Neolith Girl
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2018
- Messages
- 338
this chap is already at 47...
translate please...
translate please...
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 1,405
i hope there's an english scanslation of this...
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
- Messages
- 120
Has anyone found an english translation yet or not ?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 1,405
oh my god an update!!!
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,320
@greyhud90 After a few hundred years, I expect your furs get a bit worn out and you buy new clothes. Why would we expect her not to look modern? She didn't take a time machine, she lived through the whole time.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,320
This is interesting. It's like Memories of Emanon if it was written by a typical Korean webtoon artist instead of somewhat surreal Japanese geniuses with strong 60s culture and 70s "New Wave SF" influences.
@Purplelibraryguy its just that she looks too delicate looking for a cave woman
So I thought maybe she was a modern girl time leaping to 8000bc?
and then became immortal
So I thought maybe she was a modern girl time leaping to 8000bc?
and then became immortal
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,320
@greyhud90 Well, 8000 BC is not long ago really. This is pretty late stone age, getting near to hitting bronze age, depending where you are. Egypt will soon start to be a kingdom. People wouldn't look any different, there has been basically zero evolution since those days. Hulking folks with brow ridges and whatnot were mostly a myth anyway.
That said, I agree we don't really have any idea of her origins--she's certainly weird.
That said, I agree we don't really have any idea of her origins--she's certainly weird.
Supporter
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2019
- Messages
- 952
@Purplelibraryguy i do know thing like height and physic can change really fast (relatively speaking)
https://ourworldindata.org/human-height we did take more than 20cm in height over 200 years, so yeah i don't know if this applies to all the morphologie but it is not that big of a stretch to imagine we do have quite the difference with the 8000bc people
Well after i really don't care for it that just i found it interesting that the human change faster that we can think
https://ourworldindata.org/human-height we did take more than 20cm in height over 200 years, so yeah i don't know if this applies to all the morphologie but it is not that big of a stretch to imagine we do have quite the difference with the 8000bc people
Well after i really don't care for it that just i found it interesting that the human change faster that we can think
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,320
@Zblurth That kind of thing does happen but it's mostly about nutrition. Populations that eat lots of protein get taller. Populations that eat mostly grains and veggies stay smaller. If you see a shift in eating patterns, height can increase really fast. In a society with strong hierarchies you can have tall upper classes and short lower classes of the exact same race at the exact same time; France circa the Revolution was an example--tall nobles, short (half-starved) peasants. Hunter-gatherers in the stone age tended to have more well-balanced diets with more protein than farmers so they'd probably be pretty normal size.
Supporter
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2019
- Messages
- 952
@Purplelibraryguy Ho thanks
The more you learn
The more you learn
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2018
- Messages
- 267
@Purplelibraryguy 8000 BC is solidly in the middle of the Neolithic and is also almost 5000 years before state formation in Egypt.
As for evolution having "stopped" by that point, it's simply not true. European lactase persistence became significant around 7500 years ago, which is also the same time light skin and iris pigmentation became significant, though some estimates put both later. This lady, having heterochromia and light skin, would have been unique. Both only achieved majority in Europe still later. Pressure for larger skulls was lifted with the advent of agriculture.
It's expected that human evolution is fastest now, simply because we have an extremely large population.
The idea that hunter gatherers would be tall like modern humans misses a few key facts. The most important is that hunter gatherers were not consistently satiated outside of where we originally evolved and could effectively consume local wild calories. The modern conception that hunter gatherers lived long lives, had significant leisure time, and were well fed stems from studies on one African group (the !Kung) during a few particularly good years (the researcher probably didn't know this), with the study taking place in 1964. In 1973, the !Kung suffered from an enormous famine. Many died and the social fabric of several tribes completely broke down. It may have been a complete loss without assistance from the Botswana government. They aren't hunter gatherers anymore. The second is that the only hunter gatherer diets we can actually study are the more modern groups, which also means all the less successful hunter gatherers (almost all of Eurasia and most other places outside the tropics) aren't considered.
As for evolution having "stopped" by that point, it's simply not true. European lactase persistence became significant around 7500 years ago, which is also the same time light skin and iris pigmentation became significant, though some estimates put both later. This lady, having heterochromia and light skin, would have been unique. Both only achieved majority in Europe still later. Pressure for larger skulls was lifted with the advent of agriculture.
It's expected that human evolution is fastest now, simply because we have an extremely large population.
The idea that hunter gatherers would be tall like modern humans misses a few key facts. The most important is that hunter gatherers were not consistently satiated outside of where we originally evolved and could effectively consume local wild calories. The modern conception that hunter gatherers lived long lives, had significant leisure time, and were well fed stems from studies on one African group (the !Kung) during a few particularly good years (the researcher probably didn't know this), with the study taking place in 1964. In 1973, the !Kung suffered from an enormous famine. Many died and the social fabric of several tribes completely broke down. It may have been a complete loss without assistance from the Botswana government. They aren't hunter gatherers anymore. The second is that the only hunter gatherer diets we can actually study are the more modern groups, which also means all the less successful hunter gatherers (almost all of Eurasia and most other places outside the tropics) aren't considered.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,320
@gormadoc
First, I never said evolution had "stopped". I never even implied any such thing. We're certainly still evolving to this day--I suspect right now one prominent direction is for toxin resistance because of all the pollution. But in big slow-breeding creatures it takes time. Sure, a couple of little things, some blue eyes here, an ability to digest milk there, and certainly there have been lots of changes in what diseases we're resistant to. Big deal though--modern Asians don't have a lot of genes for blondeness or milk-digesting. That time had fundamentally modern humans; they would not be particularly genetically shorter or squatter or shaggier or have different skulls or such.
There are certainly going to be some issues making it hard to generalize studies of modern hunter-gatherers to past ones. But I think to some extent you have it backwards--if we want to study hunter-gatherers today (or even fairly recently), we can only study ones on crappy land that nobody else wants, or in restricted territories that do not, for instance, allow them to move around in response to local food shortages as they once would have. I live in British Columbia, which had some amazingly successful hunter-gatherers because it was such rich territory--very productive rain forest, with coastal waters also full of food. Unfortunately for the first nations, we white folk totally agreed with them about what excellent rich land it was, so we took it and their ancestral lifestyle is no longer available to study directly.
But sure, hunter-gatherers most places no doubt went hungry sometimes, even starved. As did agriculturalists. But agriculture tended to cause malnutrition even when it was working as planned; the diet was too narrow and the surpluses tended to be extracted too thoroughly by upper classes.
First, I never said evolution had "stopped". I never even implied any such thing. We're certainly still evolving to this day--I suspect right now one prominent direction is for toxin resistance because of all the pollution. But in big slow-breeding creatures it takes time. Sure, a couple of little things, some blue eyes here, an ability to digest milk there, and certainly there have been lots of changes in what diseases we're resistant to. Big deal though--modern Asians don't have a lot of genes for blondeness or milk-digesting. That time had fundamentally modern humans; they would not be particularly genetically shorter or squatter or shaggier or have different skulls or such.
There are certainly going to be some issues making it hard to generalize studies of modern hunter-gatherers to past ones. But I think to some extent you have it backwards--if we want to study hunter-gatherers today (or even fairly recently), we can only study ones on crappy land that nobody else wants, or in restricted territories that do not, for instance, allow them to move around in response to local food shortages as they once would have. I live in British Columbia, which had some amazingly successful hunter-gatherers because it was such rich territory--very productive rain forest, with coastal waters also full of food. Unfortunately for the first nations, we white folk totally agreed with them about what excellent rich land it was, so we took it and their ancestral lifestyle is no longer available to study directly.
But sure, hunter-gatherers most places no doubt went hungry sometimes, even starved. As did agriculturalists. But agriculture tended to cause malnutrition even when it was working as planned; the diet was too narrow and the surpluses tended to be extracted too thoroughly by upper classes.
Similar threads
