tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post9012633098455081084..comments2023-06-28T05:54:47.372-04:00Comments on Music 000001: 243. The Baseline Scenarios -- Part 19: More HutsDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-89868519932071276532009-11-20T17:08:25.699-05:002009-11-20T17:08:25.699-05:00German: "As far as simplicity vs. complexity ...German: "As far as simplicity vs. complexity is concerned, I can see how conical type is more complex than the round one, but then simplicity is a slippery slope."<br /><br />If you think beehive huts are simpler than the conical hut from Tierra del Fuego, then simplicity will always be a very slippery slope for you. My measure of complexity, at least in this case, is: which one takes more time and/or is more difficult to construct -- and by either standard, beehive huts are clearly more complex. To make a conical hut of the Tierra del Fuego type, you simply cut several saplings or branches to the same length, tie them together at one end, spread the free ends out and plant the thing on the ground. You don't even need to dig post holes. It will be stable without them. Then you simply attach some skins as a covering and there you have it. <br /><br />While convetional "wisdown" regarding evolution might tell us that the simpler type is ancestral and the more complex beehive type is a development from that, I'm sorry but that's a purely abstract approach to cultural history and makes little sense in human terms. Once the conical type was established, there would be no reason to "improve" it by developing the beehive design, which is more trouble to make and not any more functional. It seems clear to me that the beehive design must have come first and that its complexity is as much due to the demands of tradition as functionality. This is supported by the distribution of the beehive type, which seems to be found almost everywhere, while the conical "teepee" type is restricted to N. Asia and the Americas. Looks to me like the original tradition was probably lost at some point, or perhaps discarded because someone was in a hurry and needed to build something quick and dirty.<br /><br />"Without a similar analysis of human dwelling types (and possibly even the whole of material culture), I can't see if beehive huts sprang from an underlying ancient African "trend" uniquely shared by Khoisans and Pygmies."<br /><br />One reason I'm doing all this is to encourage more research in just these areas, so I have no problem with your suggestion. But in this particular instance I don't think it necessary to do a comprehensive survey as far as beehive huts are concerned, because I've already presented more than enough evidence to include them as part of HBC. Their presence among so many forager and other tribal groups worldwide is far more likely due to diffusion from a single ancestral culture than the only possible alternative: independent invention.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-73250909859963678412009-11-20T09:33:11.184-05:002009-11-20T09:33:11.184-05:00"To dispel the myth of independent invention ..."To dispel the myth of independent invention it's important to realize, first, that inventions of any kind, in any society, are very rarely independent. They are almost always variants of cultural elements already in play, or else borrowings from some other group. The automobile is based on the horse and buggy, which is in turn based on the simple horse-drawn cart, which already takes us back many thousands of years. The computer is based on the electronic calculator, which is based on the adding machine, based on calculating machines developed in the early 1800's, based on 17th century prototypes by Leibnitz and Pascal, all of which are preceded by the Abacus, which takes us well into the BC era."<br /><br />I don't disagree with that. In fact a recent study of market innovations shows the same thing:<br /><br />"For example, Crest Whitestrips in many ways appeared to come out of the blue about 10 years ago. But an analysis of innovation patterns prior to its introduction suggests the occurrence of numerous previous products with similar approaches or delivery systems (for example, nicotine and estrogen patches, breath strips), all paving the way for Whitestrips' success. Whitestrips succeeded in the mass market by building on past news and combining it in an inventive way at the right time, addressing a natural evolution of oral-care needs.<br /><br />In much the same way, Apple's iPod revolutionized the music industry in 2001, but its success was actually foreshadowed by portability, digitization and customization trends in everything from cameras to computers. Mobility of electronic devices was an innovation preceding the iPod, back to the original Sony Walkman. Thus the iPod emerged as a natural next step in the evolution of consumer multimedia needs."<br /><br />However, this market innovation study was based on a 30-year analysis of 300 product categories covering 225 countries. Without a similar analysis of human dwelling types (and possibly even the whole of material culture), I can't see if beehive huts sprang from an underlying ancient African "trend" uniquely shared by Khoisans and Pygmies.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-54534085689711292232009-11-19T19:24:33.955-05:002009-11-19T19:24:33.955-05:00Apparently, conical dwellings such as the Fuegian ...Apparently, conical dwellings such as the Fuegian one you posted are not found in Africa, only round (beehive) ones. I only can speculate on this, so if someone can identify an African dwelling type similar to that Fuegian one, I'd appreciate it. Conical dwellings (bark or skin covered) are common in Northern Eurasia and in America, all the way down to Tierra del Fuego. As in the case of monophony (correct me, Victor, if I misunderstood you), monophony is not found in Africa but is quite common in Northern Eurasia and in America.<br /><br />We may be dealing with an important Northern vs. Southern dwelling types. Conical vs. round may also represent a linchpin of a phylogeny of dwellings. Then Africans will only have round types, while out side of Africa two types will be seen. In America, many tribes used conical dwellings for some purposes, while round ones for others.<br /><br />As far as simplicity vs. complexity is concerned, I can see how conical type is more complex than the round one, but then simplicity is a slippery slope. South American Indians often used windbreakers for dwellings, which is as simple as it gets. Should we always imagine evolution as development from simple to complex?German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.com