Let's talk about the little we know about the some 190,000 years humans were alive before the Neolithic age. You know, ancient artifacts, interspecies loving in Africa, Europe, and Asia, other species of humans, why we're the only bipedal apes alive, etc.
Pic related, Venus of Willendorf, some 28,000 years old.
So who built Gobekli Tepe? What was its purpose? Was it the same culture that built Catalhoyuk?
That was a fertility statue, so it's not like all of them looked like that.
I can't tell if that's afro-textured hair or braids. Considering the time period it could very well be both.
Anyway, how different would the world be if Neanderthals were around?
>Who built Gobekli Tepe
Probably Proto-Indo Europeans or some other human ethnic group from the region.
>What was its purpose?
Possibly for religion.
>Was it the same culture that built Catalhoyuk?
Maybe not, there is a significant age difference between the two.
>Probably Proto-Indo Europeans or some other human ethnic group from the region.
Wait, you're saying humans built that? Local ones too, like from around the area?!
You're directly descended from those "uggos", so they couldn't have been that ugly.
At least Sapiens didn't look like this small brained, no-chin having motherfucker.
Does anyone ever think of the billions of humans who lived, loved, suffered, and died before even Egypt was a thing? Not only do we have the legacy of our ancient forefathers to uphold as we continue to develop as a race, but also the nameless, countless tribes that were born in an alien world ruled by the inscrutable powers of nature.
For all their pain and struggle, there will never be a human born again who will look upon the night sky with the same sublime wonder as those people did.
I heard an interesting theory long ago, but I haven't been able to find any sources and it seems unlikely to me, about why neanderthals failed and humans succeeded.
The neanderthal's arm was different from a human one, as it was for one reason or another, whether due to different joints or muscles or what not, unable to execute an overhand throw, as a human can. This meant a lack of ranged weaponry, whether it be a simple rock or a throwing spear, due to the impossibility of performing the more accurate overhand throw, and gave humans the edge in conflicts and hunting.
It seems implausible to me, as from my limited understanding of evolutionary biology, internal skeletal structures such as joints don't change much within a biological family, and having such a radically different arm structure would seem to me to make it impossible for neanderthals and humans to interbreed as they supposedly did. Still, does anyone have any thoughts?
It's kinda poetic, in a certain way.
Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Heidelbergensis (possibly Erectus in Asia if we did breed with them there) are all separate species, but close enough to breed with and have fertile children. Wolves and Coyotes do it all the time.
That's because very few humans were built like Venus up there. Count your blessings.
>some caveman carves a fat bitch for shits and giggles
>it's a fertility goddess
Why do we always give some profound significance to everything the ancients did like imagination didn't exist until the 20th century? It's like an archaeologist finding a fucking sonichu medal 10000 years from now and thinking it's deity we all worshiped.
>why we're the only bipedal apes alive
One of those ideas left over from when Neanderthals had to be inferior to homo sapiens in every way because that was just the thinking at the time
The claim had tenuous evidence at best, there isn't really a strong case for the idea that neandertals can't throw overhand.
>huge plagues like the Black Death and Spanish Flu
>constants pogroms and genocides
>huge famines every few decades
>60 years pointing enough nukes at each other to blow up the planet twice.
>It's like an archaeologist finding a fucking sonichu medal 10000 years from now and thinking it's deity we all worshipped
That's a hilarious image
Because we make shit like that all the time now. The average high schooler can doodle some shitty naked shit. Back then only few people had the time and skills to dedicate to shit like that, so it had to be for some more important purpose to devote all the time and calories to.
>are all separate species, but close enough to breed with and have fertile children
Only rarely. It would have been like lions and tigers.
It's hard to speculate, but sapiens lived plenty of time in Europe with dark skin and even today darker groups like the Inuit can live even further north. So far I think Neanderthals are the oldest known population to have had lighter skin.
>Because we make shit like that all the time now. The average high schooler can doodle some shitty naked shit. Back then only few people had the time and skills to dedicate to shit like that, so it had to be for some more important purpose to devote all the time and calories to.
But sahlins claims they had a lot more spare time than people now.
>and even today darker groups like the Inuit can live even further north
but that isn't retention of darker skin from when they closer to the equator, it's an adaptation to light reflecting off off the snow/ice
Yeah, for hunter-gatherers, work isn't the limiting factor on production, it's more the season/local availability and so on.
The "fertility goddess" thing jumps a bit to conclusion, it could be some toy for children or a puppet to tell some story or whatever.
Free time, but how much of it would be dedicated to spending months and years figuring out how to carve. You also have modern hunter gatherers today and can study the kind of importance they give to carved figures or other similar things that need a lot of specialized time to make.
No, their ancestors had dark skin as well. It has to do with the diet, not the reflecting sunlight. The Inuit are able to get their vitamin D from their diet, but ancient Europeans relied on sunlight exposure.
>but ancient Europeans relied on sunlight exposure
Well, European skin has really lightened since they started to farm. Before then they were pretty much brown.
That's what I meant. They weren't able to supplement it with their diet like the Inuit and other groups were able to. We don't know if Erectus would have been in the same boat or not, but they would have been far, far before agriculture.
It's not a major issue if they can protect their eyes, and even Inuit still need protection for their eyes despite darker skin.
It makes sense that homo came from Africa, the climate favored apes and the grassland=upright wAlking and all, but homo spread out of Africa for millions of years and yet those species were all dead ends.
You mean why did africa make the smartest bipedal apes?
Well by then the desert had expanded, food was getting scarcer. Look at the other great apes, intelligence is a great way to deal with food stress by hunting more effectively together, using technology to increase available food through hunting or processing, and having to remember where scarce resources like water are. The larger desert contributes because you have to be a certain amount of competent to cross that, having at least mastered clothes and fire.
It's just random chance, some got lucky, some didn't. Also climate change favored sapiens by growing the grasslands in places like Europe and diminishing the forests that neanderthals lived in. Sapiens also had more children on average than neanderthals and possibly other species.
I'm not bringing up reflected sunlight in relation to skin color because of anything to do with vision stupid. The fuck sense does that make?
Snow reflects UV radiation, light skinned people can get sunburned from snowy areas even though there is technically less UV radiation coming directly from the sun (per unit of area)
But living in Eurasia was much more difficult than living in Africa. Neanderthals were likely just as intelligent as Sapiens-Sapiens. Instead of looking at what pressures there were in Africa on intelligence, maybe we should look at what selective pressures there were on language and communication. It's clear that Neanderthals lacked compared to Sapiens in that respect.
There is something in the subconscious of humanity that popularized large life giving breasts and wide birthing hips. In a epoch of time when humanity was straining to gain a foothold on the tree of life these feminine traits mixed with alpha male sperm provides the survival of our species. This is the age of miracles and wonder. When thick women are just a fetish. Hence the depletion of humanities gene pool, and why so many fucktards have survived to complain.
>But living in Eurasia was much more difficult than living in Africa
See now you're talking about these giant landmasses
Living on the east coast of africa where the rain gets stopped by the mountains creating the grasslands is really hard living.
See, once you're an ape you're already really smart for an animal. Sapiens just got the based FOX-P2 gene.
32 thousand years old, a cave somehwere in France
Herzog made a doc about it called "Cave of forgotten dreams" very interesting.
Here's the wiki on it.
It's amazing drawings, then seem to have movement. And these guys drawed better than i do.
>There is something in the subconscious of humanity that popularized large life giving breasts and wide birthing hips. In a epoch of time when humanity was straining to gain a foothold on the tree of life these feminine traits mixed with alpha male sperm provides the survival of our species. This is the age of miracles and wonder. When thick women are just a fetish. Hence the depletion of humanities gene pool, and why so many fucktards have survived to complain.
> the truth hurts
Sorry but why do we assume that? Some dude doodling on the wall with berry juice ink is hardly a massive time sink. People have probably always gotten bored and made stupid shit. That huge-titted statue is probably the earliest version of /b/ on earth; we're lucky it didn't have a dick attached.
So in a hunter gatherer society certain individuals were allowes to paint on cave walls.
Perhaps allowed to mold statues.
These were not the jobs of alpha males!
So either females or beta males
Created that which history and humanities studies
Whose the beta now?
Too drunk to.tell the tale so how could artistically paint it?
I read an article recently in a magazine, basically said that the tribes on the cows of Africa that learned how to harvest shellfish, were pressured to cooperate more to defend their territory, more pressure to cooperate then being nomadic thus more likelihood of a gene that gives those skills being propagated.
I'd like to think that some Clovis Paleo-Indian hunter once hiked through the same mountains as I do, thinking about the same basic questions of life as he stalked a deer with a much lighter step than I could ever manage.
Considering how devoted the autists on the cwcki are, I don't think it's all that wrong of a discovery.
Chris is the most documented individual ever to have lived.
In 500 years, they will know every minute detail of this man's life as clear as day, even when major events blur into obscurity.
Chris Chan is the culmination of all history. There has never been a subject more recorded, and I doubt there will in our lifetimes.
>Neanderthals were likely just as intelligent as Sapiens-Sapiens.
Is the capacity for abstract thought on a high enough level to produce language not a sign of higher intelligence? The existence of effective languages that are mostly based around grunts, clicks, etcetera, means that if they had the ability, even Neanderthals could likely have developed higher language skills.
megafauna is unsustainable, it's an over specialization to an environmental non constant. it's the reason why we've survived and thrived for as long as we have, we have phenotypic plasticity which allows us to adapt to most climates on earth as well as the ability to utilize a broad spectrum diet
it really is. it's fascinating to think that we're really not different at all from the men living in 10,000 bce. the only difference is that we have the benefit of collectivized knowledge
Thing is though, I think we have changed a bit, not so much in intelligence, but more I personality. People genetically predisposed to aggressiveness, including warriors, wife beaters etc,and straight up psychopath murderers probably had an easier to.e breeding back then. I think, based on no evidence at all, that they have been thinned from the herd at least somewhat in some places ad societies became more peaceful.
>megafauna is unsustainable, it's an over specialization to an environmental non constant
yeah, unless your environment is constant enough
You can't just say something like growing to a relatively large size is always an unsustainable dead end
I don't think the genetic predispositions have changed so much as the cultural grooming. we still have a place in society for all manner of aggressive behaviors, it's just that the outlets have changed. it's a matter of redistribution
Oldest known bone tools found in my homeland of DRC estimated between 110,000-80,000 years old
it has been in every environment it's occurred within. the thing with megafaunal growth is that it requires a relatively extreme constant which is never sustainable on earth (first reptilian size explosion then mammalian). if the constant required has never been sustained on earth there is no reason to believe it isn't a dead end
Quite beautiful given their antiquity
True, but I think for at least the worst offenders, people who are violent and bloodlust as hell, my argument might stand. These people would've had a niche back then, now they can't exist cus they get destroyed.
>tfw you will never, ever know with certainty who inhabited Europe during prehistory
It seems to have been a proto-IE people that developed into Proto-Celts/Basques, and also some Sami-type people in the north. Anyone have any evidence otherwise?
No, why do you disagree? There are obviously outlets for aggression but serial murder or warlord rape a village types (and its a fact that this can be genetically inherited) have no outlet without getting destroyed.
i'm confident they revered their ancestors, ancestor worship is basically the origin of most religions. as for us though, i doubt even in their wildest dreams they imagined that humanity would turn into what it is today, however as fas as intellectual capacity goes humans have remained unchanged for 100000 years, so i'm sure just like we do today they hoped that their descendants would go on to bigger and better things, seeing things, building things, learning things. it's human nature
Those of us from Katanga have an interesting situation as being the only place in the whole of Africa to have both Khoisan and Pygmy populations settle in the same area.
But it's extremely important to understand both terms simplify African genetic groups. Pygmies are not one people, genetically they are two races that diverged long ago between east and western groups. Among the Khoisan you have many, many races of people.
Northern Zambia Khoisan
Every year we find more genetic traces that allude to a much broader understanding of Africa.
To specifically answer your question, I cannot say as I've never taken a test but all Congolese in general have Pygmy ancestry exclusively maternal because of general practices of needing women but having that specific marker is a bit rarer, it's mostly autosomal that we see it.
>It's like an archaeologist finding a fucking sonichu medal 10000 years from now and thinking it's deity we all worshiped.
Please God make this happen
>more than 100 kilos
In common parlance "megafauna" is used to describe big scary giant monsters. Most people don't know about the specific definitions.], which those who do don't always even agree on.
Yup because cave paintings are tantamount to highways electrical poles WiFi and data usage. Humans are just stupid, fuck.... they have means to commute intelligence but use it for stupidity.
History is written by victors. The losers... are dead.
That's not true, can we please kill this meme there is no real proof of that. Australian Aboriginals changed like every other population, they only started firestick farming as a response to climatic changes.
Firestick farming =/= agricultural farming.
Yes the environment changed to be warmer, causing changes in hunting and gathering habits. but firestick farming is akin to forest gardening. For their entire history, the vast majority of groups were semi- / totally nomadic.
There are no sustainable farmable animals or plants on the continent, meaning there was no reason or method for Aboriginies to settle down into more permanent residences.
1. I used fire intensification to show Aboriginal culture to be dynamic as opposed to this time capsule like thing people fling around
2. Intensive Foraging is a valid form of subsistence that allows in many instances long term if not year round settlement and yes such a thing occurs in Australia
Of the top of my head Budj Bim which created aquacultural systems centred around eel farming that led to stone homes and a year round population.
Aboriginals did not live frozen in time, they constantly changed and so did their culture.
>firestick farming is akin to forest gardening
you mean "horticulture"
it's not how that word is commonly used, but anthropology sets it us as that action of tending to mostly wild areas that predate agriculture and domestication
I never stated they were in a time capsule.
>Yes the environment changed to be warmer, causing changes in hunting and gathering habits
However, development was much slower than other Neolithic communities, due to the environmental factors, as I stated earlier.
Intensive foraging did occur, however, when the surrounding area was depleted, the group would move on to another area (this all depends on the fertility of the land).
Eels have a life cycle similar to salmon, whereby they must migrate to fresh water to spawn. This happens seasonally, meaning the aborigines could not sustain themselves on ell year round. And not every group had their own eel farm (obviously)
There are always exceptions to this, the continent is massive, and there were many different tribes, with their own customs. But nomadic / semi nomadic was the most widespread way of life.
> There are always exceptions to this, the continent is massive, and there were many different tribes, with their own customs. But nomadic / semi nomadic was the most widespread way of life.
This is only one tribe. As I said, there are many exceptions, as each tribe operated in their lands differently.
>pounding stones and chisels
>So who built Gobekli Tepe?
Probably local sedentary, but still hunter-gatherer culture. This happens when the environment is extraordinarily rich in natural resources (Pacific Northwest natives come to mind). Pretty much nothing can be said about their ethnicity and nothing at all about their language (though most probably nothing resembling any modern language family, judging by how rich linguistically are modern huter-gatherer areas).
>What was its purpose?
Religious and maybe also houses (picrel for a possible reconstruction). Just like in aforomentioned British Columbia. Read this paper for more: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661207
>Was it the same culture that built Catalhoyuk?
Absolutely not, Catalhoyuk was thousands of years later and Neolithic.
>Anyway, how different would the world be if Neanderthals were around?
It would totally different so there's no point talking about it seriously.
But from a fiction perspective, it's cool to think about. I can imagine a society where they're seen as sub-humans and treated like shit by Homo sapiens.
Sheer coincidence. There were actually hominin-like species in different parts of the world where similar environments to Africa existed (for example Lufengpithecus in Asia), but none of them managed to get consciousness before going extinct/climatic change forcing them to be more monkey-like/etc.
Neolithic is also prehistory. It's not like humans suddenly started building civilisations after the hunter-gatherer stage, for thosuands of years the world was populated by agricultural, illiterate societies not who didn't know how to use metal (aka Neolithic).
I meant Modern Era, not necessarily today. Much of North and South Americas, some fragmentary relic populations in Africa, Southeast Asia, linguistic substrates in sedentary societies' languages and Australia come to minf
Damn. Its like you guys dont even know why men draw, sing, dance, ect.
drawing? Nice abstract construct and formulations of idea. Pretty smart shit. Smart is good.
Singing/poetry/story telling? Holy shit, you talk so well and clearily, and its nice to hear. Pretty elaborate shit.
Dancing/music playing? Nice coordination, look at him, flexible, quick, balanced. Sexy as fuck.
Thank you females for making us do seemingly meaningless things that turned out to be the reason we developed past survival.
The Venus of Brassempouy, 25 000 years old. Oldest known representation of a human face.