|
|
Re: Intercourse /vs/ OffspringE Douglas Kihn (vivacuba@ix.netcom.com(E)13 Dec 1996 00:25:53 GMT
writes: > >In article <58oe8a$f0j@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, vivacuba@ix.netcom.com(E Douglas Kihn) writes: > >|> In <58kj57$qu3@news.sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) >|> writes: > >|> >Depictions of copulating animals in the cro-magnon cave paintings also >|> >suggests an earlier comprehension of the connection between sex and >|> >procreation. > >|> But rock paintings showing animals copulating (and having a heluva >|> great time) doesn't make that connection at all. It merely suggests >|> that pre-technological humans recognized a good time when they saw it! >|> Now, if there was a rock painting that showed animals copulating, and >|> then in the next picture the same species giving birth, wouldn't that >|> 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
Possible, but pretty speculative though, and in no way constituting
Dr. Doug
|