Why men and women have sex

[Misha]

I don't know how they could have determined a Neolithic late-fertility figure, much less a Paleolithic one .

Bones, Sandro, bones. I would have to do a search, but would expect that it is possible to come up with an estimate of how many children a woman likely had based on the skeletal remains.

The !Kung San are primitive, but they are also a contemporary population, no telling when/how/why they have evolved their current customs. I don't think they can be assumed as a totally reliable prototype for much older human populations.

They are a contemporary community that followed a subsistence pattern that most closely resembles how humans would have lived in the past. Similar patterns were also observed in South America and elsewhere among hunters and gatherers. It seems however, that you apply a double-standard when challenged. You expect me to provide evidence while you provide no  evidence to support your assertion that "ancient women typically produced an almost continuous string of offspring while fertile." You saying so, is not proof for me either. Show me your evidence. I would define "almost continuous" as meaning a child being born every 9 months or something close to that. Prove to me that you are right applying your own standards of proof.

[Jumper]

<<<<< Irish twin

[SANDRO43]

Bones, Sandro, bones. I would have to do a search, but would expect that it is possible to come up with an estimate of how many children a woman likely had based on the skeletal remains.

No idea, I came up with a tantalising:

http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/skeleton.pdf
The human skeleton
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Aspects of excavating and interpreting human skeletal materials and is an .... the clavicle, with limited evidence for geographic or sex based variation. .... information as to pregnancy and childbirth is present, but not the number of ...

but I could see no mention of the highlighted statement in the linked PDF file, so the question remains open. Any paleogynaecologists around ?

They are a contemporary community that followed a subsistence pattern that most closely resembles how humans would have lived in the past. Similar patterns were also observed in South America and elsewhere among hunters and gatherers.

Conjecture, IMO, extrapolations into the past of current behaviours do not necessarily work.

It seems however, that you apply a double-standard when challenged. You expect me to provide evidence while you provide no  evidence to support your assertion that "ancient women typically produced an almost continuous string of offspring while fertile." You saying so, is not proof for me either. Show me your evidence. I would define "almost continuous" as meaning a child being born every 9 months or something close to that. Prove to me that you are right applying your own standards of proof.

I'll readily admit that was a conjecture on my part, too, hence the typically in my statement - I should probably have written possibly - based on the fact that hunting for large preys was - as we can gather from cave paintings - a communal effort, not a solo endevour, and hence a number of younger 'helpers' - sons - would have been beneficial to the effort.

But let me make a methodological statement: no certain assertions can be made about Paleolithic and Neolithic customs  - only 'informed' guesses - for the very simple reason that we have NO texts at all from that period. Speech/language is assumed to have been possible then, since:

The discovery of a modern-looking hyoid bone of a Neanderthal man in the Kebara Cave in Israel led its discoverers to argue that the Neanderthals had a descended larynx, and thus human-like speech capabilities. However, other researchers have claimed that the morphology of the hyoid is not indicative of the larynx's position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoid_bone
but they could not/did not bother to record it in a way that came down to us. We only have artifacts - mostly of stone, hence the lithic designation - and bones from burials, as well as the above-mentioned cave paintings, the significance of which - magic/religion/art? - is still debated.

Even in comparatively text-rich periods like the Middle Ages one can come across unexplained puzzles - see the case of the bovine skeleton at the dig I took part in, bottom of www.floriani.it/archeo-eng.htm - where one's guess is almost as good as anybody else's.

In conclusion, I cannot be convinced by your 'evidence', and you're quite entitled not to be by mine .

[Misha]

In conclusion, I cannot convinced by your 'evidence', and you're quite entitled not to be by mine .

In that case, we can agree to disagree. Of course, I would say that you are brushing off the ethnographic extrapolation too easily, but you have your biases and I have mine. I agree that ethnographic analogy is not perfect, but it is an indicator as to how things could have been in the past under similar circumstances.

[SANDRO43]

I agree that ethnographic analogy is not perfect, but it is an indicator as to how things could have been in the past under similar circumstances.

Yes, that's the keyword . What was this thread about, anyway ?

[Gator]

I should probably have written possibly - based on the fact that hunting for large preys was - as we can gather from cave paintings - a communal effort, not a solo endevour, and hence a number of younger 'helpers' - sons - would have been beneficial to the effort.

It certainly was a tribal endeavor.  

The theory is that the hunters would chase an animal during the heat of the African day.  The men were of course slower and smaller than the prey; however, the men had the advantage of hairless skin.  Our ancestors would control body heat by sweating, while the animal had to stop to pant and expose its tongue.   Eventually after a long chase of a day or more, our human ancestors would catch up to a weary animal.  I suppose the effort was net calorie positive or we would have died out.

The successful hunters returned to their caves and huts and there enjoyed a fine meal.  Even cooked it if they had discovered fire. Then they had sex with the women.  Why?   Because it felt good.    Of course, if the men returned without a kill the women would punish them by withholding sex.  

[SANDRO43]

The successful hunters returned to their caves and huts and there enjoyed a fine meal.  Even cooked it if they had discovered fire. Then they had sex with the women.  Why?   Because it felt good.    Of course, if the men returned without a kill the women would punish them by withholding sex.  

That looks like a much sounder explanation than the Psycho PhD's from Texas . Nothing like getting down to basics .

[Misha]

Yes, that's the keyword . What was this thread about, anyway ?

No because you wrote with certainty (no ifs or coulds) that: "ancient women typically produced an almost continuous string of offspring." Typically implies certainty with perhaps the occasional exception. I am arguing that this is not the case and that your typical is in effect atypical.

[SANDRO43]

No because you wrote with certainty (no ifs or coulds) that: "ancient women typically produced an almost continuous string of offspring." Typically implies certainty with perhaps the occasional exception. I am arguing that this is not the case and that your typical is in effect atypical.

Misha, typically is does NOT imply an absolute statement of certainty:

typ·i·cal  (tp-kl)
adj.
1. Exhibiting the qualities, traits, or characteristics that identify a kind, class, group, or category: a typical suburban community.
2. Of or relating to a representative specimen; characteristic or distinctive.
3. Conforming to a type: a composition typical of the baroque period.
4. also typ·ic (-k) Of the nature of, constituting, or serving as a type; emblematic.

Shall we consider the matter closed by our agreeing to disagree ?

[Misha]

Misha, typically is does NOT imply an absolute statement of certainty:

Sorry Sandro, you statement comes across as a statement of fact, but I am also willing to agree to disagree with you on this point, as you clearly do not want to admit the possibility that you erred 

[SANDRO43]

I am also willing to agree to disagree with you on this point, as you clearly do not want to admit the possibility that you erred 

OK, let's confine our discussions to contemporary sex, I'm older than you but not THAT much that I can claim definitive authority on Stone Age mores .

[Mars]

OK, so there is some feeling that humans, unlike most animals, began pairing up because of the necessity of tending to newborn over a longer period than required for non-humans.

Any other ideas on why this pairing up occurred?