[meteorite-list] Heidelbergensis-Zhamanshin dates

From: E.P. Grondine <epgrondine_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:02:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <744056.56994.qm_at_web36903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Sterling, all here -

Thanks for the soothing words.

Please excuse my typing and grammar, but since my
stroke I lack the precision I once had.

The problem is that we have H. H. (saved a few
keystrokes there) on both sides of the big hole in the
ground. H.H.'s adaptions also seem spear hunting

There is something else that's eating andi, and I wish
to hell he'd say it, and save me the typing.

Now I'm sorrry my book is not a guide to where Native
Americas collected meteorites, but is mainly concerned
with comet impacts. I actually had hoped to write up
some of the peoples' meteorite lore for Meteorite
magazine, but instead I ended up defending Hibben's
character for 3 months.

As Hibben carried allied war plans in his head during
WW2, and was wounded in action while doing so, and
then attacked for the use Velikovsky made of his work
after he was wounded, you decide...

PS - personally, I think I provided pretty good
evidence - but it was in the footnotes, which I had
intended to flow onto the page below the text. In the
event, my stroke prevented that - so you have those
who read footnotes, and those who do not.

Man and Impact in the Americas

--- "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>

> Hi, Michael, and the H. heidelbergensian Clutch,
> >
> As does
> > Particularly poor grammar, these errors in basic
> taxonomic
> > Terminology grate on the nerves terribly.
> Yes, our own specialties in life make us
> sensitive
> to the fact that others do not always observe the
> punctilious formalism of each and every
> specialization
> that might apply in each discussion. However, this
> is an informal forum, is it not, where what is said
> is the point, not the perfection of how it's said?
> Someone with an special interest in the
> formalisms
> and use of the English language might be
> irrationally
> annoyed by the fact that ALL your emails have the
> first
> letter of every line capitalized as if they were
> grand
> Whitmanesque epic poems in free verse instead of,
> well, emails.
> The best course is to ignore these petty details
> and never mention them, a rule I have just broken
> in order to point out why it's best not to do it. We
> can take a pill for our nerves; stick a PostIt with
> the "mote and beam" quote over our monitor; or
> hire a nearby surfer to wander in periodically and
> say, "Whoa! Lighten Up, Dude" (unless that
> annoys you more).
> We're debating the taxonomy of a species (or
> subspecies or regional variation) because of E. P.'s
> contention of a population split into two ranges by
> the consequences of an impact event -- impact being
> the anchor to meteoritic topical legitimacy.
> Frankly, I don't think much of the idea (sorry,
> EP).
> I think that below a certain threshhold, the ecology
> of
> the Earth just flows life back into an empty place
> in very
> short order; the only time it doesn't do it
> immediately
> is in an extinction event.
> Given the dating, E. P. might be better off
> arguing
> that the "splitting" of an archaic hominid range
> gave
> rise to H. heidelbergensis to the west of an impact
> when
> otherwise they would have covered the area to the
> east
> as well. But I don't like either argument, myself.
> The whole subject of impacts is one of several
> core
> concerns on the List. There's the Market/Collector
> Core,
> the Petrology Core, the Asteroid/Comet Core, the
> Impact
> Core and likely other smaller cores. We frequently
> wander
> into history with that last one. Big impacts are
> infrequent
> events; I don't recall seeing one. Indentifying past
> ones
> is the only way to ascertain their true frequency.
> And
> THAT is a very important issue.
> And that drags us off into all kinds of topics
> that seem
> strange for a "meteorite" list: radiocarbon dating;
> isotope
> dating of all kinds, actually; archaeology; early
> human
> history, "ancient" history, medieval history; myths,
> legends,
> and folklore; Babylonian astronomy; oceanic
> deposits;
> cosmic dust; and on and on... All completely
> relevant to
> the meteoritic, however far-ranging. (It's a big
> universe.)
> The relevance, for example, of the very recent
> small
> "Son of Rosetta" thread is not that this is a
> "spacecraft"
> list, but because it ultimately bears on the
> question of
> small NEO density and frequency.
> As for the ultimate fate of every suggested line
> of
> evidence in E. P.'s book, my attitude is thus: if
> even
> a tenth of his suggested indications of impact were
> to
> prove out under future analysis, it would be a major
> contribution. What he is doing is what's called
> "primary"
> research, digging for the indicators of the places
> to look
> for evidence, not providing evidence (that would
> take
> five lifetimes). He is not a cautious academic
> writer,
> but no cautious academic writer would attempt what
> he has. No, I'm not shilling for his book; he does a
> fine
> job of that himself. But if you haven't read any of
> E. P.,
> here's an excellent example of his good work... for
> free:
> http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce082202.html
> Kick back and relish the variety, Michael. It's
> like
> an "All You Can Eat" Idea Bar.
> Sterling K. Webb
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael L Blood" <mlblood at cox.net>
> To: "Sterling K. Webb"
> <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>; "E.P. Grondine"
> <epgrondine at yahoo.com>; "Andreas Gren"
> <info at meteoritenhaus.de>; "Meteorite
> List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list]
> Heidelbergensis-Zhamanshin dates
> Hi Sterling, Andreas and all,
> This topic (Physical Anthropology [as well
> as Cultural
> Anthropology]) is what I teach week in and week out
> at the
> College level (as well as Sociology, Social
> Psychology, etc).
> I do NOT think debating the status of a
> paleospecies
> Is appropriate to the meteorite list. HOWEVER, for
> those
> That insist, PLEASE at least post it as Homo
> heidelbergensis
> NOT "Homo Heidelbergensis" with a capitalized H in
> the
> Second term. ALL species are binomial with the first
> name
> Being the same as the genus to which the species
> belongs, and
> Capitalized with the second term NOT capitalized.
> Furthermore, paleospecies, or morphospecies
> are terms
> Reserved for extinct species largely because it is
> impossible to be
> Absolutely sure of difference of species (it could
> be variation
> Within a given species (due to gender, local
> adaptation, diet,
> Cultural/behavioral practices, etc.).
> However, again, NOT a topic for the met list
> - but IF you
> Insist, at least write it properly. (PS: Most
> offensive of all is
> "Heidelbergensis" alone, not preceded by "Homo." As
> does
> Particularly poor grammar, these errors in basic
> taxonomic
> Terminology grate on the nerves terribly.
> Best wishes, Michael

Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Received on Mon 19 Nov 2007 06:02:54 PM PST

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb