Would an Andrewsarchus by Any Other Name Still Look so Freaky?  

Science Fridays

      When I was a kid I was a huge fan of dinosaurs.  From the time I was about three and a half to four years old I knew just about everything there was to know about dinosaurs - before I could even read.  My first book about Dinosaurs was the "How and Why Wonderbook" simply entitled "Dinosaurs."  I had a few other books in the "How and Why Wonderbook" series, but the Dinosaur book was definitely my favorite.  My poor mom had to read that book to me over and over.  While most kids would have their moms read "Winnie the Poo" or something, my mom had to read me the "How and Why Wonderbook" of Dinosaurs.
      I memorized that book.  I could rattle off all the facts about the dinosaurs, such as what they ate, how they moved, which geologic era they lived in, what their names were, and what their names meant in Greek.  When my dad would have friends over he would have me come out to where they were and tell them all about the dinosaurs.  I was normally a somewhat shy boy, but I had no problem delivering a lecture on dinosaurs to a group of adults.
      When we finally studied dinosaurs in school there was nothing new I learned from those units.   It made those units "slider" time for me, as I could ace it without trying.  That was good, because I didn't do really well with most other subjects.
      I had read most dinosaur books available to me and they all just reiterated the same stuff.  Then came Robert Bakker.  He turned the world of dinosaurs on its head.  I found out after reading Bakker's works that in the ten years since I last read current theory, everything had changed.  I liked the warm blooded theory, as I had even thought of that as a kid.  The new positioning of the bones to make them more active looking, suited me fine.  But they changed so may names, and the eras in which a few various species lived.

                                              Robert Bakker (on right)

      There was no more Brontosaurus.  He became the apatosaur.  Good old Trachodon was no more, but was now a duck billed hadrosaur.  When I told a living room full of beer swigging adults about Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus being Triassic dinosaurs, I was completely wrong.  They weren't dinosaurs at all, but sailback reptiles, and they lived in the Permian.  They ran like a lizard or a gator, swaying their bodies back and forth as they moved.  In fact when I told these guys about the Triassic being one of the three periods of dinosaur history, it barely was.  Very few true dinosaurs lived in the Triassic, and they didn't appear till late in the Triassic.  The Triassic was dominated by reptiles that were hold out survivors of the Permian extinction, such as the dicynodont Placerias, and the long legged relative of the alligator, Postosuchus. Most of the true dinosaurs in the Triassic were small and quick, like Procompsognathus, and Coelophysis, and appeared later in the period. 

                                                     Placerias

                                               Postosuchus

                                                              Coelophysis

      Another surprise was the removal of the "flying dinosaur" species.  They are no longer called dinosaurs, which I admit I don't really fully understand why.  They have the bird like hips, the hollow bones, and were most likely warm blooded.  Nevertheless, they are now called "flying reptiles."
      What I also learned is the Permian was full of very cool beasts.  Besides the sail backs, there were the dicynodonts, and the gorgonopsids.  The gorgonopsids were almost mammal-like, were warm blooded and there is evidence that they probably had some sparse hair on their bodies.  Every single species of them were lost during the Permian extinction, along with 90% of all other animal species.

                                                 Gorgonopsids

      The Permian also had the giant, naked tortoise, Scutosuarus (no shell, but a disconnected series of bony plates), and a few hold out species of the giant amphibians from the Carboniferous.

 

Two pictures of Scutosaurus

      Then there was the Eocene, which followed the Cretaceous.  There were giant, flightless, carnivorous birds, such as Gastornis, a.k.a. the terror bird.  There was the Indricotherium, the largest land mammal ever.  It was almost sauropod sized.  There were many species of rhino looking animals that had weird horns all over their heads.  And then there was the Andrewsarchus.  At first glance you'd think it was some kind of giant bear or wolf-like creature.  It was a huge predator (the largest land predator ever) with a jaw full of canine teeth.  Instead of claws however, it had hooves.  Yes, I said hooves.  It was like some kind of weird monster from Dungeons and Dragons, bred with the aid of an evil wizard. It's name is supposed to mean "Andrew's Beast," named after its discoverer.  However,...

                                   Two pictures of Andrewsarchus

      Sarchus (Greek σαρχη) means flesh, or meat, hence "Andrew's Meat."  That doesn't sound good, and I wouldn't want to be heard saying it in public.  That's not all - it gets worse.  The name Andrew comes from the Greek too, and its meaning makes the name of this creature even less appealing.  Andros/andra (Greek άνδρος/άνδρα) means "man" and is sometimes translated as "husband."  So the beast is named "Man meat" or "Husband meat."  That's what happens when someone tries to name an animal without a basic working knowledge of Greek.  Yikes. 

      Maybe years from now they will have changed all the names of these animals again.  Then I will have to relearn them all over - again.  If years from now they change Andrewsarchus' name, would it still be as freaky? 

Entitled in Totality, That's the Mentality 

      Where do people get the idea that they should get all they need without paying for it?  In my job I run into this a lot.  As a plumber I install water heaters and bathroom fixtures for people all the time.  They buy the product from some store and then pay the BASIC installation fee.  They are told when they purchase said product that any extra parts will naturally cost them extra.  Then said store hires me to do their installation.  
      90% of the time when I get to the person's house with their product I see the mess left for me by the previous plumber, or more often by the guy who thought he could do it himself.  I see things that are leaking, valves that don't work or things that are completely unsafe, like exhaust venting that was made out of a cut up paint can or coffee can and wired together (I seriously have seen this - can you say carbon monoxide poisoning?). 
      Maybe the prolonged exposure to the carbon monoxide gave these people brain damage, because when I tell them that I am required by both conscience and law that I must replace this, but they will have to pay for the extra parts, the often respond with, "I don't want to pay for you to do anything extra."  I respond with, "Sir/Maam, this is absolutely dangerous like this, and besides, I am required by law to replace this." 
      "By law!?" They reply, Is the government going to tell me how to live my life?  You can fix it, but I'm not going to pay.  If the government wants me to fix it, then let the government pay for it."  
      Not every conversation goes exactly like that, but in general many people get real huffy about paying for their services.  And the thing is, replacing a foot of galvanized exhaust piping or an elbow will cost them only an additional $5 to $15, or $15 for a new gas valve to replace the one that has a small leak.  What, do you want to blow yourself up?  

      Also, very commonly, they will order a new appliance that is nowhere near the same size or dimension as the old one.  That means nothing is going to fit together without extensive changes.  "Well I shouldn't have to PAY for it.  It's the store's fault.  They sold me the wrong thing."  
      And this is just a general trend.  A lot of people want everything for nothing.  "Why should I pay for anything?  Just give me everything I want or need, and on a silver platter - and you better be smiling when you give it to me.  Doesn't the constitution say, 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?'  I have a constitutional right to everything I want or need, and the constitution never said I actually should have to work for these things, or pay for them.  It just says I have the right to have them."   
      I could go on to explain how this attitude permeates the thinking of a certain subset of society that has become completely dependent on government handouts, but that would be redundant.  In the universities this attitude is taught as doctrine, and to disagree will get you a lower grade (again, I'm not kidding - I wish I were.  

      That happened to me and a few others in three different classes I had to take as required for an education major).  Two different professors came right out and said that no one person should earn one dime more than another person, no matter what their profession is, how much money they spent on their education, or even if they work overtime for it.  "Not even for working overtime?!!", I exclaimed (that exclamation cost me an entire letter grade for that class).  The professor then explained to the entire class that not everyone has the same energy levels, and people should neither be penalized nor rewarded for something that is outside of their control.  
      So this mindset is taught at the university level, and from there it spreads to the rest of society, and shame on you if you feel differently (reasonable) about it.  No wonder they want to take our guns away.  They can't turn us into a giant ant colony until they do.  What's the real underlying problem and cause of this?  Greed and egocentricity.  

      So how do I finally get the unwilling to pay for their extra work on their appliance or fixture?  I match their childish behavior with parental behavior.  I threaten to take it away. 

Those Mysterious Indo-Europeans 

      Disclaimer:  I apologize in advance for posting another really long entry.  I thought it would a shorter, quick entry, but the subject matter wouldn't let me.  It deserves more than a Reader's Digest, mamby pamby, condensed, contentless entry.  Even so, this is a mere overview. 
      There are many questions surrounding these mysterious people who ended up populating and controlling much of our planet.  Although we think of them as being European, their roots actually came from west-central Asia.  They were an Asiatic race.  Their physical characteristics though, were what we think of as European, Western, or Occidental.  Perhaps they think of themselves as European, and anyone that doesn't look like them or talk like them as foreign in the same way the the Anglo-Saxons thought of themselves as British and the Cymri (the Welsh) as foreigners (the Anglo-Saxon word "Waelas" means foreigner).
      Today, with the exceptions of the Hungarians, the Finns, and the Basques, all the "traditional" races of Europe have descended from them.  Besides these many, peoples of Asia are also their descendants, both still existent, and races that have disappeared.  These included(ed) the Persians, the Aryans, the Medes, the Vedi (in India, also known by their Sanskrit writings, the Vedics), the later Akkadians, the Assyrians, the Scythians, the Sarmatians, the Tocharins, and people the Chinese called the Yue Chi.  They were also the progenators of the the later Hittites (not the people of Hattusa, but a later people who also occupied Asia Minor, and had a similar name), and and those equally mysterious people, the Hyksos - the people who scared the pants off of the ancient Egyptians. 
      Perusing the writings of the ancient cultures of Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean there is no record of these Asiatic nomads at all much before about 2000 BC.  Archeological record shows that they lived in the region of the Kirghiz Steppes around 2200 BC or earlier to 3000 BC.  Between about 2000 to 1800 BC they descended upon the known civilizations out in every direction.  The Scythians, Sarmatians, Tocharins, and Yue Chi moved out into the Tarim Basin, Western Mongolia, and Western China as far as the upper reaches of the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers.  The Vedi invaded the Harappan civilization of the Indus River Valley, and then into the rest of India.  The Aryans, Persians, and Medes overran the lands of the Elamites, while first the Akkadians, then the Assyrians took over northern Mesopotamia (from the original Akkadians).  The Hatti, went into Asia Minor and carved out a place for themselves there.  First they fuoght against the Hittites, but eventually allied and mingled with them.  And then those crazy Hyksos invaded and conquered Lower (northern) Egypt.  All the while there was a steady flow of them into continental Europe, until they finally reached the British Isles.
      They were horse people, and also had something that was not seen before - the chariot.  In their panic, the Egyptians described them as "large, hairy, white men with red hair and beards, who rode like thunder and lightning on carts being pulled by ferocious, wild asses."  Previous to this, most people of Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Levant only had donkeys for their equine experience.  It may have actually been a Hyksos king who was the "Pharaoh" who promoted Joseph, and then let his family come into the land.  After the Hyksos were driven out and/or assimilated it would logically follow that the "Pharaoh who knew not Joseph" was the actual Egyptian dynasties returning to power in the north.  Maybe.

They caused absolute chaos when they "migrated" into Egypt 

At the same time another tribe of them did the same thing in India

      Previous to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans into continental Europe, the land was occupied by the Mycenaeans in what we now call Greece, the Etrscans and other related tribes in Italy, and those we call the Minoans on the Aegean islands.  Throughout the rest of mainland Europe there was a people who unfortunately on almost all sources I've looked at are only called "Neolithic Western Mediterranean Cultures" and "Neolithic Western European Cultures."  These guys who named them need a better imagination.  The Solutreans have been given a name, but their culture was not neolithic, and was from 8,000 to 13,000 years before this (and who knows where they went? [ besides to North America ] They could have become the "Neolithic Western Mediterranean Cultures" and "Neolithic Western European Cultures," but for other reasons that is highly unlikely. They could have eventually gotten out of their location of being boxed in by the ice and the sea and wandered out to the Fertile Crescent in search of game to hunt, or even to the western Steppes.  Who knows?  Nobody's tried to answer that.  Maybe they died out.  It's so hard to say where they went, because a lot can happen in a few thousand years, let alone 10,000 years).
      The "Neolithic Western Mediterranean Cultures" and "Neolithic Western European Cultures" were agricultural people and not hunter-gatherers.  During the early Neolithic, groups of farmers and herdsmen wandered out of the Fertile Crescent and colonized their way across Europe till they finally reached the Orkney Islands at Skara Brae.  Some of the original hunter-gatherers adopted farming from these newcomers, but most of them kept their distance and lived as they always had lived.  Who knows where they all went either?

                                                       One of the houses at Skara Brae

      Some of these agricultural people grew to great populations and developed major cultures and cities of their own, such as the major ones previously mentioned   Of the rest of them there is not much known.  This is because the invasion of the Indo-Europeans was so complete.
      Due to some cultural specifics, and identical building styles, I have solid reason to believe that some of these "Neolithic Western Mediterranean Cultures" and "Neolithic Western European Cultures" escaped the invasion by sea and came to resettle in areas of North America (and the Solutrean-Asian mixed people who were already here said, "there goes the neighborhood.").  By this time, however they were already sharing space in western North America with people who fled Catal Hoyuk and Asikli Hoyuk from continual attacks by hungry nomadic hunter-gatherers, and South and Central America already was filled with people who had come over from Egypt and Mesopotamia.  The copper mining colonies on the southern shores of Lake Superior were already here too.

  Catal Hoyuk (left) and a Pueblo village (right).  The Pueblo people learned this building style from the ancient Anasazi, who in turn learned it from a much earlier culture. 

      Among the "Neolithic Western Mediterranean Cultures" and "Neolithic Western European Cultures" that did not become major civilizations with big cities, the only hold outs from them that we know today are the Basques.  The mountainous Pyrenees protected them from invasion.  During the early years of Islam's campaign of "conversion by the sword" neither the Moorish forces nor the forces of Charlemagne penetrate their natural stronghold.  Before that not even might Rome controlled them.  It was within the areas defined on Roman maps, but they were actually never under Rome's control. 
      Three of the four (well) known ancient, mainland European cultures previous to the Indo-European invasion spoke related languages, and had related or similar alphabets.  It would only stand to reason then that the Basque language would also be related.  The Basque language could be the key to unlock the puzzle of the Etruscan, Mycenaean, and Minoan code.  It's just a thought.  It also makes me wonder if the people of Skara Brae and the original Stonehenge people also had languages related to Basque. 
      During the time of the last glacial maximum, while the Solutreans were stuck in France, the people who became the Indo-Europeans were hemmed into a small area of north central Asia.  As you can see in the map below, they were trapped between ice age glaciers, expanded mountain glaciers, and vast lakes and swamps created by rivers blocked by the glaciers.

                     Asia during the last glacial maximum.  There sure wasn't much room. 

      Interestingly, they would have been hemmed in to this region with the same people, some of whom later migrated across Beringia and mingled with the Solutreans in North America - in other words one of the races that became the American Indians.  One such people, the Kett, who still live in the Yenesic River region, live in Tipis, and speak an Athabaskan language (the same language group as Dené, Athabaskan, Tlingit, Navaho, Apache, and Tohono o' Odham, among others).  Although the area they lived in was about the same as the inhabitable area of Pleistocene North America, it was broken up by many overflowing, and dammed up rivers.  The actual livable area was smaller.
       Would they have mingled together?  Think about it.  They were stuck together in an area smaller than the United States, for about five thousand years.  That's a long time.  Even the strongest xenophobic psychosis wouldn't be able to keep them completely apart in such limited space for that long.  I imagine that the genetic mutation that made them lose pigment in the skin, eyes, and hair didn't happen until long after most of their neighbors left for America.  After the mutation they were probably avoided like the plague by their neighbors.  During their time together there were a few customs and beliefs they shared that they each kept until recent and modern times.  Of the two symbols below, for both cultures the were symbols for the earth, the sun, and the elements of the earth and of life.  For the Indo-Europeans they were also the designations for a compass.  Black was north, white was west, red was south, and yellow (or sometimes green) was east.  They still used these color designations when they founded the four Russias.  That's why we still have Black Russia, and White Russia today (Red Russia was the Ukraine, and Yellow Russia was lost to the Golden Horde during the Middle Ages).  They used this symbol on their shields too. 

      Between the Ice Age and through the Neolithic Revolution, the Indo-Europeans existed unnoticed by themselves.  They developed herding and perfected riding the horse.  Life was probably pretty tough on them, living in the harsh climate of the Steppes.  Also at some time they created the chariot.
      As the climate warmed up, and they adapted to life on the Steppes, their population began to grow.  It must have grown to massive proportions.  In about 2000 BC something  catastrophic must have happened.  It was then that the Indo-Europeans blew out in every direction, devastating one major civilization after another and all the small ones in between.  They moved fast and resettling was their goal.

                The movement over time of the Indo-Europeans within the Steppes

                                The Indo-European Expansion


      The secret of their speed was their use of hoses and chariots  It only took a couple of minutes for the people they ran into to see the value of the chariot.  It took them a lot longer though to develop the chariot themselves.  Some people like the Egyptians made major improvements on the design.    The spread of the use of the chariot coincided with the Indo-European expansion.

                                        The spread of the chariot

      When they got fully settled in Europe they still hadn't learned the use of metals.  They were still just a bunch of rock breakers.  During this same time in North America there was a copper culture that was in the beginning stages of bronze age. 
      There are still a few questions concerning these mystery people.  What caused their population to get so huge, and what the heck happened that made them swarm out over the world like a cloud of locusts?