observer Posted July 29, 2008 Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 Interesting prog on Five last night: a new theory being put about by some anthropologists is that, when early homo-sapiens (that's us), came out of Africa 40million or so years ago and entered Europe, they didn't wipe out the indigenous Neanderthals, but mated with them and thus assimilated them. They also claim (in this new theory) that the Neanderthals had better communication skills due to their need for co-operative hunting - at which point I nearly switched off! Whilst the conventional "out of Africa" theory seems logical, it also seems logical that whilst early humans would have wiped out the male Neanderthals; the females may have been taken as captives and some cross breeding could have occured (as in early Native American inter-tribal warfare). This could lead to the theory that we all still carry a Neanderthal gene; which seems apparent if you visit a Rugby or Soccer Match or visit Town at the week-end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 I presume this is 'hyperthetical' as Europe and Africa didn't exist back then Sounds like another 'clutching at straws' theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 Errm, think (even with continental shifts) they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 But NOT as we know them today you're just being picky now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 Errm, NO, methinks your being "picky"! The basic world map of today, would have been recognisable 40 million years ago, I think continental shift takes a little bit longer?! Back to the Neanderthals: according to a previous prog I watched: they claimed that due to slight physical differences in the position of their voice box, they would have had high pitched, squeaky voices! The claim that they only used spears (as against javelins), which called for greater team work, and thus language when hunting, equally applies to humans, who would have had to do the same before they had the imagination to throw their spears in the interest of personal safety. But the most compelling evidence in terms of differentiation, is the fact that the Neanderthals have left no evidence of art (wall paintings) or ritual burial; which suggests they had no creative imagination or abstract thought capability. They were physically adapted to their original cold climate; but the advantage of humans was an ability to adapt to most enviroments through building shelter etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 Very true ! I'm VERY picky when it comes to history simply because I've heard and seen so much BULL about it that it beggars belief how some have even got the nerve to enter in to it that's why I avoid TV history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 History is only as good as those who write it; if they have an agenda rather than being evidence based and objective; history becomes distorted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 History is being distorted by poor tv programmes mostly and in particular 'hollywood' tripe !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 .... and a failiure of our our education system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 Well like all theories - we just do not know the whole truth. More than likely there was some interrelations - but who really knows? It's sort of like the Big Bang theory - scientists can go back almost to the point of the Big Bang but not quite - so it is still a theory. I guess it is good we theorize things to gain knowledge as long as we keep in mind most is not fact?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 In the absence of "facts", your left with logical supposition; leading to new theories from each new generation of experts - you merely have to apply your own logic to their theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 Which in laymans terms means we simply do not know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 We only know, what the evidence suggests; the rest is supposition based on logical deduction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 OR illogical, as the case may be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 Now don't be sexist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 Hmmmm - now don't be silly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Part of their genetic code, suggests that Neanderthals could have been red heads - so perhaps we need to revise those blonde jokes?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Male redheads were always held in pretty high esteem many centuries ago ......... their urine was said to be the best to use in the dying process with woad to produce blue cloth usually the first pee they had in a morning was the best one to use ......... urine was a very useful addition to a lot of things ...... even rustproofing of armour I think this process of rustproofing armour with urine was definitely discovered by accident ! the process involved heating the piece to a deep cherry red colour ( the highly skilled smiths from centuries ago could tell just by looking if the temperature was right ) ...... once at the right colour/temperature the piece would then be quenched in a bucket of urine, the ammonia in the urine literally 'soaking' into the heated piece thus blackening it and providing an addition to the iron/steel that would highly increase its vulnerability to rusting. It STINKS when you do it ! believe me I've tried it but it DOES work !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demelzadoe Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Just wondering what sort of reaction you got when you approached the red head with your specimen jar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 It was part of a living history weekend we did a few years ago, it was natural practise centuries ago, the pathetic society we have nowadays always has that similar kind of response Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Guess this has nothing in common with modern wii technology?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 I know Tony - we have lost a lot of our abilities - or left others to do them for us. It is a pity really , cause when the revolution happens,,,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demelzadoe Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 It was part of a living history weekend we did a few years ago, it was natural practise centuries ago, the pathetic society we have nowadays always has that similar kind of response No need to be nasty, I genuinely wanted to know. If you had mentioned 'living history weekend' in your post then I would have made the assumption for myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Wasn't intended to be nasty try hearing things like that hundreds and hundreds of times from visitors/public who's knowledge of history is from watching things like 'Braveheart' and tripe of a similar nature and you begin to tire of hearing it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demelzadoe Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 I'm convinced that if people spent an extra couple of minutes considering how their statements, stories, explanations etc. might be misinterpreted by visitors/public/and posters, and subsequently revised, or futher explained, then life would go along quite smoothly and therefore 'the society we have nowadays' might not have become so 'pathetic'. All I know of you is that you research history and tinker around in your shed. I was just intrigued as to how you came to test the urine of a redhead as a rust proofer, as I would think anyone reading your post would be. All I did was ASK. My answer was 'living history weekend' That's all I needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.