|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Neanderthals v Humans |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
BuckyE 468 posts |
Nov 02, 2012, 17:12
|
||
|
tomwatts wrote: I'm trying to envisage something that could precede the long barrows/stone rows of Dartmoor etc... Just been reading Barry Cunliffe's EUROPE BETWEEN THE OCEANS, 9,000 BC -- AD 1,000. Fascinating disccussion therein about the MESOlithic occupants of Brittany and Portugal accumulating huge shell middens. In which they apparently buried some few of their relatives. Page 83: "This surprisingly sophisticated practice of collective burial lies at the beginning of a tradition that was to flourish in the region over the next two thousand years, later manifesting itself in monumental megalithic tombs." Neato!
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 02, 2012, 17:47
|
||
|
BuckyE wrote: tomwatts wrote: I'm trying to envisage something that could precede the long barrows/stone rows of Dartmoor etc... Just been reading Barry Cunliffe's EUROPE BETWEEN THE OCEANS, 9,000 BC -- AD 1,000. Fascinating disccussion therein about the MESOlithic occupants of Brittany and Portugal accumulating huge shell middens. In which they apparently buried some few of their relatives. Page 83: "This surprisingly sophisticated practice of collective burial lies at the beginning of a tradition that was to flourish in the region over the next two thousand years, later manifesting itself in monumental megalithic tombs." Neato! The Mesolithic middens on Oronsay also saw deposits of hands andd feet but not entire individuals .
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Nov 02, 2012, 21:51
Nov 02, 2012, 21:50
|
||
|
BuckyE wrote: Just been reading Barry Cunliffe's EUROPE BETWEEN THE OCEANS, 9,000 BC -- AD 1,000. Fascinating disccussion therein about the MESOlithic occupants of Brittany and Portugal accumulating huge shell middens. In which they apparently buried some few of their relatives. Ha! Sounds like my kinda burial - plenty of oyster middens up in this neck of the woods :-)
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Nov 02, 2012, 23:30
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: I must admit that I hadn't really considered the Picts and the Scots to be distinct, in much the same way I wouldn't think of the Cornish/Welsh as being distinct from the Celtic people who were here before the Romans and Saxons (Sais) arrived. That is just the issue. What is 'Celtic'? The Romans apparently understood that term to refer to 'foreigners' on the continent? Never mentioned any peoples living on these isles as 'Celtic'. And they should know!! Were they before the Anglo Saxons? Who says? I've just read Barry Cunliffe's new book and I'm sad to say I'm not at all convinced. Is there such a thing as a Celt? I reckon not. Based on a 'style of art'? Besides, the archealogical evidence strongly suggests the 'Anglo Saxon taxeover' as being no-more than the Norman Conquest... one elite replacing another... the peasants going 'whatever', another load of bastards demanding taxes. Vast majority of the people remaining as was. I would suggest a guilt complex is placiing 'rose tinted specs' over the eyes of modern Scots. Face it. You destroyed the Picts.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 03, 2012, 09:52
|
||
|
GLADMAN wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: I must admit that I hadn't really considered the Picts and the Scots to be distinct, in much the same way I wouldn't think of the Cornish/Welsh as being distinct from the Celtic people who were here before the Romans and Saxons (Sais) arrived. That is just the issue. What is 'Celtic'? The Romans apparently understood that term to refer to 'foreigners' on the continent? Never mentioned any peoples living on these isles as 'Celtic'. And they should know!! Were they before the Anglo Saxons? Who says? I've just read Barry Cunliffe's new book and I'm sad to say I'm not at all convinced. Is there such a thing as a Celt? I reckon not. Based on a 'style of art'? Besides, the archealogical evidence strongly suggests the 'Anglo Saxon taxeover' as being no-more than the Norman Conquest... one elite replacing another... the peasants going 'whatever', another load of bastards demanding taxes. Vast majority of the people remaining as was. I would suggest a guilt complex is placiing 'rose tinted specs' over the eyes of modern Scots. Face it. You destroyed the Picts. Cunliffe suggests an immigrant Anglo -Saxon ratio in the south and east of England of between 1:3 to 1:5 and describes it as “significant” . The genocide of the Picts was a medieval myth . Most contemporary historians of the period point out the gradual gaelicisation of Pictland long before the accession of Kenneth who may well have been pictish himself and was described at his death as King of Picts . The Dupplin Cross close to the important royal centre of Forteviot has gaelic references to Pictish kings prior to Kenneth . Kenneth's son Causantín , complete with pictish name , was described as King of the Picts which is odd if his father had just destroyed them . Alex Woolf describes Kenneth as “the fifth last of the Pictish kings rather than the first Scottish king."
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Nov 03, 2012, 10:08
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: I believe that they would qualify as our ancestors in the sense that we do contain their DNA in varying amounts... if we're Europeans. Sub-Saharan Africans do not... Apparently, Neanderthals were always a northern hominid and did not venture down into Africa. Well, I might be wrong, but the common ancestor of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals is Homo heidelbergensis. As far as I know Homo Sapiens are not descended from Neanderthals in any way what so ever, though we do carry some of their DNA through breeding with them at some point. Going back some half a million years, and long before Neanderthals were here, Homo heidelbergensis was at Boxgrove in West Sussex (though even they were not the earliest example of humanoids in this part of the world). There’s a nice little write-up on Homo heidelbergensis here if you’re interested.
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Nov 03, 2012, 11:05
|
||
|
To get their DNA we would have had to breed with them (As you say) and the offspring from that union would then carry both of their genetic material. whether or not that offspring only mated with humans or not, would not alter the fact that it's children, would have a neanderthal as a grandparent, and all children of that line would have a neanderthal as a ancestor. Or am I missing something?
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Nov 03, 2012, 11:46
|
||
|
No, not at all. You might also say that a marriage between a Frenchman and a Vietnamese woman might produce offspring with ancestors from those two regions of the world. It’s a little misleading however to ask (see opening post), “...what would happen if modern man and his prehistoric ancestor were to square off?” as it gives the impression that the ancestors of Homo sapiens are Neanderthals – they aren’t (although we carry some of their DNA). Neanderthals might be better seen as our cousins, whose proper ancestor was certainly the same as ours - Homo heidelbergensis.
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Nov 03, 2012, 12:06
|
||
|
Misleading indeed. But, I am quite happy with the idea that at least one of my ancestors was a Neanderthal.. And therefore I am descended from the union of at least one Neanderthal and a Human.
|
|||
|
BuckyE 468 posts |
Nov 03, 2012, 14:31
|
||
Now THAT is truly weird.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
