What happened to neanderthal man?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you simply point out it's not enough evidence, I agree 100% -- it's not enough evidence to prove my current hypothesis.

Instead, it is more suggestive. We'd need more data.

We don't know enough, and at least many researchers wouldn't even be looking for such, and not being observant to find it; consider --

"“It was hands-down the most surprising and disturbing thing that I have ever seen in my years in the forest,” says Stacy Rosenbaum, who researches social behavior in gorillas. Seeing an entire group attack in coordination was totally unheard of..."
Mob violence observed in gorillas for the first time

It's like many just don't...expect...to see an innate, intrinsic capacity for cooperative violence.

I think we don't want to know that (* see note at bottom). We don't want to see our own selfs as innately able to be murderous, brutal, vicious.

We want it to not be true.

So it could be there is a reluctance to find it, possibly.

It's quite easy to take the true fact that if a group isn't too large and has no territorial competition, it will be peaceful.

But that isn't what happens over time in nature, but only temporarily. I think peaceful is always temporary, in untrammeled nature.


-----------
* - (This actually reminds me of the 2005-2010 housing bubble price collapse in the U.S., with many professionals, even at high levels (even in less clear language from those in the Federal Reserve) saying things much like a realtor even, such as "nobody saw it coming".
When the fact is that some already established, well known researchers saw it out ahead of time clearly, like Robert Shiller. Some could see it, and they spoke up, but most did not see it. Blind and deaf on that. They did not want to find out this fact of a price bubble.)

I'm not saying it's not enough evidence. I'm saying that it's not the same thing. The Gombe Chimpanzee war was initiated because of the loss of leadership, not because of two competing populations unexpectedly coming in to contact with the other.
It's not the same thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Gombe Chimpanzee war was initiated because of the loss of leadership,

Didn't scientists discover Gombe on Venus in the Fall of 1991?

 

[joshua 1 9]

There is plenty of evidence of social behaviour in Neanderthals. Burial sites and evidence that they cared for their wounded.

So they were a pack animal and the weak members of the pack got to eat the leftovers that the strong hunters did not want.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Didn't scientists discover Gombe on Venus in the Fall of 1991?

Wha... what does that even mean?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So they were a pack animal and the weak members of the pack got to eat the leftovers that the strong hunters did not want.

That's not what DogmaHunter said at all.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Knowing humanity, we propably beat them to death.

There is a fairly well accepted theory of history based on who has the best weapon. For example the Egyptians were beaten in a battle with the Assyrians because the Assyrians had invented the wheel and they had the war chariot. Soon after that the Egyptians added war chariots to their army.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wha... what does that even mean?

If I read your post right, this war was initiated when their leader, Gombe, deserted them?

Magellan found Gombe on Venus in the Fall of 1991.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If I read your post right, this war was initiated when their leader, Gombe, deserted them?

Magellan found Gombe on Venus in the Fall of 1991.

Gombe is a place in Tanzania, not an individual.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gombe is a place in Tanzania, not an individual.

Oh ... nevermind then.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm not saying it's not enough evidence. I'm saying that it's not the same thing. The Gombe Chimpanzee war was initiated because of the loss of leadership, not because of two competing populations unexpectedly coming in to contact with the other.
It's not the same thing.

Sure, but I'm not using the word "war" differently than in the wiki I quoted. Instead of a certain kind of conflict only, like between nation states, or city states, or even between a state and a group, instead I'm using the word generally, like saying the 'feud' between the Hatfield and the McCoys was a 'war'

Just violent conflict between any 2 groupings, regardless of size or situation or motive, that lasts for more than only a brief encounter.

This isn't the only instance around either, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure, but I'm not using the word "war" differently than in the wiki I quoted. Instead of a certain kind of conflict only, like between nation states, or city states, or even between a state and a group, instead I'm using the word generally, like saying the 'feud' between the Hatfield and the McCoys was a 'war'. I'm using the word "war" like the wiki did.

Just violent conflict between any 2 groupings, regardless of size or situation or motive, that lasts for more than only a brief encounter.

So you're using an incredibly blase and overreaching definition of the word that can easily confuse people.
That's not being honest.

 

[Halbhh]

So you're using an incredibly blase and overreaching definition of the word that can easily confuse people.
That's not being honest.

Sorry, ok, you can rename it then. I will go along with your own term. But this Gombe violence isn't the only instance of group on group violence among non sapien primates, is it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry, ok, you can rename it then. I will go along with your own term. But this Gombe violence isn't the only instance of group on group violence among non sapien primates, is it?

You do understand that to the common layperson and to everyone who actually uses the word, a war is a concentrated and concerted effort lead by various hierarchies and individuals?
If you want to describe a conflict, then just use conflict.
And I wouldn't know. The only violence I seriously studied is that carried out from the Early Medieval period to the start of the 20th century.

 

[Halbhh]

You do understand that to the common layperson and to everyone who actually uses the word, a war is a concentrated and concerted effort lead by various hierarchies and individuals?
If you want to describe a conflict, then just use conflict.
And I wouldn't know. The only violence I seriously studied is that carried out from the Early Medieval period to the start of the 20th century.

In this part of the country the word 'war' includes this definition also --

• a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups.

But if you prefer the only definition be including a concerted and organized effort with leaders, etc., that's fine with me, and I will try not to offend with the other common usage.

Leaving human war behind a moment.... There are other instances of known group on group violence between non sapien primates -- other primates like gorillas, chimps, etc., right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In this part of the country the word 'war' includes this definition also --

• a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups.

But if you prefer the only definition be including a concerted and organized effort with leaders, etc., that's fine with me, and I will try not to offend with the other common usage.

Leaving human war behind a moment.... There are other instances of known group on group violence between non sapien primates -- other primates like gorillas, chimps, etc., right?

I wouldn't know. But nothing that you have posted supports your claim that the Neanderthals were wiped out solely by violent clashes with Homo Sapiens.

 

[Halbhh]

I wouldn't know. But nothing that you have posted supports your claim that the Neanderthals were wiped out solely by violent clashes with Homo Sapiens.

That's right -- there is not enough evidence so far as I know to reach any definite conclusion. Just various pieces of suggestive evidence and various theories. We both knew that, at least vaguely, to start with right? ;-) I know I did, and I bet you did.

And, I hypothesize we casually drove them out, often killing them in masse. That's my guess. Enough to drive them off into mountains or other poor habitats where they starved to death, etc. Just a hypothesis. No, I cannot prove it. I only have whatever reports you could also read. Bunch of little bits of suggestive finds in skeletal remains. Not a lot to go on for big conclusions.

But I do betcha also that 45,000 years ago us sapiens acted just like we acted 10,000 years ago, and also for instance in the United States as the immigrants killed off and stole land from the native residents.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's right -- there is not enough evidence so far as I know to reach any definite conclusion. Just various pieces of suggestive evidence and various theories. We both knew that, at least vaguely, to start with right? ;-) I know I did, and I bet you did.

And, I hypothesize we casually drove them out, often killing them in masse. That's my guess. Enough to drive them off into mountains or other poor habitats where they starved to death, etc. Just a hypothesis. No, I cannot prove it. I only have whatever reports you could also read.

Now that last one is really just a groundless and frankly ridiculous idea. Where did you get that idea from?

 

[Halbhh]

Now that last one is really just a groundless and frankly ridiculous idea. Where did you get that idea from?

From thinking our species acted back then like it has acted since then.

I bet 45,000 years ago us sapiens acted just like we acted 3,500 years ago, and also for instance in the United States as the immigrants killed off and stole land from the native residents.

Known human history is endless wars for territory or to enslave or plunder.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From thinking our species acted back then like it has acted since then.

I bet 45,000 years ago us sapiens acted just like we acted 3,500 years ago, and also for instance in the United States as the immigrants killed off and stole land from the native residents.

Known human history is endless wars for territory or to enslave or plunder.

But you're adding in totally different factors in to the equation. The Homo Sapiens who came up from Africa would not have viewed themselves as having this divine right to the land, or a cultural enmity towards the Neanderthals or whatever the justification has been for conflict in human history. They were not mentally developed enough for that sort of thinking.
You cannot apply known history to what is essentially unknown history. It's a logical fallacy.