishment is not eternal and is a means of purification. Once purified, the cycle of rebirth/death continues. That is enough comparative religion and the notion of an 'active' or 'redemptive' afterlife. 

My Own Observations and Tentative Musings

The only certainty in life is death. As I grow old, I contemplate that I won't be here one day. As for the 'Meaning of Life', I've concluded that it is what you want it to be. For me, our existence has no meaning or sense of purpose. My existence is just a colossal cosmic accident. When pondering the statistics involved in the chance of any particular individual's existence, we must simply gape and stand in awe. And yet I am here. Like Descartes, I know I exist. Of that, I'm sure. As for others, there is always an element of doubt. To stave off the horrors of solipsism, I am happy to accept the existence of others unless future data suggests otherwise.

I'm not afraid of Death. I'm afraid of dying. I don't want to die as my father did. I want my demise to be swift and pain-free. As for what happens when I die, I have to say, if I'm going to be intellectually honest, "I don't know". The empirical evidence is lacking for a definitive conclusion. But that said, I can take a judicious guess.  According to all the empirical evidence, the seat of consciousness is tied inexplicably to the organic brain. I'm aware of the philosophical stance concerning mind/body duality that separates consciousness from the physical realm. I am not convinced this is a true reflection of reality and remain unrepentant in my conclusion. Without this 3 lb of organic matter between my ears, I would be one with none existence. 

Near Death Experiences (NDEs) are oft-touted as evidence of an afterlife. We are familiar with the dark tunnel and the bright light scenario. Perhaps a dead loved one comes to mind, or maybe a religious figure dependent upon the person's religious affiliation. I'll not dig down on the neurobiology and psychology of NDEs here. It is enough to state that we can disregard NDEs as data for a continued existence after death. Although the heart may have stopped, and while that may have been sufficient to confer the state of death in earlier, less technological and scientific times, it is not considered a definitive metric these days. To state the bleeding obvious: NDE patients do not die. No matter how heartfelt the testimony, their anecdotal outpourings should be dismissed.

Before we were born, we were nonexistent. To ask what it was like before we were born is both obtuse and ridiculous. Whether extraterrestrial life exists elsewhere is uncertain, as we have zero evidence for life outside our small terrestrial bubble. I suspect that life elsewhere is scarce but likely. However, I suspect that complex life with the gift of 'consciousness' is a rare situation indeed. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that we are the only technologically able organism in the universe. I'm starting to stray from the remit. How uncharacteristic. 

I suspect that imagining Death as a perception of eternal darkness is inaccurate. We cannot conceive of what it is because death is the privation of all sentience. It is not eternal darkness, as both the concept of the 'eternal' and 'darkness' presuppose that we experience darkness and the passage of time. However, how can we experience darkness without consciousness? The passage of time likewise becomes meaningless without awareness. Consciousness is all we have; as far as I'm concerned, the self and the universe cease to be at death. It is comforting to contemplate that you are all coming with me when I die. I'll not delve further into this concept of death for fear of becoming mired in a field of inconsistencies and contradictions. I'll leave the arena to Epicurus (b. 341 BC) and his pithy reflection upon death: I am, then death is not. And if death is, I am not.   

O sweet Angel of Death,

You come uninvited, but your visit cannot be denied.

I beseech for another breath, another crave fulfilled,

But no brook to fate ordained.

Your visit tarries not, not a second to waste,

 Other souls wait in ignorant bliss for your sojourn.

Beggar and king alike cannot escape your final caress,

All must face the faceless and cower.

No wit or beauty can turn aside the scythe's blade,

The fate of all is preordained in a sweep of the arc.

Phragmosis

                                                 Looks Like An Oreo To Me

I will make this a brief post because the subject matter is boring/bordering on the freakish. Phragmosis refers to physical and behavioural adaptation noted in multiple genera. The body of the animal concerned exhibits morphological characteristics that aid in the defense of its burrow. An excellent example is to be observed in the humble ant. Cephalotes varians, colloquially known as the 'Turtle Ant' is a fine representation as shown in the above illustration. In this instance, the head is modified to resemble a shield. And indeed, the ant utilises the cephalic structure to block the entrance to its nest. In this way, predatory ant species and parasitic wasps are denied entry into the abode. In addition, the ant can use its outstretched head structure to glide from trees in parachute fashion, guiding its descent to elegantly alight at the nest's entrance. Characteristically, this adaptation in its most extreme form is confined to soldier ants, although the worker caste does exhibit a small degree of head modification. On their way out of the nest, worker ants stroke the soldier with their antennae. Once alerted, the soldier will stand to attention, allowing egress. Once the worker returns, it uses antennae to gently tap the 'door'. Is there a code that must be followed regarding the velocity and sequence of the drum play? This could constitute a weakness in the blocking system. Evolutionary pressure would quickly modify a predatory wasp's behaviour to mimic the worker ant to crack the code. No doubt, behavioural adaptation would be easier to evolve than a physical appendage with the ability to remove the head. It is easy to conceive mutual coadaptation between predator and prey as a continuous battle as each species responds to the prevailing evolutionary pressure.          

Further examples of this remarkable bodily adjustment can be found in vertebrates, such as frogs and snakes. However, very few examples are found in mammalian species. The only example I can find relates to a small armadillo resident of western Argentina. This six-inch-long creature sports a bony carapace to the rear that blocks the burrow while digging. A burrowing snake species indigenous to the Indian subcontinent has developed a bony shield at the tail. Again, like the armadillo, this shield blocks the snake's tunnel during excavation. 

In the unenlightened past, theologians used physical adaptations to denote god's glory and providence. In the 18th century, Rev. William Paley put forth this idea eloquently in his analogy of the watch. Imagine you are strolling upon a sandy beach, and your eyes should suddenly alight on a watch, deftly awash with spume and sand. You examine the watch and marvel at the delicate intricacies of the components and engineering. The good Reverand argued that it is reasonable to postulate that the watch had a maker. And therefore, the complexity observed in natural organisms is sufficient reason to conclude that they are the product of a divine architect. But not just any craftsmen, but the Ultimate Craftsman, Yahweh, the jealous deity of a Bronze Age barbarous folk. And yes, before Darwin, thoughtful individuals could be excused for thinking that a divine artificer was responsible. The manifest complexity of nature would pose a serious barrier to atheistic thought before the conception of natural selection, whereby small accumulative, adaptive changes could occur due to environmental pressures applied over aeons. 

Post-Darwin, the hand of God is no longer required to explain the manifest complexity of life. In fact, the 'Hand of God' was never a satisfactory explanation for nature's evident complexity. The explanation ultimately relies on the irrational concept of Divine Intervention or an invisible deity by unknowable means doing stuff. This does not inspire those taking a rational stance. Before we posit the action of supernatural causation (whatever that means), tis best to exhaust all that is natural and grounded within this world. If we look hard enough, a natural explanation will come. To post an explanation outside nature is easy to articulate and just as easy to dismiss.