Re: Jeffrey H. Schwartz' theories today - still alive???
Erin Miller (email@example.com)
8 Jul 1995 21:35:26 -0500
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Ludvig Mortberg <Agneta.Guillemot@historia.umu.se> wrote:
>email@example.com (Erin Miller) wrote:
>>He still was touting it in _What Bones Tell Us_ (1993). I used to say
>>"well, what can you expect from a physical anthropologist who calls the
>>hyoid bone the Adam's Apple" but then Bill Maples did that, too in _Dead
>>Men Do Tell Tales_ (a definately pet peeve of mine).
>Touting it? Schwartz isn't "touting" anything. In his books he's argumenting
>in a very humble way his opinoins of human evolution. He shows none of the
>extraordinary arrogance shown by the molecular systematicists when they
>advocate their theories of the molecular clock and god knows what.
Ah, I see. So when you said
"Anyway, I'm not going to debate that here, what I want to ask
the readers of this newsgroup is how Schwartz' work is regarded
today, after nearly ten years have past, since the publication
of "The Red Ape".
You really meant to say "I AM going to debate it here, and I'd like so ask
if anyone else believes in it today. If not, I'm going to argue with you."
And when you said "Has Schwartz or anyone else published any further
evidence supporting or refuting the "orang connection" theory? " you
really didn't want to be told that he had indeed further published on the
subject, you only wanted to be told "yes despite the brilliance of his
arguments and the continual publication of his theory, the scientific
community still scoffs in his face and will one day regret their words."
As to my choice of the word "touting" that is indeed how I preceived his
protrayal of his theory, in fact, I found much of his book _What the Bones
Tell Us_ to have self-serving, unneccesary comments in it. While he is no
Don Johanson, if you feel he is "very humble" that is certainly your
opinion and you are entitled to it. I, however, do not share that same
>I say, show me some good synapomorphies, morphology or molecules, linking
>humans to african apes. And name the outgroup used in the comparison
>In Encyclopedia of human evolution and prehistory (a book edited by Ian
>Tattersall, Eric Delson and John van Couvering) the author of the article on
>Hominoidea says right out that "This [Homininae (the group supposed to
>contain homo, pan and gorilla)] is a hard group to define, because it has so
>few shared derived characters..." And yet the scientific community is so
>certain that it is a monophyletic group that anyone merely suggesting
>something else is ridiculous.
To quote you earlier, I have no wish to debate this here. You obvously
have your mind made up. You are welcome to interpret the data as you see fit.
>By the way, who's Bill Maples? And where did Schwartz call the hyoid bone
>the Adam's Apple?
Bill Maples is a physical anthropologist who has one of the few
up-and-running forensic anthropology training programs in the US. He
recently wrote a book called _Dead Men Do Tell Tales_ talking about a
number of his cases, just as Schwartz did in _What the Bones Tell Us_.
As far as where does Schwartz call the hyoid bone the Adam's Apple, from
a quick flip thru, I found it referred to as such on page 214 and again
on page 225 of _What the Bones Tell Us_. There may be more.
>Will this start off a thread?
It is the end of one as far as I am concerned.
"On the internet nobody knows you're a dog ...
but damn if everyone won't know what your cat looks like." -fatz
Erin Miller http://www.tezcat.com/~ermiller/erin.html
University of Chicago / Anthropology Department / firstname.lastname@example.org