• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Homo erectus

Brig said:
Drop the knit picking and read the message.
Click to expand...

Not only have I checked out Little's analysis, I've been checking the original sources (the Bureau of Ethnology reports).

Little didn't set his bar at 7 feet (for including unusually long skeletons); he set the threshold at 6 or 6.5 feet.

The figures in the 19th century reports refer to the measured length of the (decayed; disarticulated) skeletal remains in situ - not the living height attributed to the individual associated with a skeleton once re-assembled.

The only reference to a 7-foot layout of skeletal remains I can find in the 5th report states the bones completely disintegrated when being removed from the ground, so there's an open question as to whether they were ever fully recovered, much less forwarded to the Smithsonian.

Little's approach (more or less a demographic / statistical analysis) is wholly dependent on the numbers, and there's no solid basis for accepting his estimates of the overall population being sampled - especially considering the sites cover a wide range of geographical locations and who-knows-how-wide a range of time periods. These excavation reports pre-date radiocarbon and other dating methods.

In any case, Little's interesting approach and conclusions have nothing to do with Homo erectus, and are more appropriately to be discussed in any of the multiple FTMB threads that do address oversized western hemisphere humans / hominids, such as:

North American mound builders
http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/north-american-mound-builders.14701/


Conspiracy To Hide Existence Of Ancient Giant Humans?!
http://forum.forteantimes.com/index...hide-existence-of-ancient-giant-humans.59331/


Giant skeletons
http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/giant-skeletons.5837/


Giants
http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/giants.10424/


The Nephilim, Biblical & pre-Historic Giants, etc
http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/the-nephilim-biblical-pre-historic-giants-etc.3451/
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Is it really helpful to employ the terms Homo erectus, Denisovan, Neanderthal, or Cro-Magnon, when we were all human beings after all?
Click to expand...

I've attended a couple of lectures, and had some lovely pub chats, with an archaeologist who specialises in Neanderthal sites in Western Europe, and he informed me that there is a growing trend in archaeological circles to reclassify Neanderthal as "Homo Sapien Neanderthalis", to recognise them as something more "human" than they've been conventionally seen as. It's far from consensus yet, but I think the more we learn, the more we'll see our ideas of other hominids coming more into line with that way of thinking.
 
Yossarian said:
I've attended a couple of lectures, and had some lovely pub chats, with an archaeologist who specialises in Neanderthal sites in Western Europe, and he informed me that there is a growing trend in archaeological circles to reclassify Neanderthal as "Homo Sapien Neanderthalis", to recognise them as something more "human" than they've been conventionally seen as. It's far from consensus yet, but I think the more we learn, the more we'll see our ideas of other hominids coming more into line with that way of thinking.
Click to expand...

This isn't a subject I'm well up on, but until fairly recently I though it had been revised to Homo sapiens neadertalis a long while ago. But when I came to check recently I can find no mention of this. I'm sure I read it somewhere grown up too.
 
oldrover said:
I don't think you're supposed to include a 'h' either. That's what I read anyway, but like 95% of what I thought I knew about the last 66 million years that's probably wrong too.
Click to expand...
Confusion has probably come about because the area where it was discovered was 'Neandertal' - but they named it after an earlier spelling of the area (i.e. with the 'h') and the 'h' version stuck.

Neanderthals are named after one of the first sites where their fossils were discovered in the 19th century in the Neandertal in Erkrath, Germany. Thal is an older spelling of the German word Tal (with the same pronunciation), which means "valley" (cognate with English dale).
Click to expand...
 
Mythopoeika said:
Confusion has probably come about because the area where it was discovered was 'Neandertal' - but they named it after an earlier spelling of the area (i.e. with the 'h') and the 'h' version stuck.
Click to expand...

Yeah that rings a bell.
 
A rose is a rose and by any other name smells as sweet. I'm not say our chunky cousin smells sweet. I'm just saying that by whatever name he is called he/she is still a paradox to unravel. I have contended for some time that the Neanderthal (however you spell it) was a solid member of the Homo Sapien Sapien clan. As far as that is concerned so is the Denisovian and probably others. I apologize if I misspelled anyone.
 
Brig said:
A rose is a rose and by any other name smells as sweet. I'm not say our chunky cousin smells sweet. I'm just saying that by whatever name he is called he/she is still a paradox to unravel. I have contended for some time that the Neanderthal (however you spell it) was a solid member of the Homo Sapien Sapien clan. As far as that is concerned so is the Denisovian and probably others. I apologize if I misspelled anyone.
Click to expand...

If by clan you mean species then that is as far as I know not an easy thing to define. This is something that I have very little understanding of but it bothers me, and as far as I'm aware there are about six models to define it in current formal use today. I've found myself equally persuaded by the arguments I've heard on either side of how and when to draw what might be a pretty arbitrary line.

And you left out the 's' in sapiens.
 
Adam and Eves first born, Caine, was cast out for murdering Able. He went into "Nod" and too a wife. As Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens who did Caine find to marry? Neanderthal or Denisovian perhaps Not meaning to start a biblical flap I simply threw that in as a curiosity.
Speaking to a friend of mine who teaches at a local college; I was informed that if one took a typical Neanderthal, gave him a haircut, combed his beard, put him in a three piece business suit with shiny black shoes and a folded newspaper under his arm he would pass as nothing exceptional on a busy street corner in any larger city. Again just a curiosity.
 
Brig said:
gave him a haircut, combed his beard, put him in a three piece business suit with shiny black shoes and a folded newspaper under his arm he would pass as nothing exceptional on a busy street corner in any larger city.
Click to expand...

he'd be noticed in Glasgow! :fhtagn:
 
Brig said:
Adam and Eves first born, Caine, was cast out for murdering Able. He went into "Nod" and too a wife. As Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens who did Caine find to marry? Neanderthal or Denisovian perhaps Not meaning to start a biblical flap I simply threw that in as a curiosity.
Click to expand...

Cain apparently married one of his sisters.
 
I want to know who Esau's mother was.
 
Frideswide: Why so? I've known heavy set scots with very hairy legs (if you are referring to the kilt.
Dr. Baltar: So say some pundits.
 
Perhaps it's the newspaper that would be the giveaway.
 
Are you saing there are no newspapers in Scotland Seriously the thing was simply an example that the Neanderthal was not so different from us. I went to college with a fellow who had a close similarity to the Neanderthal. He was not heavy set but his head had the classic heavy brow ridges and his mouth was set forward, muzzle like. He was a likable fellow and had no problems getting a girl for a date. This was back in the "stone age" when I was still in college.
 
Brig said:
Are you saying there are no newspapers in Scotland Seriously the thing was simply an example that the Neanderthal was not so different from us. I went to college with a fellow who had a close similarity to the Neanderthal. He was not heavy set but his head had the classic heavy brow ridges and his mouth was set forward, muzzle like. He was a likable fellow and had no problems getting a girl for a date. This was back in the "stone age" when I was still in college.
Click to expand...
BYW My computer is ancient, like me, and tends to skip letters now and again. Excuse.
 
Is that neanderthal for How are you?
 
:clap:My wife claims she dated several Neanderthals in her younger years. Not certain what she based that on.
 
Pedant alert; it's Neander THAL, named after the Neander Valley in Germany where the first type specimen was found, valley in German=Thal, hence Neanderthal, although it's pronounced as if there was no H. And years ago I posted about a chap I used to work with that I was conviced was a throwback to them,can't be arsed to seach for the post, but he was immensly strong ,barrel chested, browridges etc, if archeaologists found his skeleton sometime in the futue they would think Neanderthals were still alive today.
 
If we're being pedantic, all the binomial names in this thread have been incorrectly capitalized. Our species binomial name is Homo sapiens. Our particular subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens. The Neanderthal man is classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Binomial names are always spelt with only the genus capitalized. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top