Harryshill
|
Re: Neanderthals v Humans
Nov 07, 2012, 21:58
|
|
I was thinking of the hundreds if not thousands, that have no suggestion of burial practice..
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Neanderthals v Humans
Nov 07, 2012, 22:11
|
Yes, but that doesn't disprove the fact that plenty of megalithic structures were clearly used for purposes relating directly to death/dead bodies.
I think you said you had seen no evidence the use of megalithic structures for purposes relating to respecting the dead, but there's loads and loads of evidence for exactly that, isn't there? Even one chambered long barrow full of bodies would be a good start, hundreds surely constitute proof, regardless of the fact that there are hundreds more that don't?
I'm not suggesting for a minute that all megalithic structures were death-aspected, just that there is fairly unassailable archaeological proof that some were.
|
Harryshill
|
Re: Neanderthals v Humans
Nov 07, 2012, 22:14
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Yes, but that doesn't disprove the fact that plenty of megalithic structures were clearly used for purposes relating directly to death/dead bodies.
I think you said you had seen no evidence the use of megalithic structures for purposes relating to respecting the dead, but there's loads and loads of evidence for exactly that, isn't there? Even one chambered long barrow full of bodies would be a good start, hundreds surely constitute proof, regardless of the fact that there are hundreds more that don't?
I'm not suggesting for a minute that all megalithic structures were death-aspected, just that there is fairly unassailable archaeological proof that some were.
Misunderstanding here..
I meant all megalithic structures..
|
Harryshill
|
Re: Neanderthals v Humans
Nov 07, 2012, 22:17
|
Standing stone circles as a for instance.
No evidence that they were all used as respect for the the dead or ancestor worship purposes..
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Neanderthals v Humans
Nov 07, 2012, 22:21
|
Oh, then I agree entirely. I don't think there's any way you'd be satisfied that all megalithic structures relate to death, if by megalithic structure you mean things built out of big stones.
Loads of them probably had really mundane purposes, but we're missing the important bits, like the wooden coat stands and the breakfast bars that have rotted away.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Neanderthals v Humans
Nov 07, 2012, 22:24
|
No, although quite a lot have burials/cremations associated which probably either pre- or post-date the circle.
But as to what the circle was "used" for, you're right, we have no proof at all that they were involved in anything relating to the dead or ancestors.
|
Harryshill
|
Re: Neanderthals v Humans
Nov 08, 2012, 07:22
|
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
That was all I meant.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Neanderthals v Humans
Nov 08, 2012, 08:27
|
|
tjj wrote: Welcome back Roy, glad to see you here again.
A week or so ago I picked up a library book 'Fairweather Eden' (see link for a review). I'm not a fast reader so still only half way through. Its basically a very readable account of the excavations at Boxgrove which proves hominids were here half a million years ago. It talks about changing sea/land levels with helpful illustrations. A very interesting account (authors Michael Pitts and Mark Roberts) and providing these excavations which took place in the 1980s haven't been discredited - as seems to happen in the world of archaeology, I'm enjoying the read.
PS: The reviewer does say the title is a tad fanciful so that is a given.
Thanks June, good to be back.
I enjoyed the Review and enjoy MP's books in general as he 'comes out' now and again and says what he feels and doesn't just tow the party line! I thought this line in the Review summed it up rather well:-
'Reading and reviewing this book was, therefore, a rather curious experience for me, for it reminded me of much I had forgotten, but also showed how much research has moved on and how quickly ideas can change in this particular field'.
It made me reflect on the things we were told by the 'experts' in our early days and were not encouraged to use our own brains as they were the only ones that understood these things. Many, if not most, were forced to change tack as new findings and science moved on and those former beliefs swept aside and replaced often by the beliefs that us lesser mortals had but of course couldn't prove but thought they were more likely. That's life I suppose.
|
moss
|
Re: Neanderthals v Humans
Nov 08, 2012, 08:42
|
Well picked up in the news this morning in Scientific American is the following....
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/11/07/oldest-arrowheads-hint-at-how-modern-humans-overtook-neandertals/
|
Harryshill
|
Re: Neanderthals v Humans
Nov 08, 2012, 09:31
|
Going back to the neanderthals, I see nothing that might indicate they made simple stone or wood structures in the form of circles or even solitary standing stones or 'posts'. If not in countries effected by ice, then elsewhere I think some kind of evidence might have cropped up.
I agree with you that this seemed to come later with then mankind had a greater control over his environment. Why that should be so, I have no idea, and it might be entirely coincidental, but I don't think so.
|
