There Were No Cavemen
Images of cavemen – like the one above, displayed prominently in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC – have corrupted our view of the past, burying the truth beneath a pile of self- flattering lies.
The caveman story is false, yet almost everyone holds it as a clear, often fundamental, image in their minds. As a result, nearly all of us presume that 'prehistoric' men were dull, stupid oafs. In fact, they were not. They were the same as us, only in different circumstances.
The image above is a lie, and I'll prove it to you:
The display is supposed to depict cave painters in what is now France... about 35,000 years ago. Notice the typical 'caveman' attire: loincloths. (I'll pass over the implication that they were too dense to use tables or stools.)
Images of cavemen – like the one above, displayed prominently in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC – have corrupted our view of the past, burying the truth beneath a pile of self- flattering lies.
The caveman story is false, yet almost everyone holds it as a clear, often fundamental, image in their minds. As a result, nearly all of us presume that 'prehistoric' men were dull, stupid oafs. In fact, they were not. They were the same as us, only in different circumstances.
The image above is a lie, and I'll prove it to you:
The display is supposed to depict cave painters in what is now France... about 35,000 years ago. Notice the typical 'caveman' attire: loincloths. (I'll pass over the implication that they were too dense to use tables or stools.)
www.freemansperspective.com 1
Now, consider this: 35,000 years ago was in the middle of the Ice Age! As the map below shows,
France was about one third covered with glaciers at the time. That means that the weather was
about the same as modern Alaska!
The odds of those cave painters wearing loin cloths are the same as finding Eskimos wearing loin cloths. In other words, nil.
And if you don't want to believe me, go find a serious anthropologist and ask them. Almost none of them take the caveman myth seriously.
As for the cave art, these folks probably chose to draw on cave walls because they were permanent. Nature could, in several ways, wipe out any structure you built, including all of its contents, but even a glacier wouldn't take out a cave.
THE ORIGINS OF THE CAVEMAN MYTH
There are two primary origins of the caveman myth, both of them fallacious.
1. The theory of evolution. If we all came from monkeys, and if monkeys are super-primitive compared to us (as they are), then we must have been primitive, animalistic and stupid at one time. Hence, cavemen.
The problem with this, however, is that the evolutionary period in which men are said to have come from apes was a few million years ago – long, long before all four ice ages, neanderthals, or any of the people that are commonly thought of as cavemen.
The odds of those cave painters wearing loin cloths are the same as finding Eskimos wearing loin cloths. In other words, nil.
And if you don't want to believe me, go find a serious anthropologist and ask them. Almost none of them take the caveman myth seriously.
As for the cave art, these folks probably chose to draw on cave walls because they were permanent. Nature could, in several ways, wipe out any structure you built, including all of its contents, but even a glacier wouldn't take out a cave.
THE ORIGINS OF THE CAVEMAN MYTH
There are two primary origins of the caveman myth, both of them fallacious.
1. The theory of evolution. If we all came from monkeys, and if monkeys are super-primitive compared to us (as they are), then we must have been primitive, animalistic and stupid at one time. Hence, cavemen.
The problem with this, however, is that the evolutionary period in which men are said to have come from apes was a few million years ago – long, long before all four ice ages, neanderthals, or any of the people that are commonly thought of as cavemen.
www.freemansperspective.com 2
2. Backward projections. We are highly advanced now. Before us was the industrial era. Before
that, we were farmers. Before that, we were herdsmen and hunters. Before that we were hunter-
gatherers, wandering around in small clans, eating berries off of wild bushes. Before that, we
were cavemen.
The problem with this is that the entire model is false – things did not go in a straight line; in fact, they were cyclical. For example, there were two “Dark Ages” in the West since the end of the last ice age, not just one. And there were four ice ages, each of which more or less reset human civilization. History has been anything but a straight line.
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
Just to be fair, I should plead a couple of counter-arguments as well: There have been two honest theories that people in the past were very different than we are now... in ways that are not too far from supporting some sort of caveman myth.
The first was promoted by Julian Jaynes, in his 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. In this book, Jaynes says that ancient people in the bicameral state of mind would have experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of a schizophrenic. (I will pass-up explaining bicameralism for now; you can think of this as an animal mind or a zombie mind.)
People in such a state would not really be conscious. When encountering a new situation, they would not make thoughtful evaluations as we do; rather, they would hallucinate a voice or a god, giving them commands that they would obey without question.
This argument has gained some traction in atheistic circles, but I find it fully incorrect. According to Jaynes, this situation existed up to 1000 B.C. This is easily disproved by the fact that there are many written records from almost two thousand years prior, recording the experiments of doctors, who were comparing mixtures of herbs for curing diseases. I have read these tablets and can tell you that the writers had fine, clear minds. They were not inferior.
The other argument is that there have been semi-recent genetic changes in humans, and that these made a huge difference in our natures. I have found the evidence for this to be indirect and implied, based on mathematics rather than evidence. And in even the best case, the nearest changes to us were 100,000 years ago. No sale.
THE NECESSITY OF THE CAVEMAN MYTH
I said at the top of this article that the caveman myth was self-flattering. In fact, the problem with the caveman myth is much more serious than that; the caveman myth stands as a necessary base for what is worst in modern mythologies.
Those few people who spend years studying general history (not just one narrow specialty) have discovered an important fact: that the schoolbook story of civilization - with the caveman at its beginning – has no foundation in fact. The pictures of artifacts in those books are usually fine, but the text surrounding them paints a false picture. Here is a quote from the historians Will and Ariel Durant, saying the same thing:
No student takes seriously the seventeenth-century notion that states arose out of a “social contract” among individuals or between the people and the ruler.
The truth is that textbooks are written so they will not undermine the rulership of their place and
The problem with this is that the entire model is false – things did not go in a straight line; in fact, they were cyclical. For example, there were two “Dark Ages” in the West since the end of the last ice age, not just one. And there were four ice ages, each of which more or less reset human civilization. History has been anything but a straight line.
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
Just to be fair, I should plead a couple of counter-arguments as well: There have been two honest theories that people in the past were very different than we are now... in ways that are not too far from supporting some sort of caveman myth.
The first was promoted by Julian Jaynes, in his 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. In this book, Jaynes says that ancient people in the bicameral state of mind would have experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of a schizophrenic. (I will pass-up explaining bicameralism for now; you can think of this as an animal mind or a zombie mind.)
People in such a state would not really be conscious. When encountering a new situation, they would not make thoughtful evaluations as we do; rather, they would hallucinate a voice or a god, giving them commands that they would obey without question.
This argument has gained some traction in atheistic circles, but I find it fully incorrect. According to Jaynes, this situation existed up to 1000 B.C. This is easily disproved by the fact that there are many written records from almost two thousand years prior, recording the experiments of doctors, who were comparing mixtures of herbs for curing diseases. I have read these tablets and can tell you that the writers had fine, clear minds. They were not inferior.
The other argument is that there have been semi-recent genetic changes in humans, and that these made a huge difference in our natures. I have found the evidence for this to be indirect and implied, based on mathematics rather than evidence. And in even the best case, the nearest changes to us were 100,000 years ago. No sale.
THE NECESSITY OF THE CAVEMAN MYTH
I said at the top of this article that the caveman myth was self-flattering. In fact, the problem with the caveman myth is much more serious than that; the caveman myth stands as a necessary base for what is worst in modern mythologies.
Those few people who spend years studying general history (not just one narrow specialty) have discovered an important fact: that the schoolbook story of civilization - with the caveman at its beginning – has no foundation in fact. The pictures of artifacts in those books are usually fine, but the text surrounding them paints a false picture. Here is a quote from the historians Will and Ariel Durant, saying the same thing:
No student takes seriously the seventeenth-century notion that states arose out of a “social contract” among individuals or between the people and the ruler.
The truth is that textbooks are written so they will not undermine the rulership of their place and
www.freemansperspective.com 3
time. I'm certain of this, not only because of the false stories they tell, but because I've spent many
years in the publishing business – I knew people who received calls from government officials,
asking them to change the textbooks. And I know that they complied.
This is not to say that I think there's a grand conspiracy to control textbooks; in fact, I've seen no evidence of that at all. These alterations to history texts come from smaller, occasional problems that need to be 'fixed.' Some of these fixes are requested by government officials (I've never heard direct demands being made), but more often by entrenched academics who have pet theories to defend. And, by the way, it is the academics who get nastiest about it.
Intent is not necessary for this altering of the historical narrative. Over time, dozens of small, local changes have the same approximate effect that an ordered conspiracy would have. In the end, the establishment power of the age creates a soft mandate that the past should justify our current way of life. Facts are then organized accordingly. As Will Durant also said:
The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds.
There is one other aspect to the linear historical narrative that is worth mentioning: The story is presented in such a way as to absolve us all from blame. By portraying a slow, steady process of development, it is easy to conclude that we are all pulled through history by forces larger than ourselves. If, however, we are creating history, it is much harder to escape responsibility.
Again, I don't believe that this is done on purpose, but it doesn't have to be; over time, our biases create our narratives for us... and escaping blame has long been a major human bias.
So, aside from a rather small number of people living in cave homes, like the one below, there really were no cavemen. The myth is false, and everything based upon that myth is false as well.
This is not to say that I think there's a grand conspiracy to control textbooks; in fact, I've seen no evidence of that at all. These alterations to history texts come from smaller, occasional problems that need to be 'fixed.' Some of these fixes are requested by government officials (I've never heard direct demands being made), but more often by entrenched academics who have pet theories to defend. And, by the way, it is the academics who get nastiest about it.
Intent is not necessary for this altering of the historical narrative. Over time, dozens of small, local changes have the same approximate effect that an ordered conspiracy would have. In the end, the establishment power of the age creates a soft mandate that the past should justify our current way of life. Facts are then organized accordingly. As Will Durant also said:
The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds.
There is one other aspect to the linear historical narrative that is worth mentioning: The story is presented in such a way as to absolve us all from blame. By portraying a slow, steady process of development, it is easy to conclude that we are all pulled through history by forces larger than ourselves. If, however, we are creating history, it is much harder to escape responsibility.
Again, I don't believe that this is done on purpose, but it doesn't have to be; over time, our biases create our narratives for us... and escaping blame has long been a major human bias.
So, aside from a rather small number of people living in cave homes, like the one below, there really were no cavemen. The myth is false, and everything based upon that myth is false as well.
www.freemansperspective.com 4
What 'Prehistoric' Men Were Really Like
By the way, I put prehistoric in quotes because it is such a variable term. As soon as another old
artifact is found, the date gets pushed further back... if historians and archaeologists can even agree
on such a date in the first place.
On September 19th 1991, the pre-history marker was pushed back quite some distance. On that day, two German tourists from Nuremberg took a hike through the high Alps on the Austria-Italy border. Along the way, they stumbled over the mummy of a man who had lived and died about 5,300 years prior; at about 3,300 B.C. That was before the Sumerian empire (commonly but mistakenly called the 'beginning of civilization'), before there was any 'Egypt' as we might think of it, and well into what is characterized as prehistory.
This ancient man was mummified intact in the ice, along with everything he was carrying. And as it turned out, he forced the academics to change their theories rather dramatically. For one thing, they had to push their date for the “copper age” back over a thousand years. This is what happens when scientists deal with actual evidence, instead of theories and projections. And I must say that the people who examined this mummy have done a stellar job of it. They deserve our thanks.
A photo of the mummy would be a bit grisly and is unimportant, so I will omit it, but following are some facts about the person who is now referred to as Ötzi or The Iceman. Read through this list slowly and notice that this man – before any Egyptian dynasties, before the Sumerians – is a long, long way from what we would call primitive.
On September 19th 1991, the pre-history marker was pushed back quite some distance. On that day, two German tourists from Nuremberg took a hike through the high Alps on the Austria-Italy border. Along the way, they stumbled over the mummy of a man who had lived and died about 5,300 years prior; at about 3,300 B.C. That was before the Sumerian empire (commonly but mistakenly called the 'beginning of civilization'), before there was any 'Egypt' as we might think of it, and well into what is characterized as prehistory.
This ancient man was mummified intact in the ice, along with everything he was carrying. And as it turned out, he forced the academics to change their theories rather dramatically. For one thing, they had to push their date for the “copper age” back over a thousand years. This is what happens when scientists deal with actual evidence, instead of theories and projections. And I must say that the people who examined this mummy have done a stellar job of it. They deserve our thanks.
A photo of the mummy would be a bit grisly and is unimportant, so I will omit it, but following are some facts about the person who is now referred to as Ötzi or The Iceman. Read through this list slowly and notice that this man – before any Egyptian dynasties, before the Sumerians – is a long, long way from what we would call primitive.
-
Otzi was approximately 5' 5” (1.65m) tall.
-
He weighed about 110 pounds. (50 kilos.)
-
He was about 45 years old.
-
He spent his childhood near the present village of Feldthurns, in extreme northern Italy, then
moved to a valley 30 miles (50 kilometers) to the north of that. (Believe it or not, this can be
accurately determined by the analysis of pollen and tooth enamel.)
-
His lungs were blackened, probably from breathing the smoke of campfires.
-
His last two meals included venison, antelope, wheat bread and fruit.
-
He was carrying wheat, barley, berries, birch baskets, mushrooms and a variety of seeds.
-
He was carrying a birch fungus that is known to have antibacterial properties.
-
The wheat and seeds he carried had been stored for months, prior to his last trip across the
Alps.
-
He had an axe that was made of 99.7% pure copper. It was apparently made with the lost wax
process; a process that is still used today for casting sculptures.
-
Wear on his bones indicates that he traveled frequently and far.
-
He had been sick three times in the six months before he died. (How sick is unknown.)
-
He had several tattoos (short, parallel lines) in precisely those places (lower back, knees and
ankles) where he would have developed pain due to his strenuous travels. It is quite possible
that these tattoos were related to pain relief treatments, similar to acupressure or acupuncture.
www.freemansperspective.com 5
-
He wore a cloak made of woven grass, a coat, a belt, a pair of leggings, a loincloth and shoes.
All of these were made of different types of leather, sewn together with sinew.
-
He wore a bearskin cap with a leather chin strap.
-
His shoes were waterproof and wide, designed for walking across the snow; they were
constructed using bearskin for the soles, deer hide for the top panels, and a netting made of
tree bark. Soft grass went around the foot and in the shoe and functioned like modern socks.
-
His belt had an attached pouch that contained a scraper, a drill, an awl and dried fungus.
-
Aside from his axe, he also carried a flint-bladed knife, 14 arrows (some with stabilizing fins),
a quiver, bow string, two tools of uncertain purpose, and an unfinished longbow 6 feet
(1.82m) in length.
-
He had a fire starting kit that included pieces of over a dozen different plants, flint and pyrite
for making sparks.
Here, from the Museum Bélesta, in Ariège, France, is a carefully constructed replica of Otzi as he walked across the Alps:
He looks more like an American pioneer than a caveman, doesn't he?
www.freemansperspective.com 6
Worth Watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlGZJYSRZV4&playnext=1&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4
Here is another great set of interviews with the ever-interesting Orson Welles. The interviewer is Dick Cavett, who allowed Welles to go on at length. There are several other segments of this interview and they should play in order, automatically. But, if this doesn't happen, try these links:
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=rf0vUEQxnxI&feature=autoplay&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=2&playnext=2
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=r1fauAc48tA&feature=BFa&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=3
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=TpqwY7QL7r8&feature=BFa&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=4
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p62gL- spAA&feature=BFa&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=5
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=aHI5BYmWDtU&feature=BFa&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=6
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=Yjfa1GFwmUA&feature=BFa&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=7
By Parts 2 and 3, Welles goes into wonderful stories of his youth... and just keeps going. Enjoy.
Here is another great set of interviews with the ever-interesting Orson Welles. The interviewer is Dick Cavett, who allowed Welles to go on at length. There are several other segments of this interview and they should play in order, automatically. But, if this doesn't happen, try these links:
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=rf0vUEQxnxI&feature=autoplay&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=2&playnext=2
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=r1fauAc48tA&feature=BFa&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=3
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=TpqwY7QL7r8&feature=BFa&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=4
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p62gL- spAA&feature=BFa&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=5
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=aHI5BYmWDtU&feature=BFa&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=6
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=Yjfa1GFwmUA&feature=BFa&list=PL0563F28E249DFDC4&index=7
By Parts 2 and 3, Welles goes into wonderful stories of his youth... and just keeps going. Enjoy.
www.freemansperspective.com 7
The Categorization Of Verbs
Last week I made a point about changing your life that required some expansion. I wrote that the
first requirement for changing your life is believing that you can. I went on to say that people
sometimes get used to seeing themselves in a certain way, and no longer think that certain things are
changeable. Even when they take some actions to change, they don't really think they'll work, which
shoots down the entire enterprise.
The reason for this problem is something that I call the categorization of verbs. I use that wording for a specific reason which I won't go into now; other people have called it objectification or nominalization. (Not that names really matter, but perhaps it will help to avoid confusion.)
This problem is so simple and common that you've seen it many times in children. But don't let yourself think that it isn't a serious problem; it is a problem that keeps millions of people from things they want.
Here's the nasty trick: If you allow yourself to think of your actions as things, they are frozen in place. So long as you keep thinking about them this way, you'll be fighting against your self every time you try to change them.
Again, you've seen children do this: When another child that they dislike loses a game, they are branded a “loser.” And although they don't understand why, children understand that they are hurting each other when they do this.
To lose is a verb, reflecting a specific set of actions – actions that can be accomplished differently next time.
To be a loser is to be a thing – to be frozen within a category. This is not changeable.
And it is not just the designation “loser” that is a problem. If you see yourself as “the suffering one,” “the reliable one,” or anything else, you lock yourself into that behavior. After that, to change the behavior is to fight against your previous judgment of yourself; against your own picture of how you are and how the world is.
You have doubtless seen people who suffer, but will not act to change their situation. Some version of this is probably at the root. Pay careful attention to what you think about yourself, and change everything that you don't want to be saddled with for life.
See you next week. PR
The reason for this problem is something that I call the categorization of verbs. I use that wording for a specific reason which I won't go into now; other people have called it objectification or nominalization. (Not that names really matter, but perhaps it will help to avoid confusion.)
This problem is so simple and common that you've seen it many times in children. But don't let yourself think that it isn't a serious problem; it is a problem that keeps millions of people from things they want.
Here's the nasty trick: If you allow yourself to think of your actions as things, they are frozen in place. So long as you keep thinking about them this way, you'll be fighting against your self every time you try to change them.
Again, you've seen children do this: When another child that they dislike loses a game, they are branded a “loser.” And although they don't understand why, children understand that they are hurting each other when they do this.
To lose is a verb, reflecting a specific set of actions – actions that can be accomplished differently next time.
To be a loser is to be a thing – to be frozen within a category. This is not changeable.
And it is not just the designation “loser” that is a problem. If you see yourself as “the suffering one,” “the reliable one,” or anything else, you lock yourself into that behavior. After that, to change the behavior is to fight against your previous judgment of yourself; against your own picture of how you are and how the world is.
You have doubtless seen people who suffer, but will not act to change their situation. Some version of this is probably at the root. Pay careful attention to what you think about yourself, and change everything that you don't want to be saddled with for life.
See you next week. PR
www.freemansperspective.com 8
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered