|
Post by Star Cluster on Mar 9, 2009 7:43:19 GMT -5
As a point of personal interest, why am I not yelling at all of you for putting an 'h' in there? Ok, you can't actually answer that question, but you might be able to answer this one: Neandertal or Neanderthal? No, I will not defer to the red squiggly line that appeared under one of those words in my Chrome, because I have proven several times today that Chrome's spell checker does not always know what it is talking about. For your answer: Neanderthal or Neandertal?
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 9, 2009 9:41:24 GMT -5
If you've read the Hominids book series, you'd know that Neanderthals are atheists and have personal computers embedded in their forearms. And lets not forget bisexual. Oh, and, not overcrowded on their version of earth. As a point of personal interest, why am I not yelling at all of you for putting an 'h' in there? Ok, you can't actually answer that question, but you might be able to answer this one: Neandertal or Neanderthal? No, I will not defer to the red squiggly line that appeared under one of those words in my Chrome, because I have proven several times today that Chrome's spell checker does not always know what it is talking about. I prefer Neanderthal simply because of convention--most people easily recognise it and it is used frequently in the literature.
|
|
Dan
Full Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by Dan on Mar 9, 2009 14:27:23 GMT -5
It also means that they had (or believed that they had) motivation to do so. Obviously if someone did something, there was probably a reason for it. that being said, so what? They probably had a reason for hunting certain ways or living in certain places. That in no way, shape or form indicates or even implies a religion of any sort. It's true that we can only speculate what that motive might have been, but the inference that they had some reason for using ochre is logically sound. "Some reason" still doesn't mean or indicate a bloody thing. Cuckoo birds have a "reason" for laying eggs in other birds' nests, that sure doesn't mean they have/had religion! Yeah, I meant a non-practical kind of reason. If we're agreed that they went to the trouble of burying their dead and using ochre for a reason, the next question is what reason. Neanderthals also made tools. A better-made spear-head (for instance) does its job better. A good practical reason for making better tools. But what practical reason is there for covering the bodies of their dead in red ochre? I don't think anyone's ever come up with one.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 9, 2009 14:42:55 GMT -5
As a point of personal interest, why am I not yelling at all of you for putting an 'h' in there? Ok, you can't actually answer that question, but you might be able to answer this one: Neandertal or Neanderthal? No, I will not defer to the red squiggly line that appeared under one of those words in my Chrome, because I have proven several times today that Chrome's spell checker does not always know what it is talking about. For your answer: Neanderthal or Neandertal?Thank you. Personally, prefer the latter, but if both are technically correct then I can quite frankly get over my linguistic snobbery. ^-^
|
|
|
Post by realityislaw on Mar 9, 2009 14:51:27 GMT -5
I love the way this is pretty much all you do
You're so sure your proof is infallible that pretty much the entire actvity of this forum is drawing up parallels between modern day religious types and groups you think are savage or uneducated. Try living a couple of days in the veldt, why don't you
|
|
MSTKL
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by MSTKL on Mar 9, 2009 15:12:53 GMT -5
Nowhere did we do anything of the sort. What we did is called 'speculation.'
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 9, 2009 16:59:32 GMT -5
I love the way this is pretty much all you do You're so sure your proof is infallible that pretty much the entire actvity of this forum is drawing up parallels between modern day religious types and groups you think are savage or uneducated. Try living a couple of days in the veldt, why don't you Try new "Trollbegone" aerosol spray! I haven't read enough about Neanderthals, but I'm pretty sure they were a European phenomenon, not African. I could be mistaken, though. My guess is that as soon as someone saw something that couldn't be explained with knowledge at hand, then the first religion was born. My limited knowledge of Neanderthals does remember that their brain pans were much larger than Sapiens. Whether this translated (bigger brains) into higher intelligence, I don't know, but they were probably just as intelligent as Sapiens. Sapiens developed religion pretty early on, so I would guess that Neanderthals did the same. There is no telling, however, what those beliefs entailed, given the limited evidence available.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 10, 2009 2:31:52 GMT -5
"Some reason" still doesn't mean or indicate a bloody thing. Cuckoo birds have a "reason" for laying eggs in other birds' nests, that sure doesn't mean they have/had religion! Yeah, I meant a non-practical kind of reason. If we're agreed that they went to the trouble of burying their dead and using ochre for a reason, the next question is what reason. Neanderthals also made tools. A better-made spear-head (for instance) does its job better. A good practical reason for making better tools. But what practical reason is there for covering the bodies of their dead in red ochre? I don't think anyone's ever come up with one. Well, religion is the definition of non-practical... ;D It seemed to me originally that you were giving religion the benefit of the doubt in this situation instead of simply considering it a possible option as there isn't anything to indicate anything for certain. ALL theories are purely speculation as I don't think it is established that any religion even existed at the time. I don't like to just go ahead and assume something is X if it is speculation of this degree. Maybe burying and painting the dead was merely a way to keep them close by while keeping them from stinking or getting eaten by scavengers. My point is I wouldn't just give that theory the benefit of the doubt without something concrete to base that on. I just think implying it was religion without any type of proof is counterproductive.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 10, 2009 11:40:52 GMT -5
I love the way this is pretty much all you do You're so sure your proof is infallible that pretty much the entire actvity of this forum is drawing up parallels between modern day religious types and groups you think are savage or uneducated. Try living a couple of days in the veldt, why don't you I should think the language being used would be enough to convey the speculation and analogy used in this thread. Notice how more passive words like 'probably' and 'suggests' are used. No one is claiming absolute fact for anything, this is a conversation, a bouncing of ideas. I haven't read enough about Neanderthals, but I'm pretty sure they were a European phenomenon, not African. I could be mistaken, though. My guess is that as soon as someone saw something that couldn't be explained with knowledge at hand, then the first religion was born. My limited knowledge of Neanderthals does remember that their brain pans were much larger than Sapiens. Whether this translated (bigger brains) into higher intelligence, I don't know, but they were probably just as intelligent as Sapiens. Sapiens developed religion pretty early on, so I would guess that Neanderthals did the same. Neanderthals are no longer thought to be a strictly European species--although a lot depends on the interpretation of skeletal information. Paleoanthropologists sometimes have this rather annoying habit of wanting their new finds to be a new species and trying to get them accepted as such; well, splitters anyway. Neanderthal sites have been found expanding across the middle east, well in Asia. As far as I know however, no African sites are considered Neanderthal, that is correct. Neanderthals on average did have larger brains than human beings; but they were also more robust. It is thought that the the ratio of brain and body size is very similar. Stanyon et al (1993) published a rather interesting survey of hominid cranial capacity suggesting Neanderthals had slightly smaller brains; but I do not know how this study is positioned in the literature i.e. how other experts feel about it. For what it is worth, the article has been cited eight times since its publication.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 10, 2009 12:20:32 GMT -5
meh, whenever archaeologists didn't know what something was or couldn't explain a behaviour they said religion.
This is on account of archaeology coming from a tradition of digging up stuff to prove the bible.
How about neandertals and sapiens made pretty objects and paintings because they wanted to express themselves, to create something beautiful to please themselves and others.
Funeral rites? Many animals mourn loss, we don't call that religion.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 10, 2009 13:04:47 GMT -5
Ok fine guess I'll have to reveal what Neanderthal's actually worshipped.
Booze.
Ironbite-which is why their extinct now.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 10, 2009 13:42:06 GMT -5
It's not just that they mourned their dead--it's that there was care taken to bury the dead, and cover them with red ochre (which might or might not have had some significance--there's no way to know, but the fact that they went through the trouble of doing so suggests that it might have had some kind of MEANING), and that the dead were also buried with objects like little baubles and weapons and things that the dead might have used in life. That's a LOT to do, and there had to be a REASON to do it. Yes, it's possible that religion and belief never entered into the equation, but it's just as possible that there was some kind of primitive belief system there. Other animals--elephants and some whales immediately leap to mind--will MOURN their dead, but they have no actual funeral rites. They don't pick the dead up and bury them with objects or cover them in pigment of some kind. Mourning the dead is not the same as having funeral rites.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 10, 2009 14:41:54 GMT -5
meh, whenever archaeologists didn't know what something was or couldn't explain a behaviour they said religion. Touche, but i've found that anthropologists of all kinds tend to label unexplainable behaviour as 'ritual', which is in the same vein. How about neandertals and sapiens made pretty objects and paintings because they wanted to express themselves, to create something beautiful to please themselves and others. Interesting point, some cognitive archaeologists have argued the same thing in the past. The interpretation of mobile and cave art tends to shift over time. And I know this is splitting hairs, but Neanderthals did not make cave paintings or mobillary art. At least as far as we know.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Wolfhowl on Mar 11, 2009 23:31:56 GMT -5
If you've read the Hominids book series, you'd know that Neanderthals are atheists and have personal computers embedded in their forearms. And lets not forget bisexual. Oh, and, not overcrowded on their version of earth. I forgot about that... Also they were supposed to be really beefy and peaceful. Say, where was that portal between worlds supposed to be located again?
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 12, 2009 4:25:50 GMT -5
Whether ritualistic (boy is that a vague term... i have a ritualistic path to work each day... i make tea and noodles at work... i use the same staircase etc...) or what we today know as religious practices, or whether they did shit in the hopes that thing might be better tomorrow, not one person can say. By giving ANY one theory credit over another is dumb. To suggest religion when it isn't know whether or not religion as we know it today even existed at the time is extra dumb. To say, "We don't know but it COULD be one or more of the following, or they could all be far off the mark, it's not possible to conclusively determine" is the smart thing.
Implying it was religion sounds like projecting a want for religion to have existed at this time, and that's it. Burying the dead with what MAY have been their most valued possessions doesn't indicate cosmic reverence but earthly reverence. Even today people feel compelled to include the deceased person's favourite possessions or personal gifts to accompany the deceased. That isn't uncommon.
But neither does it mean they thought that the dead person went to another world or heaven. But if it did, that still doesn't mean they thought a godlike figure was in control of it. But even if it did, that STILL doesn't mean the godlike figure was actually worshiped.
People and animals often have respect for the dead, especially when the dead is a beloved member of ones own family. If elephants COULD pick up objects with more than just their trunks and have a more immediate and concise system of communication I wouldn't doubt that they WOULD hold what would appear to be organized funerals for their dead. But it still wouldn't make it religion.
|
|