INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: ZEGH8578 on November 02, 2015, 12:46:55 PM
-
https://www.academia.edu/17335940/A_new_Cambrian_black_pigment_used_during_the_late_Middle_Palaeolithic_discovered_at_Scladina_Cave_Andenne_Belgium_
Red and ochre pigment have been recovered, although black is the most common by far.
Neanderthals tanned leather, and likely made clothes for themselves. Pigment might have been used to color their clothes, to decorate tools, and also to color themselves. Face-paint has always been common with humans, and even more so the further back in history we go (or if we look at tribal communities, which often have quite elaborate face-paints, often associated with religious rituals or warfare)
-
:hahaha:
(http://img.ifcdn.com/images/22849f7a6bf8d62fa261929b5050c6f2422220c8803131e1dd983f818037e093_1.jpg)
-
https://www.academia.edu/17335940/A_new_Cambrian_black_pigment_used_during_the_late_Middle_Palaeolithic_discovered_at_Scladina_Cave_Andenne_Belgium_
Red and ochre pigment have been recovered, although black is the most common by far.
Neanderthals tanned leather, and likely made clothes for themselves. Pigment might have been used to color their clothes, to decorate tools, and also to color themselves. Face-paint has always been common with humans, and even more so the further back in history we go (or if we look at tribal communities, which often have quite elaborate face-paints, often associated with religious rituals or warfare)
What does this do with the Neanderthal/autism theory?
Spazzes overall seem to be less keen on wearing paint on their faces.
-
What does this do with the Neanderthal/autism theory?
I have NO idea :I
Someone tries to associate Neanderthals with autism? Sounds like pseudo-science to me, and I get regular updates about paleontology and archaeology, and never even heard about it.
And - for future reference, use the word "hypothesis" in these cases, because theories are practically proven :D
I know it's a bit of a nit-pick, but litterally speaking, the existence of the sun is a theory.
Misunderstanding the weight of "a theory" is what causes so many to view many theories as "open ended", like evolution "it's just a theory!"
There's nothing "just" about it - in order to make a hypothesis into a theory you need to prove it adequately!
In science, there is no "higher level" than theory - it is as good as "truth".
-
What does this do with the Neanderthal/autism theory?
I have NO idea :I
Someone tries to associate Neanderthals with autism? Sounds like pseudo-science to me, and I get regular updates about paleontology and archaeology, and never even heard about it.
Was a fashionable theory for a while. (http://autism.lovetoknow.com/Neanderthal_Theory_of_Autism)
You missed the trend. :M
And I should use smilies more often. I was making a joke about the Neanderthal spazzes wearing facial paint.
-
What does this do with the Neanderthal/autism theory?
I have NO idea :I
Someone tries to associate Neanderthals with autism? Sounds like pseudo-science to me, and I get regular updates about paleontology and archaeology, and never even heard about it.
Was a fashionable theory for a while. (http://autism.lovetoknow.com/Neanderthal_Theory_of_Autism)
You missed the trend. :M
And I should use smilies more often. I was making a joke about the Neanderthal spazzes wearing facial paint.
That is *not* a theory! :D
Not your fault tho, the website you link to is making the same mistake, because - it is a far too common mistake, but in the end it is destructive to the understanding of science, precisely because it de-legitimizes actual theories as "just an idea", and at the same time legitimizes "ideas" by presenting them as proper theories :D
It also falls squarely into the realm of pure speculation, since it makes assumptions about Neanderthals that we have no way of really making... I checked the original publication - which is something people really should do more often, if only to discover how amateurish it really is...
Instead, website summarizes are perpetuated, and people simply go "A science website said autists are neanderthals :o"
No!
Some Swede said it!
And nobody else! :D
-
It also falls squarely into the realm of pure speculation, since it makes assumptions about Neanderthals that we have no way of really making...
Like they painted their faces?
-
It also falls squarely into the realm of pure speculation, since it makes assumptions about Neanderthals that we have no way of really making...
Like they painted their faces?
Yes. Your point beeeing?
Where did I say that Neanderthals painting their faces was an actual theory?
Show me where.
And this is how easy it is to really irk me.
Show me where!
Was it the title, where I say MIGHT HAVE?
Also, what's your point?
I posted a link to a PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE about ACTUAL EVIDENCE of ACTUAL PIGMENT and stated the POSSIBLE USES FOR IT
so again
Show me where?
What's your point?
-
And this is how easy it is to really irk me.
Which is why it was so irresistible. :laugh:
-
I don't like having my credibility put into question, especially not out of the blue
-
Could have just as easily came back shouting, where did I say you said it's an actual theory, show me where. *shrug*
-
Leave the harmless ribbing to me, Jack. You don't know how to do it right. :hahaha:
-
Neanderthals aren't even autistic!
-
This is about facial decoration damnit!
And the amazingness of the others, as well, orcs, hobbits, elves, trolls - those other humans.
It's too common a misconception that "we come from" many of these past human species, and we do - but many of them are "sister species" to us, and Neanderthals are that as well. Now, nature isn't black and white like that, so, we DO have neanderthal genes from inter-breeding, but that's just cus humans are pervy and lonely. That combination is very powerful.
I can hardly get over how weird it is, how weird it would be, to meet another type of human.
Our "collective memory" is full of other humans, elves, hobbits, trolls, there memories are very possibly remnants of our dealings with, for example, Neanderthals.
-
It also falls squarely into the realm of pure speculation, since it makes assumptions about Neanderthals that we have no way of really making...
Like they painted their faces?
Yes. Your point beeeing?
Where did I say that Neanderthals painting their faces was an actual theory?
Show me where.
And this is how easy it is to really irk me.
Show me where!
Was it the title, where I say MIGHT HAVE?
Also, what's your point?
I posted a link to a PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE about ACTUAL EVIDENCE of ACTUAL PIGMENT and stated the POSSIBLE USES FOR IT
so again
Show me where?
What's your point?
First you tell us they painted their faced then they dyed their clothes. What about tattooing each other? Dying their hair perhaps.
"Oh Crank, that dyed hair is so becoming."
"Yes, Grok, and I see you did a tattoo of a butterfly. You are so cultured"
-
What about tattooing each other? Dying their hair perhaps.
The females may have painted their butts bright red to attract mates. :zoinks:
-
Spankings could do the same thing
-
Spankings could do the same thing
They may have saved the spankings for the orcs, hobbits, elves, and trolls. :zoinks:
-
Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...
Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person
I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)
-
Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...
Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person
I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)
Yes, they also invented electricity.
-
Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...
Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person
I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)
Had a teacher philosophy for a while who wanted to ad "Homo Ludens" somewhere in the evolution of the humanoids, just because of that.
-
Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...
Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person
I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)
Had a teacher philosophy for a while who wanted to ad "Homo Ludens" somewhere in the evolution of the humanoids, just because of that.
Philosophers ::) :eyelash:
What could be "legal" (in terms of the ICZN, the organization moderating the naming of zoological entities) would be to add this as a "sub-species", since these have practically no real definition, are are very subjective. It would if so be Homo sapiens ludens, and we would of course count as H. s. ludens as well.
But there would be nothing "binding" about it, because of the subjectivity of it
-
Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...
Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person
I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)
Had a teacher philosophy for a while who wanted to ad "Homo Ludens" somewhere in the evolution of the humanoids, just because of that.
Philosophers ::) :eyelash:
What could be "legal" (in terms of the ICZN, the organization moderating the naming of zoological entities) would be to add this as a "sub-species", since these have practically no real definition, are are very subjective. It would if so be Homo sapiens ludens, and we would of course count as H. s. ludens as well.
But there would be nothing "binding" about it, because of the subjectivity of it
The subjectivity would depend on the number of finds. And there it does get tricky of course. Behaviour, in the use of artefacts, or in the decoration of artefacts, does not need to be a subjective thing. But, it does require finds. And the older the finds are, the less there is likely to be found.
-
Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...
Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person
I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)
Had a teacher philosophy for a while who wanted to ad "Homo Ludens" somewhere in the evolution of the humanoids, just because of that.
Philosophers ::) :eyelash:
What could be "legal" (in terms of the ICZN, the organization moderating the naming of zoological entities) would be to add this as a "sub-species", since these have practically no real definition, are are very subjective. It would if so be Homo sapiens ludens, and we would of course count as H. s. ludens as well.
But there would be nothing "binding" about it, because of the subjectivity of it
The subjectivity would depend on the number of finds. And there it does get tricky of course. Behaviour, in the use of artefacts, or in the decoration of artefacts, does not need to be a subjective thing. But, it does require finds. And the older the finds are, the less there is likely to be found.
It is very rule-bound, but in essence
Genus-level naming - is entirely subjective, by rule - and this causes endless debates, precisely because of the subjectivity of it. A genus is the *first* name, in the string of latin names: Homo, Panthera, Tyrannosaurus, Canis
Examples of debate include - wether or not Australopithecus* warrants a separate genus, or wether it "fits better" with Homo or Paranthropus (I think, don't quote me on it) - a better example is the even longer Lynx debate, wether the animal "deserves" it's own genus: Lynx, or wether it should be a separate species of Felis - or even Panthera.
Species-level naming - is entirely objective, by rule - here genetics are the key. An old-fashioned "rule of thumb" is that a species is defined by the fertility of its offspring. Technically polar bear and brown bears are the same species, because their offspring are indeed fertile - Ursus arctos, but for now, polar bear remains separated as Ursus maritimus.
But generally speaking, a species-level name has to be thoroughly specified and proven.
With extinct animals, where we have no genetic evidence, defining species is much more challenging - and on top of that, genus-debates are much more rampant.
Sub-species level naming - is again very much subjective, because we have allready genetically defined the species - that's done, the organisms can successfully interbreed, so any further division will be "racial" if you will, many synonyms are used, such as "morphs" or simply: Sub-species.
A good example of sub-species are the two types of "common crow" in Europe, where the northern one is black-and-grey, and the southern one is entirely-black, but they are the same species, they have the same language - they communicate effortlessly with each others, and they have no prejudice towards each others, as they will mate and frequently produce half-gray-morphs in the mixing-zone between north and south.
But all of this comes down to physical traits. There is no significant evidence of physical differences in human anatomy from right before or right after the advent of figurative art - just as there's no significant change before or after the use of copper, or before or after taming of the horse. These are super-significant innovations of ours, but have more to do with... the rare new discoveries, observations, inventions, that have spread rapidly, than a very new feature in their anatomy.
To be boringly technical - what your teacher would be much more correct in doing - would be to name a period or a culture rather than the organism, and as it is - those cultures are allready named and defined :D
If you're curious, the oldest named culture is "Oldowan culture" and is pre-human, as in, Homo erectus and similar species, and concerns mostly very basic stone tools. It begins around 2 million years ago.
A more recognizeable culture is for example "Corded ware culture", and is much more recent (ca 3000 BC) and is defined by certain burial rituals.
*Type famously known as "Lucy"
**"Type" is the very first individual/fossil ever recieving the name - and thus the individual/fossil you must compare all else with.
***Genus species subspecies <---correct writing, always capital Genus, but lower-case species and subspecies, and always cursive (well, if you want to be correct! :D) "T-Rex" is famously incorrect, T. rex is correct.
-
Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC,
Lipstick dates back to 3,000 BC, and eyeliner dates back to 10,000 BC. :orly: I'm sure anything that could potentially be pigmented, potentially and hypothetically might have pigmented by people who had pigments. :dunno:
-
Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC,
Lipstick dates back to 3,000 BC, and eyeliner dates back to 10,000 BC. :orly: I'm sure anything that could potentially be pigmented, potentially and hypothetically might have pigmented by people who had pigments. :dunno:
10 000 BC is very recent, again it's long after the disappearance of Neanderthals, also, lipstick and eyeliner is more specific. We don't know what exactly the Neanderthals painted and how - but we know that 10 000 BC at least - non-Neanderthal humans painted their eyes.
Again, consider how expected make-up is in Egyptian art, for example
You're right about "people have pretty much always done - " a lot of stuff, but I find excitement in finding out these "earliest known" dates. At some point humans would simply not have thought of ever putting red color on their lips. That point is what is intriguing to pinpoint as closely as possible
Some dates can probably never be pinpointed, and that is the discovery of gold, for example. Or, the first definite observations and identifications of stars and constellations, since these don't leave any traces beyond writing - and we know that humans knew stars and constellations allready by the time of the first writing.
-
The Flintstones was based on a true story.
-
Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...
Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person
I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)
Had a teacher philosophy for a while who wanted to ad "Homo Ludens" somewhere in the evolution of the humanoids, just because of that.
Philosophers ::) :eyelash:
What could be "legal" (in terms of the ICZN, the organization moderating the naming of zoological entities) would be to add this as a "sub-species", since these have practically no real definition, are are very subjective. It would if so be Homo sapiens ludens, and we would of course count as H. s. ludens as well.
But there would be nothing "binding" about it, because of the subjectivity of it
The subjectivity would depend on the number of finds. And there it does get tricky of course. Behaviour, in the use of artefacts, or in the decoration of artefacts, does not need to be a subjective thing. But, it does require finds. And the older the finds are, the less there is likely to be found.
It is very rule-bound, but in essence
Genus-level naming - is entirely subjective, by rule - and this causes endless debates, precisely because of the subjectivity of it. A genus is the *first* name, in the string of latin names: Homo, Panthera, Tyrannosaurus, Canis
Examples of debate include - wether or not Australopithecus* warrants a separate genus, or wether it "fits better" with Homo or Paranthropus (I think, don't quote me on it) - a better example is the even longer Lynx debate, wether the animal "deserves" it's own genus: Lynx, or wether it should be a separate species of Felis - or even Panthera.
Species-level naming - is entirely objective, by rule - here genetics are the key. An old-fashioned "rule of thumb" is that a species is defined by the fertility of its offspring. Technically polar bear and brown bears are the same species, because their offspring are indeed fertile - Ursus arctos, but for now, polar bear remains separated as Ursus maritimus.
But generally speaking, a species-level name has to be thoroughly specified and proven.
With extinct animals, where we have no genetic evidence, defining species is much more challenging - and on top of that, genus-debates are much more rampant.
Sub-species level naming - is again very much subjective, because we have allready genetically defined the species - that's done, the organisms can successfully interbreed, so any further division will be "racial" if you will, many synonyms are used, such as "morphs" or simply: Sub-species.
A good example of sub-species are the two types of "common crow" in Europe, where the northern one is black-and-grey, and the southern one is entirely-black, but they are the same species, they have the same language - they communicate effortlessly with each others, and they have no prejudice towards each others, as they will mate and frequently produce half-gray-morphs in the mixing-zone between north and south.
But all of this comes down to physical traits. There is no significant evidence of physical differences in human anatomy from right before or right after the advent of figurative art - just as there's no significant change before or after the use of copper, or before or after taming of the horse. These are super-significant innovations of ours, but have more to do with... the rare new discoveries, observations, inventions, that have spread rapidly, than a very new feature in their anatomy.
To be boringly technical - what your teacher would be much more correct in doing - would be to name a period or a culture rather than the organism, and as it is - those cultures are allready named and defined :D
If you're curious, the oldest named culture is "Oldowan culture" and is pre-human, as in, Homo erectus and similar species, and concerns mostly very basic stone tools. It begins around 2 million years ago.
A more recognizeable culture is for example "Corded ware culture", and is much more recent (ca 3000 BC) and is defined by certain burial rituals.
*Type famously known as "Lucy"
**"Type" is the very first individual/fossil ever recieving the name - and thus the individual/fossil you must compare all else with.
***Genus species subspecies <---correct writing, always capital Genus, but lower-case species and subspecies, and always cursive (well, if you want to be correct! :D) "T-Rex" is famously incorrect, T. rex is correct.
I know that, somewhere in the back of my mind. :laugh: Not that I would have been able to word it like you did from the top of my head. A friend from thirty years ago got his name attached to a dung fly a few years back. Was funny.
The philosopher could probably not give a shit about this, if he was still alive. He wanted that name, arbitrary or not, because he saw play as an important human condition. And could not agree with models of humanity where there was no place for things like play (play leading too all kinds of things, from music to science)
-
There is a lot of politics involved in these things. How many populations did Aboriginals in Australia come from?
Where did these populations originate from? Was it from one migration ore several? If several, were they from different racial types or cultures? If so were one displacing another?
Why would any of these things matter?
Well...not to be too blunt but IF there is a narrative that Aboriginals were living peacefully in isolation and as one big large tribal existent and were oppressed by the invading white people, how would this be altered if it came to light that they migrated in three or four migrations and the weaker or earlier inhabitants were driven off, killed, oppressed, amalgamated into the newer migratory tribes?
It is thought by some that the Tasmanian Aboriginals and some Pygmy sized Aboriginals in the Daintree area of Queensland were a different racial mix and culture and were remnants of an early migration that were killed or driven off by later migrations.
Politics, sociology and philosophy matter in these things.
-
There is a lot of politics involved in these things. How many populations did Aboriginals in Australia come from?
Where did these populations originate from? Was it from one migration ore several? If several, were they from different racial types or cultures? If so were one displacing another?
Why would any of these things matter?
Well...not to be too blunt but IF there is a narrative that Aboriginals were living peacefully in isolation and as one big large tribal existent and were oppressed by the invading white people, how would this be altered if it came to light that they migrated in three or four migrations and the weaker or earlier inhabitants were driven off, killed, oppressed, amalgamated into the newer migratory tribes?
It is thought by some that the Tasmanian Aboriginals and some Pygmy sized Aboriginals in the Daintree area of Queensland were a different racial mix and culture and were remnants of an early migration that were killed or driven off by later migrations.
Politics, sociology and philosophy matter in these things.
What things?
You just skimmed everything in this thread, didn't you!? :D
Admit it, or just keep chatting about whatever nobody else is chatting about, such as Australian politics and the migration of aborigins.
I'm talking about neanderthals and nomenclature in paleontology.
But, eh, whatever, if I have to humor you, then, who claims Aborigins in Australia were "living peacefully"?
Nobody but hippies, I assume, racist hippies at that, if they are to claim that somehow Aborigins have some "peaceful gene" or something, but I don't listen to hippies.
Aborigins are people, and yes
1. They very probably arrived in several waves.
2. They very probably waged tribal warfare back and forth and across each others, non stop, they're people, that's what people do
3. They probably didn't even care much about nature, another "noble savage"-myth. They exterminated many endemic species.
In the end, politics only matters in terms of the media representation of this. There are no serious biologists who try to portray any tribal community as overly pure, kind or perfect in their behavior. This is misrepresentation by the media - OR unprofessionalism in the field.
I have sneaking suspicion none of this will be read, instead skimmed, and some kind of absurdly arbitrary debate about Australian politics will ensue.
-
Zegh, you and Al must belong to different subspecies.
Homo Sapiens Linearis and Homo Sapiens Divergensis. :M
Now I want to know if any of your species wears paint on their faces.
-
I have had my face painted on a few occasions :apondering:
-
Good. :M
-
just keep chatting about whatever nobody else is chatting about,
That's what I like most about this place. :zoinks:
bla blub's blabba blub blubba be blub bla blah bla blah-blubba blah a blabber blubba blah bla is blubba in blub's blub bla bla blabba blabba, blabber blabba bla bla bla blabba he blub bla a blubba blah blah bla bla blah bla-bla to blubba.
-
I miss the blabberizer.
-
I miss the blabberizer.
I miss blabberizer worthy trolls. :bigcry:
-
I miss the blabberizer.
I miss blabberizer worthy trolls. :bigcry:
True.
-
There is a lot of politics involved in these things. How many populations did Aboriginals in Australia come from?
Where did these populations originate from? Was it from one migration ore several? If several, were they from different racial types or cultures? If so were one displacing another?
Why would any of these things matter?
Well...not to be too blunt but IF there is a narrative that Aboriginals were living peacefully in isolation and as one big large tribal existent and were oppressed by the invading white people, how would this be altered if it came to light that they migrated in three or four migrations and the weaker or earlier inhabitants were driven off, killed, oppressed, amalgamated into the newer migratory tribes?
It is thought by some that the Tasmanian Aboriginals and some Pygmy sized Aboriginals in the Daintree area of Queensland were a different racial mix and culture and were remnants of an early migration that were killed or driven off by later migrations.
Politics, sociology and philosophy matter in these things.
What things?
You just skimmed everything in this thread, didn't you!? :D
Admit it, or just keep chatting about whatever nobody else is chatting about, such as Australian politics and the migration of aborigins.
I'm talking about neanderthals and nomenclature in paleontology.
But, eh, whatever, if I have to humor you, then, who claims Aborigins in Australia were "living peacefully"?
Nobody but hippies, I assume, racist hippies at that, if they are to claim that somehow Aborigins have some "peaceful gene" or something, but I don't listen to hippies.
Aborigins are people, and yes
1. They very probably arrived in several waves.
2. They very probably waged tribal warfare back and forth and across each others, non stop, they're people, that's what people do
3. They probably didn't even care much about nature, another "noble savage"-myth. They exterminated many endemic species.
In the end, politics only matters in terms of the media representation of this. There are no serious biologists who try to portray any tribal community as overly pure, kind or perfect in their behavior. This is misrepresentation by the media - OR unprofessionalism in the field.
I have sneaking suspicion none of this will be read, instead skimmed, and some kind of absurdly arbitrary debate about Australian politics will ensue.
You make a lot of claims about "Aborigins", I think you mean Aboriginals or Aborigines.
But what are we talking about? To be honest, I can't remember and I only skimmed what you read. I think it was about the way bias shapes history. Political pressures to paint aboriginals as a united peaceful "noble savage" as you put it, may be dismissive of unfavourable evidence, or downplay it and so on. Or another example would be perhaps if someone was to want Neanderthals to be more like "us" and therefore start laying claim to them OR perhaps saying that they were painting their faces in cultural and practices.
I say this is entirely plausible. In fact I don't stop there. I believe the Flintstones was a documentary on Neanderthal life (only the names were changed to protect the innocent).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s-MnvKIqb8
Then again my theory may be silly. Yours is still great though and very cool.
-
what... ?
-
what... ?
Well thee were some Autistics that thought "We" were showing a common Neanderthal ancestral traits. That Autistics were all carrying Neanderthal genes and that is why they were Autistics.
I can only presume this is to make Neanderthals more "human" and in a sense more something we can feel a kinship with.
Another way we could do this is to start theorising that they had a common language, rites, a culture, painted their faces before battle or prayed to Gods.
I say, why stop here. I am sure they were very much like us and were motivated by the same things we were and that they lived just like we did
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s-MnvKIqb8
"Flintstones...meet the Flintstones"
-
You're still just skimming and guessing aren't you?
Look, untill you at least show the ability to comprehend the topic at hand, I'm not gonna humor you. We've been through this before, you just get triggered by certain words, and then you go on an unstoppable ranto-mania. Go ahead and make another call-out thread while you're at it, because this is going absolutely nowhere.
^Read this, for the love of god, READ IT.
-
I think I agree with all that you said above.
But about the Flintstones, do you think they were more Neanderthals or Home Sapien? Sapiens
-
I think I agree with all that you said above.
But about the Flintstones, do you think they were more Neanderthals or Home Sapien? Sapiens
The Flintstones are able to manufacture motor vehicles, albeit without functioning motors. I would say they are typical examples of "cro magnon", which technically are H. sapiens, but so early that they still have the "archaic" facial structures of earlyer species (the brow ridge, for example)
-
I agree, but for completely different reasons. They can't be Neanderthals because they didn't have painted faces
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/50330332.jpg)
Neanderthals tanned leather, and likely made clothes for themselves. Pigment might have been used to color their clothes, to decorate tools, and also to color themselves. Face-paint has always been common with humans, and even more so the further back in history we go (or if we look at tribal communities, which often have quite elaborate face-paints, often associated with religious rituals or warfare)
William Walllace, kickarse Neanderthal
-
(http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/full/funny-pictures-auto-afroamerican-neanderthal-378134.jpeg)
-
(http://www.newsworks.org/images/stories/flexicontent/l_mott-campus-clowns_600x400.jpg)
Neanderthal cave dwellers used to sometimes paint their face decorative for rites, decoration, warring .......or clown shows. :thumbup:
-
The missing link is to the left.
-
The missing link is to the left.
Hahaha
I have another theory. The Neanderthals did NOT paint their faces........they each other's balls.
"Okay what do I need to do today? Bit of berry picking, try and mate with one of those humans over the other side of the valley, and then what? Oh yeah! I gotta paint Frank's nuts"
-
The missing link is to the left.
Hahaha
I have another theory. The Neanderthals did NOT paint their faces........they each other's balls.
"Okay what do I need to do today? Bit of berry picking, try and mate with one of those humans over the other side of the valley, and then what? Oh yeah! I gotta paint Frank's nuts"
You've got some wicked caveman fantasies. :tard:
-
Now I'm thinking about it too. :orly:
-
Cavemen are hawt. :zoinks:
-
Cavemen are hawt. :zoinks:
True story
-
Cavemen are hawt. :zoinks:
True story
With painted nuts?
-
Cavemen are hawt. :zoinks:
True story
* waiting for the gopher to comment. *
-
* waiting for the gopher to comment. *
Neanderthal male bonding rituals of scrotum pigmentation gives meaning to the term homo erectus. :zoinks:
*waiting for Zeg to point out the scientific inaccuracy of my joke* :green:
-
* waiting for the gopher to comment. *
Neanderthal male bonding rituals of scrotum pigmentation gives meaning to the term homo erectus. :zoinks:
*waiting for Zeg to point out the scientific inaccuracy of my joke* :green:
I actually laugh at "homo erectus" too :(
-
:plus:
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tIWxuPg6iEk