John Lord on Horizon last night?

[brucemacdonald]

Watching Horizon on BBC2 last night about the Neanderthals, there was a scene in it depicting the first encounters with homo sapiens hunter-gatherers. A couple of humans were shown hunting and killing a deer. One of them looked suspiciously like John Lord - did anyone else see this and can you confirm it?

It would make total sense to cast him in the role of a "primitive" hunter-gatherer. And he didn't have to put on a shedload of makeup to look like a primitive hunter ):

In case you did not see it here is the homepage:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/neanderthal_prog_summary.shtml

Best wishes

Bruce

 

[Stuart]

yes that was definatly John on horizon last night.

wouldnt it be a cromagnon man he was playing though?? homosapians were later I think :?:

I have been wanting to make a atatl for some time they look very intresting.

 

[Ed]

Well spotted stuart

Ed

 

[den]

I seen that too. It was him.

 

[R-Bowskill]

Didn't catch the programme, sorting out some other stuff at the time.

However both Neanderthals and Cro Magnon are Homo Sapien, and were contemproary with each other for quite a while. Long enough for Neanderthals to remain in our folk memory as the 'wild men' if the theories on the development of myths I've read are anywhere neat correct.

 

[nomade]

I had seen a number of informative programs and "reconstitutions" on Neanderthals and Cromagnons over the years and on why/how Cromagnon survived and Neanderthal was doomed.

This latest program I found very informative: it explained how Neanderthals were forest dwellers which I never knew. And Cromagnon (and us Homo Sapiens later) were on the contrary great plain dwellers.

The program proved it by examining Neanderthal's inner ear responsible for balance etc. In the animal world, the bigger, the more developped the inner ear the more agile and swift the animal.

Well Neanderthal's inner ear is quite small compared to Cromagnon's and ours.

Well nature here was sensible as usual, given N.'s heavy, stocky built he couldn't have been a very agile, acrobatic creature anyway. So it all falls into place.

Also the spears found alongside N.'s remains were quite heavy: close range weapons. They couldn't have been thrown long distance. This is a good clue for N. living in the forest environment where he would stalk his preys rather than run for them.

C. on the other hand and Homo Sapiens after him were great plains agile (inner ear) hunters doing a lot of jumping and running around and throwing of light "ballistic" spears to kill their preys.

The program also showed that the fact that N. lived in woodlands (perhaps) explains his decline and extinction at a time of rapid climate change when climate got colder and forests turned into tundra.

Other conclusions were drawn from examining N.s , C.'s (and our) rib cages indicating that N. was well adapted for very cold temperatures.

A fascinating subject...

 

[digbum]

Didn't catch the programme, sorting out some other stuff at the time.

However both Neanderthals and Cro Magnon are Homo Sapien, and were contemproary with each other for quite a while. Long enough for Neanderthals to remain in our folk memory as the 'wild men' if the theories on the development of myths I've read are anywhere neat correct.

Your right, They were both Homo sapien and threfore the same species.
There is a theory that Cromagnon and Neanderthal man (and woman ) simply interbred, producing a sole surviving population that was suitably well adapted to the climate of Northern and Western Europe. That is you and me - Homo sapien sapien (meaning Wise wise man :yikes: )

Some go as far to say that the typical Western physiology supports this theory - pointing out that big noses, hairyness, short stockyness and pronounced brow ridges are all throwbacks to our Neanderthal ancestors.
I couldn't possibly comment on the size of anyones nose on this forum, but its likley that theres a little bit of Neanderthal DNA in all of us.

 

[CLEM]

Your right, They were both Homo sapien and threfore the same species.
There is a theory that Cromagnon and Neanderthal man (and woman ) simply interbred, producing a sole surviving population that was suitably well adapted to the climate of Northern and Western Europe. That is you and me - Homo sapien sapien (meaning Wise wise man :yikes: )

Some go as far to say that the typical Western physiology supports this theory - pointing out that big noses, hairyness, short stockyness and pronounced brow ridges are all throwbacks to our Neanderthal ancestors.
I couldn't possibly comment on the size of anyones nose on this forum, but its likley that theres a little bit of Neanderthal DNA in all of us.

I have a copy of National Geographic about five years old where a number of experts support this theory.

It was a great programme and i very much enjoyed watching it.

 

[ronsos]

on a similar programme a few years ago,their conclusion was that neanderals did interbreed, their reasoning being the number of short,stocky ,lantern jawed (myself included) in modern society.at a burial site in southern spain a childs skeleton was found with both neanderdal and modern human dna present.I thinkthere was some debate as to wether or not the child would have been a hybrid.excellent programme other night ,really enjoyed it.

 

[allenko]

At the risk of being shot down in flames

WHO IS JOHN LORD? :?:

 

[nomade]

Digbum wrote:

"Some go as far to say that the typical Western physiology supports this theory - pointing out that big noses, hairyness, short stockyness and pronounced brow ridges are all throwbacks to our Neanderthal ancestors"

-Big pointing noses seem to be an adaptation to cold climate (outside air warming up before entering the lungs),
-Stocky shape is also a sign of adatpation to cold climate (less body surface, fat equally distributed around the body). :chill:
-hairiness is a sign od adaptation to hot-dry climates (retains moisture). :sun:
In the same way lack of body hair is a sign of adaptation to hot-humid climates.:rain:

Today you find one or the other of these characteristics in people living in regions of the world where it makes sense climatewise. I don't think it has anything to do with more or less Neanderthal ancestry.

But it is an interesting question to ask ourselves nevertheless.

 

[Ed]

WHO IS JOHN LORD?

He's a Master flint knapper.... probably the only professional knapper in the country


Ed

 

[Not Bob]

However both Neanderthals and Cro Magnon are Homo Sapien

Correct me if I'm wrong but IMHO ...

Neanderthals = Homo neanderthalensis
Cro-Magnons = Homo sapiens

... and therefore not the same species. We're Homo sapiens sapiens so just a subspecies of Cro-Magnons.

One area I thought they should have included in the programme was about the type of thinking that seems to differentiate the Neanderthals from H. sapiens. There is little evidence for Neanderthal art or personal decoration and what there is seems crude in comparison to that of our own species. This is NOT to say Neanderthals were stupid but some theorists argue that the breakthrough for our species was the capability for a superior ability to think symbolically and therefore associate seemingly unrelated ideas and concepts. From all this comes an enhanced ability to form social networks which may also have played a role in our species success.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this but it does have the interesting implication of there once being 'humans' who saw the world in a completely different way from us; just consider how difficult we find it to understand how people from our own subspecies think if they are from a different culture or period of history.

(And yes our species is successful; there's six billion of us and we live on almost every part of the globe. That's evolutionarily successful and evolution only 'thinks' in the short term).

 

[Realgar]

Correct me if I'm wrong but IMHO ...

Neanderthals = Homo neanderthalensis
Cro-Magnons = Homo sapiens

That depends entirely on current fashion, at the moment it is H neanderthalensis but previously it's been H.sapiens neanderthalensis ands H. sapiens sapiens and might revert again depending on finds.
Views seem to be drifting again as more studies are done of living races of human and the physical differences between them - some show far greater differences than you'd see between neanderthal and 'AMH' ( anatomicaly modern human - to distinguish from archaic Homo sapiens)

There is some evidence that neanderthals used decoration on their own skins or on the skins they presumably wore - it comes from wear patterns on pieces of shaped ochres found at one or two sites, this might suggest that they simply didn't make permanent ornamentation unlike the sapiens around at the time.

There's been much argument about crossbreeding, there is one hybrid skeleton known. I'd argue that despite the mitochondrial DNA studies it's entirely possibly they did simply interbreed to homogenaity. Mitochrondrial DNA is passed only down the maternal line. If these population followed the same patterns as most apes, females stay with the family group and males move on. If a Sapiens mated with a female Neanderthal, she'd stay with the group as would the child and would follow the fate of the outmoded lifestyle. If the mating was male Neanderthal to female Sapiens they child would be brought up with the new modern long range weapon culture.

Interestingly there are a couple of cases of Neaderthal remains being found along side Sapiens remains - one of them was a diseased old man that'd clearly been looked after - friend or pet?....

Realgar

 

[Not Bob]

That depends entirely on current fashion, at the moment it is H neanderthalensis but previously it's been H.sapiens neanderthalensis ands H. sapiens sapiens and might revert again depending on finds.

Realgar

No arguments on that; I've always had a leaning towards nominalism. When you consider the paucity of finds of early humans I doubt we'll ever really know the full story. Interesting stuff though and good to see a programme on it though I felt they could have got more info in during the time they had if they'd tried.