Re: Intercourse /vs/ Offspring

E Douglas Kihn (
13 Dec 1996 00:25:53 GMT

In <58ppd8$> (Gerold Firl)
>In article <58oe8a$>, Douglas Kihn) writes:
>|> In <58kj57$> (Gerold Firl)
>|> writes:
>|> >Depictions of copulating animals in the cro-magnon cave paintings
>|> >suggests an earlier comprehension of the connection between sex
>|> >procreation.
>|> But rock paintings showing animals copulating (and having a
>|> great time) doesn't make that connection at all. It merely
>|> that pre-technological humans recognized a good time when they saw
>|> Now, if there was a rock painting that showed animals copulating,
>|> then in the next picture the same species giving birth, wouldn't
>|> be a HOOT!
>Indeed - one might go so far as to consider that *proof* of
>understanding the connection.
>The art of the cro-magnon caves has often been interpreted as hunting
>magic, ensuring not only that the hunt will be successful, but that
>the herds will not diminish as a result. Of course, such
>interpretation is speculative, but there are clear parallels with
>modern hunter-gatherer ideology, which makes such a view quite
>plausible. See campbell, _masks of god_, for examples.
>If we accept the postulate that the animal scenes are part of ritual
>observances which help to preserve the herds, then the presence of
>animal copulation scenes would support the notion that ice age man
>understood sexual conception.

>Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of
>me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @

Possible, but pretty speculative though, and in no way constituting
any kind of proof. I would need to see some BABIES in that scene to go
beyond wild speculation.

Dr. Doug