Sousei no Taiga - Vol. 1 Ch. 8 - Neanderthals

[WolfN18]

HAHAHAHA did he really just pull of stealth game classic move, throwing rocks to distract enemies. Gotta love the MC man

 

[HoangDinh]

hoo haa!

 

[Lukaskyboss]

why does one of one look like a washed out african LMAO

 

[Lukaskyboss]

But Neanderthal DNA is found in modern Humans. So they didn't all killed each other.

Only in Europeans and south-East Asians in significant numbers.

 

[Lukaskyboss]

@ThinkPositive Assuming you mean pre-10k BC and not the time of the roman empire, that's still 30kya short of the rough estimation of neanderthal extinction... And rather than a couple thousand, it's actually a few hundred specimens at best (Given the weird date bracket you used, I assume you are also counting the upper paleolithic, which is largely after the neanderthal extinction), with the majority being fragmentary skeletons (mostly of skulls).

As for the extinction, I agree that "the idea that you could eradicate someone that's spread out over an entire continent with little manpower and no reason to do so is quite preposterous", but that's not typically how it is hypothesized. The correct reasoning is that sapiens "didn't directly carry out a systematic genocide" but rather slowly crowded out the neanderthals from their habitats (whether it is due to conflict, be through direct fighting as seen here, or indirect through the loss of food and resources, or even climate change, is still debated), the neanderthal's habitat shrink enough such that they slowly die to traumatic causes (by carnivores or accidents) or starvation or even the lack of resources (such as inability to survive winter), and by the end, the population is bottlenecked enough that we DON'T need to murder the remaining ones for them to die out from a crippled genetic pool (susceptibility to pandemic) and the lack of viable mates.

That aside, back on topics of direct attacks. Yes, because "direct attacks might've occurred", largely because we lack a comprehensive fossil picture of the times, we cannot definitely say that "the theory that hunter-gatherers killed each other has no credibility whatsoever", which is the whole point I'm trying to make. Surprisingly anticlimactic in a sense, in the spirit of the old wisdom in English class, "always make sure to never say always and never".

p.s. On a side note, I do not know why you need to bring in a discussion of dogs domestication, and there are a lot of skips in logic linking brain size to behavior. (which while the brain do govern behavior, having a larger or smaller brain have no correlation with disposition for a specific type of behavior) Not to mention, wolves are not more aggressive, just more alert and suspicious of danger, thus making dogs the naive counterparts. Just be glad that it was the humans who found the naive dogs and not some predator, since I doubt the early dogs with their naivety will survive as long as wolves in the wild if it leaned to approach another species without any sense of danger.

There are even hypothesis that neandertals were too trusting (just like nothern countries in cold winter have to have closer social interactions and peace between tribes to survive the winter, cooperation is key) compared to sapiens.

Sapiens replaced them by numbers, migrations and breeding (getting rid of the men, getting the women). Also neandertals were somewhat smarter in some tool making but had a lower birthrate overall, more robust frame and better suited to winter, less offsprings means more towards the nuclear family (anachronism here because it didn't exist then) compared to sapiens were more like patrilinear armies.


In perspective, it makes you think of problems of modern Europe today. Maybe people should learn from this past before facing extinction.

 

[Lukaskyboss]

@Ryomi yeah Neanderthals vs Homo sapiens is basically big muscles vs big brain.

Not at all.
Neanderthals had bigger craniums. I know it's forbidden to talk about this, but negation of truth is detrimental to science, especially when it concerns politics.

 

[Lukaskyboss]

okay so the savage one is the white? no joking

Huh based?

 

[Lukaskyboss]

Well this chapter is kinda of pure nonsense.
We don't know if it is a historical fiction or a weird world with no defined temporality.

But prehistoric humans did not "look african"; only ancestors of africans looked "africans". If we're talking about neanderthals then it is unlikely they would encounter other hunter gatherers considering they live mostly in Europe.

Also, what are africans are we talking about here?
If Europe's population is extremely homogenous (mix of sapiens/neanderthals (period of the story I guess)>>> >>/ 10 000 BC hunter-gatherers/anatolian farmers/kurgans (aryans either Corded Ware or Yamnaya), Africa is the most heterogenous continent on Earth ever probably.