[removed]

I've heard that there's not good evidence that men were the hunters and women were the gatherers.

My guess is there are more Neanderthal genes around today than at any time before. One study says they never had more than 5000-70,000 at their peak. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/how-a-perfect-storm-of-sex-and-population-size-may-have-sealed-the-neanderthals-fate/amp

If this is correct then they were never diluted.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I'm trying to find out more about an artist named Pam Cooper, I recently bought an antique plate from a collection of hers, but I can't find out anything about her, does anyone know anything about her or where I might be able to learn more about her?

Also, trying to think of direct lineages is pointless. The interbreeding is like a whirlwind of genetic exchange over incredibly long time scales.

You’re not wrong and that’s a good point, lol I’m even nervous to tell people I’m an anthropologist because they then know I believe in evolution. But yea I agree better to have a high bar to accept theories than a low, because if it’s something that’s true it should be easily replicated with success to prove it, if not you may be grasping on a theory

Radical Sisters by Anne Valk might be worthwhile, it's a bit late in the timeframe you presented, but, it presents a very interesting look at the divide and cooperation between feminist groups fighting for equality and black women wanting racial equality as well and how different groups approached this (e.g is it worth fighting for feminism when I can't even be black yet?)

Probably won't give you the answer you're looking for for your activism, but will provide some of the background on how groups wanting similar goals may group them differently in levels of importance. Brian Behnken's Fighting their own battles might be worthwhile too.

Scientists and those trained in the scientific method tend to be conservative in what they admit when there is a lack of evidence one way or the other. In other words, if there isn't good evidence to support it then the default position is disbelief.

It really is a more sensible approach to the accumulation of knowledge, to not get our beliefs ahead of the evidence. It is better to require a high bar to accepting new theories than to too easily accept them.

It's fine for lay people to have pet theories and believe in things and ideas that are fun but not well proven but it isn't a good attitude to have for a professor or expert. If the new models prove themselves correct then the next generation can build on them, but they should be good enough to convincingly beat out the old theories before they are adopted and taught as the mainstream.

That's my thought at least, but it's a point that have a lot of people angry at what is accepted as the mainstream among academics because it seems slow and is skeptical of exciting new claims.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

There is not one single piece of evidence.

H. ergaster is thought to be just a later form/descendant of the African H. erectus, some don't consider it distinct enough to be its own species. Like I said, H. heidelbergenis evolved in Africa and later spread to Eurasia.

[removed]

[removed]

The first group of experts thought modern day humans would not have sex with Neanderthals on the regular and just out hunted them. The second group thought humans would have sex with Neanderthals. The first group didn’t seem to understand humans very much.

Hello all, first time r/History poster, please be gentle.

First off, I'm a 100% Hitler was evil guy, this has nothing to do with liking Nazis or anything like this.

Growing up, I watched the History channel when it was still completely history shows. I loved history of all kinds, but I particularly enjoyed WWII docs. What caught my attention as a child wasn't the tanks or giant guns or anything like that - it was the architecture and the grand plans for Berlin and Germany as a whole. I remember they wanted to turn it into a "worthy" capital for their imagined global empire. I remember seeing many many blueprints, city designs, and even a massive mock up of Berlin after it was rebuilt.

I would really be interested in finding shows or books that discuss their plans for the future from an infrastructure point of view, and would appreciate any recommendations.

As an aside, I recommend reading Blitzed, I found it to be a fascinating insight on an aspect of WW2 I hadn't been aware of.

Thank you everyone

> This is called persistence hunting theory, and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it’s really just a theory at this point. There is virtually no material evidence of it being a consistent selection pressure across human evolutionary history.

There are numerous cursorial and thermoregulatory adaptions which make more sense within the context of persistence hunting, however. That being said, these made their appearance about a million years before h. sapiens was a glint in erectus's eye or definitive projectile weapons.

[removed]

[removed]