Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

Yes, probably.
From what I can tell, "human history" is a very, very violent subset of "the timespan in which humans have existed". The time before cities and crops and metal and nations probably wasn't filled with carnage, so overall humans probably aren't adjusted for that either. If anything a modern human is way more exposed to human conflict than most people ever born.

[Loud Whispers]

Yes, probably.
From what I can tell, "human history" is a very, very violent subset of "the timespan in which humans have existed". The time before cities and crops and metal and nations probably wasn't filled with carnage, so overall humans probably aren't adjusted for that either. If anything a modern human is way more exposed to human conflict than most people ever born.

If this is any measure to go by, having no cities nor crops was no obstacle to mayhem and carnage.

At the time of the battle, northern Europe seems to have been devoid of towns or even small villages. As far as archaeologists can tell, people here were loosely connected culturally to Scandinavia and lived with their extended families on individual farmsteads, with a population density of fewer than five people per square kilometer. The closest known large settlement around this time is more than 350 kilometers to the southeast, in Watenstedt. It was a landscape not unlike agrarian parts of Europe today, except without roads, telephones, or radio.

And yet chemical tracers in the remains suggest that most of the Tollense warriors came from hundreds of kilometers away.

Humans are very good at organizing to eliminate competition, it is our social intelligence which sets us apart from less successful species. I can't think of any nomadic civilizations that weren't capable and willing warrior-hunters, and of all the first civilizations which settled down to make the first agrarian urban civilizations, I can't think of any that were peaceful or weren't conquered and expanded by a martial invader. A 10,000 year old battle site in Kenya shows that prehistory wasn't a peaceful subset of human existence, it was just a subset of human history our ancestors could not preserve the history of.

There were no signs of deliberate burial, and several individuals have multiple major traumatic lesions including an obsidian bladelet embedded in one of the skulls.

The only difference between today and yesterday is that we have far more ways to inflict injury, even to friendly and allied humans - past experienced no side effects from using an obsidian hatchet the same way today's humans can be injured from constant exposure to explosions for example. But I also think that while we are not any less or more violent than 10,000 years ago, our capacity for restraint has certainly been cultivated. Urban society cannot progress without at least the smallest honour amongst thieves, even where some societies fail, others succeed. For citizens of nations in North America, it is likely they are insulated from conflict more than most people ever born

[Lord Shonus]

Yes, probably.
From what I can tell, "human history" is a very, very violent subset of "the timespan in which humans have existed". The time before cities and crops and metal and nations probably wasn't filled with carnage, so overall humans probably aren't adjusted for that either. If anything a modern human is way more exposed to human conflict than most people ever born.

Some Neanderthal skeletons have been found with damage that was almost certainly deliberately caused by human-wielded weapons. Man killing Man is a situation as old as Man.

[ChairmanPoo]

Yes, probably.
From what I can tell, "human history" is a very, very violent subset of "the timespan in which humans have existed". The time before cities and crops and metal and nations probably wasn't filled with carnage, so overall humans probably aren't adjusted for that either. If anything a modern human is way more exposed to human conflict than most people ever born.

If this is any measure to go by, having no cities nor crops was no obstacle to mayhem and carnage.

At the time of the battle, northern Europe seems to have been devoid of towns or even small villages. As far as archaeologists can tell, people here were loosely connected culturally to Scandinavia and lived with their extended families on individual farmsteads, with a population density of fewer than five people per square kilometer. The closest known large settlement around this time is more than 350 kilometers to the southeast, in Watenstedt. It was a landscape not unlike agrarian parts of Europe today, except without roads, telephones, or radio.

And yet chemical tracers in the remains suggest that most of the Tollense warriors came from hundreds of kilometers away.

Humans are very good at organizing to eliminate competition, it is our social intelligence which sets us apart from less successful species. I can't think of any nomadic civilizations that weren't capable and willing warrior-hunters, and of all the first civilizations which settled down to make the first agrarian urban civilizations, I can't think of any that were peaceful or weren't conquered and expanded by a martial invader. A 10,000 year old battle site in Kenya shows that prehistory wasn't a peaceful subset of human existence, it was just a subset of human history our ancestors could not preserve the history of.

There were no signs of deliberate burial, and several individuals have multiple major traumatic lesions including an obsidian bladelet embedded in one of the skulls.

The only difference between today and yesterday is that we have far more ways to inflict injury, even to friendly and allied humans - past experienced no side effects from using an obsidian hatchet the same way today's humans can be injured from constant exposure to explosions for example. But I also think that while we are not any less or more violent than 10,000 years ago, our capacity for restraint has certainly been cultivated. Urban society cannot progress without at least the smallest honour amongst thieves, even where some societies fail, others succeed. For citizens of nations in North America, it is likely they are insulated from conflict more than most people ever born

War. War never changes.

[Kagus]

Also, chimps do war too. And genocide. You really don't need civilization to be twats to each other.

[Sirus]

Also, chimps do war too. And genocide. You really don't need civilization to be twats to each other.

Hell ants do it.

[redwallzyl]

Yes, probably.
From what I can tell, "human history" is a very, very violent subset of "the timespan in which humans have existed". The time before cities and crops and metal and nations probably wasn't filled with carnage, so overall humans probably aren't adjusted for that either. If anything a modern human is way more exposed to human conflict than most people ever born.

Some Neanderthal skeletons have been found with damage that was almost certainly deliberately caused by human-wielded weapons. Man killing Man is a situation as old as Man.

Interesting thing about Neanderthals. They were definitely cannibals. They also had super high pain tolerance and were generally tougher then nails. From skeletal remains it has been found they all have trauma most consistent with that of bull riders and have been found with healed woulds such as severed arms. They also have so much tooth wear that their teeth are all totally flat and their front teeth have the pulp exposed. They seem to not often live past 30. These people did not give a fuck.

[Lord Shonus]

The only remains that suggest cannibalism are the group that also show very little sign of meat eating, while most Neanderthal groups appear to have subsisted primarily on meat. This suggests that cannibalism was not a "standard" practice for the species, but happened in an unusual environment where they were not able to achieve their normal diet.

The cannibalism theory is also not the only explanation for the "butchered" remains. Some cultures have used ritual defleshing as part of burial customs, which could leave similar marks.

[redwallzyl]

The only remains that suggest cannibalism are the group that also show very little sign of meat eating, while most Neanderthal groups appear to have subsisted primarily on meat. This suggests that cannibalism was not a "standard" practice for the species, but happened in an unusual environment where they were not able to achieve their normal diet.

The cannibalism theory is also not the only explanation for the "butchered" remains. Some cultures have used ritual defleshing as part of burial customs, which could leave similar marks.

I know about ritual defleshing but Neanderthals have as of yet no evidence of any ritual practices associated with them which makes any such thing highly unlikely. Source, biological anthropological methods class taught by a guy with a PhD in biological anthropology. There is no solid evidence of Neanderthals being culturally modern.

Also I am certain sure there is evidence of human and Neanderthal bones in Neanderthal middens along with other animal bones.

[Lord Shonus]

Of course, cannibalism is the most likely explanation. I'm just tangentially aware of the disputes about neanderthal society due to trying to fact-check a certain novel series.


Edit to comment on your edit:

Could you provide more context on that? I'm only aware of one or two sites that showed such evidence, and neither included modern human bones. Given that it was only conclusively proven that the two species shared range a fairly short time ago (when the NGP proved that the two species had interbred) this would be quite surprising.

[redwallzyl]

Of course, cannibalism is the most likely explanation. I'm just tangentially aware of the disputes about neanderthal society due to trying to fact-check a certain novel series.

I have had several courses that had neanderthal sections so I am more familiar with subject then most people. It is quite interesting but not my area so I cant provide much more then an overview of current thinking.

your edit:
I don't really have time through studies myself but I could go bother Dr. Shaffer if you really want. He probably would know.

[Lord Shonus]

My interest in the matter isn't that strong. If you had a book or journal reference, that would be a reasonable enough request, but I don't care enough to ask for more effort than that.

[Yoink]

I feel like this tab I've had open for a few days may be somewhat relevant.

[Harry Baldman]

I recall it being a long-held consensus that Neanderthals didn't really have much of what we'd consider culture, but recently there's also been a paper about them being the likely authors of the oldest cave paintings found to date, so that might call into question certain ideas about what they were capable of.

[Eric Blank]

I also recall some evidence of sea shells filled with what was believed to be ochre paint or pigment, and the suggestion that the neanderthals on the coast of spain (iirc) were using it as body paint, hence no other evidence of it being actually used, even though it was being made in useable quantities.

Oh, apparently the neanderthal cave paintings were in spain, and they were made with ochre.

Well my memory is fucked apparently but heres a relevant article: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaar5255.full
The exact cause is still disputed i guess.