Re: Intercourse /vs/ Offspring

Gerold Firl (
12 Dec 1996 20:19:52 GMT

In article <58oe8a$>, Douglas Kihn) writes:

|> In <58kj57$> (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 meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf