Main Discussion Area > Primitive Skills
Cool article
stuckinthemud:
Defiantly not serious. BUT, the current archaeological debate is very strong on not imposing your views on the archaeological evidence, so, we can see that h. sapiens sapiens was cousin to h sapiens neanderthalensis, and they were close enough genetically to create fertile progeny (as opposed to f1 hybrid - infertile like mules). Equally, current facial reconstructions of H.S. N. shows them to be as human in appearance as you and me. The artistic interpretations of H.S.N. as brutish and clad in bad fur loin cloths are very unfair and have no basis in archaeology. Quite why H.S.S. is interpreted as sophisticated and H.S.S.N. as brutish is beyond me as the two branches of human were technologically equal and equally human in appearance, according to the archaeology. That is, I think it is fair to say that while genetic mixing would quite possibly have been by force in some instances, it would also be by consent in others.
paulc:
Gotcha, agreed.
I would guess any non consensual breeding went both ways...P
stuckinthemud:
I would imagine that would be the case, ultimately we have no idea. I apologise if I appear crotchety on this matter, even when I was in Uni studying archaeology and geography, the geographer in me would squirm at the outrageous stories applied by my archaeology texts to the tiniest piece of material culture. All sorts of people who should have known better weaving outlandish tales to suit their own preconceptions of what they felt were crude and backward savages. I'm afraid it still jerks my chain
paulc:
;)
have you found these on youtube yet. Pretty cool stuff; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgd5Mt25koI
stuckinthemud:
Not stumbled over them but they seem a nice little summary of current theories, thanks for the link
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version