HOME | DD
Renum63 β Mesolithic western (European) hunter-gatherers
#ancient #holocene #hunters #people #stoneage #prehistoric
Published: 2018-12-20 22:15:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 15604; Favourites: 461; Downloads: 94
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 69
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 4 β©: 2
π: 3 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 4 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 2 β©: 0
the way you have them looking at us viewers, it makes it seem as though we're right there with them.Β the realism and authenticity you've achieved here helps to create that impression, too
π: 2 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
I doubt they looked that African, maybe more like a slightly darker mid easterner, as they already had standard 'Caucasoid' traits by the time the neanderthals where extinct at the very least...
π: 4 β©: 1
π: 6 β©: 3
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
The difference is, is that the Native SE Asians life in a semi-tropical if not tropical environment like the first people in Africa, and African features are not evolutionarily beneficial in a cold weather temperate environment like Europe, the WHG were from what I can tell, tall, robust, slightly darker and less gracile versions of modern Europeans, as they were close relatives of the EHG that make up about half there indo-Europeans DNA, and we know the indo-Europeans were likely the people who first spear truly pale skin and hair into Europe in large amounts
π: 2 β©: 1
π: 2 β©: 3
π: 1 β©: 0
When I refind my sources Iβll post them
π: 0 β©: 0
Well yes weβre more EHG but if youβve ever seen a reconstruction of a WHG they look like a tan robust caucasoid individual with blue eyes, and sure humans are pretty adaptable but without much fruit and a north european climate (in Southern Europe) its likely that they would have a lack of vitamin d (aka scurvy) and would be a selective pressure that would make them evolve faster, so to would that fact that the population was so small that the genes spread quite quickly, which also likely meant they had more Neanderthal genes then even we know (because we donβt know the full diversity of Neanderthal genes) which would there by make up an integral part of the WHG population, and was watered down by EEF, EHG, and ANE who had some but less
π: 3 β©: 1
π: 4 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 0
even if most of our vitamin D comes from food there still is a skin factor at play, and inland hunter gatherers are only going to get maybe some river fish, and they were lactose intolerant at this time period, I'm not saying they were white, I'm saying they were tan, but mostly european looking, like a swarthy italian or spaniard, but perhaps a bit bulkier and less gracile (gracility being a feature southern euros inherited from the EEF mostly) infact skin color isn't determined entirely by latitude, but also by weather, as inuits and siberians tend to be darker then scotsmen, and norwegians. The reason is that northwestern europe is very cloudy, and not as icy as it should be do to the warm Caribbean winds blowing across the atlantic, so by that logic, there still should be lots of clouds, and only a moderate but not substantial amount of vitamin D in the WHG's diet, meaning it's likely that they developed lighter skin then before, if they didn't out right inherit it from the neanderthals, who made up a larger percent of their genome then they do for us today (~15% compared to ~3%)
π: 1 β©: 0
I really love the fish traps and how the outer hide has been secured to the boat!
π: 1 β©: 1
Thanks. Best parts of the painting!
π: 1 β©: 0
Β I like his haircut and headband. Nice job on painting his animal-skin clothing too, by the way.
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 1 β©: 3
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 4 β©: 0
search up Cheddar Man, Europeans likely evolved light skin when they started relying on agriculture 5,000 years ago. Foragers had darker skin.
π: 1 β©: 3
π: 0 β©: 0
No surprise here. I remember looking up the natural skin tones of people from Southern Italy (to name one) and discovered that even they have darker or tanner skin tones compared to those who have been native to France or the British Isles, for example.
π: 1 β©: 0
That is incorrect. The hypothesis of a dark-skinned Cheddar Man was thoroughly refuted and widely publicised in reputable scientific papers. In fact,Β one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others we are not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human.
Also, we have evidence of agricultureΒ going as far back as 23.000 years ago, for what it is worth.
The idea that ancient humans were mostly dark is a blatant political statement that has been pushed by the likes of Channel 4 and BBC and is in fact pseudo-science.
π: 6 β©: 4
π: 0 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 3
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
The evidence of agriculture 23,000 years ago isn't really definitive, and it suggests small experiments with agriculture, we don't have evidence of widespread cultivation until the later pre pottery neolithic. It may have been to agriculture. It may have been a case like Heron's Aeolipile, a sort of steam engine invented in first century Rome, though we know the steam engine didn't change the world until the industrial revolution
π: 1 β©: 0
Good summary. Human origins and evolution is a fascinating subject of research, yet evidently one prone to be misused by political hijackers, of the most varying sorts. I just wish all that distracting and highly wearisome agenda hunting would go bury itself and stop acting as obstacles to knowledge and people with genuine curiosity for these subjects.
π: 1 β©: 1
It grinds my gears, really.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>