John Post on tue 12 feb 02
I would just like to point out that losing tools serves an important
evolutionary-sociological function. It is because early man lost so many
tools that we know so much about him.
One visit to any museum with a decent size collection of arrowheads and you
will see what I am talking about. Do we find cooking utensils in the same
record number that we keep finding arrowheads? Of course not. That's
because early women hunter gatherers were probably much more organized than
the male members of their clan. I have a hunch that we have yet to find
their tools buried in the fossil record, but when we do, they will be clean,
unbroken, organized by shape and form and be in some type of primitive early
pre-rubbermaid-olithic container.
When a male lost an arrowhead, he simply said "doh" (like homer simpson) and
made another one. This was important for the development of civilization,
since as potters we know that practicing a skill improves one's
craftsmanship. I would argue that it would have taken many more countless
generations of tool making to improve the tools, had early man not been so
good at losing them. This forced him to have to remake tools and therefore
make more and varied improvements in the tools. We owe our speedy
development up the evolutionary ladder to the fact that man was so adroit at
losing tools. If ancient man had had flourescent orange paint, we might all
still be hunter-gatherers. Fortunately for us, all of his tools were earth
tone in color and easily lost...
I like to think that I am continuing the "lost arrowhead" tradition
everytime that I have to buy a new "utility knife" (I have 4 now) or a
caulking gun (I have 3 hanging on the pegboard)... and any time that I have
to use some new fastener, I automatically buy a corresponding drill bit to
go with it, even if I think I already have it at home. It's my duty to keep
the economy going as well as to be able to leave countless buried tools for
future generations to unearth.
John Post
Sterling Heights, Michigan
becky schroeder on tue 12 feb 02
>
>I would just like to point out that losing tools serves an important
>evolutionary-sociological function. It is because early man lost so many
>tools that we know so much about him.
>
i pity the poor archeologist who unearths our home in a few thousand years.
huge amounts of textiles with almost no clothes to show for it. duplicates
in the studio of everything in the kitchen.hundreds of socks with no mates.
a garage that looks like a bomb exploded in it and tools in every nook and
cranny. it will serve as quite a contrast to all my neighbors homes where
they will find alphebetized spices, clothes closets as big as our living
room with wardrobes all color coordinated and garages as tity and devoid of
clutter as a monks berth.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Klyf Brown on wed 13 feb 02
John;
I had never thought about tool evolution in this way, but I think you
are absolutely correct.
My crews and myself must have helped make tremendous
evolutionary advances. You can atribute the new designs in box
cuttersbodies to us. I must have bought 500 of them in the last 17
years.
Love your theory
Klyf Brown in NM
>I would just like to point out that losing tools serves an important
>evolutionary-sociological function. It is because early man lost so
many
>tools that we know so much about him.
| |
|
