131–136 of 136 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK, probably all social mammals, including all primates have social hierarchies. There is an alpha male and an alpha female, and the ranking order under them is quite defined.
I don't know if this applies to humans. Do you have a source for your claims, or for a similar claim about humanity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're trying to make some kind of argument about what is likely to happen for a single data point defined only by the exceptional circumstances that surround it. More importantly, it doesn't matter what you think is more likely, because there's no way for you to use that information to make a meaningful decision.
Not a single data point. First principles and logical analysis. Let me put it more simply: Did hunter-gatherer societies invent more artifacts that survived until today or did agricultural societies? This is an objectively quantifiable actuality we could check. Which societies that we know about today had developed writing surfaces that persist until today? This is something we can check. Be reasonable. Clearly, base…
Now, a male name might be more likely, but that tells you nothing about what it actually was. That kind of analysis is not appropriate for answering such a question. It answers some completely different question.
http://www.schoyencollection.com/24-smaller-collections/wine...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even hunter-gatherers have chiefs and elders. Hunter-gatherer bands do not have chiefs. Looking at the Wikipedia article for "Tribal chief" it says "Historically, tribal societies represent an intermediate stage between the band society of the Paleolithic stage and civilization with centralized, super-regional government based in cities." I couldn't put it better. Even with regards to Indian chiefs, and it's not ha…
To be fair, you don't have to refer to them as "Indians". Most serious academic anthropologists would refrain from doing so, preferring Native American instead. So to label them as "Indians" yourself and then to state that "it's not hard to see how there are misconceptions about them if they're still referred to as 'Indians'" is a bit disingenuous. I'm sure there are misconceptions but I don't take as evidence the fa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Possibly for the same reason you can't scan 88-year-old images of Mickey Mouse without being sued by Disney. You mean besides the scientific (or at least practical, at the current level of OCR/machine learning) impossibility of what the parent suggests? Plus, I don't think parent asks why don't WE scan/ocr/machine learn translate them, but why the archeological community doesn't.
> Plus, I don't think parent asks why don't WE scan/ocr/machine learn translate them, but why the archeological community doesn't. Pure speculation but if it's like any other scientific community the pressure to be the first to publish would take control. Releasing scans, pictures, etc would allow someone else to beat you to the punch which means they'll get the fame and future funding.