Early American Indians

clubs_stink · Post by **clubs_stink** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:28 pm

Minimalist wrote:
from a neanderthal "interpretation" which I personally find insulting, at Tutavel

Oh, no.

see that's what I mean.

(this is my favorite cave man character)

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:33 pm

which I personally find insulting

that would imply that you are either
1) a neanderthal
2) a deer

clubs_stink · Post by **clubs_stink** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:00 pm

marduk wrote:
which I personally find insulting
that would imply that you are either
1) a neanderthal
2) a deer

lol

man+deer=????????? (sorry, no photos)

Why do I find the "interpretations" of neanderthal man et al insulting?

I think the presume too much.

Most of what we see shows filthy disgusting looking creatures and there is no way to know if these people were that dirty...I know there's been quite a few "revolutions" in human hygiene...forward two steps back two. Meaning it used to be a habit to bath, then it became a sin. Did you know that people in the 11 century mas o menos did NOT sleep laying down because they did not want to assume the pose of a corpse, but they DID bathe? The fortress at Salses is an engineering marvel, sauna, refridgerator, indoor loo, all the "modern" comforts..complete with a form of running water, heat...clearly an influence from the Romans. Things degenerated to stop drop and roll not too long after that (a loo with the hole situated over the edge of a cliff) and they'd forgotten about bathing.

I am a movie buff and sometimes wish movies came with odors so people watching (for instance) Amadeus could SMELL what those people must have smelled like. Pigs.

That's why the neanderthal's being pictured as filthy gets my goat.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:09 pm

clearly an influence from the Romans.

You do know that the Romans did not have anything resembling toilet paper? The used a sort of a sponge on a stick.

The upper classes probably had their own....the lower classes kind of... shared.

However, they were big on public baths.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:32 pm

That's why the neanderthal's being pictured as filthy gets my goat.

contrary to your personal belief no Neanderthal bathtub has ever been excavated
its also known that they weren't comfortable with aquatic food and so were not familiar with large bodies of water
if they dig up and Neanderthal bars of soap or eau de cologne i'll let you know

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:37 am

clubs_stink wrote:
marduk wrote:
which I personally find insulting
that would imply that you are either
1) a neanderthal
2) a deer

lol

man+deer=????????? (sorry, no photos)

Why do I find the "interpretations" of neanderthal man et al insulting?

I think the presume too much.

Most of what we see shows filthy disgusting looking creatures and there is no way to know if these people were that dirty...I know there's been quite a few "revolutions" in human hygiene...forward two steps back two. Meaning it used to be a habit to bath, then it became a sin. Did you know that people in the 11 century mas o menos did NOT sleep laying down because they did not want to assume the pose of a corpse, but they DID bathe? The fortress at Salses is an engineering marvel, sauna, refridgerator, indoor loo, all the "modern" comforts..complete with a form of running water, heat...clearly an influence from the Romans. Things degenerated to stop drop and roll not too long after that (a loo with the hole situated over the edge of a cliff) and they'd forgotten about bathing.

I am a movie buff and sometimes wish movies came with odors so people watching (for instance) Amadeus could SMELL what those people must have smelled like. Pigs.

That's why the neanderthal's being pictured as filthy gets my goat.

The ability to accomplish ones ' personal daily hygiene was obviously more difficult for early man.

But it's unreasonable to think that Neandertal was any "dirtier" than any other early man. That thinking reflects the same old tired prejudiced and uneducated thinking that has prevailed for so long.

Archaic

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:37 am

If the temps were as low as suggested in areas occupied by HSN, bathing would sound like suicide to me!

clubs_stink · Post by **clubs_stink** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:37 am

Exactly Beagel, there's no reason to think they didn't take advantage of creeks, ponds, and lakes.

As for the cold, while I'd certainly not be brave enough to take the plunge in freezing temperatures but people certainly do, and there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that many AIs practiced personal cleanliness even in the cold.

I also noticed that the "near stone age" Koromai did not look nearly as filthy as neanderthals are portrayed to be!

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:46 am

What a strange direction this thread has taken, but it is interesting nonetheless.

I certainly believe grooming was practiced even as it is with most mammals today. And for that matter, licking may not have been outside the realm of possibility.

They certainly saw plenty of examples in the animal kingdom. I think, bathing was most likely accidental, but who really knows?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:43 am

The ability to accomplish ones ' personal daily hygiene was obviously more difficult for early man.

But it's unreasonable to think that Neandertal was any "dirtier" than any other early man. That thinking reflects the same old tired prejudiced and uneducated thinking that has prevailed for so long.

err like duh

I suppose you just conveniently forgot all those studies about lice then did ya beagle
I suppose that was just their animals that had them when they weren't wearing their flea collars
anyone with any fegree of facial hair is likely to pick up parasites
though in some cases Its unsure wether the parasite is the person or their moustache

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:56 am

Why don't we ask this guy?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:06 am

do I say "Ug" or "Ook" at this point

clubs_stink · Post by **clubs_stink** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:19 pm

why we smoke now???

"Into this olfactory paradise came 15th century Spanish sailors, a breed of men who bathed less in a lifetime than the fastidious bath loving Taino Indians did in a week. The unwashed, sweaty, meat eating Spanish explorers with their greasy hair and rotten teeth must have been an assault beyond description to the fastidious Indian nostrils.

One can almost hear that first Indian say, "Whew! Have a cigar. Smoke two while you're at it."

an interesting site, but of note, the blurb where it mentions that Columbus took a priest with him when he landed to inscribe the details of the landing into chinese???WHY would Columbus have his adventures transcribed into Chinese?

http://www.cigarnexus.com/nationalcigarmuseum/exhibit1/

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:44 am

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ature.html

A distinctive, repeating sequence of DNA found in people living at the eastern edge of Russia is also widespread among Native Americans, according to a new study.

The finding lends support to the idea that Native Americans descended from a common founding population that lived near the Bering land bridge for some time.

From the Daily Grail.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:55 am

Once on a genealogical forum, I had posted some remarks about the land-bridge theory. A native american woman, very intelligent and active in Indian affairs, bluntly stated, that the theory was outdated and debunked. She did not elaborate where she thought her ancestors may have come from. It was interesting that another woman who lives in Alaska remarked, if the land-bridge theory was false then how do you explain all these indiginous people here (Alaska) who speak of their brothers across the water and who for centuries have believed they migrated across the ice from Asia?