Newspost#060109

Apparently having missed a lot (from findings and theories of the recent years research on human prehistorics) we for now focus shortly on these, with these speculations from evolutionary past...for the other topics, if we'll include yet another newspost, it seems we'll have to leave them for that...

(This post has been shortened and little corrected from some misinterpretations in the earlier version...) Our earlier writings from the (quite) recent speculations and theories on human origins left us wondering whether they really are in belief of the current man, homo sapiens (sapiens) having been first to inhabit Australian and (North-)American continents. Since that we've noticed current archaeological knowledge from that quite uniform; Fx no fossil of earlier human ancestors has been found on these areas. Also, the Out-of-Africa-model seems to be nowadays pretty widely accepted and what most scientist these days think as proven knowledge. Continuing our own speculations from such distant times, the summit dates of the human arrival in mentioned continents have pretty much been reasoned to an understanding that it would have happened around 50000 y. ago in the case of Australia and something like (still nowadays less certaint, even less agreement on exact dates...) 20-30000 y. ago when reaching the American continent. Since timings in archaeology often move further past for thousands of years when new fossil founds are made, we just estimate these are probably close to 'real' timings, and that perhaps most correct would estimate about + 5000-10000 years added(for both). Since we ourselves haven't got any very accurate understanding from prehistoric climatic conditions, our estimates are of course as much guessing. (Would perhaps add:) Similar to most archaeological theory, when presenting strict estimations in time-scales reaching further to the (pre) history, like past tens thousands of years. Of course, that's why theories presenting general lines most always give just estimated timings. Also by glance, appears in our sight This BBC-article which mentions the recent corrected timings (in 2003) for of the remains of Mungo Man, though I think it to not prove anything since it's basicly just an example of foundings in certain area. Not solely unquestioned, because the timings have already been couple times 'corrected' with new methods (earlier estimates were as various about 30000 and 62000 y.), but also because there seems to be not any simple way to prove with co-arguments the conclusions made on the basis of DNA-research, etc.

The early population numbers in certain continents cannot be easily estimated either; these may have varied, gone up and down during periods of climatic changes and other circumstances, perhaps even some areas being inhabited several times continuously just because the preceding wave hasn't been successive for some reasons. Actually that's the supposition which is sometimes presented concerning the 'Out-of-Africa-hypothesis', they've timed the first population flow around 100 000 years ago on the basis of the earliest living sites and fossils found in the Africa/Near East. Subsequently this is thought to have resulted in populating the other continents as well.

Also, many current theories (partly, at least) seem to present early human populations as having gone through periods when populations had temporarily reduced rapidly (during which periods of time or even if as resulting from climatic circumstances isn't probably known with any certainty). One, often mentioned guessing seem to be the theory of Toba earthquake in Sumatra around 71000 y. ago (largest known volcanic eruption in Earths past history, during the last 400 million years), in the middle of ice age at the time. Subsequent fast change of climate to cooler temperatures might then have caused the decline in existing populations. The more recent theory, seems to place more concern on suppositions that in earlier times human populations were down due to other reasons (like continued droughts in Africa) resulting for two divided populations where groups were living in distinct areas of Africa for longer periods. Probably the suppositions on probable timing which follows(of the departure from continent) are not to be considered as definitive either but also, one might suppose that it's also matter of how moving and capable for crossing waters one thinks these early population groups having been.

But, all these views on rather recent theories are developed quite much with methods of Molecular Anthropology as well as findings on some earliest known excavation places in Africa/Near East. One can at least notice that the archaeologist seem quite convinced of human (Sapiens sapiens) populations having been through some times of reduction in between 150 000 – 50 000 ago (sometime during that period of time, whether this can by numbers be proven even in estimated amounts, I'm a bit suspective on that too...). But, also, since we don't seem to have here adequate methods to speculate any further on this basis, and because this field now starts to seem far too complicated to our resources here, we are likely to end our speculations here.

Powered by ScribeFire.

MuleSkinner Book Recommendation #11

Shaky Ground – the Sixties and It's Aftershocks

(By Alice Echols, 2002)

In our perhaps somewhat fragmented series of book recommendations, we for change, now take under lens rather a collection of texts than complete full-length volume. The book in question, Alice Echols Shaky Ground – The Sixties and its Aftershocks (2002), is basically extraordinary example (from such); it doesn't succeed any better in the difficult task of joining together a variety of loosely related texts, but makes far more complete and interesting collection than most. Our main reason for recommendation this time (not to mention the funny coincidence that this book too, in addition to our previous non-fiction selection uses 'shock'-term in its naming...) – is that these articles present valuable supplementary reading for Echols better known Janis Joplin biography Scars of Sweet Paradise (1999). The latter also a rarer example in (popular) 'academic rock writing', less conventional in contents and also less boring than most popular music biographies.¹

As a sexuality and gender research, the book also is a pretty interesting read for anyone with some preceeding knowledge from the 60ies movements in general. Echols conclusions are perhaps not always shaking the basis of common interpretations from the decade, but anyway it presents a lot questioning of the most typical clichees from 'naive hippies, sexual liberation and the reasons for failure of both'. And, anyone familiar with Abbie Hoffman's textual declarations on behalf of cultural and sexual revolutions, cannot help but to wonder whether the first or latter was of greater importance and merely in close range interest of the (mostly) male-dominated leadership in 60ies radicalism. Echols don't waste time on answering that question, the feminist writing probably already sufficiently having presented that the boys surely weren't too much interested on women's rights or liberations. Instead, she tries to dig deeper on the other common claims and finds out (fx) that perhaps the popular music didn't after all serve as the principal tool in commercial sedation of early hippie radicalism, but that the one-sided sexual revolution may afterall served even better.

Having sometimes occasionally wondered a similar questions - like why it is so that decade (1960) most influensive in the formation(s) of the later youth and consumer culture is also most absent in cultural historics, fx concerning the popular music memoirs or the histories of counter-culture in general - I find these viewpoints refreshing but also challenging. Having virtually not at all any beforehand knowledge from radical feminisms pasts, it is here most delicate histories when read in parallel with the story of early creations of the most "institutionalised" and "male" forms of modern cultural comsumption, that being the rock music (actually the early progressive rock and the later formation of the genre, by critics, etc). Although, articles are from various topics and Echols actually writes more from Women's liberation movements early beginning in the 60ies, than fx from the early 'hippie-cradle' at Haight (but there's one article devoted for that, too).

When discussing the beginning of the early feminism in the 60ies, Echols notices the white feminists having considered themselves as opponents of racism but when similarly neglegted the race-questions, and at the same time not understood why the black women avoided movement – though, basically the same trick had been used against them itself. Also, in her discussions from the later formation of the feminist movement during 1970s and 80s, she finds (simplifying these conclusions here by me, perhaps...) that the continuation of (those) attitudes may have helped to shift the movement away from its early goals and principles of equality, that originated in the 60ies radicalism. She also holds the women's liberation movement among the most understated of radicalist groups of the 60ies, view that I don't as much share, since I think this book also shows that it, at least later on, has secured a place in general conciousness fx on the basis of the amount of research devoted to it. Also, as many of the articles originally written during the 1990s, they also sometimes touch popular themes in those times. She fx notices – perhaps obvious at the time too, but more than interesting when reminded in this connection – that in Oliver Stone's renown Hollywood films 'civil courage, principal resistance and rock'n'roll-genious are presented as male dominated qualities' (in JFK, Born 4^th of July and The Doors, and in that order, she states.) Echols seems also to have no difficulties in finding connections to the sixties 'legacy' from recent pop/rock 'genderbreeding' as well. Actually she states in the forewords as wishing to take under examination, not just 60ies but the overwhelming struggles in the periods since second world war until the recent times; that is (ao)how the questions concerning race, sexuality, gender and the generations divide have in time changed society as a whole - from that the name, Aftershocks, I suppose. Quite unavoidably many of the articles discuss also other areas of importance related to those.

All in all Shaky Ground is less coherent combination than the Joplin biography, like one could expect remembering that the articles originate from time period of three decades. Since we are (again) quite late-comers in our reviews, and the books been published several years ago, we for now leave more detailed interpretations aside and just mention contents being divided in three main chapters. The articles (we just suppose) could also be outlined under these 'categories' as well: Sixties counter-movements in America and their (gender) inheritance, The formation and later outcomes of the radicalism movements (especially the early women's liberation movement), and development of rock and disco in in related to these. That being our own divide, the most interesting (to us) are; Writings mostly devoted to popular music such as 'Hope and Hype in Sixties Haight-Ashbury'; 'Thousands of men and few hundred women:' Janis Joplin, Sexual Ambiguity and Bohemia; 'Shaky ground': Popular Music in the Disco Years. Concerning the radical feminisms early histories most useful for culturally curious(like us) are the renown polemic early 1980s article 'The Taming of the Id': Feminist Sexual Politics. 1968-1983 as well as the 'Totally Ready to Go': Shulamith Firestone and The Dialectic of Sex, but also 'Nothing Distant about It': Women's Liberation and the Sixties Radicalism (the sixties womens movement/Early feminism in related to other radical movements of the time). Also, not to forget, merely a general presentation from literature on homo- and lesbian history, but somehow appears to discuss similar topics, 'Queer like Us?'. Other articles are also worth reading, though some are merely lenghty book listings from certain themes (last three being interviews of some pop musicians/stars).

Conclusively, and reminding ourselves from our limited knowledge from most recent research on these fields, we just recommend the book fx for those who found Janis Joplin biography interesting. Basically widens understanding from some of the 60ies struggles and fights. And, we might add; Echols writings also assert that the renown struggles and the 'failures' of the 60ies 'cultural-' and the 'sex- revolutions' hasn't prevented their diverse and meaningful continuations today (though its not often generally acknowledged them having anything in common). Perhaps the decade appears a bit more distant nowadays, but still remains to be the most apparent transition period of the recent past. Not so much has culturally changed since, say...1967.

Our recommendations having slipped now mostly to the North-american non-fiction books, we (supposedly) are to include next some classics of american (realistic) prose. Later on (in the name of our equality principle...) might as well for change review some writers/books, non-english language in origin...

---------------------

Notes:

1. Probably rock writing isn't nowadays as rare and limited phenomenom in academic researches. Only, I suppose, that many such researches aren't much widely published, rarer even to be found by average public. From other more interesting parallel histories for the 'most typical' (like all these stardom memoirs, and the occasional business histories, etc), we ourselves are only familiar with, and can therefore recommend just Simon Friths classic Sound Effects and Clinton Heylin's Bootleg – the Secret History of the other Recording Industry (1996).

Interlude 3; The New Year

"The music sailed out into the night then upward towards the skies,
travelling on that thin border between reality and imagination."
- Thin Lizzy: Jailbreak (-76) album sleeve notes.


A Brand New Year ; Or the same old one ?
In MSW you're never too sure from that...



--------------------

”...They might have chosen that particular planet to use as the junkyard camp and garrisoned imprisonement area for all that they've had not been able to dump elsewhere, mainly because its distant location. But when the resistance movement started to arise and The Mule denied historical continuity of events in that artificially created chaos, whole thing started to seem merely a mistake than successful effort of Divide and Conquest tactics...”

(Galactic Cyclopedia, Vol. A-D)