Bank merger issue joins the federal election fray
Prime Minister Paul Martin says the next federal government will have to deal with the thorny question of bank mergers, although he wouldn't clarify his own position on the issue.
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Paul Martin
Banks
Liberals
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Mr. Dithers Returns
No Comment, this says it all.
The Glass is Half Full
The Globe and Mail, which is closely aligned with the Liberal Election Machine, is 'gleefully' reporting that a new poll shows that NDP supporters will shift votes to the Liberals to avoid a Conservative election victory.
But is it really true? Chuck the editorializing from this article and here is what you get. Just the facts m'am as Joe Friday would say.
Ok so half these folks will vote for the NDP and if the Liberals appear to be losing, then only then 15% of them 'may' abandon the NDP for the Liberals. That sounds like a gain for the NDP to me. They retain more than they lose. And if they begin to kick butt as Jack did today attacking strategic voting and the Liberals, well thats 15% to gain back. Seems to me like the glass is still half full not half empty.
What the Globe and Mail didn't say about the poll was this:
Gee do I detect a Liberal bias at the Globe and Mail. Awww say it ain't so......
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Strategic Voting
NDP
polls
Liberals
But is it really true? Chuck the editorializing from this article and here is what you get. Just the facts m'am as Joe Friday would say.
The latest Decima Research online survey of 6,380 voters, released Sunday, suggests that half of those surveyed would like to see more New Democrats in the House of Commons. But when asked if they'd like to see more New Democrats elected, even if it means the Conservatives ultimately win power, support fell to 35 per cent.
Ok so half these folks will vote for the NDP and if the Liberals appear to be losing, then only then 15% of them 'may' abandon the NDP for the Liberals. That sounds like a gain for the NDP to me. They retain more than they lose. And if they begin to kick butt as Jack did today attacking strategic voting and the Liberals, well thats 15% to gain back. Seems to me like the glass is still half full not half empty.
What the Globe and Mail didn't say about the poll was this:
Nationwide, the poll found 52 per cent of respondents considered the prospect of a Liberal majority undesirable, while 25 per cent found it desirable and 23 per cent found it acceptable.
The results were almost identical for a Tory majority: 56 per cent found that prospect undesirable, 25 per cent desirable and 19 per cent acceptable.
A minority government, led by either party, was acceptable to more people.
Interestingly, the New Democratic Party scored very similar results to the two main contenders, even though the NDP is running a distant third in most opinion polls.
An NDP majority was considered undesirable to 56 per cent, acceptable to 26 per cent and desirable to 18 per cent. An NDP minority was deemed acceptable to 44 per cent, undesirable to 44 per cent and desirable to 12 per cent.
The poll also asked respondents whether a Conservative government would make matters better or worse in 15 different public policy areas. In every case a healthy majority _ ranging from 62 per cent to 85 per cent -- said the Tories would be better or no different than the Liberals.
Gee do I detect a Liberal bias at the Globe and Mail. Awww say it ain't so......
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Strategic Voting
NDP
polls
Liberals
Liberal Pension Blues
A tip o the blog to I (AM)Canadian Too for this item on how PM screwed his workers out of their pensions and what Federal workers have to look forward to.
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Strategic Voting
Labour
Liberals
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Strategic Voting
Labour
Liberals
Why Is Buzz Clapping
So Mr. Labour, Buzz Hargrove who says he called for strategic voting cause he is well Left Wing, more Left Wing than the NDP, has ended up as a poster boy for Canada's CEO Paul Martin and his Liberal Election Team.
By endorsing a Liberal minority with an NDP balance of power, the CAW is not “drifting” toward Liberal views. Indeed, my opinions (on everything from free trade to public ownership to gun control) clearly place me to the left of the NDP hierarchy. Buzz Hargrove
Nope you are not drifting as the picture shows, you are embracing the Liberals.
Ah Buzz can you explain why you are supporting the Liberals who did this?
Liberals and Conservatives defeat anti-scab legislation"NDP will continue to fight for working Canadians,": Layton
Gee Buzz any of those Liberals get your vote? Or the vote of your CAW members? By the way Buzz counting on your fingers that's over half of the Liberal Government MP's that voted against CLC sponsored labour legislation. Legislation you supported.
OTTAWA - NDP Leader Jack Layton expressed deep frustration when a vote on a private member's bill (C-263), to amend the Canada Labour Code to prevent the use of replacement workers, was defeated by Liberals and Conservatives."It is shameful that 72 Liberals joined forces with the Conservatives to block this legislation which would have made a real difference in the lives of working Canadians," said Layton. "Striking workers under federal jurisdiction deserve to know that their jobs are protected when they exercise their legal right to strike. They deserve to be protected from the destructive and hostile practice of strike-breaking."
Trade Union Principles be damned eh Buzz as long as you save a few Auto jobs in the Southern Ontario Rust Belt.
"Voting Liberal isn't being smart - it's being played," Mr. Layton said in an Ottawa address that kicked off the final three weeks of campaigning before the Jan. 23 ballot
Yep, you tell him Jack.
Buzz thinks of himself as a 'player', but he is being played by the Liberals.
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Buzz Hargrove
Politics
CAW
Strategic Voting
NDP
Labour
Liberals
Monday, January 02, 2006
Strategic Voting In Edmonton Strathcona
The postings on the CBC Riding Talk forum for Edmonton Strathcona shows overwhemling support for strategic voting against Jaffer. And it is in favour of one candidate; Linda Duncan of the NDP. Most of those comments are coming from self confessed Liberal voters and even a few Red Torys.
Now of course this is completely unscientific. But it does show what I have been saying all along this is a two way race between the NDP and the Conservatives. With that kind of a race we have to remember that provincially the seat is held by the NDP. Last time the vote splitting between the Liberals and NDP allowed Jaffer to come up the middle.
With no credible candidate this time for the Liberals, the choice is clear to folks that Linda Duncan is the big tent candidate for all opposition voters. And from the comments, the Jaffer Must Go crowd is lining up behind Linda.
This election is about Change, and in Edmonton Strathcona that means Jaffer must go, he has been ineffectual and unproductive for the riding. With voters wanting change, traditional resentment towards the Liberals and displeasure with Jaffer's politcal carrerism in the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party and lack of concern for Edmonton Strathcona, puts the NDP in the sweet spot for this election. They are a vote for change.
Will Edmonton Strathcona vote for change? That is the question. As I have said before this is a race to watch on January 23.
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Linda Duncan
Politics
Edmonton
Conservatives
NDP
Liberals
Now of course this is completely unscientific. But it does show what I have been saying all along this is a two way race between the NDP and the Conservatives. With that kind of a race we have to remember that provincially the seat is held by the NDP. Last time the vote splitting between the Liberals and NDP allowed Jaffer to come up the middle.
With no credible candidate this time for the Liberals, the choice is clear to folks that Linda Duncan is the big tent candidate for all opposition voters. And from the comments, the Jaffer Must Go crowd is lining up behind Linda.
This election is about Change, and in Edmonton Strathcona that means Jaffer must go, he has been ineffectual and unproductive for the riding. With voters wanting change, traditional resentment towards the Liberals and displeasure with Jaffer's politcal carrerism in the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party and lack of concern for Edmonton Strathcona, puts the NDP in the sweet spot for this election. They are a vote for change.
Will Edmonton Strathcona vote for change? That is the question. As I have said before this is a race to watch on January 23.
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Linda Duncan
Politics
Edmonton
Conservatives
NDP
Liberals
Boulevards Don't Vote
It's a phrase one of my pals an NDP campaign organizer uses alot. We would argue about it. Boulevard signs catch a drivers or bus pasangers eye but they say nothing about support for the candidate. So essentially he is right.
Get them signs out in front of houses. That shows real tangible support and influences the neighbours. A sign in front of a house shows a vote. Count em and weep with joy or humility.
Now in areas of Edmonton Strathcona including where I live, I see NDP Candidate Linda Duncan signs popping up all over the place. Including in front of houses that have NEVER had a sign before and some that have had other party signs in front of them in the past. A tour through parts of the riding** see her signs outnumbering incumbent Jaffer's signs.
She has few Boulevard signs yet. While her competitor the incumbent Conservative Rahim Jaffer has lots and lots of big old boulevard signs. And signs on buildings. Like Boulevards, Buildings don't vote. And they show what one would expect from the Landlord class, that they vote Conservative.
Well not all Landlords, some of them vote Liberal. The first Liberal candidate signs I saw were today, in front of walk up apartment buildings. Every campaign the Liberals and the Conservatives battle it out for the Landlord vote. But house signs are where its really at, and Linda and the NDP are doing the job to pull the vote. It will be an interesting night come January 23.
In Edmonton Mill Woods Beaumont, the same thing again, a three way boulevard fight between the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP. But again fence signs which are popular in this riding show a great wave of support for the Liberal candidate Grewal. Lots of houses have large fences and berm fences, so big signs work in Millwoods. And lots of houses have Liberal signs more so than either the Conservatives or NDP.
Conservative Mike Lake has taken to having boulevard signs all over the main roads, including some on the grounds of a local church that was the centre of an Anti-Gay Marriage Rally here last spring.
Of course like Edmonton Strathcona the ethnic fix is in. Both Grewal and Jaffer can count on Indo-Canadian sign and financial support, but whether they can count on their votes is another question. In both cases those votes may make the difference in this election. Again another nailbiter in this riding on the night of January 23.
** this is a purely anectodal assessment and does not reflect any empirical data about the various party's signage.
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Linda Duncan
NDP
Politics
Edmonton
Conservatives
Liberals
Get them signs out in front of houses. That shows real tangible support and influences the neighbours. A sign in front of a house shows a vote. Count em and weep with joy or humility.
Now in areas of Edmonton Strathcona including where I live, I see NDP Candidate Linda Duncan signs popping up all over the place. Including in front of houses that have NEVER had a sign before and some that have had other party signs in front of them in the past. A tour through parts of the riding** see her signs outnumbering incumbent Jaffer's signs.
She has few Boulevard signs yet. While her competitor the incumbent Conservative Rahim Jaffer has lots and lots of big old boulevard signs. And signs on buildings. Like Boulevards, Buildings don't vote. And they show what one would expect from the Landlord class, that they vote Conservative.
Well not all Landlords, some of them vote Liberal. The first Liberal candidate signs I saw were today, in front of walk up apartment buildings. Every campaign the Liberals and the Conservatives battle it out for the Landlord vote. But house signs are where its really at, and Linda and the NDP are doing the job to pull the vote. It will be an interesting night come January 23.
In Edmonton Mill Woods Beaumont, the same thing again, a three way boulevard fight between the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP. But again fence signs which are popular in this riding show a great wave of support for the Liberal candidate Grewal. Lots of houses have large fences and berm fences, so big signs work in Millwoods. And lots of houses have Liberal signs more so than either the Conservatives or NDP.
Conservative Mike Lake has taken to having boulevard signs all over the main roads, including some on the grounds of a local church that was the centre of an Anti-Gay Marriage Rally here last spring.
Of course like Edmonton Strathcona the ethnic fix is in. Both Grewal and Jaffer can count on Indo-Canadian sign and financial support, but whether they can count on their votes is another question. In both cases those votes may make the difference in this election. Again another nailbiter in this riding on the night of January 23.
** this is a purely anectodal assessment and does not reflect any empirical data about the various party's signage.
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Linda Duncan
NDP
Politics
Edmonton
Conservatives
Liberals
Stephen Levesque? Rene Harper?
While blog discussions have been full of debates on Alberta Seperatism in the wake of Gordon Stamps firing, it makes sense that fueled as the Conservatives are with Western Alienation and indignation, that the Harper should do what Lougheed and Klein have done for years, encourage Quebec seperatism when in Quebec and bash Quebec 'special' interests when in Alberta.
Here is a perfect example of what Conservative federalism really means.
Gee wasn't that Rene Levesque guy head of the PQ? Notice he doesn't compare himself to Brian Mulroney another Quebecer.
And the Conservative answer to Liberal Federalism is of course Asymetrical Federalism;
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Quebec
Conservative
Stephen Harper
Here is a perfect example of what Conservative federalism really means.
Coming into Quebec, getting some French press, and speaking, as Mr. Harper does, about how he is the heir to Rene Levesque when it comes to cleaning up government and election finance laws gives the Conservatives the kind of legitimacy in this province they lacked during Stockwell Day's leadership.
Gee wasn't that Rene Levesque guy head of the PQ? Notice he doesn't compare himself to Brian Mulroney another Quebecer.
And the Conservative answer to Liberal Federalism is of course Asymetrical Federalism;
Can you say Firewall Quebec?Harper made the following promises:
- To end the "fiscal imbalance" between Ottawa and Quebec,
- To allow Quebec to play a role in international institutions like UNESCO when its cultural responsibilities are at issue, and
- To practice "open federalism" that recognizes provincial autonomy plus "the special cultural and institutional responsibilities of the Quebec government."
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Quebec
Conservative
Stephen Harper
Ecology=Equality
In a 2002 study on ancient arctic peoples it was found that the harsh environmental condtions created a form of necassary social equality between men and women that may not have occured in a more hospitable environment.
The differences that are observed across the whole of the data file on the isotope composition of paleo-population from Ekven are related rather to cultural tradition than to sex and age. This characteristic requires further consideration. In the ancient and ethnographically known communities the gender dietary specializations are quite common. The uniformity of the isotopic composition of the skeletal tissue of men and women of all ages in the paleo-population from Ekven can be considered as significant weakening of cultural traditions serving as the expression of social roles of both genders.
From the modern point of view this fact can be considered as the manifestation of the social equality of men and women. On the other hand, the dietary monotony and uniformity dictated by severe ecological conditions a priori deprived this population of the cultural means to express their ideal notions in the dietary codes. In this way the tough rules of survival imposed by ecology limited the applicability of some forms of cultural self-expression.
Kozlovskaya Maria V.. The Dietary System of the Ancient Arctic Population: Cultural and Biological Adaptation.
Tags
science
evolution
paleoanthropology
arctic
aboriginal
Russia
V.P. Alexeev
genetics
Dialectical Anthropology-A.P. Alexeev
Anthropology and Sociology are sciences that resonate with Historical Materialism and Dialectics. They were in their infancy when Marx and Engels embraced them and promoted them. Hence Historical Materialism is sometimes seen as an amalgam of history, politics, economics, sociology and anthropology. One could add geography and urban studies as well, but you get my drift. It is a particular philosophic viewpoint that is often mistakenly called Marxist interpretations of science. In fact Historical Materialism arises from the scientific viewpoint, expanding on Kant and Hegel, Fichte and Comte, and their materialist viewpoints and their histographical view of the philosophies of science.
In North America we suffer from a disinct lack of contact with both Contiental European authors and scientists as well as those from the Slavic speaking countries. Part of the problem of course is that their is a uniligual as well as scientific monothiesm or isolationaism that dominates North America. It's American exceptionalism. If it ain't American it ain't worth sh*t.
Of course during the Cold War (1948-1989) any scientific work done by Soviet researchers, or even those who came from Eastern Europe, was suspect. The anti-communism (anti-Stalinism of the liberal left) of the American Military Industrial Complex and its right wing lobbyists (the John Birch society) would have nothing to do with academics from Russia. And of course American academics on the liberal left, (Daniel Bell comes to mind) quickly denounced Historical Materialism and Dialectics, as well as Marxism in their rush to bury and banish revolutionary thought and thinkers from Americas universities.
Last summer I was in Vancouver and visited the Peoples Co-op Bookstore, once the outpost of the Communist Party of Canada, now a left non sectarian bookstore, operated by the CPC still. There I found a book entitled The Origin of the Human Race by A.P. Alexeev puiblished twenty years ago. It was one of the last books published by the English Language publishing house of the USSR, Progress Books before the Stalinist regime dissolved into a withering mass of contradictions market capitalism.
Alexeev was no mere acamedician, he was a high ranking member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, which of course is no more. And he was their leading archaeologist and anthropologist specializing in primitive man and his socio-cultural evolution. And he was not a party member. He was very much a free thinker, as much as one could be under that particualr authoritarian structure.
In Origins of the Human Race he challenges his readers and the scientific community with his theories.
In 1991 Alexeev was invited to speak at Harvard it would be his first and last
trip to the United States. He died that year as the Soviet Union finally collapsed and becamse the Russian confederation.
His renarkable set of lectures at Harvard have been transcribed and put online by Geraldine Reinhart-Waller.
Alexeev being a paleoanthropolgist specializing in Eurasian Peoples and cultures from prehistory to the early modern period is of course bound to conflict with scientists from the West whose speciality is not this geographic area. Such was his contention over the Kenyan skull find. Of course during the cold war such science was dismissed often out of hand by those in West in the pay of a Cold War Academia.
He contributed to the UNESCO History of Humanity Volume 1
Prehistory and the beginnings of civilization
Another contentious issue that Alexeev contributed to was the Asiatic origins of the ancient Sythian peoples.
Finally he argued that Neanderthal's were were more prevelant than currently is accepted by Western scientists. He also posits that they traveled widely and in more open areas and thus had a developmental influence on humans and continued into existance in Ice Age Eurasia. His thesis was that Eurasia was vastly more populated with indigineous peoples than scientists up till then had been willing to accept.
A year after Alexeev's death another Russian Paleoanthropogist shook the academy with his announcement of finding ancient prehistoci peoples in Siberia.
science
evolution
Marxism
Russian history
philosophy of science
paleoanthropology
Russia
V.P. Alexeev
Earthwatch
Harvard
Neandrethal
Sythians
genetics
In North America we suffer from a disinct lack of contact with both Contiental European authors and scientists as well as those from the Slavic speaking countries. Part of the problem of course is that their is a uniligual as well as scientific monothiesm or isolationaism that dominates North America. It's American exceptionalism. If it ain't American it ain't worth sh*t.
Of course during the Cold War (1948-1989) any scientific work done by Soviet researchers, or even those who came from Eastern Europe, was suspect. The anti-communism (anti-Stalinism of the liberal left) of the American Military Industrial Complex and its right wing lobbyists (the John Birch society) would have nothing to do with academics from Russia. And of course American academics on the liberal left, (Daniel Bell comes to mind) quickly denounced Historical Materialism and Dialectics, as well as Marxism in their rush to bury and banish revolutionary thought and thinkers from Americas universities.
Last summer I was in Vancouver and visited the Peoples Co-op Bookstore, once the outpost of the Communist Party of Canada, now a left non sectarian bookstore, operated by the CPC still. There I found a book entitled The Origin of the Human Race by A.P. Alexeev puiblished twenty years ago. It was one of the last books published by the English Language publishing house of the USSR, Progress Books before the Stalinist regime dissolved into a withering mass of contradictions market capitalism.
Alexeev was no mere acamedician, he was a high ranking member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, which of course is no more. And he was their leading archaeologist and anthropologist specializing in primitive man and his socio-cultural evolution. And he was not a party member. He was very much a free thinker, as much as one could be under that particualr authoritarian structure.
In Origins of the Human Race he challenges his readers and the scientific community with his theories.
Homo rudolfensis is a fossil hominin species originally proposed in 1986 by V. P. Alexeev for the specimen Skull 1470 (KNM ER 1470)[1] . Originally thought to be a member of the species Homo habilis, much debate surrounded the fossil and its species assignment. Skull 1470 is an estimated age of 1.9 million years. It was found by Bernard Ngeneo, a member of a team led by anthropoligist Richard Leakey, in 1972 at Koobi Fora on the east side of Lake Rudolf (now Lake Turkana).
Homo habilis / Homo rudolfensis
Though many paleoanthropologists classify Homo habilis ("handy man") as a Homo sapiens ancestor, the exact bridge from one species to another has been debated since the Leakeys found the first specimen (OH 7) in 1960.
Homo habilis is thought to be the first hominid to use simple tools. Its brain size is bigger than that of the australopithecenes. Experts can't even agree on exactly which specimens should be definitely considered Homo habilis.
Adding to the confusion over Homo habilis, some specimens have sufficient differences that another species has been proposed. V.P. Alexeev, using thee KNM-ER 1470 as a type specimen, suggested the species Homo rudolfensis in 1986. Homo rudolfensis may have been the ancestor to the Homo habilis. Perhaps they were two separate species. Some even believe it should be classified as an australopithecene.
H. habilisAs stated, the attribution of the species rudolfensis to any specimen is somewheat controversial, since many paleoanthropologists do not see rudolfensis as a valid species. Its dating (whether the early dates proposed by some or the contemporaneous dates to habilis) makes its brain size an issue, and raises questions about current standard phylogeny of the human line. Homo rudolfensis may be the first member of the genus Homo on a path to modern humans, or it may be a more Homo-like australopithecine with no direct bearing on the evolution of H. sapiens. Nothing can be stated for sure at this point, except that there will be much more future debate on the issue.
Human evolution: taxonomy and paleobiology
Homo rudolfensis (Alexeev, 1986) sensu Wood,
1992
In a presentation of the fossil evidence for human
evolution, published in English in 1986, the Russian
anthropologist Valery Alexeev (1986) suggested that
the differences between the cranium KNM-ER 1470
and the fossils from Olduvai Gorge allocated to Homo
habilis justified referring the former to a new species,
Pithecanthropus rudolfensis, within a genus others had
long ago sunk into Homo (see H. erectus section
below). Some workers have claimed that Alexeev
either violated, or ignored, the rules laid down within
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
(Kennedy, 1999). However, there are no grounds for
concluding that Alexeev’s proposal did not comply
with the rules of the Code, even if he did not follow all
of its recommendations (Wood, 1999a). Thus, if
Homo habilis sensu lato does subsume more variability
than is consistent with it being a single species, and if
KNM-ER 1470 is judged to belong to a different
species group than the type specimen of Homo habilis
sensu stricto, then Homo rudolfensis (Alexeev, 1986)
would be available as the name of a second early
Homo taxon.
This does seem to be the case, for several in-
dependent studies have shown that the degree of
variation within Homo habilis sensu lato is greater
than that which would be expected in a single species
(Lieberman et al. 1988; Wood, 1991; Rightmire,
1993; Kramer et al. 1995; Grine et al. 1996). Several
researchers have recommended that the material be
split into 2 species.
In 1991 Alexeev was invited to speak at Harvard it would be his first and last
trip to the United States. He died that year as the Soviet Union finally collapsed and becamse the Russian confederation.
His renarkable set of lectures at Harvard have been transcribed and put online by Geraldine Reinhart-Waller.
Valery Pavlovich Alexeev came to Harvard University in Summer, 1991 to teach two anthropology courses: "Peoples and Cultures of the Soviet Union" and "Archaeology of the USSR". The subject matter for this volume, "A Brief Cultural History of Eurasia as told by Professor Alexeev to his student Geraldine Reinhardt", is based on these lectures; however, much of the information has been updated to reflect the current geography of Eurasia rather than preserving the once Soviet Union.
Alexeev was considered one of the Soviet Union's most distinguished anthropologists. He directed the Institute of Archaeology in Moscow and was able to achieve full membership in the Soviet Academy of Sciences without ever having been a member of the Communist Party. He studied both ancient and contemporary cultures throughout the USSR; his studies also took him to Mongolia, Syria, India, Vietnam, and Cuba. As a staunch supporter of international collaboration way before the emergence of "perestroika", Alexeev participated in joint Soviet-American conferences on the Siberia/Alaska connection and was a paramount figure in establishing a role for Soviet scholars in Earthwatch sponsored field programs. It was Alexeev's wish to establish a world-class natural history and anthropological museum in Moscow.
Alexeev being a paleoanthropolgist specializing in Eurasian Peoples and cultures from prehistory to the early modern period is of course bound to conflict with scientists from the West whose speciality is not this geographic area. Such was his contention over the Kenyan skull find. Of course during the cold war such science was dismissed often out of hand by those in West in the pay of a Cold War Academia.He contributed to the UNESCO History of Humanity Volume 1
Prehistory and the beginnings of civilization
Another contentious issue that Alexeev contributed to was the Asiatic origins of the ancient Sythian peoples.
“Scythian Triad” and “Scythian World”
In order to recognize
the Asian origin of the Scythians as recorded in Herodotus it
was necessary to find archaeological sites in the steppes that
belonged to the Cimmerians, the precursors of the Scythians.
The discussion has intensified concerning the connection be-
tween concrete archaeological cultures and disparate archaeo-
logical sites belonging to the Cimmerians who were mentioned
in written sources. Many scholars believe in the existence of a
specific Cimmerian ethnos. Only pre-Scythian sites, and sites
located in the Black Sea area, have been identified with the
Cimmerians (Terenozhkin 1976; Alexeev et al 1993). Euro-
pean archaeologists had divided opinions concerning the iden-
tification of the Cimmerians with the diverse pre-Scythian an-
tiquities. Discussion again surged concerning the chronologi-
cal and typological connections between the cultures, and their
place within other Late Bronze Age cultural formations. The
discussion is far from over, and currently these experts have
come full circle.
Finally he argued that Neanderthal's were were more prevelant than currently is accepted by Western scientists. He also posits that they traveled widely and in more open areas and thus had a developmental influence on humans and continued into existance in Ice Age Eurasia. His thesis was that Eurasia was vastly more populated with indigineous peoples than scientists up till then had been willing to accept.
A year after Alexeev's death another Russian Paleoanthropogist shook the academy with his announcement of finding ancient prehistoci peoples in Siberia.
TagsSiberian Site Defies Theories on Peopling Pebble Tools Are Dated to 3 Million Years
by Don Alan Hall
A vast archaeological site in Siberia is challenging anthropologists to reconsider theories of human evolution and dispersal. Because of his discoveries over the past 10 years at the Diring site on the Lena River, Yuri A. Mochanov, a prominent Russian archaeologist, has concluded that hominids lived in the far north in the Earliest Paleolithic, possibly as long as 3 million years ago.
Perhaps, he dares suggest, humans might not have originated in Africa.
Mochanov presented his findings at the 45th Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference in April at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. Mochanov, a member of the faculty of the Academy of Science at Yakutsk, Siberia, was making his first appearance at a scientific meeting in North America. His presentation obviously perplexed American and Canadian anthropologists and archaeologists. Siberia is not supposed to be a place to look for stone tools more than maybe 35,000 years old— certainly not more than a million years old.
science
evolution
Marxism
Russian history
philosophy of science
paleoanthropology
Russia
V.P. Alexeev
Earthwatch
Harvard
Neandrethal
Sythians
genetics
The Incredible Shrinking Man
Humans are the ultimate domesticated animal. And as such we have reduced our brain capacity while enlarging our learning capabilities. Interesting contradiction that. And as we domesticated ourselves we did it through the process of domestication of other species, from agricultural grains to animals.
While we domesticated a variety of animals, dogs, horses, oxen, cows, etc. we reduced our reliance on our own faculties that were replaced by the domesticated animal. In effect the dialectical relationship was not so much one of dominance, as we are now finding out, but of wait for it....mutual aid.
As we planted and transplanted wild grains and developed more domesticated strains, we also settled down into a more domesticate routine, we could no longer be nomadic hunter gatherers.
And as a result our ability to free ourselves from essentially survival tasks allowed us to develop culture, regardless of the reduction in our brain capacity.
While we domesticated a variety of animals, dogs, horses, oxen, cows, etc. we reduced our reliance on our own faculties that were replaced by the domesticated animal. In effect the dialectical relationship was not so much one of dominance, as we are now finding out, but of wait for it....mutual aid.
As we planted and transplanted wild grains and developed more domesticated strains, we also settled down into a more domesticate routine, we could no longer be nomadic hunter gatherers.
And as a result our ability to free ourselves from essentially survival tasks allowed us to develop culture, regardless of the reduction in our brain capacity.
Dr Groves believes early humans came to rely on dogs' keen ability to hear, smell and see - allowing certain areas of the human brain to shrink in size relative to other areas.
"Dogs acted as humans' alarm systems, trackers and hunting aids, garbage disposal facilities, hot-water bottles and children's guardians and playmates. Humans provided dogs with food and security. This symbiotic relationship was stable over 100,000 years and intensified in the Holocene [Period] into mutual domestication," said Dr Groves. "Humans domesticated dogs and dogs domesticated humans."
In a keynote address to the Australasian Society for Human Biology in December, Dr Groves repeated an assertion made by others as early as 1914 - that humans have some of the same physical characteristics as domesticated animals, the most notable being decreased brain size.
The horse experienced a 16 per cent reduction in brain size after domestication while pigs' brains shrank by as much as 34 per cent. The estimated brain-size reduction in domesticated dogs varies from 30 per cent to 10 per cent.
Only in the last decade have archaeologists uncovered enough fossil evidence to establish that cranial capacity in Homo sapiens declined in Europe and Africa by at least 10 per cent beginning in the Holocene Period, about 10,000 years ago.
Dr Groves believes this reduction may have taken place as the relationship between humans and dogs intensified and the animals allowed for the diminishing of certain human brain functions like smell and hearing.
BBC - Origin of Dogs Traced
Dogs today come in all shapes and sizes, but scientists believe they evolved from just a handful of wolves tamed by humans living in or near China less than 15,000 years ago.
Three research teams have attempted to solve some long-standing puzzles in the evolution and social history of dogs.
Their findings, reported in the journal Science, point to the existence of probably three founding females - the so-called "Eves" of the dog world.
They conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs
Peter Savolainen, of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, led the study of Old World dogs, analysing DNA samples taken from dogs in Asia, Europe, Africa and arctic America.
'Bit of a surprise'
His team found that, though most dogs shared a common gene pool, genetic diversity was highest in East Asia, suggesting that dogs have been domesticated there the longest.
Researcher Brian Hare said the dogs outperformed even the chimpanzees, and the puppies were as good as the older dogs, proving the skill was innate and not learned.
"During domestication there was some kind of change in their cognitive ability that allowed them to figure out what other individuals wanted using social cues. The biggest surprise was the puppies - even as young as nine weeks old, they're better than an adult chimpanzee at finding food."
He said the research might ultimately provide some clues as to how social skills evolved in humans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)