◆ PARALLAX

[staff] The thread remains open, but the unresolved point is now narrow.

Claims about contact heredity require primary material: the plate, a verified reproduction, excavation context, or biological data tied to the site. Until then, please keep new replies focused on sources rather than expanding the theory.

The culture-to-selection path is still interesting. A repeated contact practice could bias diet, status, marriage, teaching, or childhood survival, and those pressures can matter over time.

But that is a pathway to investigate, not proof of heredity. It needs local evidence, not just an elegant bridge between myth and biology.

I will concede the title overstated the result. Contact heredity sounds cleaner than the evidence allows.

What survives, to me, is contact pressure: an outside group or tradition altering institutions enough that reproduction, teaching, and memory changed downstream. That is weaker than my opening claim, but not empty.

Myth can function as a map here, not a verdict. The repeated teacher pattern tells us where ancient communities placed anxiety about knowledge, descent, and authority.

It does not tell us which event happened until the text, object, and site context line up.

[staff] Marking thread unresolved pending primary material.

The narrowed claim is now culture-to-selection pressure after possible contact, not demonstrated biological intervention. Bring the plate, verified reproduction, excavation context, or biological data before expanding it again.