Re: An alternative to ST and AAT
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 06 Dec 96 10:48:12 GMT
In article <581nmv$289@news.NL.net>
G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.net "Gerrit Hanenburg" writes:
> Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk (Paul Crowley) wrote:
> >Are there any discussions in the literature of the biomechanics
> >involved in the alteration of the mother/infant dyad from a
> >quadrupedal to a bipedal gait? They should focus on late
> >infancy (about 3-4 years of age) when the weight of the infant
> >would be a strongly inhibiting factor on the ability of the
> >mother to adopt a bipedal stance.
> There are indications that Australopithecines had a developmental
> pattern similar to that of chimpanzees (Smith 1991).
> Since chimpanzees achieve complete locomotor indepence at the age of
> 3.5-4.5 years (Goodall 1968) the biomechanics of infant carrying at
> that age seems irrelevant.
My question was barbed. You had a real go at Frankie Flowers
G> The origin of bipedalism happens to be one of most discussed subjects
G> in paleoanthropology. Entire symposia are dedicated to it (e.g. the
G> International Symposium of the Singer-Polignac Foundation in Paris
G> held from 5-8 June 1990)
G> There are several theories about the origin of bipedalism,so I really
G> don't understand how FsFlowers can say that he/she doesn't understand
G> that there isn't more theory and discussion on the subject.
G> How much effort did he/she take to find out what is really there?
However, your implicitly negative answer to my question shows
that it's really the profession that deserves the criticism.
It has not properly considered a fundamental issue. Why?