Darwin-L Message Log 2: 123–168 — October 1993

Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

Darwin-L was an international discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences, active from 1993–1997. Darwin-L was established to promote the reintegration of a range of fields all of which are concerned with reconstructing the past from evidence in the present, and to encourage communication among scholars, scientists, and researchers in these fields. The group had more than 600 members from 35 countries, and produced a consistently high level of discussion over its several years of operation. Darwin-L was not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles Darwin, but instead addressed the entire range of historical sciences from an explicitly comparative perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology, systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical geography, historical anthropology, and related “palaetiological” fields.

This log contains public messages posted to the Darwin-L discussion group during October 1993. It has been lightly edited for format: message numbers have been added for ease of reference, message headers have been trimmed, some irregular lines have been reformatted, and error messages and personal messages accidentally posted to the group as a whole have been deleted. No genuine editorial changes have been made to the content of any of the posts. This log is provided for personal reference and research purposes only, and none of the material contained herein should be published or quoted without the permission of the original poster.

The master copy of this log is maintained in the Darwin-L Archives (rjohara.net/darwin) by Dr. Robert J. O’Hara. The Darwin-L Archives also contain additional information about the Darwin-L discussion group, the complete Today in the Historical Sciences calendar for every month of the year, a collection of recommended readings on the historical sciences, and an account of William Whewell’s concept of “palaetiology.”

-----------------------------------------------
DARWIN-L MESSAGE LOG 2: 123-168 -- OCTOBER 1993
-----------------------------------------------

DARWIN-L
A Network Discussion Group on the
History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu is an international network discussion group on
the history and theory of the historical sciences.  Darwin-L was established
in September 1993 to promote the reintegration of a range of fields all of
which are concerned with reconstructing the past from evidence in the present,
and to encourage communication among academic professionals in these fields.
Darwin-L is not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles
Darwin but instead addresses the entire range of historical sciences from an
interdisciplinary perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical
linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology,
systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical
anthropology, historical geography, and related "palaetiological" fields.

This log contains public messages posted to Darwin-L during October 1993.
It has been lightly edited for format: message numbers have been added for ease
of reference, message headers have been trimmed, some irregular lines have been
reformatted, and some administrative messages and personal messages posted to
the group as a whole have been deleted.  No genuine editorial changes have been
made to the content of any of the posts.  This log is provided for personal
reference and research purposes only, and none of the material contained herein
should be published or quoted without the permission of the original poster.
The master copy of this log is maintained in the archives of Darwin-L by
listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.  For instructions on how to retrieve copies of
this and other log files, and for additional information about Darwin-L, send
the e-mail message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

Darwin-L is administered by Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu), Center for
Critical Inquiry in the Liberal Arts and Department of Biology, University of
North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A., and it
is supported by the Center for Critical Inquiry, University of North Carolina
at Greensboro, and the Department of History and the Academic Computing Center,
University of Kansas.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:123>From hantuo@utu.fi  Wed Oct 27 11:59:43 1993

To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: hantuo@utu.fi (Hanna Tuomisto)
Subject: human evolution
Date: 	Wed, 27 Oct 1993 19:03:09 +0200

I have asked this before, but since no one has answered, I'll ask it again:

Has someone got references to ANY publications where the aquatic ape theory
(AAT) has been seriously considered, and consequently proven either wrong
or less coherent than an alternative terrestrial theory of human evolution?

In several occasions I have heard such claims as "paleoanthropologists have
dismissed the aquatic ape theory for legitimate reasons". Does anyone know
what those reasons are? Soon I'm starting to suspect that the opponents of
AAT have not even given it a serious thought but have simply ignored it for
some non-scientific reason. Such reasons might include:

1) The savanna theory was presented first. Now people take it for granted
and stop being open for alternatives.

2) People imagine that the savanna theory is able to explain more than it
actually is, and that it has been proved correct, so they reject the idea
that any theory could possibly be better.

3) People do actually not know what AAT is, but they reject some straw man
version of it.

4) People are reluctant to admit that they may have accepted the wrong
hypothesis.

5) The first public presentation of AAT was ridiculized in the media.
People are afraid of committing themselves to something that others find
ridiculous.

6) The first book that considered AAT seriously had a feministic tone.
People are afraid that accepting AAT might support feminism, so they prefer
to reject the theory.

7) The most active proponent of AAT is not a paleoanthropologist, and she
is female, so the theory must be wrong.

Please prove to me that at least someone has conciously chosen the savanna
theory on the basis of its scientific merits.

Hanna Tuomisto
hantuo@utu.fi

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:124>From boisei@liverpool.ac.uk  Wed Oct 27 13:04:08 1993

From: "Dr. C.G. Wood" <boisei@liverpool.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: human evolution
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 18:04:50 GMT

In the last mail Hanna Tuomisto said:

> I have asked this before, but since no one has answered, I'll ask it again:
>
> Has someone got references to ANY publications where the aquatic ape theory
> (AAT) has been seriously considered, and consequently proven either wrong
> or less coherent than an alternative terrestrial theory of human evolution?

The answer is yes:

"The aquatic ape: fact or fiction?" eds. M. Roede, J. Wind, J. Patrick
& V. Reynolds. London: Souvenir Press

This volume is a collection of papers by scientists other than those
who are the major proponents (although they also have their say here,
I think).

This should allow you to judge the pros and cons for yourself (though
I think rather too much rain forest has been destroyed already to
justify such a book!!!!!!!!!!!)

--

  |==================================================|
  |                  |
  | Chris Wood             |
  | Hominid Palaeontology Research Group     |
  | Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology |
  | University of Liverpool        |
  | P.O. Box 147        ||     |
  | Liverpool L69 3BX      /  \    |
  | United Kingdom      /--\__/--\   |
  |            <  0 /\ 0  >  |
  | Tel: +51 794 5516      \  []  /    |
  | Fax: +51 794 5517     [____]   |
  |             BOISEI   |
  |                  |
  |==================================================|

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:125>From ANWOLFE@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU  Wed Oct 27 13:05:04 1993

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 13:35:26 EDT
From: ANWOLFE@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU
Subject: Re: human evolution
To: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>

  See the Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction? ed by M Roede, J. Wind, J. Patrick,
and V. Reynolds.  Souvenir Press, 1991.  This book examines the issue
you raise.  Linda Wolfe

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:126>From boisei@liverpool.ac.uk  Wed Oct 27 13:10:52 1993

From: "Dr. C.G. Wood" <boisei@liverpool.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: human evolution
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 18:11:37 GMT

I forgot to mention that the book on AAT was published in 1991, if you
need to know the date to help you find a copy.

Oops...

--

  |==================================================|
  |                  |
  | Chris Wood             |
  | Hominid Palaeontology Research Group     |
  | Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology |
  | University of Liverpool        |
  | P.O. Box 147        ||     |
  | Liverpool L69 3BX      /  \    |
  | United Kingdom      /--\__/--\   |
  |            <  0 /\ 0  >  |
  | Tel: +51 794 5516      \  []  /    |
  | Fax: +51 794 5517     [____]   |
  |             BOISEI   |
  |                  |
  |==================================================|

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:127>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Wed Oct 27 13:52:18 1993

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 13:52:18 -0500
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: hantuo@utu.fi, darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: human evolution

I have been to swamped with other things this week to reply to your last
message. I assumed that you were familiar with a critique of the aquatic
hypothesis published in 1991. Your latest posting indicates otherwise. Here is
the reference:

Machteld Roede, Jan Wind, John Patrick, and Vernon Reynolds. 1991. The Aquatic
Ape: Fact or Fiction? London: Souvenir Press. 369 pp.

I have not read this book. It was reviewed in AJPA in the August 1992 issue
(88(4):564-566.

Permit me to quote from the first paragraph of the review:

"Most readers of AJPA will be surprised to find a recent book devoted to an
issue we thought long dead. The book contains 22 chapters, some of which are
barely more than abstracts. Many of the chapters support the theory of an
aquatic stage in earliest hominid evolution, but others are neutral, and at
least three are bitingly critical of the "Aquatic Ape Theory." The final
chapter and the epilogue conclude that there is little evidence in support of
the Aquatic Ape Theory and that the evidence is support of the traditional
Savannah Theory is much more compelling."

This is the proceeding of a symposium convened by the Dutch Association of
Physical Anthropology. It attempted to be an even-handed, serious examination
of the two arguments. The reviewer found that the different views represented
were difficult to compare because they were presented from such divergent
perspective and methods.

"One of the major uses of this book that I see is in seminars considering the
difference between scientific and popular explanation."

The Aquatic Ape hypothesis, I believe, falls into the latter category. I have
borrowed a copy of the Table of Contents. The theory is presented in the first
five chapters. Elaine Morgan wrote the first two. The next fifteen chapters, by
various authors, examine the reception by anthropologists, the geological
evidence, aspects of general aquatic adaptations, adipose tissue,
thermoregulation, respiratory adaptations, locomotion, comparative anatomy, and
reproduction.

I hope this is what you are looking for.

[By the way, my comment on creationism in my last posting was not meant to
offend. I meant to compare the difficulty of trying to compare a specific model
(e.g. aquatic ape, creationism) to an entire discipline (paleoanthropology,
evolutionary theory) in which there is still lively debate and disagreement on
particulars.]

JOHN H. LANGDON      email LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY    FAX  (317) 788-3569
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS   PHONE (317) 788-3447
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:128>From KIMLER@social.chass.ncsu.edu  Wed Oct 27 15:17:32 1993

From: KIMLER@social.chass.ncsu.edu
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 16:27:27 EST5EDT
Subject: caveman

I found myself intrigued by the recent request for the first use of
"caveman."  Can anyone who knows the history of the image of the
caveman and its hypothetical cultural reconstructions fill me in?  Or
any references to historical work on the imagery of this late 19th
century version of human evolution?

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:129>From idavidso@metz.une.edu.au  Wed Oct 27 18:22:29 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 09:26:00 +0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: idavidso@metz.une.edu.au (Iain Davidson)
Subject: Re: caveman

>I found myself intrigued by the recent request for the first use of
>"caveman."  Can anyone who knows the history of the image of the
>caveman and its hypothetical cultural reconstructions fill me in?  Or
>any references to historical work on the imagery of this late 19th
>century version of human evolution?

I think there are all sorts of interesting questions of this sort (mine is
who first suggested that all Australian Aborigines were
fisher-gatherer-hunters?  After all the first colonists of the Americas had
found fghs side by side with agriculturalists.  And of Africa had found
agriculturalists side by side with fghs.)  On this one Stephanie Moser at
University of Sydney has done some wonderful work on imagery of prehistory.
 It is forthcoming in the proceedings of the first Women and Archaeology
conference published by the Australian National University later this year.
 I suspect the imagery drives the narrative more frequently than we care to
admit.  How else could the tales about huts at Terra Amata and elephant
drives at Torralba/Ambrone survive but through the graphic images?

Iain Davidson
Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology
University of New England
Armidale NSW 2351
AUSTRALIA
Tel (067) 732 441
Fax  (International) +61 67 73 25 26
      (Domestic)   067 73 25 26

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:130>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Wed Oct 27 21:23:12 1993

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 22:29:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Cavemen in Rudwick's _Scenes From Deep Time_ (1992)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

People interested in the history of the "caveman" idea might find some
interesting material in Martin Rudwick's very beautiful new book _Scenes From
Deep Time: Early Pictorial Representations of the Prehistoric World_ (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1992).  Rudwick is a leading historian of geology,
and this book is a handsomely produced album of illustrations and text passages
on the early attempts to depict the prehistoric earth.  Most date from the
early and mid-1800s and show plesiosaurs, pterodactyls, and the like, but there
are several early illustrations of prehistoric humans as well, including an
archetypal "caveman" taken from Pierre Boitard's _Paris before Men_ (1861).
I append here Rudwick's description of this figure, and the delightfully lurid
passage he quotes from Boitard about travelling back in time and entering the
cave itself while the cavemen are asleep.

Here is Rudwick (pp. 166-169):

"Jacques Boucher de Perthes (1788-1868)...had long claimed to have found
chipped flint implements of apparently human workmanship in direct association
with the familiar bones and teeth of mammoths and other extinct mammals....

"Such claims were first given pictorial expression in a popular book entitled
_Paris before Men_ (_Paris avant les hommes_, 1861).  This was a posthumous
publication by the French botanist and geologist Pierre Boitard (1789-1859).
In order to introduce his readers to the idea of deep time, Boitard uses the
literary device of an explicitly magical or fairy-tale character.  He conjurs
up Asmodee, the lame demon (la diable bioteux -- in French a nice pun on his
own name), whom he borrows from Le Sage's classic novel of that name (1707), to
conduct him on his adventure.  One of the first illustrations (not reproduced
here) shows the two, sitting comfortably on a large meteorite as if on a Paris
omnibus, traveling through deep time as if through deep space.

"The very first of Boitard's true scenes from deep time therefore depicts these
two characters -- the human and the magical -- as actors within the scene
itself, just as Buckland had been an actor within his den of extinct hyenas
(fig. 17).  The magic has whisked the demon in the period costume and the
elegantly dressed Parisian back in deep time into the world of the plesiosaur
(fig. 76; text 58).  The nightmarish horror of the encounter, heightened by
such gratuitous details as the reptile's forked tongue and yellowish scaly
coat, establishes the required tone of monstrosity in the ancient world.  With
the principle of magical time-travel thus established, Boitard does not bother
to depict himself in any later scenes.

"The frontispiece, however, is significant: it is a highly unflattering and
monkeylike representation of 'Fossil Man' (fig. 77), wielding a stone axe
against unseen enemies and defending his equally simian mate and offspring at
the mouth of their cave.  This design showed Boitard's readers at once where he
stood in the controversy about human origins, and the corresponding narrative
(text 59) accentuates the bestiality of his readers' forebears.  At the end of
the book, his final scene depicts what he terms the 'Anthropic Period,' setting
those hardly human beings unambiguously in a landscape of extinct mammals (fig.
78)."

And here is text 59, which Rudwick reproduces from Boitard:

"'Are you afraid?' the demon asked me.

" -- I believe we are going to encounter animals even more formidable than
those we met on our way here.

"But the genie threw me such a forcefully ironic glance that I was ashamed of
my weakness, and I entered the cave with a determined step....Little by little
my pupils dilated, and I was able to see, vaguely at first, the objects that
surrounded us: a hyaena, with its skull split as if it had been struck on the
head with an axe, was stretched out at our feet, and several scraps of bear's
flesh, half eaten, were strewn here and there on the ground, exuding a highly
unpleasant smell....But what astonished me most was a kind of clay pot, not
fired but sun-baked, very crudely made, and half full of the still warm blood
of the hyaena.  The genie pointed out that on the edge of the pot were the
bloody marks of lips that had drunk the disgusting liquid it contained.  By the
side of the pot I saw a fragment of flint, trimmed roughly into the form of a
tapered axe, mounted at the end of a stick, and bound firmly with strips of
bear's skin.  This instrument was closely similar to the tomahawk of the
Canadian savages....

"The genie put his finger to his mouth, signalling me to keep silent and to
move forward with care; which I did.  Then he gently lifted the bear skin and
revealed to my eyes the most singular and horrible animals I had seen until
now.  There were three of them, two large, and a small one that I recognized as
the young of this horrible species....Its body had rather the form of an
orang-utang, but without being either nimble to graceful, because it was stout,
squat and thickly muscular...."

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________


<2:131>From peter@usenix.org  Thu Oct 28 07:19:49 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 05:23:22 PDT
From: peter@usenix.org (Peter H. Salus)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re:  caveman

I am not sure as to the precise answer to Kimler's query, but
the usage of "cavedweller" seems to antedate "caveman" by about
50-60 years.  As "cavedweller" arises in the 1820s-1830s, it
is clearly an expression of the early 19th century/early Victorian
zeal for exploration.

P

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:132>From buchignani@hg.uleth.ca  Thu Oct 28 08:27:01 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 07:33:04 MDT
From: Norman Buchignani <buchignani@hg.uleth.ca>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: caveman

re: cavemen.

I learned something from my somewhat delayed search. It
seems that there is general consensus that medieval notions
of "savages"--essentially wild men--saw then as naked,
hairy, without social organization, and living in caves.
Thus it is not surprising that many early travellers
accounts of folk who fit the notion of extreme degeneration
were said to be living in caves. The association of extreme
primitiveness and caves clearly pre-dates any discussion of
fossils and of fossil human remains. 18th c. philosophers
(like Adam Ferguson 1767:9) often use cave-dwelling as a
shorthand for really basic human existence.

With the rise in interest in remains found in caves in the
early 1820s by Wm Buckland and others, a key issue was
whether human remains and artifacts there were actually
associated with what evidently were extinct animal remains
or not; there was an assumption that people had at some time
long ago occupied some of these caves. Ditto Chas. Lyell in
the 1830s. However, the popular image of the caveman we have
today (as per cartoons, etc.) seems to have come together
after the first Neanderthal finds.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:133>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Thu Oct 28 10:08:41 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 10:08:41 -0500
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: caveman

In message <00974AED.239E71C0.18510@hg.uleth.ca>  writes:

> I learned something from my somewhat delayed search. It
> seems that there is general consensus that medieval notions
> of "savages"--essentially wild men--saw then as naked,
> hairy, without social organization, and living in caves.
> Thus it is not surprising that many early travellers
> accounts of folk who fit the notion of extreme degeneration
> were said to be living in caves. The association of extreme
> primitiveness and caves clearly pre-dates any discussion of
> fossils and of fossil human remains. 18th c. philosophers
> (like Adam Ferguson 1767:9) often use cave-dwelling as a
> shorthand for really basic human existence.
>
> With the rise in interest in remains found in caves in the
> early 1820s by Wm Buckland and others, a key issue was
> whether human remains and artifacts there were actually
> associated with what evidently were extinct animal remains
> or not; there was an assumption that people had at some time
> long ago occupied some of these caves. Ditto Chas. Lyell in
> the 1830s. However, the popular image of the caveman we have
> today (as per cartoons, etc.) seems to have come together
> after the first Neanderthal finds.

The notion of "wildmen" existed in European folklore through the Middle ages
and into modern periods independently of any notion of evolution (physical or
cultural). I think they were understood to be something quite different from
real people-- not merely culturally "primitive" people and certainly not
evolutionarily ancestral types. Wildmen were hairy/animal-like creatures of the
woods and other non-civilized places. I believe they have the same source in
the human psyche as abominable snowmen and Sasquatch. A structuralist might say
that wildmen are to nature what people are to culture.

I doubt that the concept of a "caveman" evolved directly from wildmen, but
certainly similar psychological processes are at work. Possibly it is an
archetype reinterpreted in an evolutionary setting. It might therefore be a
useful exercise to trace the transformation in scientific thought of early
humans into subhuman "cavemen" and observe the convergence reconstruction with
archetype.

Because caves were used occasionally as permanent or temporary human living
quarters into modern times, I also doubt that cave-dwelling has always been
associated with primitiveness. Perhaps that association might have arisen in
urban society as the cultural gulf between urban and rural experience widened,
but I suspect that "cave" entered the equation because of the discovery of
archaeological remains there and without reference to the older wildman image.

I would be very interested in any evidence that does link the popular wildman
myth with the modern science of human evolution. I am aware of the intense
scientific interest in human freaks and "wolf children" in the 17th through
19th centuries, but I don't know of any carry over from these discussions into
the interpretation of early fossils and archaeological remains.

JOHN H. LANGDON      email LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY    FAX  (317) 788-3569
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS   PHONE (317) 788-3447
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:134>From SOSLEWIS@ACS.EKU.EDU  Thu Oct 28 10:13:59 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 11:17:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: SOSLEWIS@ACS.EKU.EDU
Subject: Re:  caveman
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Is it possible the term caveman originated in Hollywood? We all know they
have taken any number of "artistic" liberties with history, biology, etc.
 Ray
soslewis@acs.eku.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:135>From peter@usenix.org  Thu Oct 28 11:52:19 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 09:55:45 PDT
From: peter@usenix.org (Peter H. Salus)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re:  caveman

No, no.  'caveman' antedates the film industry by many
decades.

P

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:136>From buchignani@hg.uleth.ca  Thu Oct 28 12:59:02 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 11:57:17 MDT
From: Norman Buchignani <buchignani@hg.uleth.ca>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: caveman

>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 10:09:23 -0500
>From: "JOHN LANGDON" <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
>
>In message <00974AED.239E71C0.18510@hg.uleth.ca>  writes:
>>
>> I learned something from my somewhat delayed search. It
>> seems that there is general consensus that medieval notions
>> of "savages"--essentially wild men--saw then as naked,
>> hairy, without social organization, and living in caves.
>> Thus it is not surprising that many early travellers
>> accounts of folk who fit the notion of extreme degeneration
>> were said to be living in caves. The association of extreme
>> primitiveness and caves clearly pre-dates any discussion of
>> fossils and of fossil human remains. 18th c. philosophers
>> (like Adam Ferguson 1767:9) often use cave-dwelling as a
>> shorthand for really basic human existence.

Well, I guess I should not have used "primitiveness" here.
It would be more accurate to say that they were associated
with extreme degeneration. Degeneration from a cultured,
civilized life to brutish existence due to environmental and
other postulated causes was of course a commonplace notion.
More socioculturally relativist folk like Ferguson saw all
peoples as civil, but not necessarily civilized; with a full
kit of basic human social tendencies and aspirations, and
social org. to match.

>> With the rise in interest in remains found in caves in the
>> early 1820s by Wm Buckland and others, a key issue was
>> whether human remains and artifacts there were actually
>> associated with what evidently were extinct animal remains
>> or not; there was an assumption that people had at some time
>> long ago occupied some of these caves. Ditto Chas. Lyell in
>> the 1830s. However, the popular image of the caveman we have
>> today (as per cartoons, etc.) seems to have come together
>> after the first Neanderthal finds.
>
>The notion of "wildmen" existed in European folklore through the Middle
>ages and into modern periods independently of any notion of
>evolution (physical or cultural).

Not independent of degeneration, as noted above. Sorry again
for the ambiguity.

>I think they were understood to be something quite different from
>real people-- not merely culturally "primitive" people and certainly not
>evolutionarily ancestral types. Wildmen were hairy/animal-like creatures of
>the woods and other non-civilized places. I believe they have the same source
>in the human psyche as abominable snowmen and Sasquatch. A structuralist might
>say that wildmen are to nature what people are to culture.

Well, it is easily to provide support for the connection, as
I can think of a number of cases where early (16th and e.
17th century) travellers' accounts clearly have homed in on
cave dwelling as part of a shorthand kit of indicators of a
very degenerate, "brutish" existence. This includes cases
where none of the people so represented actually lived in
caves. I wouldn't want to foreground this. however, as there
were other pan-European markers indicative of extreme
generation that were much more frequently used.

>I doubt that the concept of a "caveman" evolved directly from wildmen, but
>certainly similar psychological processes are at work. Possibly it is an
>archetype reinterpreted in an evolutionary setting. It might therefore be a
>useful exercise to trace the transformation in scientific thought of early
>humans into subhuman "cavemen" and observe the convergence reconstruction with
>archetype.
>
>Because caves were used occasionally as permanent or temporary human living
>quarters into modern times, I also doubt that cave-dwelling has always been
>associated with primitiveness. Perhaps that association might have arisen in
>urban society as the cultural gulf between urban and rural experience widened,
>but I suspect that "cave" entered the equation because of the discovery of
>archaeological remains there and without reference to the older wildman image.

Well, of course as far as high interest in human difference
goes, that in sociocultural difference far predates that
concerning human biological diversity, so there is fertile
ground here for such a link. Note that late medieval
travellers were (by today's standards) highly sensitive to
etiquette, civility, etc.--general markers of status, which
already were associated with civilization and opposed to
"nature."

>I would be very interested in any evidence that does link the popular wildman
>myth with the modern science of human evolution. I am aware of the intense
>scientific interest in human freaks and "wolf children" in the 17th through
>19th centuries, but I don't know of any carry over from these discussions into
>the interpretation of early fossils and archaeological remains.

I would agree re: what I have read of the fossil lit. from
1800-1835, but note another necessary ingredient: the rise
of invidious scientific notions of human race, which really
aren't mainstream until about 1835-50 (save in the US).

Norman Buchignani
Department of Anthropology
University of Lethbridge

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:137>From buchignani@hg.uleth.ca  Thu Oct 28 13:29:47 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 11:58:45 MDT
From: Norman Buchignani <buchignani@hg.uleth.ca>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: caveman

Addendum: one also would have to accept the mind-brain connection, fostered
primarily by phrenologists (1805-  ) to complete the l. 19th c. caveman
image.

NB

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:138>From 72350.1764@CompuServe.COM  Thu Oct 28 15:59:29 1993

Date: 28 Oct 93 16:59:05 EDT
From: Earth Magazine <72350.1764@CompuServe.COM>
To: Darwin <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: caveman

I wonder if there might be a connection between wildman/caveman and specific
groups of people who lived on the fringes of society in mediaeval and early
modern times (or even later.) By the time of the French revolution, I've read,
agricultural peasants in France were terrified of and had made up some
mythology about a group of people who lived in the woods, cutting wood and
making charcoal. The village poeple made the woods people out to be Centaurs,
essentially. There must have been many similar groups right up through the
industrial revolution. Maybe some of them even lived in caves.
Tom Waters

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:139>From RICHARDS@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU  Thu Oct 28 16:27:08 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 16:57:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bob Richardson, University of Cincinnati" <RICHARDS@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: caveman
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Both the question of the origin of "caveman," and of the connection, if any,
with "wild men" have been raised.

There are certainly suggestions of cavemen, and a connection with primitive
forms from many sources.  For example, W. Waterman writes in 1555, "The
Troglodites myne them selves caves in the ground, wherein to dwell."  Two
centuries later, the connection is still present in Herbert Spencer, who speaks
of "Aboriginal man, of troglodyte or kindred habits" (1873).

The references seem clearly to be suggestive of something human, or nearly so.
T. H. Huxley reports that one of Linnaeus' students includes "Troglodyta
Bontii" and "Lucifer Aldrovandi" as among the "Anthropomorpha," or what Huxley
glosses as "man-like apes."  Even if the suggestion is meant to be that the
first is an anthropoid ape in the genus Troglodytes (which seems
anachronistic), these had an ambiguous status in the 17th Century.  In fact,
Linnaeus reclassified the latter as a species of Homo.

In Schaaffhausen's description of the Neanderthal (from 1857 or 1858), we see
the following as among his conclusions, "That these remarkable human remains
belonged to a period antecedent to the time of the Celts and Germans, and were
in all probability derived from one of the wild races of North-western Europe,
spoken of by Latin writers" (cited in Huxley's _Man's Place in Nature_).  Even
in _Dr. Jekyll_, we read, "God bless me, the man seems hardly human.  Something
Troglodytic...".

The connections are loose, but not non-existent.

Robert C. Richardson
Richards@UCBEH.San.UC.edu

"a Troglodyte in metaphysics ... not properly acquainted with such writers as
Descartes or Hobbes" (Rogers, 1854).

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:140>From GA3704@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU  Thu Oct 28 17:03:46 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 17:03:18 CST
From: "Margaret E. Winters" <GA3704@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: caveman

In the first French romances (around 1170 AD) Chretien de Troyes
one two occasions talks about his heros (Lancelot in one case and
Yvain in the other) losing their senses, throwing off their clothes
and running to live in the forest like wild men.  Their coming
back to civilization is one of the steps in their redemption in
each of these courtly poems.  What I cannot remember (I'm at home
and the books are in the office) is if they take refuge in caves
during these periods of insanity.  Anyone else know??

Oh yes, hermits also lived in caves in the various saints lives
of the dark ages and the high middle ages - a conflicting image
to some extent, but they are described as unkempt and even quite
malodorous.

             Margaret Winters
             <ga3704@siucvmb.siu.edu>

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:141>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Thu Oct 28 17:27:51 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 17:27:51 -0500
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: caveman

I appreciate your comments, but I still wonder whether there are any real
connections.

> For example, W. Waterman writes in 1555, "The
> Troglodites myne them selves caves in the ground, wherein to dwell."  Two
> centuries later, the connection is still present in Herbert Spencer, who
> speaks of "Aboriginal man, of troglodyte or kindred habits" (1873).

Is this any more a connection than that both used the same word, one that
stands out because it is rarely used at present? In calling aboriginal man a
troglodyte, he was merely observing cave-dwelling. I don't know the context
here. Was Spencer influenced by cultural stereotypes or by archaeological
excavation?

> T. H. Huxley reports that one of Linnaeus' students includes "Troglodyta
> Bontii" and "Lucifer Aldrovandi" as among the "Anthropomorpha," or what
> Huxley glosses as "man-like apes."  Even if the suggestion is meant to be
> that the first is an anthropoid ape in the genus Troglodytes (which seems
> anachronistic), these had an ambiguous status in the 17th Century.  In fact,
> Linnaeus reclassified the latter as a species of Homo.

I can cite a more lengthy exploration of this problem:

Richard Nash, "Science and Literature as Culture Studies: The Case of Tyson's
Pygmie." In JH Langdon and ME McGann, eds., The Natural History of Paradigms.
University of Indianapolis Press. 1993 (in press but due out within a few
days).

Nash explicitly examines the intersection of popular fascination with wildmen
and freaks and the construction of formal science (e.g. the Royal Academy,
Linnaean classification) in the problem of identifying and classifying the
orangutan. But is there carry over in the sense of shaping images of human
evolution in the 19th century?

JOHN H. LANGDON      email LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY    FAX  (317) 788-3569
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS   PHONE (317) 788-3447
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:142>From mahaffy@dordt.edu  Thu Oct 28 17:29:53 1993

Subject: Re: caveman
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 17:33:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: James Mahaffy <mahaffy@dordt.edu>

In the discussion of where association of cavemen was made with early
humanoid fossils, wasn't it true that many of the early finds were from
caves.  I suspect caves are very good at preserving fossils.  Even in
the recent past the American Indianas that lived out West and lived in
caves gave much more obvious indication of habitation than what is left
here in northwest Iowa in the great plains.  And I suspect the dry west
or caves preserve bones much better than a wet soil.
--
James F. Mahaffy       e-mail: mahaffy@dordt.edu
Biology Department       phone: 712 722-6279
Dordt College        FAX 712 722-1198
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:143>From c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com  Thu Oct 28 20:30:12 1993

From: c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 23:59:00 BST
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: human evolution

difference between scientific and popular explanation."
 ---------
 Could someone expand on this; it seems to propose that the rigor in
testability and measurement somewhat determines the type of explanation.
However, how can the definition of theory itself allow for such a domain?
 If would help to characterize this issue of difference in information or
systematics terms?

Carlos Lavastida/C.LAVASTIDA1@genie.geis.com

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:144>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Thu Oct 28 21:45:07 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 22:51:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Siegfried Sassoon on the historical sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

I came across this poem by the English poet Siegfried Sassoon (1886-1967) this
evening, and thought some people might enjoy it.  To my amateur ear the first
stanza is clearly the best.  If anyone happens to have any other favorite
literary commentaries on the historical sciences I would be glad to hear of
them (feel free to post extracts if you like).  I find texts of this sort to
be very valuable in teaching because they can give beginning students an
imaginative feeling for a subject that they don't necessarily get from more
techinical works, and at the same time these works can illustrate for more
advanced students some of the cultural relations of the historical sciences.


EARLY CHRONOLOGY

Slowly the daylight left our listening faces.

Professor Brown with level baritone
Discoursed into the dusk.
      Five thousand years
He guided us through scientific spaces
Of excavated History, till his lone
Roads of research grew blurred; and in our ears
Time was the rumoured tongues of vanished races,
And Thought a chartless Age of Ice and Stone.

The story ended: and the darkened air
Flowered while he lit his pipe; an aureole glowed
Enwreathed with smoke: the moment's match-light showed
His rosy face, broad brow, and smooth grey hair,
Backed by the crowded book-shelves.
      In his wake
An archaeologist began to make
Assumptions about aqueducts (he quoted
Professor Sandstorm's book); and soon they floated
Through dessicated forests; mangled myths;
And argued easily round megaliths.

Beyond the college garden something glinted;
A copper moon climbed clear above black trees.
Some Lydian coin?...Professor Brown agrees
That copper coins were in that culture minted.
But, as her whitening way aloft she took,
I thought she had a pre-dynastic look.


Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:145>From AGRIA@ACVAX.INRE.ASU.EDU  Fri Oct 29 01:30:02 1993

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 23:33:28 -0700 (MST)
From: Rochelle Altman <AGRIA@ACVAX.INRE.ASU.EDU>
Subject: Re: caveman
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

_King Horn_ Godhild, Horn's mother goes to live in a cave -- no indication
that she was unkempt and dirty. Yvain grubs around in the wild forest; if
I remember correctly, Yvain's "benefactor" -- the hermit -- lives in a
cave (or was it a cave like rock hut?).
The connection seems to be with the wild wood, not a cave. I don't
think you the answer to "caveman" lies in medieval literature or folk
song/tale. (The Horn ballads don't mention mama.)

Rochelle

Rochelle I Altman
BITNET: AGRIA@ASUACVAX
INTERNET: AGRIA@ACVAX.INRE.ASU.EDU

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:146>From KGA@UNCMVS.OIT.UNC.EDU  Fri Oct 29 07:48:30 1993

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 08:51 EDT
From: "Kermyt G Anderson"         <KGA@UNCMVS.OIT.UNC.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Re: caveman

Robert C Richardson (Richards@UCBEH.San.UC.edu) writes,

> The references seem clearly to be suggestive of something human, or nearly
> so.  T. H. Huxley reports that one of Linnaeus' students includes "Troglodyta
> Bontii" and "Lucifer Aldrovandi" as among the "Anthropomorpha," or what
> Huxley glosses as "man-like apes."  Even if the suggestion is meant to be
> that the first is an anthropoid ape in the genus Troglodytes (which seems
> anachronistic), these had an ambiguous status in the 17th Century.  In fact,
> Linnaeus reclassified the latter as a species of Homo.

Is this in any way related to the naming of the chimpanzee as
_Pan troglodytes_? Obviously, the species was named long before
anyone in Europe knew much about the ecology or behavior of wild
chimpanzees--so why does their scientific name characterize them as
cave dwellers?

KG Anderson
KGA@UNCMVS.OIT.UNC.EDU

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:147>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Fri Oct 29 08:52:10 1993

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 08:52:10 -0500
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Re: caveman

In message <9310291248.AA37776@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>  writes:

> Is this in any way related to the naming of the chimpanzee as
> _Pan troglodytes_? Obviously, the species was named long before
> anyone in Europe knew much about the ecology or behavior of wild
> chimpanzees--so why does their scientific name characterize them as
> cave dwellers?

Pan troglodytes was named in 1788, according to Szalay and Delson. If anyone
wants to track this down, the reference given is

JF Gmelin, ed., 1788. Systema Naturae (C. Linnaeus) 13th ed. Vol. 1. G.E. Beer,
Leipzig.

Knowledge of the existence of the apes through word of mouth and later through
cadavers greatly preceded any understanding of their natural history. I suspect
this is another example where European folklore appeared to be confirmed and
the describers jumped to a wrong conclusion.

JOHN H. LANGDON      email LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY    FAX  (317) 788-3569
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS   PHONE (317) 788-3447
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:148>From bkatz@lehman.com  Fri Oct 29 09:03:08 1993

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 10:06:35 EDT
From: bkatz@lehman.com (Boris Katz)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: difference between scientific and popular explanation

c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com writes:

  difference between scientific and popular explanation
  ...
  Could someone expand on this...

There are two expansions: one - scientific and another - popular...

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:149>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Fri Oct 29 10:43:06 1993

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 10:43:06 -0500
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: human evolution

In message <9310290133.AA20510@relay2.geis.com>  writes:
> difference between scientific and popular explanation."
>  ---------
>  Could someone expand on this; it seems to propose that the rigor in
> testability and measurement somewhat determines the type of explanation.
> However, how can the definition of theory itself allow for such a domain?
>  If would help to characterize this issue of difference in information or
> systematics terms?

Although I introduced the dichotomy, I was quoting someone else. Since the
review also mentioned popular "explanations" such as those of Van Daniken, I
would hazard to suggest that scientific explanations are to be held to more
rigorous standards in considering a broader range of multidisciplinary data.
Popular explanations appear to be acceptable if they are merely consistent with
the evidence under immediate considerations and without deeper thought.
Scientific explanations must be extended and tested further. Perhaps the
simplest contrast comes from supermarket tabloids where some readers appear
perfectly happy to accept an explanation one day (UFO's come from Mars; Elvis
is still alive) that directly contradicts headlines of the previous week (UFO's
are vehicles of angels; Elvis' ghost was seen in outer space by Pioneer).
Clearly this difference-- this lack of concern with the broadest possible range
of pertinent data-- removes "popular explanation" from real science.

JOHN H. LANGDON      email LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY    FAX  (317) 788-3569
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS   PHONE (317) 788-3447
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:150>From CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu  Fri Oct 29 11:01:13 1993

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 10:14 CDT
From: Tom Cravens <CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: difference between scientific and popular explanation
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Rather than the difference between scientific and popular explanation,
or perhaps prior to tackling that question, I would welcome a definition/
characterization of scientific explanation. I grappled with this quite
a bit as a (linguistics) grad student, and never did get beyond what a
fellow student called--bluntly but not inaptly--"theory-specific hand-waving".
Now I don't use the terms `explain', `explanation', etc., but cowardly
hedges instead.

(Yes, I know what a can of worms this is. I'm curious to know what is
accepted as explanation in historical sciences, or more crucially perhaps,
what isn't.)

Tom Cravens
cravens@wiscmacc.bitnet
cravens@macc.wisc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:151>From SLREVIEW@ucs.indiana.edu  Fri Oct 29 12:10:55 1993

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 12:14:29 EST
From: MATA KIMASITA YO <SLREVIEW@ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: questions and comments re cavemen discussion
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

	A friend off list, following the caveman discussion off-list
	through my forwards to him, questions and comments as follows:

 Will anyone mention Aristotle's ref to pygmies, and their warfare with
the cranes?

 Although Aristotle was pretty sure that pygmies were animals, in
later centuries some suggest that they are humans. Others deny that
they exist and excuse Aristotle for having been fooled, probably by a
distant sighting of orang outangs.

 I'm struck by the lack of human remains in the painted caves,
which suggests that the painters didn't live there. There is some lit
on "wildmen" in the Middle Ages, but I haven't looked at it, nor have
I seen any ref to wildmen in discussions of animal soul.

 Gorillas were not seen alive by white people until the 20th
century...

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:152>From ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu  Fri Oct 29 13:34:07 1993

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 14:39:31 -0400
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu (Jeremy John Ahouse)
Subject: Re: scientific and popular explanation

>In message <9310290133.AA20510@relay2.geis.com>  writes:
>> difference between scientific and popular explanation."
>>  ---------
>>  Could someone expand on this; it seems to propose that the rigor in
>> testability and measurement somewhat determines the type of explanation.
>> However, how can the definition of theory itself allow for such a domain?
>>  If would help to characterize this issue of difference in information or
>> systematics terms?
>>
>Although I introduced the dichotomy, I was quoting someone else. Since the
>review also mentioned popular "explanations" such as those of Van Daniken, I
>would hazard to suggest that scientific explanations are to be held to more
>rigorous standards in considering a broader range of multidisciplinary data.
>Popular explanations appear to be acceptable if they are merely consistent
>with the evidence under immediate considerations and without deeper thought.
>Scientific explanations must be extended and tested further. Perhaps the
>simplest contrast comes from supermarket tabloids where some readers appear
>perfectly happy to accept an explanation one day (UFO's come from Mars; Elvis
>is still alive) that directly contradicts headlines of the previous week
>(UFO's are vehicles of angels; Elvis' ghost was seen in outer space by
>Pioneer). Clearly this difference-- this lack of concern with the broadest
>possible range of pertinent data-- removes "popular explanation" from real
>science.
>
>JOHN H. LANGDON      email LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
>DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY    FAX  (317) 788-3569
>UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS   PHONE (317) 788-3447
>INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227

    This is an interesting point especially the phrase "Popular
explanations appear to be acceptable if they are merely consistent with the
evidence under immediate considerations..."  We make a lot out of the
notion of subdomains/subdisciplines that are incommensurable and whose
domains don't overlap, I even saw a note recently by someone who was
accused of synesthesia (wanting to make analogous arguments in a new field
but unable to map all of the "nouns" between the 2 domains).  So practice
seems to be flanked by an insistence on including more than the evidence
under immediate consideration on the one side and subdiscipline borders on
the other.

    thoughts?

    - Jeremy

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:153>From SMD@utkvx.utk.edu  Fri Oct 29 13:35:23 1993

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 14:03:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Donnelly" <SMD@utkvx.utk.edu>
Subject: Neandertals, wild-men, troglodytes and satyrs
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Yesterday John Langdon wrote:

> I would be very interested in any evidence that does link the popular wildman
> myth with the modern science of human evolution. I am aware of the intense
> scientific interest in human freaks and wolf children in the 17th through
> 19th centuries, but I don't know of any carry over from these discussions
> into the interpretation of early fossils and archaeological remains.

This reminded me of an article I once came across in Current Anthropology
(call number GN1.C83 for the non-anthropologists).  The reference is: Bayanov
and Bourtsev (1976), "On Neanderthal vs. Paranthropus" Curr. Anthropol.
17(2):314-318.

This article is a response to a letter written in response to an article
written by another Soviet scientist (B.F. Porshnev) who died while his article
was in press, making it difficult for him to respond in person--so Bayanov and
Bourtsev took it upon themselves to respond for the original author.

Porshnev's short article is an attempt to revise the classification of the
hominids.  He argues that modern Homo sapiens is the only true hominid and that
all earlier "bipedal higher primate fossils" should be reassigned to the family
"Troglodytidae" which consists of four genera.  One of these is the genus
"Troglodytes"--these are the Neandertals.

But then he goes on to imply that the troglodytes have not gone extinct or
were assimilated into more modern populations, but rather they  have managed
to survive and persist in peripheral, marginal areas.  These relic Neandertals
are the so-called "wild-men".

In reply to this a letter was written to CA in which it was proposed that
wild-men are really relic "Paranthropines" (i.e. robust australopithecines,
A. robustus and A. boisei).

The article, or letter, by Bayanov and Bourtsev is an attempt to show that the
wild-men must be Neandertals rather than Paranthropines.  In it they cite a
number of sources which describe these wild-men.  One of these is an
excerpt from Lucretius (last century B.C.), who says among other things that
the wild-men live in woods or caves in the mountains.  B. and B. give other
descriptions of these wild-men, for example, from Plutarch (who called his wild
man a satyr), Pliny the elder (who also called them satyrs), Albertus Magnus,
and so on, and up to the 20th C with a description of a wild-man shot by
Russian soldiers "in the western Pamirs" (wherever that may be).

Some of the decscriptions do make the wild-men sound Neandertal-like.  For
example, the wild-men are described as being very muscular and having a low,
sloping forehead, large browridges, a large jaw and a flattened nose with a
deeply recessed nasal bridge.

The American wild-men are, according to B. and B., more primitive than the
Eurasian wild-men, and could be relic populations of a more primitive early
hominid.  Grover Krantz believes that Sasquatch could be the descendant of
Gigantopithecus (which is not a hominid, it's a pongid).  Krantz has a recent
book on this subject, which to be honest, I haven't read. I know about it
only from book reviews.

   Steven Donnelly
   Department of Anthropology
   University of Tennessee-Knoxville
   BITNET:  smd@utkvx
   INTERNET:  smd@utkvx.utk.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:154>From BDHUME@ucs.indiana.edu  Fri Oct 29 13:47:54 1993

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 13:51:29 EST
From: BDHUME@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: caveman
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Caves were the locale of many an early excavation.  Individuals like
William Buckland and Georges Cuvier, however spent a lot of time
discrediting claims for human antiquity based on cave evidence
because they saw too many natural and human causes working against
dating -- such as floods that would mix remains, or intrusive burial.
The open site work by individuals such as Boucher de Perthes were much
harder to discredit, but even Boucher's early work was criticized (although
not for his excavation so much as his interpretation).

Brad Hume
Phd Student -- Indiana University
BDHUME@Indiana.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:155>From GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU  Fri Oct 29 14:50:45 1993

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 14:54:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
Subject: Re: DARWIN-L digest 54
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Someone(s) asked about the differences between 'scientific' and 'popular'
explanations. A-hem. We just started precisely that topic in my Phil of
Hist seminar this morning. So I should be primed to say something rich
and informative about the distinction. I am: there's no way, ultimately
to make the clean divide. Indeed, the whole topic of "explanation" has been
a major issue--perhaps THE major issue--since the mid-40s. [and Meyerson's
famous _Identity and Reality_ '08, inaugurated the discussion...] The
positivist's idea that ALL legitimate explanation was covering-law type
[universal "all" statement, followed by a particular instance-statement],
crashed and burned in the immediate post-Kuhnian conflagration.

The best way to make a distinction between popular and scientific is to
note, first, that all explanations are applications of a theory. Hence,
to distinguish explanation-types, distinguish the theory-types in which
they are embedded. Ergo and all that: scientific explanations are those
which are embedded in scientific theories.

Hoo-boy, NOW all we've got to do is distinguish scientific from popular
theories. Take two aspirin and call me in the morning!

Some historians think that there is a type of explanation which occurs
solely in historical contexts, roughly, it's the narrative. Joyner and
Rescher, in an early but influential article, argue that, as goes
history, so goes historical science(s) [and vice versa].
On this topic, we need look no further than our Glorious Leader of the List.
I retire the field in his favor.

BTW, not all popular theories need utilize non-natural objects, properties,
and interactions. Which means that not all popular explanations occur--or
are allowed to occur--in supermarket weeklies. Folk psychology, the
psychology we all believe in our hearts, is certainly a popular theory,
and, for many of us, I would suppose, relatively naturalistic.
Enough. Happy Halloween to those of you who admit such things.
g

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:156>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sat Oct 30 00:33:32 1993

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 01:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Some notes on historical explanation
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Tom Cravens asks about explanation in the historical sciences, and Professor
Gale prompts me as well, so I guess I had better post a few notes.  Since
George is actually teaching this material, and I only dabble in it (wishing I
could take his course), I hope he'll supplement what I have to say as he sees
fit.  (Maybe he could just upload a lecture or two.) ;-)

As Tom noted, the whole topic of explanation is a huge can of worms, but it is
an interesting and delectible one.  I think there's lots of room for important
and innovative work here, because much of what has been written about
explanation in the historical sciences has used models of explanation that
were developed originally in the context of the non-historical experimental
and physical sciences.  One of the things I have tried to do in my own work is
explore some of the literature on explanation in history generally, and from
what I have seen there are a lot of ideas in that literature that could be
fruitfully applied to problems in the historical sciences.  While many people
in the historical sciences have some familiarity with the philosophy of
science, the philosophy of _history_ remains a very small and very much
under-studied field for reasons that largely escape me.  Anyone who wants to
consider philosophical issues in the historical sciences, though, really ought
to delve into the philosophy of history, because that's where the most
relevant work will be found, in my opinion.

What follows is just brief sketch-map of the territory to supplement what
George already posted; it may help people orient themselves with respect to
the topic and provide a few useful references.


One of most important early twentieth-century views of historical explanation
and understanding, usually associated with the work of Robin Collingwood
(1946), was the "reenactment" view: we understand the actions of Caesar when
we can reenact in our own minds the thoughts he had, and see how they led him
to take the actions that he took.  The development of a sense of sympathetic
understanding has always been considered important by historians, and
Collingwood's reenactment notion attempts to capture this.  But this is in
many respects the least interesting view of historical explanation and
understanding from the point of view of the historical sciences, because
"history" for Collingwood was only the history of human actions: the earth has
no "history" for him, because it is not a rational being whose mind we can
enter.  This is clearly a very narrow definition of "history", and Toulmin &
Goodfield responded to it quite effectively in the introduction to their book
_The Discovery of Time_ (1965).

During the mid-twentieth century most discussion of historical explanation
focussed on the so-called covering law model of explanation that George Gale
mentioned.  This model of explanation is usually associated with Carl Hempel,
who tried to extend it from its original home in the physical sciences into
history in a very influential paper published in 1942.  Much of this work is
considered old hat nowadays, but it was important because it drove a number of
people who didn't like Hempel's project to examine carefully just what
historical explanation and understanding were like, under the assumption they
were not just immature versions of physics as Hempel had seemed to imply.

Beginning in the 1950s, partly in reaction to Hempel, a number of people began
developing autonomous theories of historical explanation and understanding
under the general rubric of "analytical philosophy of history".  Some of the
principal actors involved were (and are) William Dray, Morton White, Arthur
Danto, Louis Mink, William Gallie, Patrick Gardner, W. H. Walsh, and Alan
Donagan; if you search a good library catalog under these names you will turn
up lots of titles.  Recent collections of the work of these people that I have
found particularly useful include Dray (1989) and Mink (1987).  With regard to
narrative representation (though not necessarily explanation) I have found,
and continue to find, Danto's _Narration and Knowledge_ (1985) very valuable.

The analytical philosophers of history tried to characterize a number of kinds
of explanations used in historical writing in addition to the covering-law
type discussed by Hempel.  These included narratives, continuous series
explanations, integrating explanations, how-possibly explanations, and others.
David Hull, a noted philosopher of evolutionary biology, wrote a very nice
paper (1975) on integrating explanations that deserves more attention than it
has had; and I've applied Dray's notion of "how-possibly" explanations to
evolutionary biology in one of my own papers (1988).

Some of the most recent work in these areas has been influenced by literary
theories of narrative.  People like Hayden White and Paul Ricoeur are
important in this context, though I have tended to find this work less
accessible to me as a scientist than the earlier work of Danto, Dray, and
their allies.

This is just the briefest of sketches; there is a good deal of recent
literature in these areas that I have not followed closely.  The journal
_History and Theory_ (the principal journal in philosophy of history)
regularly publishes papers on all aspects of historical explanation and
understanding, and is a good place to look to find out what's going on.

Literature cited above:

Collingwood, Robin G.  1946.  _The Idea of History_.  Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Danto, Arthur C.  1985.  _Narration and Knowledge_.  New York: Columbia
University Press.

Dray, William.  1989.  _On History and Philosophers of History_.  Leiden: E.
J. Brill.  (Excellent volume of selected papers.)

Hempel, Carl G.  1942.  The function of general laws in history.  _Journal of
Philosophy_, 39:35-48.  (Reprinted in Hempel's selected papers volume, the
title of which I don't recall.)

Hull, David L.  1975.  Central subjects and historical narratives.  _History
and Theory_, 14:253-274.  (Reprinted in Hull's selected papers volume _The
Metaphysics of Evolution_, 1989.)

Mink, Louis O.  1987.  _Historical Understanding_ (B. Fay, E. O. Golub, & R.
T. Vann, eds.).  Ithaca: Cornell University Press.  (Excellent volume of
selected papers.)

O'Hara, Robert J.  1988.  Homage to Clio, or, toward an historical philosophy
for evolutionary biology.  _Systematic Zoology_, 37:142-155.

Toulmin, Stephen E., & June Goodfield.  1965.  _The Discovery of Time_.  New
York: Harper and Row.  (Reprinted by University of Chicago Press.  The single
best book on the historical sciences, in my opinion.)


Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:157>From c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com  Sat Oct 30 02:43:32 1993

From: c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 04:22:00 BST
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: caveman

> Troglodites myne them selves caves in the ground, wherein to dwell."  Two
 here. Was Spencer influenced by cultural stereotypes or by archaeological
 excavation?
 Interesting; in Pliny NH VI, 169, Trogodytice, the land of the Trogodyti,
cave dwellers, again in NH VIII, 25, - cotermini Ethiopia - and NH 32,
"Elephants in..Ethiopia and Trogodytae..."; further Coromines Etymology uses
"troglodyta" as cavedweller from 1444,  "cavernicola", caveman, comes into
the language in 1906, which would indicate a move from taxa to vox vulga,
the later certainly a cultural development.
 C.LAVASTIDA1

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:158>From Michael_Kenny@sfu.ca  Sat Oct 30 13:20:09 1993

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 11:23:36 -0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: Michael_Kenny@sfu.ca (Michael Kenny)
Subject: Re: Cavemen in Rudwick's _Scenes From Deep Time_ (1992)

I seem to recall in previous exchanges a reference to "Palaetiological
Sciences." Since noting this, the term has come to my attention again via
an 1847 work by ("and through") one Andrew Jackson Davis entitled "The
Principles of Nature, Her Divine Revelations, and A Voice to Mankind."
Davis was an American progressivist mystic who delivered his so-called
revelations while in magnetic trance; later he became one of the major
philosophical figures in the Spiritualist movement. The "Revelations" is a
cogmogony based on a telelogical reading of contemporary physical and
biological science which attempts to establish that the ultimate goal of
the Universe is indefinite progress toward total harmony in the human and
natural worlds. It reads like an odd melange of Lyell, Herbert Spencer
("matter and motion" get great play), and popular knowledge of
electromagnetism. Reference to "palaetiological sciences" appears in the
following context, which I quote:

"It is the office of palaetiological sciences to set forth general truths
in the departments of astronomy, geology, anatomy, physiology, &c., all as
in perfect harmony with each other, and as forming a general and undeniable
proof of the united chain of existences, and binding the whole together as
one grand BOOK... From this Book properly interpreted, should be derived
the text of every sermon. In this, true theology has its foundation; and
the teachings of this should constitute the only study of the theologian
[Davis dismisses ordinary theology as sectarian fanaticism]. By collecting
palaetiological facts, then these things are gradually developed; and thus
in unfolded the actual demonstration of original design, uniformity of
motion and progression, and the consequent adaptation of means, to produce
ultimates. -- And thus is displayed the principle of Cause, Effect, and
End, commencing at the foundation of, and operating through, Nature."

And so on. What I would like to ask is (1) what is the source of this
notion of "Palaetiological Sciences", (2) is anyone out there working on
the relation between popularized science and this sort of mystical
self-styled 'scientific'  progressivism during the period in question?
Davis is a pre-Darwinian evolutionist who constantly cites the evidence of
geological stratigraphy and the fossil record, linking same to an upwards
universal telos to which he has gained insight through his clairvoyant
powers (thus discovering among other things that the inhabitants of Saturn
are as far above us as we are above the denizens of Mercury).

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:159>From GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU  Sat Oct 30 15:32:15 1993

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 15:35:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
Subject: Re: DARWIN-L digest 55
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Darwinites--
Bob O'Hara, as per usuale,
has set a good example: he put his sources up for all of us to use. I should
supply refs for a couple of things, then.

I mentioned an early but useful article on the relations btw. history
and the historical sciences. That is:

Joynt, C.B. and Rescher, N. "The Problem of Uniqueness in History", in
George H. Nadel _Studies in the Philosophy of History_, Harper.

An excellent review of the whole topic of explanation in history is in
Atkinson, R.F., _Knowledge and Explanation in History_, Cornell (paper).

Finally, in what is probably the most unnerving, but exciting, piece I've
ever read on the topic, Haskell Fain (in his _Between Philosophy and
History_) argues quite convincingly that analytic philosophy of history
inevitably creeps over into metaphysical philosophy of history. This
claim, which seems to me prima facie entertainable, has serious implications
for the practicing historian of (*)science, where (*) may be filled in
as you care to fill it in. E.g., with "evolutionary biological- ".

This means, putting it as crudely as I can think of, that whenever we
push our analysis of the history of (*) in just the right sort of way,
we inevitably end up acting as Hegel did toward HIS analysis of history.
Scary.

I've got some more titles of interest in phil. hist. should anyone care to
want to lift the lid on THAT particular box of Pandorean worms.
g

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:160>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sat Oct 30 22:33:52 1993

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 23:40:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: "Palaetiology"
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

I'm very grateful to Michael Kenny for the reference to the "palaetiological
sciences" -- the sciences of historical causation -- in the writings of Andrew
Jackson Davis, which I hadn't seen before.  I will add it to my short list of
appearances of the word, and would very much like to hear from anyone else who
sees or has seen it in print.  The palaetiological sciences are the very
subject of Darwin-L.

"Palaetiology" was coined by the English polymath William Whewell (1794-1866).
Early in his career Whewell did work in mineralogy, but he is best known for
his two major works _The History of the Inductive Sciences_ (1st ed. 1837,
three vols.), and _The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences_ (1st ed. 1840,
two vols.).  "Palaetiology" appears first in _The History of the Inductive
Sciences_ in 1837, I believe.  Whewell became Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge, and President of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science in 1841, and was one of the highest-ranking academic personages of his
day.  He also wrote on education and educational reform.  Hodge (1991:255)
says: "Only by grafting Cassirer, the historical philosopher, on to Conant,
the scientific educator, could we have in our day a comparable combination of
intellectual stride and institutional clout, of polymathic savant and academic
supremo."  Whewell's brand of philosophy of science was out of fashion for
much of the twentieth century, but he has in recent years been attracting a
lot of new attention, and a few books have begun to appear on his work,
including Fisch (1991), Fisch and Schaffer (1991), and Yeo (1993).  Next year
will be the 200th anniversary of his birth.

Whewell was one of the great neologists of the nineteenth-century, bequeathing
to us the words "physicist", "scientist", "anode", "cathode", and the names
"catastrophism" and "uniformitarianism" for the two competing schools of
geology of the day.  He also brought us "palaetiology", which unfortunately
never caught on, I think largely because it was unpronounceable.  (I certainly
have a very hard time pronouncing it.)  What Whewell was trying to do in
coining this term was to recognize a class of sciences of which geology was
the exemplar, sciences concerned with the causation of singular sequences of
past events. Whewell included comparative philology among the palaetiological
sciences, and recognized palaetiological portions of astronomy, zoo- and
phytogeography, ethnography, etc.

Apart from the reference that Michael Kenny just supplied the only other
substantive use of the term by Whewell's contemporaries I have seen comes from
William Willing (1838:12), a comparative philologist:

"The name...of Comparative Philology, is not sufficiently comprehensive for
the science treated of in this work; the subject, in its whole extent, belongs
rather to the class of sciences which have lately been called Palaetiological;
and of which Geology is, at present, the best representative."

I'm sure there were others, however, and as I mentioned above I'd be pleased
to hear about them.  We may well have some real historians of science in our
audience who know a good deal more about the history of the word than I do.
The OED lists one other appearance of palaetiology (spelled "palaitiology") in
the work of Max Muller, an historical linguist; this appears to be just a
passing reference to how various authors had treated linguistics in the past.

Here are a couple of extracts from Whewell himself on the scope of
palaetiology and on its value in liberal eductaion; both his _History_ and
_Philosophy_ have whole chapters on the palaetiological sciences that go into
more detail:

"As we may look back towards the first condition of our planet, we may in like
manner turn our thoughts towards the first condition of the solar system, and
try whether we can discern any traces of an order of things antecedent to that
which is now established; and if we find, as some great mathematicians have
conceived, indications of an earlier state in which the planets were not yet
gathered into their present forms, we have, in pursuit of this train of
research, a palaetiological portion of Astronomy.  Again, as we may inquire
how languages, and how man, have been diffused over the earth's surface from
place to place, we may make the like inquiry with regard to the races of
plants and animals, founding our inferences upon the existing geographical
distribution of animal and vegetable kingdoms: and this the Geography of
Plants and of Animals also becomes a portion of Palaetiology.  Again, as we
can in some measure trace the progress of Arts from nation to nation and from
age | to age, we can also pursue a similar investigation with respect to the
progress of Mythology, of Poetry, of Government, of Law....It is not an
arbitrary and useless proceeding to construct such a Class of sciences.  For
wide and various as their subjects are, it will be found that they have all
certain principles, maxims, and rules of procedure in common; and thus may
reflect light upon each other by being treated together."  (William Whewell,
The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, 1:639-640, second edition, 1847,
London: John W. Parker.)

"I have ventured to give reasons why the chemical sciences (chemistry,
mineralogy, electrochemistry) are not at the present time in a condition which
makes them important general elements of a liberal education.  But there is
another class of sciences, the palaetiological sciences, which from the
largeness of their views and the exactness of the best portions of their
reasonings are well fitted to form part of that philosophical discipline which
a liberal education ought to include.  Of these sciences, I have mentioned
two, one depending mainly upon the study of language and the other upon the
sciences which deal with the material world.  These two sciences, ethnography,
or comparative philology, and geology, are among those progressive sciences
which may be most properly taken into a liberal education as instructive
instances of the wide and rich field of facts and reasonings with which modern
science deals, still retaining, in many of its steps, great rigour of proof;
and as an animating display also of the large and grand vistas of time,
succession, and causation, which are open to the speculative powers of man."
(William Whewell on liberal education, in _Great Ideas Today_, 1991:388-9.)

References cited above:

Fisch, Menachem.  1991.  _William Whewell: Philosopher of Science_.  Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

Fisch, Menachem, & Simon Schaffer, eds.  1991.  _William Whewell: A Composite
Portrait_.  Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hodge, M. J. S.  1991.  The history of the earth, life, and man: Whewell and
palaetiological science.  In Fisch & Schaffer, 1991:255-288.

Winning, William Balfour.  1838.  _A Manual of Comparative Philology, in which
the Affinity of the Indo-European Languages is Illustrated, and Applied to the
Primeval History of Europe, Italy, and Rome_.  London: J. G. & F. Rivington.

Yeo, Richard.  1993.  _Defining Science: William Whewell, Natural Knowledge,
and Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain_.  Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.


Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:161>From c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com  Sun Oct 31 00:51:41 1993

From: c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 13:27:00 BST
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: difference between scientific

c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com writes:

  difference between scientific and popular explanation
  ...
  Could someone expand on this...

There are two expansions: one - scientific and another - popular...
 ---------
 The question is whether there is one difference...or is it a systematic
process...."This ad hoc changing of hypothesis content rightly infuriates
strict adherence of hypothetico-deductive methodology in science and is a
feature of scenarios that most horrifies them..." Eldredge, Philogenetic
Analysis, 1979).
 Carlos.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:162>From c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com  Sun Oct 31 01:52:27 1993

From: c.lavastida1@genie.geis.com
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 13:26:00 BST
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: DARWIN-L digest 54

BTW, not all popular theories need utilize non-natural objects, properties,
 and interactions. Which means that not all popular explanations occur--or
 --------
 I was referring to popular in the context of scientitsts writing non fiction
works "popularizing" their subjects, sometimes may be inadvertently, ala
Huxley. I ask taxonomists because their experience in systematics could be
useful in determining at what point does "popular" become unscientific.
Partly the use of the word "theory" is confusing; is a theory just a general
context for any opinion, or does it have an information structure that
minimally sets it as an object of study.
 Carlos.
 PS. further to Halloween, likewise.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:163>From hantuo@utu.fi  Sun Oct 31 07:13:47 1993

To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: hantuo@utu.fi (Hanna Tuomisto)
Subject: scientific and popular explanations/ human evolution
Date: 	Sun, 31 Oct 1993 15:17:03 +0200

It has been noted by some people already that the distinction between
scientific and popular is a difficult one to make, and I fully agree.

In my opinion part of the difficulty is that the word "popular" has several
meanings. I'm not saying that the word "scientific" is unambiguous either,
but at least people tend to agree that it implies that the explanation
given has been evaluated as the best of available alternatives, and that
natural laws and statistical principles have been taken into account.
Anyway, the word "popular" has at least two meanings: 1) easy to
understand, and 2) not well substantiated. The first alternative does not
contradict the "scientific" in any way, whereas the second does. Therefore
we can have popular texts that are scientific, and popular texts that are
not. The latter includes the UFO-stuff etc that have been quoted in this
discussion before, while the former includes scientific texts that have
been written to make a particular field of science accessible for educated
laymen and scientists who are not specialists in that field.

The dichotomy scientific vs. popular was brought into discussion after John
Langdon had quoted a review of the book "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction"
as follows:

>"One of the major uses of this book that I see is in seminars considering the
>difference between scientific and popular explanation."
>
>The Aquatic Ape hypothesis, I believe, falls into the latter category.

I have not read the book review, so I do not know in which way its writer
interpreted "popular". It is clear, however, that John Langdon interpreted
it according to the second alternative. Most other critiques of AAT seem
either to interpret it in that way also, or to confuse the two meanings of
the word. I have seen quite a few arguments against AAT (and especially
against Morgan's books) that go like this:

Morgan writes in a style that is easy to read and understand, i.e. her
books are "popular". Because "popular" is the opposite of "scientific", the
theory she advocates must be wrong.

I'm adding this as number 8 to my list of possible non-scientific reasons
why people reject AAT.

Hanna Tuomisto      e-mail  hantuo@utu.fi
Department of Biology     Fax   +358-21-6335564
University of Turku     Phone +358-21-6335634
FIN-20500 Turku, FINLAND

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:164>From P_OHARA@ACAD.FANDM.EDU  Sun Oct 31 08:52:19 1993

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 09:55:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: P_OHARA@ACAD.FANDM.EDU
Subject: RE: caveman
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: Franklin and Marshall College

I am a new subscriber who has been following this discussion of the caveman
with real interest.  I am not a scientist but rather a literary scholar; my
project is, broadly, nineteenth-century social evolutionary theory and late-
century fictional narrative in Britain (Lubbock, Tylor, Spencer, etc. &
Meredith, Hardy, etc).  I thought I'd add a literary citation to the
discussion, a poem (below) entitled "Ballade of Primitive Man" (1880), written
by Andrew Lang, that Victorian man of many letters and protegee of E. B. Tylor.
Lang includes a footnote which claims that the last three stanzas (which I
have starred**) were written by an "eminent anthropologist."  In *Victorian
Anthropology,* George Stocking names Tylor himself as that anthropologist.
The tone of the poem (reinforced by the tripping ballade meter) is quite light.
I offer it (excerpted) for the interest (and amusement perhaps?) of those
pursuing 19th century evolutionary images of the primitive man of the caves,
and those like myself interested in how the circulation of 19th century
evolutionary theory informed late- nineteenth century literature:

from "Double Ballade of Primitive Man"

He lived in a cave by the seas,
He lived upon oysters and foes,
But his list of forbidden degrees,
An extensive morality shows;
Geological evidence goes
To prove he never had a pan,
But he shaved with a shell when he chose,--
'Twas the manner of Primitive Man.....

*On the coasts that incessantly freeze,
With his stones, and his bones, and his bows;
On luxuriant tropical leas,
Where the summer eternally glows,
He is found, and his habits disclose
(Let theology say what she can)
That he lived in the long, long agos,
'Twas the manner of Primitive Man!

*From a status like that of the Crees,
Our society's fabric arose,--
Develop'd, evolv'd, if you please,
But deluded chronologists chose,
In accordance with Mos
es, 4000 BC for the span
When he rushed on the world and its woes,---
'Twas the manner of Primitive Man!

*But the mild anthropologist, --he's
Not recent inclined to suppose
Flints Palaeolithic like these,
Quaternary bones such as those!
In Rhinoceros, Mammoth and Co.'s,
First epoch, the Human began,
Theologians all to expose,--
'Tis the mission of Primitive Man....

Patricia O'Hara  Franklin & Marshall College p_ohara@acad.fandm.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:165>From GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU  Sun Oct 31 13:53:15 1993

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 14:56:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
Subject: Re: DARWIN-L digest 56
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

All right, I give; how DO you pronounce "Palaetiology"? I haven't a clue
by just looking at it...
In answer to Carlos' fair question: by "theory" I would certainly include
all and only reasonably well-elaborated cognitive structures including
a model (which provides the sematics/"metaphysics" of the theory) and
observational/predictive calculus (which delineates the "experimental"
application of the theory). If anyone --for whatever odd reason! :-) --would
be interested in seeing a few more sentences on my view of the topic, I've
got a draft called "Theories" posted on the International Philosophy
Preprint Exchange, reacheable by gopher kasey.umkc.edu/Science Studies,
or by anonymous ftp at phil-preprints.L.chiba-u.ac.jp.
Explanations relying on either (or both) the calculus or the model may be
deployed.
George
ggale@vax1.umkc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:166>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sun Oct 31 14:52:02 1993

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 15:58:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Pronouncing "palaetiology"
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Well, George, I'd type in the OED's pronunciation, but most of the characters
in it are non-ASCII.  :(  Have to get by with one of those phonetic spellings
like they use in elementary school books: pal-ee-tee-'AW-luh-djee.  I make it
six syllables altogether, with accent on the first "o".  It certainly doesn't
roll off my tongue, but maybe those who speak British English can do it more
easily?  Whewell himself didn't seem to have any trouble:

"A philological writer, in a very interesting work, (Mr. Donaldson, in his
_New Cratylus_, p. 12) expresses his dislike of this word, and suggests I must
mean _palae-aetiological_.  I think the word is more likely to obtain currency
in the more compact and euphonious form in which I have used it.  It has been
adopted by Mr. Winning, in his _Manual of Comparative Philology_, and more
recently, by other writers."  (Whewell, Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences,
second edition, p. 638.)

Oh well.  "Palae-aetiological" is what Whewell _did_ mean etymologically: the
palaetiological sciences are the sciences of historical causation.  The
Donaldson reference is one I forgot to mention in my previous post.  I have
not seen it, but found a wonderful quotation from it in another source; the
citation and sample quotation are:

Donaldson, John William.  1850.  _The New Cratylus; or Contributions Toward a
More Accurate Knowledge of the Greek Language_.  Second edition, London.
(Whewell must be referring to the first edition, but I couldn't its date.)

"The study of language is indeed perfectly analogous to Geology; they both
present us with a set of deposits in a present state of amalgamation which
however may be easily discriminated, and we may by an allowable chain of
reasoning in either case deduce from the _present_ the _former_ condition, and
determine by what causes and in what manner the superposition or amalgamation
has taken place."  (Donaldson, 1850:14)

Could any of our Classicists possibly explain the significance of Cratylus in
this context?

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:167>From sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu  Sun Oct 31 19:17:17 1993

To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Pronouncing "palaetiology"
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 93 20:19:36 -0500
From: Sally Thomason <sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu>

Bob O'Hara asks why Donaldson's title has the Cratylus in it.
I'm not a classicist, but: the Cratylus is about determining
word etymologies -- that is, figuring out the histories of words.
I'd guess it was the most famous work on the topic in Donaldson's
time -- or our time, for that matter, since philology isn't, in
spite of Whewell's recommendation, a major part of basic science
education!  (Too bad for us historical linguists.)

  Sally Thomason
  sally@pogo.isp.pitt.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<2:168>From WILLS@macc.wisc.edu  Sun Oct 31 23:03:57 1993

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 93 23:06 CDT
From: Jeffrey Wills <WILLS@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Pronouncing "palaetiology"
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

To amplify Sally Thomason's comments:
	The _Cratylus_ (named for a major interlocutor in it) is the first
extant attempt, in the western tradition at least, to discuss the origin of
language. Much of the dialogue centers on whether language is purely a matter
of convention (nomos) or one of nature (physis) or somehow a combination. Plato
has Cratylus take the position that all words are naturally appropriate (and
therefore falsehood is impossible). To test this Socrates offers many
etymologies, some patently absurd. Probably contemporary theories of language
are being satirized (i.e. Plato is not initiating this topic in Greek
philosophy) but we don't know the references.
	As to pal(ae)-aetiology, the Classicist in me doesn't really like this
compounding type (even if sedimentary processes are being referred to ;)). How
would palae(o) "ancient, antiquated" help the meaning here anyway? The problem
is that *aetiology*, the study of causes, had already been coopted by the
Greeks for the origin of customs and names. The options are either to find a
compositional stem that is explicit as to this subdiscipline (historio-) or to
find another Greek stem for cause (alas aetio- is pretty much it) or
explanation (but exegesis, hermeneu-, are taken).

Jeffrey Wills
wills@macc.wisc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________
Darwin-L Message Log 2: 123-168 -- October 1993           End