(above: recent excavations show evidence that Wilma Flinstone did other show business jobs before her breakthrough in the well-known tv series)
I always like to start my entries by stating the obvious and then undermine it slowly as words go by. This week is no exception. I seldom make exceptions - if not enhanced by a great amount of foreign currency and/or a bag of Twiglets. This week's obviousness is: ARCHAEOLOGISTS ARE A BUNCH OF P******. (******: USSIES)
I know. This week's is a tough one to undermine, but I'll have a go. Archaeologists' job is to discover ancient shite and report it to the rest of mankind. Nevertheless, I fear the archaeological community might withhold certain information to the general public. You guessed right, I am talking about prehistoric communication in particular. If you didn't guess right, you probably needed to check the meaning of the word 'pornography'. Or if you guessed too much, the meaning of 'introduction' must be rethought and watered down - I didn't want to go that far.
The other day - when somebody says 'the other day' is utter deception -, a friend of mine - I'm just making it worse - commented me the day before he was bashing the bishop over a pint. Well, I mean, not that he was giving himself the five-finger treatment over a pint and thought of that but he mentioned this whilst we were having a pint. Anyway, the thing is this friend came up with a genius question to put forward to the aforementioned archaeological community: do we have evidence of prehistoric erotic material? and if so, what's the point if they had wild chickens, wild goats and mammoths?
I assume that, by Stone Age, humans hadn't invented Dragons and Dungeons yet, so there weren't enough geeks around to appreciate and consume this sort of graphic art. However, hominids terribly resemble monkeys and we have all been in the zoo. Monkeys at the zoo only have two gears, honestly: namely, throw poo at the passers-by or excessive self-love. Who hasn't gone through that moment?
- Mum, what is that chimpanzee doing?
- He is w******, love.
I admit that embarrassing situation might be slightly different for each and everyone out there reading this, but you must acknowledge I come from a very rough working-class background. Back to the topic, provided the prehistoric man was rather more advanced than regular-sized monkeys - excluding the gorilla who fixed the wallpaper and Wayne Rooney (evenly) - and they had the same need to exercise the biceps, hominids must have developed more complex forms to relieve themselves similar to ours if they really are our ancestors. And here is where the archaeologists take their part in the equation.
Archaeology only show us depictions of Neanderthals hunting large animals, which we clearly see that is the ancient equivalent of going to Magaluf (Majorca, Africa), or pregnant Venuses. Unless the pregnant Venuses were some sort of fetish, they do not provide evidence of erotic stimulation for the alpha male. WELL, THEY ARE LIARS! And I'll tell you why. Every single time I recall how shit my life is because a member of an NGO have stopped me and told me how great they are and how evil and cheapskate I am for not giving 12 quids a week, I like to go and cry in a little cave. In that very cave, I often feel overly aroused by some paintings on the walls in there. End of. That is my evidence that proves my point.
Sadly, I could not undermine the idea of the archaeologists being complete pussies. I didn't have enough time in my hands. Too bad. Sorry about wasting your time. In order to compensate such waste of time I'll post a link that will cheer you up. Click here, ungrateful reader.
THE WELSH PATIENT says: "I once ask a chunk of wall in a cave to make love to me. Just sex. It was a cold relationship. A stone cold one"