5 ms·

> For anyone curious, there is absolutely no evidence of coordinated violence between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens [0] 'coordinated'. > and it is believed th

> For anyone curious, there is absolutely no evidence of coordinated violence between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens [0] 'coordinated'. > and it is believed that war developed during the Neolithic when well defined territories became more important. What about simple tribal violence? > If it was just "to the victor go the spoils" you'd expect a mix as sometimes one side would win and sometimes the other over the thousands of years. Two examples refutes your assertion. In the US/Canada/Australia, the natives won a few and yet the male native lineage has been effectively wiped out. Almost all the interbreeding between the europeans and natives was between european males and native females. Mexico is another example. About 65% of the male Y chromosome is european while almost 100% of the female lineage is native. Mexico never experienced whole mass european immigration like the US, Canada or Australia. With only a tiny spanish population, over 400 years, the spanish male lineage has come to dominate mexico. > The evidence is much better explained by only male sapiens-female neanderthal couplings producing fertile offspring, which is a common thing for hybrids. Except that modern homo-sapiens completely displaced the neanderthals. If it was simply a matter of innocent hybridization, neanderthals would still exist as they breed better with each other than hybrids do. Not to mention most animals have an innate aversion to hybridization. It only tends to happen as a last resort in the wild.

StopTheWorld 2y ago
> What about simple tribal violence? Is there any evidence of any tribes whatsoever existing over 20,000 years ago? All the evidence points against it. There was no tribal violence 47,000 years ago because there were no tribes!
- linearrust 2y ago
  > Is there any evidence of any tribes whatsoever existing over 20,000 years ago? Hunter gatherer tribes. > There was no tribal violence 47,000 years ago because there were no tribes! Unless you are arguing semantics, yes there were. Tribes and tribal violence.
  - StopTheWorld 2y ago
    > Hunter gatherer tribes Hunter gatherer bands. There's no evidence of any tribes 20,000 years ago. > Unless you are arguing semantics, yes there were. Tribes and tribal violence. There is no evidence of any tribes existing 47,000 years ago. Insofar as tribes, and tribal violence, the OP mentioned them, which is wrong in that time frame, semantics or not.
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      Well this spawned a very lengthy multi day discussion! Hahaha! :)
- defrost 2y ago
  Take a guided tour with Clinton from Ngurrangga Tours as you travel through the Murujuga National Park. With the highest concentration of rock art in the world, rediscover the petroglyphs (rock art) created by the Yaburrara (Northern Ngarluma) people. The rock art has been dated back to before the ice age ended and is approx. over 40,000 years old and there is up to 1 million rock art images scattered across the entire Burrup Peninsula and Dampier Archipelago. As you venture down the creek at Deep Gorge, surrounded by huge granite boulders and Currajong trees, marvel at the petroglyphs etched into the rocks, and gain an appreciation of the Jaburara Tribe’s self sufficient lifestyle. Shell middens provide evidence of their seafood diets; the granite boulders would have offered shelter from the harsh weather conditions; and the creek, now mostly dry, would have been their only water supply. ~ https://therangeskarratha.com.au/explore/rock-art https://therangeskarratha.com.au/explore/rock-art And all the other aboriginal sites across Australia that are older than 20,000 years. And the sites tracking back toward Africa that line the human expansion outwards. What kind of world do you live in that has denied you access to evidence of early human existence?
  - StopTheWorld 2y ago
    > What kind of world do you live in that has denied you access to evidence of early human existence? I didn't say humans didn't exist 20,000 years ago, I said there was no tribal violence. There's no evidence the Jaburara were organized as a tribe 40,000 years ago, although later on that may have happened.
jjk166 2y ago
> What about simple tribal violence? That is what I mean by coordinated. Group on group violence. Presumably there were interpersonal conflicts over such an immense period of time, and we have evidence of individuals potentially being injured by artifacts, which could be accidental or intentional, but we don't find anything like signs of a struggle at an inhabited cave or post battle burial pit or stolen artifacts that would be loot, or attempts at creating defenses like fortifications or armor, or cave paintings depicting battles, or signs of a culture that valued warriors. There is no evidence of any coordinated conflicts at all, nonetheless a specific Sapien vs Neanderthal conflict. We only see evidence for such conflicts in the neolithic after people adopted sedentary lifestyles and territory would be defended. It's further worth noting that in observations of modern hunter gatherer societies, interpersonal violence is common but group violence is basically non-existent. The idea of savages killing the men and stealing the women of neighboring tribes is a myth. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that things were substantially different then. > Two examples refutes your assertion. In the US/Canada/Australia, the natives won a few and yet the male native lineage has been effectively wiped out. Almost all the interbreeding between the europeans and natives was between european males and native females. Mexico is another example. About 65% of the male Y chromosome is european while almost 100% of the female lineage is native. Mexico never experienced whole mass european immigration like the US, Canada or Australia. With only a tiny spanish population, over 400 years, the spanish male lineage has come to dominate mexico. Those examples do not refute the assertion. For starters, Native American Y-chromosomes come from many haplogroups and are predominantly not european in origin, so your claim is just incorrect on the face. Second, we know for a fact that Homo Sapiens came to europe for several thousand years and then died out. The Neanderthals didn't just get a few licks in, they won overall. Yet we have no evidence of any male neanderthal ever fathering a child with a sapien female. Finally, the europeans didn't murder all the men and rape all the women in the americas; while Europe gained polical hegemony and did numerous terrible things, there were numerous alliances with various native polities, and the overwhelming majority of the Americas' depopulation was due to disease. > Except that modern homo-sapiens completely displaced the neanderthals. If it was simply a matter of innocent hybridization, neanderthals would still exist as they breed better with each other than hybrids do. Not to mention most animals have an innate aversion to hybridization. It only tends to happen as a last resort in the wild. I don't understand what you are trying to argue here. Sapiens having difficulty producing fertile offspring with Neanderthals would make it more likely that Neanderthals die out, not keep them around. And given that this interbreeding was happening rarely over the course of thousands of years as Neanderthals were going extinct, hybridizing as a last resort is a very likely explanation for the pairings.

StopTheWorld 2y ago

> What about simple tribal violence? Is there any evidence of any tribes whatsoever existing over 20,000 years ago? All the evidence points against it. There was no tribal violence 47,000 years ago because there were no tribes!

linearrust 2y ago
> Is there any evidence of any tribes whatsoever existing over 20,000 years ago? Hunter gatherer tribes. > There was no tribal violence 47,000 years ago because there were no tribes! Unless you are arguing semantics, yes there were. Tribes and tribal violence.
- StopTheWorld 2y ago
  > Hunter gatherer tribes Hunter gatherer bands. There's no evidence of any tribes 20,000 years ago. > Unless you are arguing semantics, yes there were. Tribes and tribal violence. There is no evidence of any tribes existing 47,000 years ago. Insofar as tribes, and tribal violence, the OP mentioned them, which is wrong in that time frame, semantics or not.
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    Well this spawned a very lengthy multi day discussion! Hahaha! :)
defrost 2y ago
Take a guided tour with Clinton from Ngurrangga Tours as you travel through the Murujuga National Park. With the highest concentration of rock art in the world, rediscover the petroglyphs (rock art) created by the Yaburrara (Northern Ngarluma) people. The rock art has been dated back to before the ice age ended and is approx. over 40,000 years old and there is up to 1 million rock art images scattered across the entire Burrup Peninsula and Dampier Archipelago. As you venture down the creek at Deep Gorge, surrounded by huge granite boulders and Currajong trees, marvel at the petroglyphs etched into the rocks, and gain an appreciation of the Jaburara Tribe’s self sufficient lifestyle. Shell middens provide evidence of their seafood diets; the granite boulders would have offered shelter from the harsh weather conditions; and the creek, now mostly dry, would have been their only water supply. ~ https://therangeskarratha.com.au/explore/rock-art https://therangeskarratha.com.au/explore/rock-art And all the other aboriginal sites across Australia that are older than 20,000 years. And the sites tracking back toward Africa that line the human expansion outwards. What kind of world do you live in that has denied you access to evidence of early human existence?
- StopTheWorld 2y ago
  > What kind of world do you live in that has denied you access to evidence of early human existence? I didn't say humans didn't exist 20,000 years ago, I said there was no tribal violence. There's no evidence the Jaburara were organized as a tribe 40,000 years ago, although later on that may have happened.

jjk166 2y ago

> What about simple tribal violence? That is what I mean by coordinated. Group on group violence. Presumably there were interpersonal conflicts over such an immense period of time, and we have evidence of individuals potentially being injured by artifacts, which could be accidental or intentional, but we don't find anything like signs of a struggle at an inhabited cave or post battle burial pit or stolen artifacts that would be loot, or attempts at creating defenses like fortifications or armor, or cave paintings depicting battles, or signs of a culture that valued warriors. There is no evidence of any coordinated conflicts at all, nonetheless a specific Sapien vs Neanderthal conflict. We only see evidence for such conflicts in the neolithic after people adopted sedentary lifestyles and territory would be defended. It's further worth noting that in observations of modern hunter gatherer societies, interpersonal violence is common but group violence is basically non-existent. The idea of savages killing the men and stealing the women of neighboring tribes is a myth. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that things were substantially different then. > Two examples refutes your assertion. In the US/Canada/Australia, the natives won a few and yet the male native lineage has been effectively wiped out. Almost all the interbreeding between the europeans and natives was between european males and native females. Mexico is another example. About 65% of the male Y chromosome is european while almost 100% of the female lineage is native. Mexico never experienced whole mass european immigration like the US, Canada or Australia. With only a tiny spanish population, over 400 years, the spanish male lineage has come to dominate mexico. Those examples do not refute the assertion. For starters, Native American Y-chromosomes come from many haplogroups and are predominantly not european in origin, so your claim is just incorrect on the face. Second, we know for a fact that Homo Sapiens came to europe for several thousand years and then died out. The Neanderthals didn't just get a few licks in, they won overall. Yet we have no evidence of any male neanderthal ever fathering a child with a sapien female. Finally, the europeans didn't murder all the men and rape all the women in the americas; while Europe gained polical hegemony and did numerous terrible things, there were numerous alliances with various native polities, and the overwhelming majority of the Americas' depopulation was due to disease. > Except that modern homo-sapiens completely displaced the neanderthals. If it was simply a matter of innocent hybridization, neanderthals would still exist as they breed better with each other than hybrids do. Not to mention most animals have an innate aversion to hybridization. It only tends to happen as a last resort in the wild. I don't understand what you are trying to argue here. Sapiens having difficulty producing fertile offspring with Neanderthals would make it more likely that Neanderthals die out, not keep them around. And given that this interbreeding was happening rarely over the course of thousands of years as Neanderthals were going extinct, hybridizing as a last resort is a very likely explanation for the pairings.