The Lost Tribes of Humanity, or how human are you?

Not sure where to post this.
A very interesting and very sad find given that the mother may well still be alive. In the context of this thread, it shows the problem with coming to hard and fast conclusions from one or a few specimens or even just a few body parts like teeth which can be sports of known populations rather than unique species. We just don't know enough about genetics yet.
 
Also find the Jean Auel books fascinating, and the period when homo sapiens was displacing (or exterminating?) the Neandertals.

Given how racist we can be towards people who look a bit different to us or have funny customs, I hate to think how we'd behave towards Neandertals if there were any still around.

Enjoyed the first few but she lost the plot.

So a Cro magnon type human could be saved by a Neanderthal tribe, maybe.

In he lifetime she and her after 10years or so Cro magnon mate develope, discover or train.

Lions, horses, dogs/ wolves, slings with multiple shots , enough to kill European lynx. Atala, bows and arrows, new fishing techniques , blowjobs, in a time when nobody ever had a wash. Cooking with herbs, garlic , musssles and fresh lime juice.

I mean come on , it’s a book FFS.
 
Enjoyed the first few but she lost the plot.

So a Cro magnon type human could be saved by a Neanderthal tribe, maybe.

In he lifetime she and her after 10years or so Cro magnon mate develope, discover or train.

Lions, horses, dogs/ wolves, slings with multiple shots , enough to kill European lynx. Atala, bows and arrows, new fishing techniques , blowjobs, in a time when nobody ever had a wash. Cooking with herbs, garlic , musssles and fresh lime juice.

I mean come on , it’s a book FFS.
Ditto mate, I felt the first book was a bit slow to take off, then it picked up towards the end. Books 2, 3 & 4 were quite good especially the one where the weird Earth Mother sect were trying further the human line sans men. I was looking forward to a good ending to the series but the fifth was so poor that it had me ditching it halfway through.
 
Enjoyed the first few but she lost the plot.

So a Cro magnon type human could be saved by a Neanderthal tribe, maybe.

In he lifetime she and her after 10years or so Cro magnon mate develope, discover or train.

Lions, horses, dogs/ wolves, slings with multiple shots , enough to kill European lynx. Atala, bows and arrows, new fishing techniques , blowjobs, in a time when nobody ever had a wash. Cooking with herbs, garlic , musssles and fresh lime juice.

I mean come on , it’s a book FFS.
Ayla invented Tropper.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
Human skulls are not all uniform. The French anatomist Cuvier was reported by Surgeon Cree RN as establishing that Irish skulls were thicker than normal because of centuries of bashing each other on the head.
 

CanteenCowboy

LE
Book Reviewer
Who actually is “human” and how do we define “humanity”, for long academics and archaeologists have theorised that funeral rites are a marker of conceptual thought and potential for marking “humanity”. This is an interesting article that discusses some of the most recent discoveries.

Who First Buried the Dead?
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
Who first wiped their arrse?
 
All this stuff about prehistoric humans is very interesting. But those humans invented nothing more than stone tools. Whereas we British invented the Steam Engine. And that led to the technological world that we have today.

So I think we British are far superior to any Stone-Age ancestors - who spent tens of thousands of years just repetitively knocking and chipping bits of flint. I mean, why didn't they progress and invent a steam engine.

How could they be so utterly dumb for thousands of year. Doesn't it beggar belief?
 
How could they be so utterly dumb for thousands of year. Doesn't it beggar belief?
The British bit goes without saying in the way that day follows night.

One of the issues with this stone tool thing is that certain tools did stay the same for ( many) thousands of years.

Is it possible that some traits became hard wired and instinctive in our ancestors so that whilst they appear intelligent, they are just instinctive. For instance, cutting a stone edge could have arisen by accident in a certain individual and then he lived longer, more kids, similar behaviour patterns, so same stone points for millenia. It is like beavers making dams. They instinctively build dams near running water. It appears they use thought but if you left a tap running in your kitchen, they would build a dam there, the furry little dastards.

It is only when real innovation is seen in tool making that you can reasonably ascribe thought patterns to production, e.g. the cutting of edges for various purposes such as killing then gutting then skinning and finishing, like seeing a picture of a tool with its purpose in a block of stone. As a layman, I get the impression that a lot of prehistorical studies are based around pre conceived ideas of an ascent to us in terms of brain power and behaviour. I think that it is more likely flashes of innovation and intellect popping up in various ancestral groups and then a return to rote behaviour. to conservative copying without much intellect.

I would also be wary of burial practice and wishful thinking. Real proof of intent is hard to come by. If uncle Ug is dead and a bit stinky, you would probably be mindful to throw him in a hole after eating any useful bits. How much intelligence does that involve?

My thoughts alone. I would like someone with more knowledge to elaborate on this.
 
The British bit goes without saying in the way that day follows night.

One of the issues with this stone tool thing is that certain tools did stay the same for ( many) thousands of years.

Is it possible that some traits became hard wired and instinctive in our ancestors so that whilst they appear intelligent, they are just instinctive. For instance, cutting a stone edge could have arisen by accident in a certain individual and then he lived longer, more kids, similar behaviour patterns, so same stone points for millenia. It is like beavers making dams. They instinctively build dams near running water. It appears they use thought but if you left a tap running in your kitchen, they would build a dam there, the furry little dastards.

It is only when real innovation is seen in tool making that you can reasonably ascribe thought patterns to production, e.g. the cutting of edges for various purposes such as killing then gutting then skinning and finishing, like seeing a picture of a tool with its purpose in a block of stone. As a layman, I get the impression that a lot of prehistorical studies are based around pre conceived ideas of an ascent to us in terms of brain power and behaviour. I think that it is more likely flashes of innovation and intellect popping up in various ancestral groups and then a return to rote behaviour. to conservative copying without much intellect.

I would also be wary of burial practice and wishful thinking. Real proof of intent is hard to come by. If uncle Ug is dead and a bit stinky, you would probably be mindful to throw him in a hole after eating any useful bits. How much intelligence does that involve?

My thoughts alone. I would like someone with more knowledge to elaborate on this.
Excellent post, and very thought-inspiring. Thanks!
 
The British bit goes without saying in the way that day follows night.

One of the issues with this stone tool thing is that certain tools did stay the same for ( many) thousands of years.

Is it possible that some traits became hard wired and instinctive in our ancestors so that whilst they appear intelligent, they are just instinctive. For instance, cutting a stone edge could have arisen by accident in a certain individual and then he lived longer, more kids, similar behaviour patterns, so same stone points for millenia. It is like beavers making dams. They instinctively build dams near running water. It appears they use thought but if you left a tap running in your kitchen, they would build a dam there, the furry little dastards.

It is only when real innovation is seen in tool making that you can reasonably ascribe thought patterns to production, e.g. the cutting of edges for various purposes such as killing then gutting then skinning and finishing, like seeing a picture of a tool with its purpose in a block of stone. As a layman, I get the impression that a lot of prehistorical studies are based around pre conceived ideas of an ascent to us in terms of brain power and behaviour. I think that it is more likely flashes of innovation and intellect popping up in various ancestral groups and then a return to rote behaviour. to conservative copying without much intellect.

I would also be wary of burial practice and wishful thinking. Real proof of intent is hard to come by. If uncle Ug is dead and a bit stinky, you would probably be mindful to throw him in a hole after eating any useful bits. How much intelligence does that involve?

My thoughts alone. I would like someone with more knowledge to elaborate on this.
Stinky dead Uncle Ug is going to attract all sorts of scavengers who may well then identify the cave area as a source of free meals, little cousin Ug's to carry away and so on.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top