Neanderthals might have painted their faces

['andersom']

Zegh, you and Al must belong to different subspecies.

Homo Sapiens Linearis and Homo Sapiens Divergensis.








Now I want to know if any of your species wears paint on their faces.

[ZEGH8578]

I have had my face painted on a few occasions 

['andersom']

Good. 

[Gopher Gary]

just keep chatting about whatever nobody else is chatting about,

That's what I like most about this place. 

bla blub's blabba blub blubba be blub bla blah bla blah-blubba blah a blabber blubba blah bla is blubba in blub's blub bla bla blabba blabba, blabber blabba bla bla bla blabba he blub bla a blubba blah blah bla bla blah bla-bla to blubba.

[odeon]

I miss the blabberizer.

[Gopher Gary]

I miss the blabberizer.

I miss blabberizer worthy trolls.

[odeon]

I miss the blabberizer.

I miss blabberizer worthy trolls.

True.

[Al Swearegen]

There is a lot of politics involved in these things. How many populations did Aboriginals in Australia come from?
Where did these populations originate from? Was it from one migration ore several? If several, were they from different racial types or cultures? If so were one displacing another?
Why would any of these things matter?
Well...not to be too blunt but IF there is a narrative that Aboriginals were living peacefully in isolation and as one big large tribal existent and were oppressed by the invading white people, how would this be altered if it came to light that they migrated in three or four migrations and the weaker or earlier inhabitants were driven off, killed, oppressed, amalgamated into the newer migratory tribes?
It is thought by some that the Tasmanian Aboriginals and some Pygmy sized Aboriginals in the Daintree area of Queensland were a different racial mix and culture and were remnants of an early migration that were killed or driven off by later migrations.

Politics, sociology and philosophy matter in these things.

What things?

You just skimmed everything in this thread, didn't you!?
Admit it, or just keep chatting about whatever nobody else is chatting about, such as Australian politics and the migration of aborigins.

I'm talking about neanderthals and nomenclature in paleontology.

But, eh, whatever, if I have to humor you, then, who claims Aborigins in Australia were "living peacefully"?
Nobody but hippies, I assume, racist hippies at that, if they are to claim that somehow Aborigins have some "peaceful gene" or something, but I don't listen to hippies.

Aborigins are people, and yes
1. They very probably arrived in several waves.
2. They very probably waged tribal warfare back and forth and across each others, non stop, they're people, that's what people do
3. They probably didn't even care much about nature, another "noble savage"-myth. They exterminated many endemic species.

In the end, politics only matters in terms of the media representation of this. There are no serious biologists who try to portray any tribal community as overly pure, kind or perfect in their behavior. This is misrepresentation by the media - OR unprofessionalism in the field.

I have sneaking suspicion none of this will be read, instead skimmed, and some kind of absurdly arbitrary debate about Australian politics will ensue.

You make a lot of claims about "Aborigins", I think you mean Aboriginals or Aborigines.

But what are we talking about? To be honest, I can't remember and I only skimmed what you read. I think it was about the way bias shapes history. Political pressures to paint aboriginals as a united peaceful "noble savage" as you put it, may be dismissive of unfavourable evidence, or downplay it and so on. Or another example would be perhaps if someone was to want Neanderthals to be more like "us" and therefore start laying claim to them OR perhaps saying that they were painting their faces in cultural and  practices.

I say this is entirely plausible. In fact I don't stop there. I believe the Flintstones was a documentary on Neanderthal life (only the names were changed to protect the innocent).



Then again my theory may be silly. Yours is still great though and very cool.

[ZEGH8578]

what... ?

[Al Swearegen]

what... ?

Well thee were some Autistics that thought "We" were showing a common Neanderthal ancestral traits. That Autistics were all carrying Neanderthal genes and that is why they were Autistics.
I can only presume this is to make Neanderthals more "human" and in a sense more something we can feel a kinship with.
Another way we could do this is to start theorising that they had a common language, rites, a culture, painted their faces before battle or prayed to Gods.
I say, why stop here. I am sure they were very much like us and were motivated by the same things we were and that they lived just like we did


"Flintstones...meet the Flintstones"

[ZEGH8578]

You're still just skimming and guessing aren't you?

Look, untill you at least show the ability to comprehend the topic at hand, I'm not gonna humor you. We've been through this before, you just get triggered by certain words, and then you go on an unstoppable ranto-mania. Go ahead and make another call-out thread while you're at it, because this is going absolutely nowhere.

^Read this, for the love of god, READ IT.

[Al Swearegen]

I think I agree with all that you said above.
But about the Flintstones, do you think they were more Neanderthals or Home Sapien? Sapiens

[ZEGH8578]

I think I agree with all that you said above.
But about the Flintstones, do you think they were more Neanderthals or Home Sapien? Sapiens

The Flintstones are able to manufacture motor vehicles, albeit without functioning motors. I would say they are typical examples of "cro magnon", which technically are H. sapiens, but so early that they still have the "archaic" facial structures of earlyer species (the brow ridge, for example)

[Al Swearegen]

I agree, but for completely different reasons. They can't be Neanderthals because they didn't have painted faces

Neanderthals tanned leather, and likely made clothes for themselves. Pigment might have been used to color their clothes, to decorate tools, and also to color themselves. Face-paint has always been common with humans, and even more so the further back in history we go (or if we look at tribal communities, which often have quite elaborate face-paints, often associated with religious rituals or warfare)

William Walllace, kickarse Neanderthal

[Bastet]