Re: When Burial Begins


Paul Crowley wrote:
"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1162132466.364334.145670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Several things germane to discussions here. Because human graveyards
are found in close proximity to home bases, more than one skeleton can
be expected to be found in the same area as has happened at Krems. This
is not so with Pliocene or early Pleistocene, with the First Family
being a rare exception and was more parsimonious with a flooding event.
This is strong evidence against any idea that early hominids utilized
home bases or buried their dead.

Not so. Try to get the basic facts right about
the theory you are seeking to undermine.

There are no facts to undermine because you don't have any. You also
don't have a theory. What you have is imagination. You have a negative
argument until you devise a test or cite others who have done tests in
support of your imaginary scenario. Once again, imagination is only the
first part of the scientific method. You have provided no tests, no
data or any other person's data to support your imaginary hypothesis
that Lucy buried her dead. You have only provided faulty logic in
support of your claims.


If hominid home bases were readily found, and
if hominids had been burying their dead for a
few million years, then hominid graves would
exist by the million. They don't -- since their
habitat was close to the coast, and constant
rise and fall in sea-levels wipe out such sites.

You are making a false statement, just as you did in 1996 when you
claimed Neandertals didn't hunt because there were no lions in Europe.
Neither Lucy's (or later Homo e) habitat was not primarily close to
the coast, but ubiquitous over nearly all of Africa.


Most of the fossils that have been found
are those of individuals from small groups
wandering around the uplands; they were
strangers on alien ground. We have good

Most were found all over Africa except the rain forests. The only thing
alien here is your UFO based argument. You have absolutely no evidence
on how large their groups were.


evidence for that with KNM-ER 1808 who
died from eating many meals of carnivore
liver, much like Mawson's party in the
Antarctic.

Your fundamentally flawed argument fails to take into consideration
that the Hadza and the Maasai do not bury their dead. They simply
abandon the terminally ill when they can no longer keep up with the
group. A similar fate obviously happened to 1808.



the First Family being a rare exception

The location is one of the few where the
ground has been rising for the last few million
years, and some of its 'graveyards' escaped
the usual fate.

There is no evidence of a graveyard, you made that up just as you made
up the evidence that Neandertals didn't hunt because there were no
lions in Europe.

Message-ID: <32592402.6F55@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mon, Oct 7 1996 12:00 am
The point is, Paul, that you present both the absence of lions in
Eurpope and the presence of lions in Europe as *prima facie* evidence
that Neaderthals didn't hunt. You must see the gross inconsistency in
this argument, because I believe that you are a logical, reasoning
human
being. You *have* to admit, to retain any credibility at all, that
either one or both of your arguments are incorrect.
<snip>
by Stephen Barnard
----------------------------------------------------


and was more parsimonious with a flooding event.

There is nothing parsimonious in such a
scenario.

Says the person who thinks flint axes turn to dust on a beach in a
matter of months.


Nearly all hominid fossils at such locations
are not found in their original position.
They would usually be buried in soft sand
in a river course, and be moved by the river
within a relatively short time (e.g. 5 to 50
kyr -- when the great bulk would be
destroyed). In any case, when they are
found, the fossils often emerge from eroding
rocks (as in the case of the First Family)
scattered over a hillside, and little idea of
their original location is obtainable.

"Nearly all--great bulk"? Cite your source for those statements. I
suggest it was the same source that claimed Neandertals didn't hunt.

If PA are unreliable sources for conclusions according to you, why do
accept their data for all you know about the locations where these
fossils are found, i.e., "in soft sand of a river course" ?



Paul.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... The Engish language troll (101 in science comp) ... Einstein used negative evidence to arrive at their predictions. ... Watch how he leaps from my "they don't have to hunt" to his "have you ... Imagination gardens, imagination weapons, imaginary 2.5 myo ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Not Enough Data
    ... Paul Crowley wrote: ... Until we find evidence that they had sex ... you present the "fact" that there were no lions in Europe as ... evidence that Neanderthals didn't hunt. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Eritrean stone tools push back dates of earliest use of marine resources
    ... Paul Crowley is not capable of rational thought: ... you present the "fact" that there were no lions in Europe as ... evidence that Neanderthals didn't hunt. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... Homo, they were getting to the prime cuts somehow. ... The point is that you have neither evidence nor a well reasoned ... Hard to believe Homo could kill a rhino, ... Pride of lions moves in, eats the dead animal and then ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... Evidence is not necessarily proof. ... Hard to believe Homo could kill a rhino, ... Lions and hyenas would just as soon take a kill away ... But what if the kill was next to a tree. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)