Neanderthals in a boat?

[Cognito]

Neanderthals in a boat? Not such a far-fetched notion after all

McMaster University research bolsters theory that our primitive cousins were more sophisticated than previously thought.
See: https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016 ... r-all.html

[Minimalist]

Ah.......... boats.


Now we all know the anti-boat crowd will insist that the wind blew them to Naxos.

[circumspice]

Ah.......... boats.


Now we all know the anti-boat crowd will insist that the wind blew them to Naxos.

On a raft of seaweed...

[Minimalist]

Yes, of course.

Or maybe the "devil" put them there to test our faith?

[Cognito]

On a raft of seaweed...

Of course, a raft of seaweed since we all "know" that all archaics were grunting brutes, right? The cache of front-weighted javelins at Shoeningen would indicate otherwise. The occupation of Naxos would require reproduction of an island population unless one person made all the points. To consider reproduction requires admitting that a group of individuals took boats and/or rafts to the island.

Yes, Min. This is obviously the hand of the devil at work!

[Minimalist]

I knew it.

[circumspice]

Most people still blindly accept what Victorian "gentleman" archaeologists proposed as facts despite there being no supporting data. Such 'facts' as: Hatshepsut was a ball busting, evil stepmother type usurper... (real facts & data notwithstanding), Neandertals were stupid, inarticulate, primitive brutes who could barely clothe themselves in rotting untanned leather, could barely make fire & still somehow survived several ice ages in Europe & Asia before H. sapiens came out of Africa, that black Africans couldn't have built Great Zimbabwe simply because they weren't white... They also propounded that H. sapiens were the crown of creation.

Hmmm... I'm seeing a trend here... You're stupid & venal if you're an archaic human, a female and/or not white?

I'm currently reading a Christmas gift, the formerly seminal work by Arthur Weigall called Akhenaten ~ Pharaoh of Egypt. It was published in 1910 & revised in 1922. I see a patronizing tone in his manner of dealing with the subject of his peers who happened to disagree with his beliefs on the subject matter. He goes to great lengths (modestly too!) to highlight his great erudition & his great personal importance as Inspector General of Antiquities. *yawn* I first read this book decades ago, before many of the most exciting discoveries were made. It seems kind of sad & pathetic now. It really shows the Victorian perspective of the time.

[Minimalist]

Hmmm... I'm seeing a trend here... You're stupid & venal if you're an archaic human, a female and/or not white?

Or British. Let's not forget what led to Piltdown Man.