Sousei no Taiga - Vol. 1 Ch. 8 - Neanderthals
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2018
- Messages
- 98
So the translation continues.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- May 29, 2018
- Messages
- 423
The theory that hunter-gatherers killed each other has no credibility whatsoever, rarely have we found skeletons with bruises caused by humans, and they don't lie together.
Meaning, murders did occur, but rarely, and slaughters, none.
Most likely, they'd exile people temporarily. Just like animals, who have stand-offs where they intimidate, then fight a bit, but won't kill each other. Then you win the area.
Meaning, murders did occur, but rarely, and slaughters, none.
Most likely, they'd exile people temporarily. Just like animals, who have stand-offs where they intimidate, then fight a bit, but won't kill each other. Then you win the area.
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2018
- Messages
- 861
@ThinkPositive Rarely have we found that many skeletons at all, the fossil record for early humans is sporadic at best. The only evidence we could say for sure was that there was significant gene crossover and mixing between the neanderthal and human lineage, showing interbreeding occurred between the two groups.
Also, we don't know how territorial prehistoric humanoids are, but we do know that the neanderthals went extinct after the arrival of homo sapiens. So I wouldn't rule out direct attacks like those depicted here. Just because the few hundred skeletons of neanderthals currently found don't show any massive fights doesn't mean they don't happen, nor do I believe it to be fighting exclusively across species boundaries, where groups of sapiens or neanderthal could fight against groups of their own species.
Also, we don't know how territorial prehistoric humanoids are, but we do know that the neanderthals went extinct after the arrival of homo sapiens. So I wouldn't rule out direct attacks like those depicted here. Just because the few hundred skeletons of neanderthals currently found don't show any massive fights doesn't mean they don't happen, nor do I believe it to be fighting exclusively across species boundaries, where groups of sapiens or neanderthal could fight against groups of their own species.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- May 29, 2018
- Messages
- 423
@Huapollon We've found a couple thousand pre-10BC skeletons so there's quite a few actually.
Direct attacks might've occurred for sure, but many assume that the neanderthals were eradicated, and that's all it is, an assumption. 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 I'm not saying you say that. I'm saying that people do think so.
What's more likely is that they were uncooperative with each other, and therefore their race diminished, and maybe the last few were murdered because of said uncooperativeness.
They actually had larger brains than us, like wolves have larger brains than dogs. However, there are certain intelligence tests that domesticized species perform better than their counterparts, in spite of their smaller brains. Which probably plays in to social behaviour. And soon, wild wolves will soon be eradicated as well, while dogs are one of the species that does the best on this planet right now. To me, it seems that history repeats itself. Smaller, less threatening and more affable species remain, while aggressive ones fade away.
Direct attacks might've occurred for sure, but many assume that the neanderthals were eradicated, and that's all it is, an assumption. 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 I'm not saying you say that. I'm saying that people do think so.
What's more likely is that they were uncooperative with each other, and therefore their race diminished, and maybe the last few were murdered because of said uncooperativeness.
They actually had larger brains than us, like wolves have larger brains than dogs. However, there are certain intelligence tests that domesticized species perform better than their counterparts, in spite of their smaller brains. Which probably plays in to social behaviour. And soon, wild wolves will soon be eradicated as well, while dogs are one of the species that does the best on this planet right now. To me, it seems that history repeats itself. Smaller, less threatening and more affable species remain, while aggressive ones fade away.
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2018
- Messages
- 861
@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.
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.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- May 29, 2018
- Messages
- 423
@Huapollon Dogs didn't start out as naive, it's called selective breeding. Humans and dogs have a history of over 100,000 years, they were probably akin to wolves at first.
The smaller brains are found in domesticated animals relative to their wild counterparts, and has all the correlation in the world when seen relative to each other.
The point being made was that as sociability comes into play, the more social=/=kinder specimen will outlive the less social=/=meaner ones. Ergo, the ones that survived was not the mean ones, but the kind ones.
You're right, they probably weren't murdered at all. Not that I said they were, I was just imagining it as a possibility.
The smaller brains are found in domesticated animals relative to their wild counterparts, and has all the correlation in the world when seen relative to each other.
The point being made was that as sociability comes into play, the more social=/=kinder specimen will outlive the less social=/=meaner ones. Ergo, the ones that survived was not the mean ones, but the kind ones.
You're right, they probably weren't murdered at all. Not that I said they were, I was just imagining it as a possibility.
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2018
- Messages
- 861
@ThinkPositive Hmm... I guess I should clarify. Its not that they are "definitively" naive, but rather "comparatively" naive to their brothers before the divergence, such that they did not simply growl or hide or bite at the first appearance of other species. I wouldn't push it all to selective breeding, as selective breeding is just accelerated "artificial" natural selection, where desired traits are amplified (and rarely invented out of nothingness, such as making an animal talk english). Once again, wolves are not more mean/less social than dogs, there are plenty of evidence that wolves form packs that communicate well (especially during hunting) and care for each other. It's just that they are more cautious toward OTHER species, as they ought to be if they were to survive in the wild. (Since I'd imagine cuddling up with a brown bear is a good way to remove one self from the gene pool~)
Not to mention, humans are plenty mean to other species, with many species literally wiped out by human killing, yet we survive pretty well.
In short, I wouldn't make the conclusion about the "kindness" or "sociability" of a species and their evolutionary success, since their success has less to do with their ability to socialize and more with their utility to humans. (Heck, I'm pretty sure cows aren't remotely as social as wolves are, but they are, by biomass, the most successful species on the planet.)
Not to mention, humans are plenty mean to other species, with many species literally wiped out by human killing, yet we survive pretty well.
In short, I wouldn't make the conclusion about the "kindness" or "sociability" of a species and their evolutionary success, since their success has less to do with their ability to socialize and more with their utility to humans. (Heck, I'm pretty sure cows aren't remotely as social as wolves are, but they are, by biomass, the most successful species on the planet.)
Similar threads
