|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Mudlark finds Neolithic skull by Thames |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Monganaut 2375 posts |
Feb 19, 2019, 22:52
|
||
|
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/19/oldest-skull-mudlarked-from-thames-belonged-to-neolithic-male What a fascinating find, if only those old bones could speak eh?
|
|||
|
Amil04 447 posts |
Feb 20, 2019, 08:54
|
||
|
Amazing find. I bet these two know each other.. https://youtu.be/pwpnNfIEyEs Her buddy ‘Sifinds’ unearths some amazing stuff too.. https://youtu.be/yweRCBUr7qU
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Feb 20, 2019, 09:47
|
||
|
Monganaut wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/19/oldest-skull-mudlarked-from-thames-belonged-to-neolithic-male What a fascinating find, if only those old bones could speak eh? This doesn't really surprise me as the Thames is truly our ancient and sacred waterway. One of it's many sources being by Silbury/Avebury. I live not too far from its official beginnings in Cricklade and have observed small local rivers that start as streams and feed into it. Last week I was in London and walked the length of the South Bank - what an amazing river. You cannot help but wonder how ancient peoples navigated such a massive tidal flow before there were bridges. Highly skilled sea faring people I'm sure. I'm still trying to find the Museum of London, haven't been there yet and on that occasion last week was distracted by the Tate Modern.
|
|||
|
Monganaut 2375 posts |
Edited Feb 20, 2019, 19:28
Feb 20, 2019, 19:25
|
||
|
Not been to London fer years, but think Museum of London is up near the Barbican. Amil04, over Xmas I was hooked on a few of those mudlark channels on youtwat. I was amazed by what gets turned up. Parts of skulls turned up fairly regularly in various forms on different channels (ditto firearms??), pretty much all turned out to be 'oldish', as in not immediately recent. Guess a lot of Victorian 'accidents' and a fair few poor souls caught up in the Blitz. It Was the age of the the above one that struck me. Chance in a million find it being so old, and I guess uncovered by a 'lucky' seasonal tide with a lucky person mooching about on the foreshore at the right time.
|
|||
|
Amil04 447 posts |
Edited Feb 21, 2019, 19:49
Feb 21, 2019, 19:40
|
||
|
Yes I it was late last year when I happened across them on utube. They’re very morish, and very relaxing to watch. They’ve also helped me identify a few things found over the years..things that look like ‘something’ that I’ve kept. A Victorian ‘Alley gobs’ gaming piece for example. I understand a license is needed to mudlark along the Thames..I don’t think it costs too much but I read that you have to be a member of the mudlarking society to apply and there’s a long waiting list. Amazing stuff indeed..just laying there waiting to be found. I think they’d drain it if they could, like you say they all like to get down there for the super low tides. I love all the stories that can come after a find too. I think I’ve seen enough clay pipes being extracted now though.. Just looking at the pictures of the skull fragment again in the guardian article..I’m struck by how flat the forehead is..
|
|||
Zariadris 286 posts |
Edited Feb 22, 2019, 17:22
Feb 22, 2019, 15:51
|
||
|
Monganaut wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/19/oldest-skull-mudlarked-from-thames-belonged-to-neolithic-male What a fascinating find, if only those old bones could speak eh? Thanks so much for posting this. I was particularly struck by this comment by the curator, in her discussion of hunter-gatherers haunting the 'open woodland landscape' around the Thames: “They didn’t really build and didn’t create rubbish. They were perfect for the ecosystem..." Such a poignant reminder in this time of ecological catastrophe, with plastic choking the oceans, etc., that humankind could actually exist this way. I often think, as we all do, of where it all went wrong: the Neolithic. Richard Bradley's Significance of Monuments has some fascinating things to say about the ideological conflict between early Neolithics and Mesolithic holdouts in Europe, the latter reminding one of modern luddites or those of us loathe to abandon the old for the new (analog for digital!). So, it's odd that Dr. Redfern should speak of Neolithic Londoners as perfect for the ecosystem. If they were hunter-gatherers and weren't clearing land for farming - weren't building or leaving behind archaeological traces as she notes - then how were they Neolithic? Is she suggesting there was an Old School scene in London during the New Stone Age in the rest of Britain?
|
|||
|
Monganaut 2375 posts |
Feb 23, 2019, 18:33
|
||
|
Don't forget, not all hunter gatherers embraced farming initially. I recall reading somewhere (I forget where exactly, maybe it was something on TV) that in the early years of the Neolithic/farming revolution, that actually those who remained hunter gatherers remained healthier, having a more varied diet than those early farmers who chose to put their eggs in one basket (so to speak). I'm sure those early farmers continued to hunt and gather as before, but being tied to one area, not following the seasonal herds left them at a disadvantage as to variety and availability of dietary resources. And I suppose, it's a lot of effort and organisation setting up a slash and burn field system every few years from woodlands or heath land. One of the dilemmas still unexplained by archaeologists/historians is the vast Neolithic/Bronze Age clearances that went on. We can still see the results of this today, esp in upland areas. Maybe it's as simple as under estimation of the population of the UK at the time, though I doubt this is the case. It's a nice idea that we lived in harmony with nature and each other, but as Cope says in the Mod Ant (and I'm paraphrasing massively here) if they had the tech and resources we have, they'd have been using them. I'm no believer in that 'lost Eden' attitude. We've always been warlike apes who distrust outsiders. It's just that the general populous was so few, we didn't meet that many 'others' to have it out with. It's easier to live in 'harmony' with nature when there ain't so many of us fighting for resources. 'Civilization and trade forced us into contact with other tribes/nations/ whatever, and in a way forced us to get along if we wanted what they were offering, and vice versa, it's far from our natural way of being. Anthropologists have suggested that the ideal size of a human community is about 30 peeps. More than that causes stresses in relations. Which goes some way to explaining what an anomaly towns and cities are...they are still not good for us. Most hamlets and villages until fairly recent history were pretty small, obv's historically the Romans had larger towns and cities by the terms of the day, but those soon shrank after they left the UK. Also, do you think we'd be as successful these days without the advent of huge game changers like antibiotics. Not so long ago a slight infection may have been enough to see us off. Just look at the UK (or even global) population growth charts from the mid 1850's onwards. With the likes of sanitation etc it's a steep ascent, and the curve is off like a rocket once antibiotics hit the scene. But i digress.....
|
|||
|
Amil04 447 posts |
Edited Feb 23, 2019, 19:18
Feb 23, 2019, 19:17
|
||
|
..digress away for me. Enjoyed reading..reminds me of something that I listened to earlier today from David Bohm 1987 https://youtu.be/mfg71d1ArO8 “Extinguished”
|
|||
|
Zariadris 286 posts |
Edited Feb 23, 2019, 19:46
Feb 23, 2019, 19:34
|
||
|
Monganaut wrote: Don't forget, not all hunter gatherers embraced farming initially. I recall reading somewhere (I forget where exactly, maybe it was something on TV) that in the early years of the Neolithic/farming revolution, that actually those who remained hunter gatherers remained healthier, having a more varied diet than those early farmers who chose to put their eggs in one basket (so to speak). I'm sure those early farmers continued to hunt and gather as before, but being tied to one area, not following the seasonal herds left them at a disadvantage as to variety and availability of dietary resources. And I suppose, it's a lot of effort and organisation setting up a slash and burn field system every few years from woodlands or heath land. One of the dilemmas still unexplained by archaeologists/historians is the vast Neolithic/Bronze Age clearances that went on. We can still see the results of this today, esp in upland areas. Maybe it's as simple as under estimation of the population of the UK at the time, though I doubt this is the case. It's a nice idea that we lived in harmony with nature and each other, but as Cope says in the Mod Ant (and I'm paraphrasing massively here) if they had the tech and resources we have, they'd have been using them. I'm no believer in that 'lost Eden' attitude. We've always been warlike apes who distrust outsiders. It's just that the general populous was so few, we didn't meet that many 'others' to have it out with. It's easier to live in 'harmony' with nature when there ain't so many of us fighting for resources. 'Civilization and trade forced us into contact with other tribes/nations/ whatever, and in a way forced us to get along if we wanted what they were offering, and vice versa, it's far from our natural way of being. Anthropologists have suggested that the ideal size of a human community is about 30 peeps. More than that causes stresses in relations. Which goes some way to explaining what an anomaly towns and cities are...they are still not good for us. Most hamlets and villages until fairly recent history were pretty small, obv's historically the Romans had larger towns and cities by the terms of the day, but those soon shrank after they left the UK. Also, do you think we'd be as successful these days without the advent of huge game changers like antibiotics. Not so long ago a slight infection may have been enough to see us off. Just look at the UK (or even global) population growth charts from the mid 1850's onwards. With the likes of sanitation etc it's a steep ascent, and the curve is off like a rocket once antibiotics hit the scene. But i digress..... Thank you for the rich, thought provoking reply. I'm totally down with it. Your reference to the 30 max population size for peaceful communities is fascinating and new to me. Are you aware of any reputable statistic that estimates populations, either in Britain or globally, before and after the Neolithic? Certainly, farming was - in Mesolithic terms - the original sin (again, paraphrasing R. Bradley), an affront to Mother Earth. Permanent settlements lead to greater populations, and with a greater concentration of people the birth of a hierarchy and a need to create monuments to claim the landscape - Bradley discusses early Neolithic henges and passage graves in this context, where ties to the ancestral dead legitimate one's ties to the land. This syncs with what I've read about the remarkable phenomenon of cave art in Franco-Cantabria - Chauvet, Lascaux, etc. - during the Upper Paleolithic. The theory is that during that late stage of the Ice Age, conditions for good hunting and fishing were limited to that area of Southern France and Northern Spain, forcing Paleolithic hunter-gatherers to compete for a smaller area of land and resources. This situation fostered "prematurely" permanent settlements, and as a result, a more complex social organization and culture capable of such peerless marvels as the cave paintings, which we might interpret in a way similar to Neolithic monuments in so far as they establish a group's ancestral rights to a specific area and the exploitation of its resources. Politics and religion really do go hand in hand.
|
|||
|
Monganaut 2375 posts |
Feb 23, 2019, 20:59
|
||
|
Zariadris wrote: Politics and religion really do go hand in hand. I believe this is called a theocracy. Alleged by the Romans that 'The Druids' (I do hate that word) hold over the populous was the very same, and I guess ditto to some extent with the influence of the powerful medieval church who had the ear of most rulers of the time. Islam too is very much one, with the Imam's having a similar role to the iron age druid. I'm sure there are other modern examples too...poss shaman in various worldwide communities? Not read much Bradley, then again, I've not really read many archaeology books in recent years either other than Richard Morris's 'Times Anvil' which started off rather well, and now I'm mired in the middle, and picking off a chapter at a time when I remember/ can be bothered. Kinda worth a read, but maybe my head ain't in the right place currently for it... can be picked up cheap second hand....review here... https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/times-anvil-england-archaeology-and-the-imagination-by-richard-morris-8465442.html
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
