9 ms·

Sudden Neolithic population drop was the result of brutal warfare: study

105 points by montrose 8y ago

varjag 8y ago
Interesting to see DNA forensic methods substitute for traditional anthropologic and historical studies. The next wave of social collapse was much better known due to established lore and culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
dkoubsky 8y ago
Related: Humans have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree/ https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-...
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I think that headline is very easy to misunderstand. Less interesting, but more accurate headline: Men have offspring with more different partners than women do. So there are more unique women in the family tree of humanity than men. Of course the number of men and women as direct ancestors is identical if we ignore repeats.
  - kittiepryde 8y ago
    I've seen it as, 80% of women pass on their genes, but only 40% of men. (I assume that's no longer true today)
    - smallnamespace 8y ago
      There is still a gender gap, but it's less extreme (on a percentage basis) now: By age 40, 85% of women had had a birth, and 76% of men had fathered a child https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf
galieos_ghost 8y ago
survival of the fittest, the sexual dimorphism of humans and ingrained tribalism should make it fairly obvious that conflict between groups was common
jdfellow 8y ago
I'm somewhat bothered by the fact that the illustration is of "cavemen" and video of someone recreating paleolithic technologies. The neolithic period was one of agriculture and early civilization. Stonehenge was built by neolithic peoples, and Egypt, Mesopotamia and China were embryonic civilizations in the neolithic era as well. Cavemen, these were not.
- firmgently 8y ago
  The Daily Express is quite a long way from being a serious newspaper. I don't know US papers but it's probably somewhere around what would happen if Fox News put out a print edition.
- posterboy 8y ago
  The rest of the world though? Especially in contrast ...
  - merdreubu 8y ago
    Maydanets, 4000 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_culture#/media/File:Trypillian_city_(Maydanets).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_cul... Talianki, 4000 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_culture#/media/File:Talianki_(Trypillian_city).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_cul...
    - posterboy 8y ago
      ... The rest of the world though? Maybe not caves, but tents or whatever. All the stone-built, permanent settlements you can come up with still leave enough room. I think it might as well be that stark contrast leading to domination (pun intended) rather than war between those cities that's suspect. I was wondering about Europe specifically, so thanks for the links.
- benbreen 8y ago
  I agree. Here's the actual study at Nature ("Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck "): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6 Maybe the URL for this submission could be changed?
mabbo 8y ago
2000 years of warfare between males is more than enough time for natural selection to start taking place. I wonder if the resulting human male is one less prone to aggression and warfare? Maybe the reason civilization is even possible today is that the majority of our potential ancestors who couldn't deal with civilized life wiped each other out. Or alternatively, the males who survived were really good at warfare and surviving warfare.
- corey_moncure 8y ago
  Wouldn't the result be the human male that is the most adept at warfare?
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    It's more correct to say that the "society" is the most adept at warfare, because warfare is largely when two groups compete, not individuals. And yes, societies which are better at warfare tend to also have better agriculture, tools, etc, to support their military machine.
    - d0lph 8y ago
      Is it? Were males not the primary fighters? Men are more built for combat (higher testosterone, more muscle mass, endurance etc.).
      - toomuchgov 8y ago
        What was the weapon technology during that time?
      - woodandsteel 8y ago
        ggggtez is not disagreeing with that. He is saying that when one society beats others at warfare, it is not because its males had more testosterone and larger muscles, rather because it had better agriculture and so on.
olivermarks 8y ago
headline: 'scientists conclude' Article 'A SUDDEN and dramatic drop in the number of human males living in Europe, Africa, and Asia 7,000 years ago is evidence of brutal warfare spanning multiple generations, a new study has suggested.' Theory is fact in click bait tabloid headlines...
- dang 8y ago
  We've added the qualifying ": study" bit above. Still, I think this is sort of a nitpick.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    No, it's more than a nitpick, and I think the correction is the wrong one. The study says that there was a Y-chromosome bottleneck, consistent with a very small number of males compared to the number of females. The "was the result of brutal warfare" part is speculation, not the result of the study.
    - posterboy 8y ago
      It is probably a reference to the conclusion part of the paper, simply because it's an obvious hypothesis. It's not necessary that men died like flies, they just didn't procreate, but that's not mutually exclusive. Eitherway, it would be the result of competition with a social aspect.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Sure, it's an obvious hypothesis. I just have a problem with reporting it like it's proven.
- posterboy 8y ago
  > a new study has suggested a new study has suggested, terminal qualifiers are often ignored
Mbioguy 8y ago
There's an interesting cognitive bias where people who are intelligent and informed about one domain, try to interpret information outside that domain. This stereotypically affects doctors or engineers making pronouncements of things as laypersons, and underestimating their own ignorance, commit errors without realizing it. Hacker News is an excellent place to get insight on technology. However, the lack of formal training often means that when other domains are discussed, we get armchair biologists or historians. That is happening here. (The loss of Y-diversity is much, much earlier in date than the Late Bronze Age collapse: starts at roughly 10k years ago, with a little variation depending on what part of the globe you are looking at.) Here's the original article that caused such a stir in 2015. Figure 2 shows the sudden drop in the reproducing Y-population globally (meaning it cannot be explained by genes or migration). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4381518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4381518/ The paper cited in the article alters the date of the event, but really there's a lot of uncertainty remaining. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6 The best current hypothesis to explain this drop (and that no similar one occurred for the reproducing X-population) is the conflict between predominantly agricultural societies versus predominantly hunter-gatherer societies. Until sufficient evidence has been found to rule out this or alternatives, take any explanation with a grain of salt. Look at Figure 2, and you'll notice the Y-axis are different. Between 50-10kya, the effective reproductive population was 3-4 times larger for women than men, globally. This fits with modern anthropological evidence of polygyny in early hunter-gatherer cultures (loose polygyny with on average 3-4 wives per successful male over a lifetime, but with limited ability to enforce fidelity). Y chromosome diversity tends to accumulate, albeit at a lower rate than the X. An agricultural community is likely to be much more homogenous in terms of Y-chromosomes, than a hunter-gatherer one. Power is much more effectively concentrated in these communities, allowing leaders to amass more wives and enforce fidelity much more strictly than in hunter-gatherer societies. Stories of King Solomon's wives, or Sultan Moulay Ismail of Morocco (who reportedly sired hundreds of children) are an easy way to visualize this. While man-for-man, a hunter-gatherer may be healthier and stronger, a hunter-gatherer society may find themselves vastly outnumbered by an agricultural community. Over time, hunter-gatherers would find themselves pushed off of prime land onto marginal land. The newer article mentions a founder effect. Where are these Neolithic pioneers coming from and where are they going to? From agricultural communities, expanding into territory previously held by hunter-gatherers. While certainly many deaths occurred due to combat, Y-chromosomal diversity loss also would have occurred to disease and famine. The agricultural population would continue to rise, while the hunter-gatherers would struggle to maintain on more marginal land. History is replete with stories of taking women, so if this scenario is the best explanation, it is unsurprising that there was not a corresponding drop in X-diversity. This sort of scenario occurred globally. Agriculture independently arose in many places: the near-east, sub-saharan Africa, China, Mexico, the Andes, and possibly others. We've seen what happened to the Americas after Columbus. Similar mechanisms help explain the population-level Y-cide on smaller scales that probably occurred during each of the agricultural expansions above. This hypothesis, while probably the most widely-accepted at present, is challenged by some of the evidence in the newer paper. It will be interesting to see how it falls out once the original authors have a chance to respond or additional voices join the conversation.
nostrademons 8y ago
Note that the observed genetic variance can be explained without any substantial drop in population (male or total): Assume that humans are living in patrilineal clans of roughly 20 males and an equivalent number of females. All males are genetic descendants of the clan patriarch and share the same Y-chromosome markers. All females are born outside the clan and marry into it. Now assume that 95% of clans are wiped out through a couple millenia of warfare. That Y-chromosome is now extinct; all male-line descendants of the patriarch are dead. However, genetic markers carried by the female are not extinct, because the 20 daughters born into the clan have married into 20 different clans, and at least one of them has survived. Note that the population doesn't actually have to drop in this scenario! 95% extinction of clans over 2000 years implies only 0.15% extinction annually, assuming an exponential decay. If warfare is continuous and resources go to the victor, then one clan is exterminated, but the victorious clan quickly doubles in size as it takes the dead clan's resources (and oftentimes, womenfolk). Total population remains roughly constant, but all living descendants come from a tiny percentage of male ancestors. Other articles about this study have made this distinction explicitly (or at least hinted about it), but it's totally missing from the headline.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  So assuming that clans tend to get wiped out all of a piece, and males cross clans much less frequently than clans get wiped out, many of the Y-chromosome lines will go extinct, but few of the mitochondrial DNA lines will go extinct? There are a very few matrilocal human societies; perhaps they show the obverse pattern.
jbattle 8y ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the article - but it sounds like there was a drop of 95% in the population of males living in Europe / Africa / Asia? What kind of World War Zero could possibly explain this? I really can't picture how a state of sustained (for thousands of years?) high-intensity warfare over an area spanning three entire continents could have worked. How many historical instances are there of a population decreasing to 1/20th of previous levels? The 20th century had a couple of instances but that required totalitarianism and modern communication, logistics, and industrial capabilities. The other historical instance I know of is the decimation of New World populations after contact with Europe (through disease). I don't know what other evidence they've assembled, but disease feels like a much better way to explain this population drop than warfare. But what diseases only target males? Dunno. Maybe the early domestication of livestock introduced some kind of chickenpox or dogpox that killed (or sterilized!) males dramatically more frequently than females.
- Kalium 8y ago
  > But what diseases only target males? Dunno. Maybe the early domestication of livestock introduced some kind of chickenpox or dogpox that killed (or sterilized!) males dramatically more frequently than females. Wolbachia is a parasite that, as I understand it, kills male infected at a very young age. Now, this only affects insects, but it does show that something this level of sex-selective is possible.
- mcguire 8y ago
  One common feature of all the theories I've seen is that the warfare isn't all that high intensity. On the other hand, it does seem strangely sustained, widespread, and in a narrow time span.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  It wasn’t a 95% drop in male population. The population expanded rapidly but which men reproduced was very lopsided. Some men left no descendants because their folk didn’t stop hunter gathering and were eventually killed or starved. Some left many, kings and warlords. In between were everyone else.
- 8y ago
kristaps 8y ago
"The meek shall inherit the earth" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:5
rjsw 8y ago
The recent articles on the "incel" movement made me wonder whether pressures to encourage monogamy were the cause of modern civilization, by allowing a greater variety of male genotypes to reproduce.
- rjsw 8y ago
  To clarify, I'm a left-wing atheist. I think that a big priority is to reduce the world population, if the easiest way to do that is by improving women's lives then great. I think we also need to recognize how we got to this point though.
z3t4 8y ago
Probably because the son inherited the land. And daughters where married away. If you run this simulation a couple of generations you will probably get similar results.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pvaldes 8y ago
Or maybe you can't hunt to extinction most big mammal european fauna without fireweapons, including lions, sabertooth, european elephants, european rhinoceros, uros, several species of bison, huge cave bears, european black bears, wolves, tigers etc, without losing a lot of young men in the process

105 points by montrose 8y ago

Interesting to see DNA forensic methods substitute for traditional anthropologic and historical studies. The next wave of social collapse was much better known due to established lore and culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse

dkoubsky 8y ago

Related: Humans have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree/ https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-...

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I think that headline is very easy to misunderstand. Less interesting, but more accurate headline: Men have offspring with more different partners than women do. So there are more unique women in the family tree of humanity than men. Of course the number of men and women as direct ancestors is identical if we ignore repeats.
- kittiepryde 8y ago
  I've seen it as, 80% of women pass on their genes, but only 40% of men. (I assume that's no longer true today)
  - smallnamespace 8y ago
    There is still a gender gap, but it's less extreme (on a percentage basis) now: By age 40, 85% of women had had a birth, and 76% of men had fathered a child https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf

galieos_ghost 8y ago

survival of the fittest, the sexual dimorphism of humans and ingrained tribalism should make it fairly obvious that conflict between groups was common

jdfellow 8y ago

I'm somewhat bothered by the fact that the illustration is of "cavemen" and video of someone recreating paleolithic technologies. The neolithic period was one of agriculture and early civilization. Stonehenge was built by neolithic peoples, and Egypt, Mesopotamia and China were embryonic civilizations in the neolithic era as well. Cavemen, these were not.

firmgently 8y ago
The Daily Express is quite a long way from being a serious newspaper. I don't know US papers but it's probably somewhere around what would happen if Fox News put out a print edition.
posterboy 8y ago
The rest of the world though? Especially in contrast ...
- merdreubu 8y ago
  Maydanets, 4000 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_culture#/media/File:Trypillian_city_(Maydanets).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_cul... Talianki, 4000 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_culture#/media/File:Talianki_(Trypillian_city).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_cul...
  - posterboy 8y ago
    ... The rest of the world though? Maybe not caves, but tents or whatever. All the stone-built, permanent settlements you can come up with still leave enough room. I think it might as well be that stark contrast leading to domination (pun intended) rather than war between those cities that's suspect. I was wondering about Europe specifically, so thanks for the links.
benbreen 8y ago
I agree. Here's the actual study at Nature ("Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck "): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6 Maybe the URL for this submission could be changed?

mabbo 8y ago

2000 years of warfare between males is more than enough time for natural selection to start taking place. I wonder if the resulting human male is one less prone to aggression and warfare? Maybe the reason civilization is even possible today is that the majority of our potential ancestors who couldn't deal with civilized life wiped each other out. Or alternatively, the males who survived were really good at warfare and surviving warfare.

corey_moncure 8y ago
Wouldn't the result be the human male that is the most adept at warfare?
- ggggtez 8y ago
  It's more correct to say that the "society" is the most adept at warfare, because warfare is largely when two groups compete, not individuals. And yes, societies which are better at warfare tend to also have better agriculture, tools, etc, to support their military machine.
  - d0lph 8y ago
    Is it? Were males not the primary fighters? Men are more built for combat (higher testosterone, more muscle mass, endurance etc.).
    - toomuchgov 8y ago
      What was the weapon technology during that time?
    - woodandsteel 8y ago
      ggggtez is not disagreeing with that. He is saying that when one society beats others at warfare, it is not because its males had more testosterone and larger muscles, rather because it had better agriculture and so on.

olivermarks 8y ago

headline: 'scientists conclude' Article 'A SUDDEN and dramatic drop in the number of human males living in Europe, Africa, and Asia 7,000 years ago is evidence of brutal warfare spanning multiple generations, a new study has suggested.' Theory is fact in click bait tabloid headlines...

dang 8y ago
We've added the qualifying ": study" bit above. Still, I think this is sort of a nitpick.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  No, it's more than a nitpick, and I think the correction is the wrong one. The study says that there was a Y-chromosome bottleneck, consistent with a very small number of males compared to the number of females. The "was the result of brutal warfare" part is speculation, not the result of the study.
  - posterboy 8y ago
    It is probably a reference to the conclusion part of the paper, simply because it's an obvious hypothesis. It's not necessary that men died like flies, they just didn't procreate, but that's not mutually exclusive. Eitherway, it would be the result of competition with a social aspect.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Sure, it's an obvious hypothesis. I just have a problem with reporting it like it's proven.
posterboy 8y ago
> a new study has suggested a new study has suggested, terminal qualifiers are often ignored

Mbioguy 8y ago

There's an interesting cognitive bias where people who are intelligent and informed about one domain, try to interpret information outside that domain. This stereotypically affects doctors or engineers making pronouncements of things as laypersons, and underestimating their own ignorance, commit errors without realizing it. Hacker News is an excellent place to get insight on technology. However, the lack of formal training often means that when other domains are discussed, we get armchair biologists or historians. That is happening here. (The loss of Y-diversity is much, much earlier in date than the Late Bronze Age collapse: starts at roughly 10k years ago, with a little variation depending on what part of the globe you are looking at.) Here's the original article that caused such a stir in 2015. Figure 2 shows the sudden drop in the reproducing Y-population globally (meaning it cannot be explained by genes or migration). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4381518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4381518/ The paper cited in the article alters the date of the event, but really there's a lot of uncertainty remaining. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6 The best current hypothesis to explain this drop (and that no similar one occurred for the reproducing X-population) is the conflict between predominantly agricultural societies versus predominantly hunter-gatherer societies. Until sufficient evidence has been found to rule out this or alternatives, take any explanation with a grain of salt. Look at Figure 2, and you'll notice the Y-axis are different. Between 50-10kya, the effective reproductive population was 3-4 times larger for women than men, globally. This fits with modern anthropological evidence of polygyny in early hunter-gatherer cultures (loose polygyny with on average 3-4 wives per successful male over a lifetime, but with limited ability to enforce fidelity). Y chromosome diversity tends to accumulate, albeit at a lower rate than the X. An agricultural community is likely to be much more homogenous in terms of Y-chromosomes, than a hunter-gatherer one. Power is much more effectively concentrated in these communities, allowing leaders to amass more wives and enforce fidelity much more strictly than in hunter-gatherer societies. Stories of King Solomon's wives, or Sultan Moulay Ismail of Morocco (who reportedly sired hundreds of children) are an easy way to visualize this. While man-for-man, a hunter-gatherer may be healthier and stronger, a hunter-gatherer society may find themselves vastly outnumbered by an agricultural community. Over time, hunter-gatherers would find themselves pushed off of prime land onto marginal land. The newer article mentions a founder effect. Where are these Neolithic pioneers coming from and where are they going to? From agricultural communities, expanding into territory previously held by hunter-gatherers. While certainly many deaths occurred due to combat, Y-chromosomal diversity loss also would have occurred to disease and famine. The agricultural population would continue to rise, while the hunter-gatherers would struggle to maintain on more marginal land. History is replete with stories of taking women, so if this scenario is the best explanation, it is unsurprising that there was not a corresponding drop in X-diversity. This sort of scenario occurred globally. Agriculture independently arose in many places: the near-east, sub-saharan Africa, China, Mexico, the Andes, and possibly others. We've seen what happened to the Americas after Columbus. Similar mechanisms help explain the population-level Y-cide on smaller scales that probably occurred during each of the agricultural expansions above. This hypothesis, while probably the most widely-accepted at present, is challenged by some of the evidence in the newer paper. It will be interesting to see how it falls out once the original authors have a chance to respond or additional voices join the conversation.

nostrademons 8y ago

Note that the observed genetic variance can be explained without any substantial drop in population (male or total): Assume that humans are living in patrilineal clans of roughly 20 males and an equivalent number of females. All males are genetic descendants of the clan patriarch and share the same Y-chromosome markers. All females are born outside the clan and marry into it. Now assume that 95% of clans are wiped out through a couple millenia of warfare. That Y-chromosome is now extinct; all male-line descendants of the patriarch are dead. However, genetic markers carried by the female are not extinct, because the 20 daughters born into the clan have married into 20 different clans, and at least one of them has survived. Note that the population doesn't actually have to drop in this scenario! 95% extinction of clans over 2000 years implies only 0.15% extinction annually, assuming an exponential decay. If warfare is continuous and resources go to the victor, then one clan is exterminated, but the victorious clan quickly doubles in size as it takes the dead clan's resources (and oftentimes, womenfolk). Total population remains roughly constant, but all living descendants come from a tiny percentage of male ancestors. Other articles about this study have made this distinction explicitly (or at least hinted about it), but it's totally missing from the headline.

solidsnack9000 8y ago
So assuming that clans tend to get wiped out all of a piece, and males cross clans much less frequently than clans get wiped out, many of the Y-chromosome lines will go extinct, but few of the mitochondrial DNA lines will go extinct? There are a very few matrilocal human societies; perhaps they show the obverse pattern.

jbattle 8y ago

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the article - but it sounds like there was a drop of 95% in the population of males living in Europe / Africa / Asia? What kind of World War Zero could possibly explain this? I really can't picture how a state of sustained (for thousands of years?) high-intensity warfare over an area spanning three entire continents could have worked. How many historical instances are there of a population decreasing to 1/20th of previous levels? The 20th century had a couple of instances but that required totalitarianism and modern communication, logistics, and industrial capabilities. The other historical instance I know of is the decimation of New World populations after contact with Europe (through disease). I don't know what other evidence they've assembled, but disease feels like a much better way to explain this population drop than warfare. But what diseases only target males? Dunno. Maybe the early domestication of livestock introduced some kind of chickenpox or dogpox that killed (or sterilized!) males dramatically more frequently than females.

Kalium 8y ago
> But what diseases only target males? Dunno. Maybe the early domestication of livestock introduced some kind of chickenpox or dogpox that killed (or sterilized!) males dramatically more frequently than females. Wolbachia is a parasite that, as I understand it, kills male infected at a very young age. Now, this only affects insects, but it does show that something this level of sex-selective is possible.
mcguire 8y ago
One common feature of all the theories I've seen is that the warfare isn't all that high intensity. On the other hand, it does seem strangely sustained, widespread, and in a narrow time span.
barry-cotter 8y ago
It wasn’t a 95% drop in male population. The population expanded rapidly but which men reproduced was very lopsided. Some men left no descendants because their folk didn’t stop hunter gathering and were eventually killed or starved. Some left many, kings and warlords. In between were everyone else.
8y ago

kristaps 8y ago

"The meek shall inherit the earth" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:5

rjsw 8y ago

The recent articles on the "incel" movement made me wonder whether pressures to encourage monogamy were the cause of modern civilization, by allowing a greater variety of male genotypes to reproduce.

rjsw 8y ago
To clarify, I'm a left-wing atheist. I think that a big priority is to reduce the world population, if the easiest way to do that is by improving women's lives then great. I think we also need to recognize how we got to this point though.

z3t4 8y ago

Probably because the son inherited the land. And daughters where married away. If you run this simulation a couple of generations you will probably get similar results.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pvaldes 8y ago

Or maybe you can't hunt to extinction most big mammal european fauna without fireweapons, including lions, sabertooth, european elephants, european rhinoceros, uros, several species of bison, huge cave bears, european black bears, wolves, tigers etc, without losing a lot of young men in the process