New evidence: Fur, early man and symbolism

[Guest]

It may be obvious to some that there came a point in human history that fur became more than something functional.

 

I believe I may have stumbled on that point in human history.

 

To explain further I am going to have to explain something that may not be palatable to those of you of a religious disposition. It may shock some of you to realise for example that a couple of million years ago here were dozens of human like creatures. Different species entirely to us with a common ancestor. Most of them hunted, wore fur and had fire. Made tents from hides; etc.

It may surprise you also that 70 000 years ago almost all these humans ceased to exist; including man. This is called a bottleneck, and only three species of homanids survived it as far as we know (though Bigfoot; yeti etc may reveal more). These were ourselves, Neanderthal and Hobbit (Homo floresiensis) which was the size of a three year old human. The latter probably survived as late as 13 000 years ago and its dna may yet be found in remote tribes. They were not human. However they had culture; complex weaponry and tools etc. as did neanderthal. In fact. there is also emerging evidence of neanderthal and humna interbreeding, though no dna evidence has been found in modern humans. Sexually transmitted disease is in the frame.

 

The important point to us is HOW these three "human" species survived, and what is the significant factor that enabled their survival through the devastation caused by the nuclear winter of 70 000 years ago; that killed the vast majority of homanids and humans. Only 1000 humans survived this 'holocaust', and they had to have survived for a reason.

 

It has emerged recently, shocking the archeological/anthropological world, that there was a human setlement in Russia, sophisticated to the point of trade, using SNARES to catch artic fox/hares etc ,

46 000 years ago. The most significant find was that of sophisticated bone NEEDLES.

Not so far away and also recently discovered is a settlement 28 000 years old. By this time the society is clearly hierarchical (supposedly impossible) and marked by use of animals as a sign of wealth...furs and teeth.

 

What is making archeaologists scratch their heads is WHAT man was doing out of Africa for the second time, in the coldest driest place on earth....well BEFORE he was living in caves again in Europe. Well I shouldn't have to tell youse lot should I?

Such interpretation of history is largely the fault of Judaeo Christian and socialist thinking in our culture today, which has analysed human cultures that predate our own with a perspective born of that . So for example, man ALWAYS got the blame for overhunting mammoth because he was bound to be a greedy selfish savage because he predated the benign teachings of Moses/Christ. For two hundred years, and without ANY evidence at all, history has taught this complete and utter lie. NOW we know different: the mammoth along with many other animals (including man in the Americas) became extinct due to a rapid global waming that makes our problems miniscule. When you think polar bears may have less than 20 years left on the planet you get the picture.

 

Socialism and capitalism too have perpetuated such tainted views, as has what we have valued in the last 20 years or so. To the extent that Historians have been unable to accept until now, and still can't work it out, what the hell man was doing in sub arctic Russia with a society which appears to have some kind of "royalty" . The clues are there for all to see: the first human culture known to possess complex language, trade, and hierarchy. The most advanced humans ever to have existed, completely unexpectedly, and their culture is based on FUR. THAT is not considered notable by modern historical thinking even though it is straing us in the face because we look for pots and jewellery because that is what is important to US : functonality and design, and precious mineral resources. Only a society which does not understand fur and prestige elitism display can not see the obvious: that cold places have the best furs. And THAT is the reason for the migration there and a wealthy advanced peoples; a people who VALUED animals for incentive: particularly fox; and significantly clearly didn't overhunt them:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/europe/article1292192.ece

 

 

So then I got a bit of flak in the chat room for suggesting that man SURVIVED the bottleneck because he could sew fur into complex garments...something no human had ever been able to do. Okay there is a 24 000 year gap. However, when so many homanid culture remained unchanged for 2 million of years, since the discovery of fire and the first skinning of animals for fur, I knew there had to be a link.

 

I have found it.

 

Now man wasn't supposed to have developed complex language to convey symbolism abstratc ideas etc until 40 000 years ago and here we are. A culture that has. Now I needed to find one that could do that as close to the bottleneck as possible. I found it.

 

There were a group of humans 70 000 years ago worshipping (a sign of symbolic thought and language...passing on religion is impossible to people who just grunt) PYTHONS:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061222-python-ritual.html

 

Now whether the snake is human carved or not is irrelevant...there is other evidence of ritual behaviour there; the first known in 2 million years of humans.

 

And so there it is folks. The first evidence that man 70 000 years ago made a dramatic transition and a small few survived the bottleneck

By being able to share ideas through complex language, therefore have the ability to :

1. give abstract meaning to animals...therefore deveop reigion which valued them and therefore make the wearing of them SYMBOLIC. In practical terms, a smilodon fur would certainly signify a great hunter, or bestow the value on another through trade etc.

2.Development of human symbolic power/wealth as a result

3. Enable conceptual design of clothing, and tools needed to fashion them:

hence leggings, footwear etc. in furs

 

So that is as close as I can come to suggesting a theory that all mankind owes their existence to fur design , animal worship that enabled not only he to survive; but our old mates the fox and caribou with him. All humans and homanids that could NOT do the above three things vanished without trace, victims of the lake Tolba eruptions and blackened skies which sent the planet into freezing darkness. The first true culture was one based on fur and hide clothing, and respect for the animals and wearing of them to denote prestige. So enough of being ashamed of all that yes?

 

Now if we can all get BACK to worshipping animals, caring for them and valuing thhem and the produce they give us above ALL else, then perhaps we have a future.

 

Footnote: non of this is anti religious; on the contrary. As Linda often says she believs the animal a gift from God in a Judaeo Christian sense. Same idea; different perspective. I dare say if the cheetah suddenly developed culture he would worship the antelope, and then maybe work out who created the antelope for him. The imporant thing is that the antelope IS the source of the cheetah's being. And likewise, furbearers should be to us. And THAT is why I think we all here have some kind of primal connection to it.

[Guest]

Solid thought and information.

 

I share your convictions.

 

Keep it up ToS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[Guest]

Thanks OFF.

 

I would like to also add that this evidence, and hopefully the timeline, will put the anti fur argument into persepctive, and show it to be the product of elitism inherent in Buddhist thought, and the hypocrisy of modern civilisation. When people from both those start throwing terms around like "savages" "we have evolved" "we are more enlightened" fur is "inhumane" "uncivilised" "Barbaric" etc , THIS will serve as a reminder of their racism and fascism; and that animals have nothing to fear long term from man depending on animals as a resource, and that oblivion awaits animals from the modern way of thinking. As for Buddhism; I ain't taking no shit off any creep who thinks he is more enlightened than me when they can't even save the snowleopard from extinction...and it isn't fur that is doing that....it is something happening in their habitat. Not enegaging with animals dooms them. No problem with mink and fox is there? Wonder why.......

[MrC1946]

A fascinating post. I'm not sure I agree with all your points, but I do agree with many -- certainly for example the view of fur as a symbol of sucess/superiority/survivability -- and all your comments give riose for thought.

 

MrC

[lynxette]

I was not aware that there was the Bottleneck that you refer to Touch of Sable. It is not surprising however, as there have of course been many mass extinction events during earth's history. I think the role that furs may have played in man's salvation is both poignant and even a bit poetic.

[Guest]

Well put Lynxette.

Also ironic that every human being...including PETA...looks like they owe their lives to fur technology.

 

Mr C....may I ask waht it is you don't agree with? All the dates and evidence are factual. My interprteation of them may be circumstantial. But right now in the absence of any other "suspect" for the bottleneck cause,

and the reason for a samll pool of humans neandertahl and hobbit to survive when all others died out ; and that there was a reason for that....then surely it is a good guess.

 

Nearly ever species of human died out 70 000 years ago and just by coincidence that is the earliest date of synbolic thinking evidence.

[White Fox]

Hey TOS. I keep trying to find Noah in there and cannot find him!

 

Folks, all kidding aside, there is some fantastic reading in the original post up top by TOS. I think that a lot of you will really enjoy reading it.

 

W

[Guest]

This "theory" is actually well supported by a recent dna study done from samples gathered from every ethnic culture around the globe.

 

I don't suppose to know crap about dna science but it has been well supported and received by the general scientifc community.

 

The resulst is "The Mother of us all". One woman who, around 70,000 to 100,000 years ago was the well spring of all human dna now alive on earth. Eave if you will. The last survials of a cataclysmic annihilation of most humans and many other animal species that is know to have occured around that time. A "bottleneck" if you will.

 

She was with a small band of humans from East Africa [Ethiopia] who crossed the Straight of Bab el Mandeb at the Gulf of Aden when the oceans had dropped in elevation and there was a wet land bridge between Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Severe worldwide drought is one theory.

 

This is where the dna generational and migrational evidence leads back to from all over the world.

 

Currently all the new [and old] archeological and athroplogical evidence points to this as being well founded and true.

 

 

OFF

[Guest]

Indeed OFF

But the most likely theory is the Lake Tolba volcanic eruption, which would have caused a nuclear winter. Man....significantly, naked man....was the most severely affected by the wipeout. Most furbearers survived. The planet was quite temperate at the time. So suddenly to be plunged into freezing darkness would have caused major problems to those humans that could not SEW furs and hides is my theory. Those that could not had no footwear, insulating leggings, shirts, aswell as cloak like garments, would have struggled.

 

This is not a guess. There is evidence that man's feet began to change significantly 40 000 to 26 000 years ago. Such an evolutionary change may have taken up to 30 000 years...implying that the first human footwear was developed perhaps as long ago as the 70 000 year bottleneck. Those humans (and also neandertahl and hobit) that survived, would have had to put something on their feet, and also have more "all covering clothing". Now neanderthal had plenty of body hair, and also there is evidence of cultural exchange. But humans were hairless, naked.

And facing freezing darkness. The ONLY ones who survived were the ones that learned to fashion hide and fur into actual clothing and footwear. The evidnce for this is the change in human foot anatomy a few thousand years later.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4173838.stm

 

Now all these advances in human evolution...that took us from a "bigfooted" homo sapiens to what we are today, happened between 70 000 and 46 000 years ago. The ability to fashion clothes would have meant much more use of the brain to use abstract thought to DESIGN. ALL

subsequent culture that developed looks like it came from a need to fashion hide and fur into clothing rather than just donning skins. Of course it could have ben something else. A drought may have meant fashioning hide water bottles; a flood may have meant fashioning boats (Noah?) . Howver both these involve fashioning animal hides too. One way or the other, we owe our existence to what PETA claim is animal abuse.

 

And Therefore modern humans are "the fashioners of skins" . PETA are not going to like that. They will say we are no longer savages like those people; but as ALL culture stems from those people, to deny we are them is gross stupidity. It is also elitist racist and "enlightened master race" theory once again as Himmler and Hitler developed. No PETA are not going to like it. Especially when modern humans with their "alternatives" to animal use have caused the greatest damage to wild animals.

 

Basically the humans and their cousins who could not fashion fur and hide became extinct. If we continue to destroy the planets non renewable resources, cause climate change and destroy habitat as we are, we will again face extinction. We must ONLY use infinitely renewable resources. And then with great care and value. Nobody values animals as much as those who take their skins and make them truly special that is not part of the modern "disposable" consumer crime.

[Guest]

Don't tell any of this to the folks in north Carolina.

 

They all go barefoot

 

Hence "Tar Heel".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[lynxette]

I suppose a really simple way of looking at it from the point of view of religion...for those so inclined...is that G-d made the first clothing for man out of furs.