Walking with cavemen: commentary thread

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

ascent of man, he learned, he this, him that, man did this.
That gender specification.
Women did half the work, they should at least get acting credit.

Why do people fail to notice the man part of the word woman? The terms "man" and "mankind" can refer to both men and women, as they do in this case.

[SyntaxVorlon]

My mother, a phd in sociology who works in a soc/anth dept, was annoyed by the gender specific lingo and outmoded terminology, but found it to be accurate, a good portrait.

What gender specific lingo??

You mom sounds like one of those women who take offense to terms like "Alpha male" for no good reason.

She doesn't, she was annoyed that they assumed homonid society was male dominated like chimps and more to the point that they stated it with certainty, not giving time to precidented female dominated groups.
Like I said, she's a phd, if she takes offense she has a good reason. She teaches this in a class.
She's updating her reading, here's the new book:
"Becoming Human" Ian Tattersol

I'm putting it on my reading list for this summer, after watching this documentary.

[weemadando]

As with the UK showing, the DVD of the series and book will come out within the week.

Before I put money into this thing... Is Walking with Cavemen worth $15.

As long as its the UK version... Hell yes. Can't comment on the US version.

[Johonebesus]

You mom sounds like one of those women who take offense to terms like "Alpha male" for no good reason.

She doesn't, she was annoyed that they assumed homonid society was male dominated like chimps and more to the point that they stated it with certainty, not giving time to precidented female dominated groups.
Like I said, she's a phd, if she takes offense she has a good reason. She teaches this in a class.
She's updating her reading, here's the new book:
"Becoming Human" Ian Tattersol

I'm putting it on my reading list for this summer, after watching this documentary.

What evidence is there that hominid societies were not male-dominated? Males dominate chimpanzee society. Males dominate the vast majority of human societies, and have throughout recorded history. I get very wary when people get worked up about overturning the misogyny in scholarship. A lot of post-modern feminists are too quick to jump to conclusions and speculate about utopian societies ruled by matriarchies. To hear some talk, Neolithic Europe was a paradise with virtually no violence, until the nasty patriarchic Indo-Europeans arrived. Not to criticize your mother, I do not know her or her expertise, but just because she has a Ph.D. does not mean she is a great expert on all things. You said her degree was in sociology. This question is one of palaeo-anthropology/zoology. That does not mean she might not know all about it, but, with all due respect, and I hope you do not take offense to this, in my experience sociologists tend to get philosophy and science mixed up. They often let their hypotheses and post-modernistic attitudes get in the way of real science.

Nonetheless, the program did seem incomplete. In many instances they stated or depicted certain details as fact when there is (or was quite recently) a fair bit of debate. For example, I was under the impression that scientists are not certain which Australopithecus was our ancestor, or where exactly H. habilis fits in, or whether he is Homo or Australopithecus, or even a separate species at all. They seemed to make a lot of guesses about behavior, like the H. erectus being able to identify tracks. I would have liked a more detailed discussion with more emphasis on what exactly is known and how it is known and what is debated without the stupid dramatizations, especially since the dramatizations were so lousy. Evidently the CG is not up to the task yet or they didn't have the budget, and those costumes were bad, and the actors were too human. It didn't look much better than that old film from the seventies.

[kojikun]

a few hundred years ago "man" never meant males but humans as a species. its a recent phenomena that "man" means male.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Love this documentray but one thing that they don't explain to my satisfaction is HOW these new cavemen races came about. Liek teh Heidelburg man is pulled into two different species by the environment, one is Neanderthal the other I assume will be Cro Magnon man in Africa. Anywho HOW does one species of man become another? Will we one day evolve into a new species. I never really understood the process from a practical viewpoint.

Gradual change plus the occasional random mutation. Over a couple thousand years Europeans bred the wild ox into the modern domestic ox. No immediate drastic change, just a gradual process of choosing animals with desirable traits. Over hundreds of millennia, nature can do the same thing.

What I'm wondering is how out of date my knowledge is. The last I heard, H. erectus was the same species in Asia and Africa. There seem to be a lot of things that don't quite match what I have read. Some of it just seems incomplete.

What was traditionally considered one species homo erectus in recent years has been reclassified into a number of hominid species. The original homo erectus was an isolated species that lived in Asia and Indonesia (How they got to places in Indonesia, such as Java, is something of a mystery. Some believe they were bright enough to build primitive boats.) The hominids previously considered homo erectus in Africa, seemed to have enough dissimilar traits that they became their own species . . . homo egraster, and a bigger-brained descendent, homo heidelbergensis.

It also seems that the narration is not in sync with the dramatizations. Just after Baldwin explained that H. habilis couldn't speak, we see the actors apparently talking. And the apes didn't seem ape-like enough to me.

Well, chimpanzees and gorillas both have a complex set of vocalizations. Other animals vocalize in what seems to be a complex manner, but that doesn't mean that they have a 'language.' And it's hard to get convincing ape-like behavior out or men in monkey suits. And it's just plain cruel to put man suits on apes.

[SyntaxVorlon]

What evidence is there that hominid societies were not male-dominated? Males dominate chimpanzee society. Males dominate the vast majority of human societies, and have throughout recorded history. I get very wary when people get worked up about overturning the misogyny in scholarship. A lot of post-modern feminists are too quick to jump to conclusions and speculate about utopian societies ruled by matriarchies. To hear some talk, Neolithic Europe was a paradise with virtually no violence, until the nasty patriarchic Indo-Europeans arrived. Not to criticize your mother, I do not know her or her expertise, but just because she has a Ph.D. does not mean she is a great expert on all things. You said her degree was in sociology. This question is one of palaeo-anthropology/zoology. That does not mean she might not know all about it, but, with all due respect, and I hope you do not take offense to this, in my experience sociologists tend to get philosophy and science mixed up. They often let their hypotheses and post-modernistic attitudes get in the way of real science.

True, chimpanzees have society like that, but Bonobos have a matriarchical society and they branched off from our common anscestor AFTER everyday chimpanzees did.
And according to my mother, alpha male societies happen more in baboon society than in chimpanzee society, though chimps are very male dominated.
True, we modern humans are rather violent, but there are over 2 million years separating us and the early homonids which the documentary claimed to have an alpha male leader, but where still related to pacifistic bonobos and their queens.
And you have a point that philosophy shouldn't get in the way of real science, however because of the roughly equal likely hood of both possiblities, male and female dominated society, among early homonids, my mother said that the documentary did not give an entirely accurate description.
However, I say again, my mother said it was a very accurate documentary regardless of the narrow focus.

Nonetheless, the program did seem incomplete. In many instances they stated or depicted certain details as fact when there is (or was quite recently) a fair bit of debate. For example, I was under the impression that scientists are not certain which Australopithecus was our ancestor, or where exactly H. habilis fits in, or whether he is Homo or Australopithecus, or even a separate species at all. They seemed to make a lot of guesses about behavior, like the H. erectus being able to identify tracks. I would have liked a more detailed discussion with more emphasis on what exactly is known and how it is known and what is debated without the stupid dramatizations, especially since the dramatizations were so lousy. Evidently the CG is not up to the task yet or they didn't have the budget, and those costumes were bad, and the actors were too human. It didn't look much better than that old film from the seventies.

I think it did a better job than 2001, because Kubrik isn't an archeological powerhouse, but then this didn't give me much confidence in the producers of the documentary either.
Personally I thought it could have done without the dramatizations, or at least made them less, how can I say this, lengthy.
They could have been shortened significantly by getting rid of certain excesses.

Koji, you are quite correct, thus the whole "man" usage would fall into the category of outmoded terms.

[Yuri Prime]

I watched this show and found it very informative, I wish they had gone into more depth about how they knew what they knew about the psychology of the earlier species, before they had tools.

1SuperJesusFreak was not kind enough to grace us with his response to the show here, so here is what he said on his own forum:

lol sorry, but a few ape and human skulls does not prove ape-men existed, sorry.

All of those skulls are either ape, or human, none of them (as much as you want them to be) are both!

Isn't he great? Whenever reality conflicts with his beliefs, reality must be wrong...

[Darth Wong]

Nothing will ever satisfy his demands, because he is demanding something which evolution theory does NOT predict to exist: a skull which is half-man, half-ape.

The missing link is actually an ape that walks upright. It would naturally have an apelike skull, so pointing out that its skull looks like that of an ape is stupid and pointless. Acting as though there's some sharp distinction between apelike skulls and human skulls when it's really just some slight changes in proportion is equally stupid. Not that this will stop someone who calls himself "JesusFreak", of course ...

[Yuri Prime]

Nothing will ever satisfy his demands, because he is demanding something which evolution theory does NOT predict to exist: a skull which is half-man, half-ape.

The missing link is actually an ape that walks upright. It would naturally have an apelike skull, so pointing out that its skull looks like that of an ape is stupid and pointless. Acting as though there's some sharp distinction between apelike skulls and human skulls when it's really just some slight changes in proportion is equally stupid. Not that this will stop someone who calls himself "JesusFreak", of course ...

I've been eagerly awaiting his his paper that's going have all this profound evidence that will overturn 150 years of science in this field, but alas, I fear I am in for one hell of a dissapointment.

[InnerBrat]

I watched all of tow episodes of Walkiing with Cavemen, then gave up becaue I found it unwatchable. It was one of the worst apieces of 'factual' TV I have ever seen, - it was just wrong. (unfortunately I have purged my memory, so I can't give specific examples)

It's nice fiction, but makes up far too much.

[Johonebesus]

What was traditionally considered one species homo erectus in recent years has been reclassified into a number of hominid species. The original homo erectus was an isolated species that lived in Asia and Indonesia (How they got to places in Indonesia, such as Java, is something of a mystery. Some believe they were bright enough to build primitive boats.) The hominids previously considered homo erectus in Africa, seemed to have enough dissimilar traits that they became their own species . . . homo egraster, and a bigger-brained descendent, homo heidelbergensis.

Ah, okay, but how much debate is there over this reclassification? It's the first I've heard about it.

Well, chimpanzees and gorillas both have a complex set of vocalizations. Other animals vocalize in what seems to be a complex manner, but that doesn't mean that they have a 'language.' And it's hard to get convincing ape-like behavior out or men in monkey suits. And it's just plain cruel to put man suits on apes.

Vocalization is one thing. Many different syllables, hand gestures, facial expressions, and continued eye contact while complicated and varied sets of sounds were exchanged back and forth several times make it look like speech, not simple vocalizations. Maybe you're right, but it looked like people talking to me, arguing over whether or not to make the kill, not like apes making noises at each other in displays of dominance or impatience.

True, we modern humans are rather violent, but there are over 2 million years separating us and the early homonids which the documentary claimed to have an alpha male leader, but where still related to pacifistic bonobos and their queens.
And you have a point that philosophy shouldn't get in the way of real science, however because of the roughly equal likely hood of both possiblities, male and female dominated society, among early homonids, my mother said that the documentary did not give an entirely accurate description.
However, I say again, my mother said it was a very accurate documentary regardless of the narrow focus.

Are you sure that bonobos are closer to us genetically? I know that some theorize it is the case, due to their gracile bodies and promiscuous sexualities, but I am not aware that a genetic study has determined that they are closer to us than chimpanzees. I don't keep up with everything, so has such a study been done? Even if it has, the fact that chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans tend to have patriarchical societies indicates that bonobos might be the exception. Keep in mind that they have been evolving too, and have changed from the common ancestor just as we have. We did not evolve from them.

Also, I would just like to point out that I was not referring to pacific or aggressive. That's just a feminist myth, that matriarchical societies are naturally peaceful while patriarchical societies are violent. Gorillas are patriarchical, yet they are not nearly as aggressive as chimpanzees (or so I have been lead to believe).

But I agree that describing the group as having an alpha male did seem out of place. It is speculation, and they did not admit it. It seems the be the trend. In the first "Walking With Dinosaurs" they were careful to state over and over that this is speculation and that is hypothetical. They even did a whole scene addressing the egg chute for the saurapod, how it was purely speculative because they had no idea how else such a huge beast could lay eggs on the ground. But with each series it seems they take more and more liberties, until that last show about future evolution. That was nothing but science fiction, yet they presented it as real science.

I think it did a better job than 2001, because Kubrik isn't an archeological powerhouse, but then this didn't give me much confidence in the producers of the documentary either.

I was not referring to "2001", but to some quasi-documentary on human evolution which had what was probably for its day state of the art make-up and costumes. Those hominids looked just as good as these new ones. And the lizard baby from "V" was more life-like than that Australopithecus baby.

Koji, you are quite correct, thus the whole "man" usage would fall into the category of outmoded terms.

It doesn't become out-moded until the majority of people no longer use it, and the universal masculine is still very common usage.

I watched this show and found it very informative, I wish they had gone into more depth about how they knew what they knew about the psychology of the earlier species, before they had tools.

That's the point, it was speculation, sometimes pretty wild speculation. It may be likely that they had male-dominated societies, but it is not certain. That scene with the Homo ergaster or whatever it was, when it was looking at the sky in wonder, that was absolute fiction. We can speculate based on the shape of the brain, as the narrator hinted at one time, but any detailed depiction of the behavior is guesswork, extrapolating from other primates and ourselves.

[Wicked Pilot]

this show makes me proud to be human.

I liked the part when we went from plant eaters and scavangers to predators. I was like "Yeah! Rock n' Roll ancestor dudes!"

And that guy with the allegator tooth was pretty badass.

[kojikun]

I liked the part when we went from plant eaters and scavangers to predators. I was like "Yeah! Rock n' Roll ancestor dudes!"

And that guy with the allegator tooth was pretty badass.

The old guy? Yeah I liked him. Smart fellow, wise.

[Stravo]

this show makes me proud to be human.

I liked the part when we went from plant eaters and scavangers to predators. I was like "Yeah! Rock n' Roll ancestor dudes!"

And that guy with the allegator tooth was pretty badass.

The guy with the alligator tooth was a precurosor to the fundies that you hate so much, after all belief that a tooth is magical is only a hop skip and a jump away from a belief in a higher power. So here we see the first inkling of religion in our ancient ancestors.

[SyntaxVorlon]

this show makes me proud to be human.

I liked the part when we went from plant eaters and scavangers to predators. I was like "Yeah! Rock n' Roll ancestor dudes!"

And that guy with the allegator tooth was pretty badass.

The guy with the alligator tooth was a precurosor to the fundies that you hate so much, after all belief that a tooth is magical is only a hop skip and a jump away from a belief in a higher power. So here we see the first inkling of religion in our ancient ancestors.

*cough*cough*
writers embellishment
*cough*
Not factual, just a dramatization, these little scenes probably didn't happen, though something similar may have happened some time in homonid history.

[kojikun]

I think alec inserted the Magic Tooth bit. Its obvious the tooth was a sign of how tought the old man was, getting a gator tooth and all.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I watched all of tow episodes of Walkiing with Cavemen, then gave up becaue I found it unwatchable. It was one of the worst apieces of 'factual' TV I have ever seen, - it was just wrong. (unfortunately I have purged my memory, so I can't give specific examples)

It's nice fiction, but makes up far too much.

Yes, apart from getting the general hominid lineage right, the show was essentially the wishful thinking and/or wanking of the writers. They presented a lot of questionable stuff as if it were gospel. I mean, yes we can take guesses about what might've went on in hominid life by studying modern human hunter-gatherer societies and by studying modern great apes, but they're just guesses.

[Crazy Goji]

I think alec inserted the Magic Tooth bit. Its obvious the tooth was a sign of how tought the old man was, getting a gator tooth and all.

Actually, I think it was more about it being "cool" or "neat" looking to the old dude. It didn't necessarily mean that it was a good luck charm or magical, just something cool he found.

[Darth Gojira]

I think alec inserted the Magic Tooth bit. Its obvious the tooth was a sign of how tought the old man was, getting a gator tooth and all.

Actually, I think it was more about it being "cool" or "neat" looking to the old dude. It didn't necessarily mean that it was a good luck charm or magical, just something cool he found.

That's true. I keep a crab claw from a 5-year old dinner, and I don't pay homage. KNEEL BEFORE THE CLAW!!!

[jegs2]

hes HOSTING. explaining things, etc.

and yes i imagine a lot was redone, as with Walking With Dinosaurs. We had Captain Sisko narrating that.

Is there a leftist cause Alec Baldwin doesn't support?

[Stravo]

hes HOSTING. explaining things, etc.

and yes i imagine a lot was redone, as with Walking With Dinosaurs. We had Captain Sisko narrating that.

Is there a leftist cause Alec Baldwin doesn't support?

Hosting a documentary is Leftist?? (NOT that I'm a Baldwin fan but if Canada bombed the Baldwins I would support a genocidal war with them after initiating Opertaion Get Behind the Darkies.)

[jegs2]

Hosting a documentary is Leftist?? (NOT that I'm a Baldwin fan but if Canada bombed the Baldwins I would support a genocidal war with them after initiating Opertaion Get Behind the Darkies.)

Don't think so...

But Baldwin spews forth anti-Bush and pro-leftist dogma pretty much whenever he opens his mouth without the aid of a script. My wife dislikes him about as much as I dislike Barbara Streisand, who also seems adept at spewing nonsense (she should stick to singing IMO)...

[jegs2]

I guess the point on Baldwin is that whenever I see him, I'm revolted, so whatever he says would be of no use to me, despite the material. Clinton had the same effect on me...

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh dont worry, people spouting ultra-right-wing, pro-Bush propaganda have about the same effect on me