To reply to a digest, insert the relevant message header; don't reply to the digest header
-------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:56, Tim Rowell wrote:

>I'm not sure which of the above I am agreeing with...  I think high
>intensity effort was there, but was it sought out, or avoided at all
>costs?  High intensity efforts were called for in the hunt, inter-group
>conflict, and certain rituals.  How often was that?  I don't know, but it
>most certainly varied between groups and the physical and societal
>environments they found themselves in, and the time of year.  I wonder if
>paleo-man, in an area flush with easily available food (think coastal
>environments), in a time of little conflict, would have done any
>high-intensity stuff?  Maybe that's what the dancing and rituals were for.
>

Good thought Tim.  But, as well as ritual, think of play, competition and showing off.  There was a
sort of "Parkinson's Law" at work in stone age societies living in a state of abundance.  If they
needed to "work" for four hours a day, they didn't 'goof off' for the remainder. Remember, the
word 'boredom' and the feeling it refers to is of relatively modern origin.  In those societies
existing in a state of 'primitive affluence', their culture quickly filled the available time.  When I was
in Papua New Guinea, the local tribe had no shortage of good food and rhetoric was their art form.
Complementing this was a delight in the complexity of their languages (the older women spoke a
particularly arcane language of their own, based on metaphor, which took years to master).

There would have been old men telling tales of past achievements, young men intent on
demonstrating they were up to the oldies' standards and children inspired by and playing at both.

The men would have been out to impress each other, but also to impress the women.  Darwinian
sexual selection at work, and it doesn't need an economic base.

>I guess it makes an argument in my mind for a fairly chaotic and random
>approach, though I don't think that is optimal for modern athletic performance.

If you mean 'athletic' in the broad sense (almost as a synonym for fitness), I don't think I agree.
But if by 'athletic' you mean modern athletic activities like running, football, swimming, basketball
etc. that are constrained by rules and so require people to excel in a severely rule-constrained
environment (and so become almost freaks), then yes, I'm right with you. (Think of how often so-
called sports stars are injured - no paleo society could survive with such fickle, fragile warriors!)

Keith

>
>Tim
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The FAQ for Evolutionary Fitness is at http://www.evfit.com/faq.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The FAQ for Evolutionary Fitness is at http://www.evfit.com/faq.htm