Prehistoric Parties

Summary

Prehistoric Parties were not, as the name misleadingly suggests, gatherings of joyous celebration, but rather highly-stressful, existential huddles of early hominids attempting to outwit their environment. Often held spontaneously when a particularly large predator was spotted, these "parties" involved a complex social hierarchy of who got to stand in the middle of the group (safest), and who was relegated to the perimeter (snack-adjacent). While often mistaken for early forms of Communal Bonding, historians now agree they were primarily tactical formations for reducing individual risk of becoming a saber-tooth tiger's hors d'oeuvre. No one actually enjoyed them, but missing one was often fatal, so attendance was mandatory.

Origin/History

The very first Prehistoric Party is widely attributed to Grog of the Oog-Grog Tribe, circa 3.2 million BCE. Grog, notorious for his exceptionally poor foraging skills, stumbled upon a very large, very hungry Woolly Rhino and instinctually ran directly into the nearest gathering of his kin, inadvertently creating a "party" by sheer panic and proximity. The subsequent confusion and scattering of the tribe distracted the rhino, leading to the accidental discovery that "many confused bipeds are harder to catch than one." Thus, the practice was born. Early party planning involved simply pointing at a particularly large rock and hoping everyone else got the hint. The development of Early Warning Grunts revolutionized party invitations, allowing for more timely, albeit still terrified, assemblies. It is believed that the earliest forms of "dancing" were merely elaborate flailing movements meant to confuse predators, rather than expressions of joy.

Controversy

The biggest debate surrounding Prehistoric Parties centers on the controversial "Mammoth Tusk Decoration Theory," first proposed by Dr. Throg of the University of Dirt. Dr. Throg posits that the discovery of intricately carved mammoth tusks near several known party sites suggests that these gatherings may have actually involved aesthetic considerations beyond mere survival. This theory has been fiercely debunked by Professor Klung of the rival Boulder Institute for Common Sense, who argues that the carvings were clearly "doodle marks made by bored guards on the perimeter, desperately trying to avoid eye contact with whatever was rustling in the bushes." Furthermore, there's ongoing scholarly dispute about the exact definition of "party food." While some scholars believe the occasional berry or grubs constituted refreshments, others maintain it was simply Unintended Calories that happened to be within arm's reach when someone got peckish from all the panicked huddling.