invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Yesdiscokermit said:have you got any examples?
The Haida, as hunter-gatherers, most certainly did capture and keep slaves.
But anyway, this is all very far away (geographically) from Ancient Britain.
Yesdiscokermit said:have you got any examples?
The Haida, as hunter-gatherers, most certainly did capture and keep slaves.
But anyway, this is all very far away (geographically) from Ancient Britain.
I doubt there is any evidence for non-settled people keeping slaves. They may exact tribute from people. They may take slaves and trade them. But all these are predicated on there being something for the slaves to do from which you profit, ie producing something
that's almost like saying the vikings were hunter gatherers.
No, it's not.
So .... now you mention the Mesolithic, rather than hunter-gatherers.they had guns on the front of their canoes! hardly mesolithic!
So .... now you mention the Mesolithic, rather than hunter-gatherers.
that's what the fucking programme was about! for fucksake you're fucking draining.
At least, that's what you told urban75 the programme was about. Try as I might, I could see no mention of the Mesolithic in that description by by you.lot's of shots of some long haired twat looking out to sea. and how connected they were with the 'cruel mistress mother nature', and how they saw other animals 'almost as kin' and other made up shit. the camping trip with 'bob the professional caveman' was unintentionally hilarious, as they waded around after fish they couldn't catch then admitted buying a rabbit from a shop. 'professional flint knapper'? twat should have been made redundant two and a half thousand years ago.
I can't believe people are arguing about Mesolithic hunters at 2.35am.
urban rocks!
I can't believe people are arguing about Mesolithic hunters at 2.35am.
urban rocks!
isn't that the programme that this whole thread is about?
i don't make a division between us and the natural world but i wouldn't go as far as regarding animals as kin. that would put me right off my bacon sandwich.The 'animals almost as kin' isn't made up.
As far as we can make out from the archaeological record and from ethnographic observation of comparable hunter-gather groups, Mesolithic cosmology and ritual, like the Upper Palaeolithic before it, made no divisions between the natural world and the human world.
There are some wonderful examples ... I might dig those up at some point.
i don't make a division between us and the natural world but i wouldn't go as far as regarding animals as kin. that would put me right off my bacon sandwich.
Have you heard of Michelle Paver's 'Wolf Brother'? http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/series/wolfbrother
My son loved this when he was younger. It's set in the Mesolithic world of hunter-gatherers.
Bacon sandwich aside, the Mesolithic worldview is considered to have been very different to the Neolithic worldview.
This is an important distinction to make, since the adoption of farming practices, settlement, monument building and increasing social complexity would have seen the formation of new worldviews that were very different to the worldviews of the preceding Mesolithic lifeways of hunting, foraging and fishing. These ideological (and technological) changes are generally thought to have come about gradually, rather than suddenly. The most obvious changes are those we can still see in the landscape today - the creation of permanent memorials to the dead.
and yet you weighed into the argument without reading the thread. and i'm the aggressor?
What happened to the Neanderthals? Were they enslaved by their more violent cousins?
evidence suggests they co-existed for some hundreds of years on the iberian peninsular. Bred out rather than extinction through hom sap dominance. IIRC
As I understand it (and I'm not a palaeoanthropologist), there are several models:What happened to the Neanderthals? Were they enslaved by their more violent cousins?
Neandertals lived in Europe, the Middle East and western Asia until they disappeared about 30,000 years ago. The new data indicate that humans may not have replaced Neandertals, but assimilated them into the human gene pool.
“Neandertals are not totally extinct; they live on in some of us,” says Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and leader of the Neandertal genome project.
He and other geneticists involved in the effort to compile the complete genetic instruction book of Neandertals didn’t expect to find that Neandertals had left a genetic legacy. Earlier analyses that looked at only a small part of the genome had contradicted the notion that humans and Neandertals intermixed (SN Online: 8/7/08).
“We as a consortium came into this with a very, very strong bias against gene flow,” Reich says. In fact, when he and his colleagues announced the completion of a rough draft of the Neandertal genome a year ago, the researchers said such genetic exchange was unlikely (SN: 3/14/09, p. 5).
But several independent lines of evidence now convince the researchers that humans and Neandertals did interbreed. “The breakthrough here is to show that it could happen and it did happen,” Pääbo says.
The result came as no surprise to some scientists, however. Archaeologists have described ancient skeletons from Europe that had characteristics of both early modern humans and Neandertals; evidence, the researchers say, of interbreeding between the two groups. But until the cataloging of the entire Neanderthal genome, genetic studies could find no evidence to support the idea.
“After all these years the geneticists are coming to the same conclusions that some of us in the field of archaeology and human paleontology have had for a long time,” says João Zilhão, an archaeologist and paleoanthropologist at the University of Bristol in England. “What can I say? If the geneticists come to this same conclusion, that’s to be expected.”
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen..._yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans
Current thinking is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/06/neanderthals-dna-humans-genomeThus proving Star Trek right, if a human can fuck it, they will
Interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals may nonetheless have been rare. Just two Neanderthal females in a group of around a hundred humans would have been enough to leave such a trace in our genome, provided that was the group that gave rise to all modern humans outside Africa.
The study, reported in the journal Science, was greeted by scientists as almost certain confirmation that modern humans and Neanderthals mated when the groups crossed paths. "It certainly tells us something about human nature," said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London.
well, yes, you blatantly are. You clearly know fuck all about the period, other than some very basic marxist theory that you can't apply, which is why you are spewing out such vague crap that you, no doubt, think is really sharp and clever.
Shame, cos you're not entirely wrong, but I'm now guessing that that is purely accidental. Chill the fuck out
same here. i hope all goes well with the surgery. i enjoyed the argument and as a result learned about the haisa and tlingit people.Apologies if I was a bit short yesterday, was worried about my youngest daughter having surgery today. Despite the occasional toys out of pram moment there's been some interesting and lively debate in this thread. If nothing else it still shows the gulf between academic and field archaeology and the public perception of it. I hope this series progresses a bit more in trying to close the gap because its a subject most people not only are interested in, but are actually a part of. This is what made us what we are. Anyway, carry on.
and why come in after the argument has finished and say that? you monumental twat. i was chilled out til i read your witterings, prick.Chill the fuck out
fine, i'll amend my comments.
My comment was at least factually accurate, unlike pretty much all of yours. You are half remembering some basic marxism from years ago, but are utterly incapable of actually applying it. For Marx slavery was the key factor in the rise of class society, as opposed to merely a stratified one. Someone of your massive intelliegence understands the difference I'm sure.
Personally, I dont entirely agree with Marx, and would place the rise of class in Britain at least two thousand years earlier than that (as I said before), but it is a debatable point. Not a debate you are capable of taking part in tho, so mired are you in your ignorance and ill-temper.
Grow up, or fuck off and have another wank over a pic of Lindsay German.