Musings

… actually, my friend decided to look up the answer as soon as I posed this question. But I’ll let you think about it on your own like we did for half an hour.

‘Cause I know it exists in the Western world: in Aeneid II, the infant son of Aeneas kinda catches on fire randomly.

… and Krook from Dickens’ Bleak House.

… and Jimmy Finn from Twain’s Life on the Mississippi.

Actually, this would be really cool if I could do an anthro research paper on it…

If it’s ‘cause we have 10 fingers, I’m gonna be really disappointed…

As in, if the nuclear apocalypse were about to happen and, or the sun was going to explode, or you ended up locked in a stasis chamber for 3 million years*, and only a handful of humans were gonna survive, with only a handful of belongings: what would you take with?

See, the more I think about this, the more I realise how useless most things would be.

• Clothing: unnecessary and impractical; once it wears out you’re not gonna have any anyways.
• Food: necessary, but it’ll eventually run out, so shouldn’t we be also thinking of long-term stores? Maybe some chickens and roosters… but then we’d have to deal with waste disposal. And cooking methods.
• Water: necessary, but extremely bulky, and will also run out.
• Guitar: totally unnecessary, but I might just take it anyway.
• Sonic screwdriver: I’ve never gotten mine to work on anything other than technological appliances, which would only be practical if I didn’t end up stuck in the middle of the wilderness. 
• Friends: unnecessary, but could prevent one from going insane, and also be a food source.
• Vuvuzela: I’d only bring this to make sure it got preserved in the archaeological record. And to scare away lions and sports announcers.

Moral: Scotty will not survive the near-apocalypse.

*I’ve been watching too much Red Dwarf.

Oh right; I was in Africa. What’s your excuse?

… yea, our lives collectively suck right now. Multiplied by the fact that this is occuring in more than one class, and that Nursing school takes forever to make acceptance decisions.

But if you have any questions, feel free to let us know; our brain-space is currently being occupied with “WTF?! Why me?! Why now?! Do I really need to pass this class?”

When great apes, or zebras, or Hermes-knows-what out there commit infanticide, are they just “killers”, or are they “murderers”? Is the concept of murder a wholly human invention?

This was saragirl’s  answer follow-up question to our question: Who came up with maple sugaring, anyway?

I have no idea, but this reminds me of something that has always bothered me slightly: Do other animals get high? I would assume yes: cats get high off catnip, so it would make sense that other plants could affect other animals. Thus, some part of my mind has been occupied for these past several years with an image of some ancient forest fire or wildfire surrounded by all these doped-up animals (specifically bears)… it helps me get through my most boring lectures on linguistics sometimes.

Also, my two favourite archaeological pieces of evidence for hallucinogens:

Figurine of person holding (possibly) snuff-tablets. Note the large eyes. From Tiwanaku. Now in the Met.

Doesn’t come out so well, but if you look, you can see two rivulets running out his nostrils; this is one of the after-effects of taking certain types of snuff that archaeologists believe they used at Andean sites like Chavín de Huantar (where this is from).

How did ancient authors (or Medieval manuscript copiers, since the ancients didn’t usually use accents and punctuation) add diacritical marks to their writing?

Living in Civilised West at the turn of the century, I was always taught that (at least in script), I should finish writing the word before going back and adding any crosses to my t’s or dots to my i’s or accents to my pretentious French loan-words. I also know for a fact that I do not wait until the end of whatever damn word I’m writing to go back and add some scribbles to it. What about other people?

Specifically, what is ancient art?:

1. To whom does it belong? To its country of origin? or should it be brought to other countries so that more people can access it? (As in: more people will see and appreciate the Elgin Marbles in Britain as opposed to in Greece.)
2. They didn’t necessarily treat it as a high art form; why do we? Ancient artists (in Greece) were paid the same as any other day labourer (or nothing at all if they were slaves).
3. How “avant-garde” are they? I mean, they aren’t necessarily unique; ancient artists work within a societal convention. So why do we place such emphasis on features that are the result of standardised artistic methods?
4. They weren’t made to look like they now do. Bronzes were polished, marbles were painted; but you wouldn’t know that if you just walked into the MFA right now.
5. What about copies? Sure, the Romans made copies of Greek works. And in the Renaissance more copies were made. And now people still make copies. At what point does it stop becoming the original?

GAAAAH! Art History can be so depressing sometimes…