Science, medicine, and quackery

[Green Baron]

34 minutes ago, tater said:

People (with stone age technology) in the Pacific crossed that ocean in canoes.

Exactly. And we know about people traveling the rivers and lakes of central and eastern Europe in log-boats in the mesolithic (6-7.000bc), before the arrival of neolithic settlers. People probably would have done so earlier had there been suitable wood and trees. I'd not be surprised if a we one day find even earlier traces of boat use in the Mediterranean or north Africa. And China is catching up pretty fast in archeology.

People at least in the late upper paleolithic were linked and traveled over huge distances without any direct need. We have mussels from med in central Germany for example, or a "horizon" of similar statuettes from Siberia to France in the Solutrean, suggesting at least a cultural link between groups around the last glacial maximum. People, neither individuals nor groups, apparently do not need a reason to go elsewhere.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

And how many people have populated America crossing the ocean in canoe?

4 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

I'd not be surprised if a we one day find even earlier traces of boat use in the Mediterranean or north Africa.

3 hours ago, Green Baron said:

i prefer a factual basis as a foundation from which to start. 

 

[YNM]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

So, why we the human did it except for food?

Because exploration, need for completing challenge etc. is one of the most rewarding things we humans have ever found - a dopamine to say we did it.

It also meant more place to live as well.

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Undoubtedly.

  Hide contents

 

Well until more... "earthly" desires came in that is.

But as much as there are bad people out there, good people is in it too. Sure good people can go bad, but bad people can return to be good.

Spoiler

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2010/07/29/editorial/island-voices/piailugs-greatest-lesson-is-that-we-are-a-single-people/

"Mau Piailug, in his teaching opportunities among the many voyaging organizations here and throughout the Pacific, never identified himself or his students as being different or belonging to the labels that are imposed by the many experts who feel the need to define people by geographical boundaries.

For the pupils he generously shared his time with, Mau viewed and treated us as an oceanic ohana, defined not by an ocean that separated us, but rather an ocean that joined us around common traditions and a passion for an island lifestyle.

While best known for his navigational ability to wayfind, and an even greater skill as the consummate mariner, Mau was also a teacher dedicated to sharing unselfishly.

His lessons revolved around the central social theme that knowledge had no value unless you pass it on, and that navigation/ wayfinding gained its value not simply from one’s abilities as a master seafarer, but in the ability of the practitioner to transfer that skill into becoming a leader and steward within his or her community.

I paraphrase some thoughts shared with the voyaging community from Mau’s nephew, Thomas Raffipiy, when he last visited with Mau:

"On a cool summer evening in 2005 on Satawal, as Mau and I visited on the beach of Nemaenong (one of our family villages), watching the sun set in the west, Uncle Mau shared this charge with me:

‘I have laid the stick that connects people together. Now it is up to you, your generation and the generations to come, to build upon that stick a bridge that will ensure the free sharing of information and teaching between the two peoples until the day we become united again as a single people, as we were once before; before men separated us with their imaginary political boundaries of today’s Polynesia and Micronesia.’""

 

And don't look so far down to the Pitcairn Islanders either.

http://archive.hokulea.com/holokai/1999_2000/leg_3_low.html

"Look at Pitcairn Island. Some might think of it as a place where people have nothing, a place where they would never be able to live. And yet, I can't remember in recent times when I have been in a community that seemed so civilized. Civilized! They cared for each other. They cared for us. They live with very little in a material sense but they seemed so rich. There was peace in their homes. The doors were never locked. It was a place without the kind of entertainment madness that we feel we have to have in our lives to be civilized.

I am sorry that we had to leave. I could have learned a lot from those people. They didn't know we were coming and they only had an hour to prepare, but what a beautiful meal thy gave us. They were only 42 people and we were 19 and yet they could have fed 100 people. They called everyone up on the VHF radio. It cost nothing to make the call. They took food from their gardens. it cost nothing. The whole set of values that are driven by our modern economic world didn't matter there. For me, it was a great relief to be without that economic pressure. It was just so peaceful - quietly peaceful - walking in their forests along dirt roads.

At the dinner they sang for us. It wasn't a performance, - it was an opportunity to be family together. The kids sang. The grandparents sang. And it was beautiful."

History isn't there to be debated - History is there to be learned from, so we don't fall down the same pitfalls and we ascend faster up the betterment of society in the future.

Edited January 15, 2019 by YNM

[tater]

48 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

And how many people have populated America crossing the ocean in canoe?

 

There is growing evidence that the so-called Native Americans (I say "so-called," because like the rest of us they also came here from elsewhere) came both from the North (via the Bering land/ice bridge when that was a thing), as well as the South (via sailing to South America across the Pacific). Even the northern immigration likely came along the shore, and probably involved boats. In the latter case, mere coastal craft, probably never out of sight of land---it's still far, far faster than walking, and minus the wheel and pack animals, you can actually carry your stuff with you on a boat.

 

[kerbiloid]

21 minutes ago, YNM said:

Because exploration, need for completing challenge etc. is one of the most rewarding things we humans have ever found - a dopamine to say we did it.

That's exactly what I had suggested, but for that have been accused in trolling.

21 minutes ago, YNM said:

Micronesia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronesia#Prehistory

Quote

Micronesia began to be settled several millennia ago, although there are competing theories about the origin and arrival of the first settlers.^[1] There are numerous difficulties with conducting archaeological excavations in the islands, due to their size, settlement patterns and storm damage. As a result, much evidence is based on linguistic analysis.^[11] The earliest archaeological traces of civilization have been found on the island of Saipan, dated to 1500 BCE or slightly before.^[12]

I'm afraid 1500 BCE is not a paleolith. It's already a bronze and somewhere iron age.
This imho tells that no canoes took place 20ky ago and earlier when occupying Papua and Australia. Otherwise they would occupy Micronesia, too.
Rafts, maybe.

10 minutes ago, tater said:

There is growing evidence that the so-called Native Americans (I say "so-called," because like the rest of us they also came here from elsewhere) came both from the North (via the Bering land/ice bridge when that was a thing), as well as the South (via sailing to South America across the Pacific).

To say the truth, I believe this since had read it. 
But this doesn't explain why the Native North Americans have left the comfortable Eurasia and spent several kiloyears in cold migrating through Siberia and Beringia.
I would understand if they knew about the warm America. But unlikely. They were walking into dark and cold with no obvious reason (and this makes to doubt in their non-material inspiration).

Edited January 15, 2019 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

24 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I'm afraid 1500 BCE is not a paleolith.

Well, they (to an extent, we) haven't done anything out of metal by that time. But that doesn't mean we can't go and do things. It was all a long process - Madagascar, Hawai'i and Rapa Nui wasn't settled until 3rd century AD, Aotearoa until 12th century AD.

And it does seem that people in the Philippine Islands and Malay Peninsula (including us) are framed within the Austronesian group...

I think that sea-faring was a form of leap in human history, as much as when we discovered fire, or when we discovered metalworking. And that's why I think that our expansion, at least in this part of the world, can only be driven by the most knowledgeable of us, not just because they had to survive.

I mean, sure, Sunda and Sahul Shelf looks easy, so we might've run into it; but when the sea rose back up, we had to learn sea-faring, and only after we mastered it we began spreading further east.

24 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

That's exactly what I had suggested, but for that have been accused in trolling.

"Tourist" doesn't really speak of seriousness. "Explorers" would be better.

24 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

why the Native North Americans have left the comfortable Eurasia and spent several kiloyears in cold migrating through Siberia and Beringia.

Probably because where they came it was cold, too.

Edited January 15, 2019 by YNM

[tater]

21 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

To say the truth, I believe this since had read it. 
But this doesn't explain why the Native North Americans have left the comfortable Eurasia and spent several kiloyears in cold migrating through Siberia and Beringia.
I would understand if they knew about the warm America. But unlikely. They were walking into dark and cold with no obvious reason (and this makes to doubt in their non-material inspiration).

Random walk (to borrow from physics).

Humans living in tribal bands are of a certain number of individuals. As hunter-gatherers, they cannot have a high population density, since food all has to be within range of their efforts. As the band gets to a point where food becomes an issue, it divides into smaller bands, spreading out to each have territory that can support them. They are necessarily displaced. This is why any number of animals are all over a continent, they spread so that each can have a stable territory that can support them. Some populations reached the coast in what is now Russia/China. Coastal peoples figure out boats (made of skins in the case of natives in the NW US/Canada). It was already cold when they got to extreme NE Russia, they had to know how to live already in that climate. They take their boats along the coast to seek better places with less human competition. Slowly, over generations, they move East. Why is this difficult to comprehend?

 

[kerbiloid]

52 minutes ago, YNM said:

Well, they (to an extent, we) haven't done anything out of metal by that time.

They were farming/herding food, they were neolithic people. And happily spent previous several kilodecades without a canoe trip to Micronesia.
As Australia has been colonized iirc ~50 ky ago, and Papua and others afaik were colonized at least twice (iirc 50 ky _Australoid and ~20ky ago _Asian), this looks like Australia and around were colonized long before the canoes.
So, the Micronesian seafaring achievements are unlikely applicable to those prehistorical times. It's almost modern days, like the Phoenicians.

52 minutes ago, YNM said:

as much as when we discovered fire,

Done by Habilis, long before the Sapiens has evolved.

52 minutes ago, YNM said:

or when we discovered metalworking.

Neolithic revolution, and not the very beginning.

52 minutes ago, YNM said:

And that's why I think that our expansion, at least in this part of the world, can only be driven by the most knowledgeable of us, not just because they had to survive.

It's one story when a pack of youngsters crosses a warm strait, moving from one warm island to another one, founds their own village and shows middle fingers to the cowardly old wrecks living across the straight.
But it's absolutely another story when a lot of tribes are migrating for millenia across a deep cold steppe when sun is invisible for several months per year.
No knowledge or inspiration can explain this, only lack of food and excess of foes behind.

52 minutes ago, YNM said:

"Explorers" would be better.

As they were having a trip for joy, not for a report to the Royal Academy of Science, they are probably tourists as well.

52 minutes ago, YNM said:

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

why the Native North Americans have left the comfortable Eurasia and spent several kiloyears in cold migrating through Siberia and Beringia.

Probably because where they came it was cold, too.

Siberia and Beringia are definitely colder than everything to the South except Antarctica.

47 minutes ago, tater said:

Random walk (to borrow from physics).

A random walk finishes with the first random cliff.
Unlikely they could not distingusih "warm and sunny" from "dark and frosty".

47 minutes ago, tater said:

As the band gets to a point where food becomes an issue, it divides into smaller bands, spreading out to each have territory that can support them.

And when the fastest of them reach the ocean (they don't know that the Big Water connects people, they erroneusly think that they will sink and stop moving there), this direction is excluded.
So, any new tribe can migrate only from there, and the walk stops being random.

And that's what I mean: when the territory to the South from Siberia was already occupied, the North-most tribes had no choice rather than murder (and optionally eat) the Southern neighbors or to move to the North.
Probably, they tried the 1st (as who would like to move to the North even with a compass), but lost and had to move to the cold.
But to happen, this would first mean the lack of food which makes them to compete at all. And unlikely their competitions at that price was verbal.

47 minutes ago, tater said:

Some populations reached the coast in what is now Russia/China.

I'm afraid, this actually was their starting point. They moved to the North Siberia.

47 minutes ago, tater said:

Coastal peoples figure out boats (made of skins in the case of natives in the NW US/Canada).

But they didn't need boats at all. Beringia was a land which is now the bottom of Beringian strait.
Eurasia and America were connected with a land bridge which allowed them just to walk _{by T-34}.
Another question - it was as cold as Alaska, and they definitely didn't know about the destination point America when five thousands years before  they left the MidEast and passed to Mongolia, South Siberia and then to the North.

47 minutes ago, tater said:

places with less human competition.

This. What does the "competition" mean except the lack of food resources?

Edited January 15, 2019 by kerbiloid

[tater]

24 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Unlikely they could not distingusih "warm and sunny" from "dark and frosty".

The moved to Siberia in the first place. There were there many generations before any drifted East to the Americas. The world was not only populated in places with nice climates. People moved, and adapted (and developed technologies to survive in the case of colder climates).

25 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

But they didn't need boats at all. Beringia was a land which is now the bottom of Beringian strait.

Boats are easier, and the archeological evidence here in North America supports this. Coastal peoples were already adapted to a lifestyle in cold, coastal regions. Moving East was no big deal, it was snow and ice in all directions, and near the coast they could fish, hunt seal, etc.

[kerbiloid]

9 minutes ago, tater said:

There were there many generations before any drifted East to the Americas.

Yes. But originally the paleolithic people came from Africa across the MidEast and had nothing to do with cold.
So, is there another real reason except the lack of food in their (paleolithic) times which motivated them to start colonizing Siberia?
I can't find it. For me, the paleolithic times were not even close to a paradise-looking picture.
Just the early neolithic times became even worse.

Upd.
Also, this raises a question: does the "healthy paleolithic diet" ^(tm) include the cooked neighbors?

Edited January 15, 2019 by kerbiloid

[tater]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

Yes. But originally the paleolithic people came from Africa across the MidEast and had nothing to do with cold.
So, is there another real reason except the lack of food in their (paleolithic) times which motivated them to start colonizing Siberia?

What are you arguing? I have said that hunter-gatherer societies necessarily require wide territory to sustain themselves. When a local population (even within a tribe (ie: family)) exceeds the carrying capacity of the region, they must split up, and seek different areas. Perhaps some younger males and their families leave to start their own band. If they run into their relatives later, they likely meet as friends. If they run into unrelated bands, they do what chimpanzees do, decide who's dominant if they are equally matched, and if they meet loners and outnumber them---they murder them.

It's not like some people started walking, then stopped in Siberia. They moved a few km from their family. Then a sub group moves a few km from there, and so forth. Some move to an area that might be awesome for food, but gets chilly at night, or some of the year. They develop technology to deal with this (clothes). They split up, some move to a place slightly colder, so they adapt their tech to solve that issue, which is minor, they already came up with the base tech. This continues as they move to colder areas. When they first moved to Siberia, there was likely big game that no longer exists as well, which they might literally have followed.

[Green Baron]

44 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

No knowledge or inspiration can explain this, only lack of food and excess of foes behind.

Only, neither do we have signs of excessive hunger at these times nor are there hints that the concept of group violence was "invented" yet. People do love to wander around, to look aver the next ridge and the next and so on. I did it in my youth and until ~5 years ago, including sailing the ocean and going on longer hikes of days. There is nothing wrong with the assumption that mere curiosity drove the people around.

And yes, for us effete modern day people with a damaged immune system, we will not survive a single night at -25°C, some of us not even with thick clothes. But that is not comparable. A paleolithic hunter would probably win a quarrel against an athlete of today.

Quote

This. What does the "competition" mean except the lack of food resources?

Please do understand, we have no sign that the concept of competition between humans did apply before the neolithic. Maybe in rare unique cases, we can't exclude that, but until now we do not have a "smoking gun" other than probable hunting accidents.

People just wandered, they did not ask "why", so why should we ?

Edited January 15, 2019 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

22 minutes ago, tater said:

What are you arguing? I have said that hunter-gatherer societies necessarily require wide territory to sustain themselves. When a local population (even within a tribe (ie: family)) exceeds the carrying capacity of the region, they must split up, and seek different areas. Perhaps some younger males and their families leave to start their own band. If they run into their relatives later, they likely meet as friends. If they run into unrelated bands, they do what chimpanzees do, decide who's dominant if they are equally matched, and if they meet loners and outnumber them---they murder them.

Yes, I completely agree with this.
I'm arguing with (not yours) the description of the paleolith as a time where food was not an issue, tribes are not nomads, (earlier) tribal role of woman is unknown and mayb they were hunting together with men, etc.

When a tribe is already in the cold place, it's too late to choose, that's obvious.
But to get into a cold place their ancestors should lack a warm place. So, I insist that even in the paleolithic times they were facing the lack of food, and this could-not not-cause the intertribal wars.

20 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Only, neither do we have signs of excessive hunger at these times nor are their hints that the concept of group violence was "invented" yet.

Or maybe we just find those of them who had happily eaten the neighbors.
How large is the sampling? How many skeletons are found and explored from the 200 ky paleohistory, especially in the cold areas?

20 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

A paleolithic hunter would probably win a quarrel against an athlete of today.

Maybe in long-distance running. In other sports I would bet on athlete.

Look at this man. He is not muscular but wiry, like a typical villager. Though he is probably a hunter, not a plougher.
Muscles eat a lot of energy, you don't need more than you need. You also don't need to carry more own meat than you need for hunting.

Spoiler

 

20 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

we have no sign that the concept of competition between humans did apply before the neolithic.

Why Siberia and Beringia? What had they lost there if no competition was forcing them?

Edited January 15, 2019 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

59 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

They were farming/herding food, they were neolithic people. And happily spent previous several kilodecades without a canoe trip to Micronesia.

Organized farming was a recent phenomenon where I live, and probably the only thing they did in the pacific ocean was Taro.

59 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

But it's absolutely another story when a lot of tribes are migrating for millenia across a deep cold steppe when sun is invisible for several months per year.
No knowledge or inspiration can explain this, only lack of food and excess of foes behind.

To be fair, the timeframe for those was entirely different than that of the pacific oceans.

Also, Siberia was not closed up by an ice sheet, unlike North America or even Europe - maybe telling something ?

Those people who moved up north must have known their tricks. Kind of the same that Finno-Ugric people spread off from these Eastern Siberia people too.

[Green Baron]

20 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

But to get into a cold place their ancestors should lack a warm place. So, I insist that even in the paleolithic times they were facing the lack of food, and this could-not not-cause the intertribal wars.

Bring on an evidence for war in the paleolithic !

Quote

How large is the sampling? How many skeletons are found and explored from the 200 ky paleohistory, especially in the cold areas?

>400 Neandertals, i do not know how many AMH from the upper pal from ~40.000 before now until now, probably slightly more.

Quote

Maybe in long-distance running. In other sports I would bet on athlete.

You have absolutely no evidence, you are just guessing. I can tell you from several findings that your athlete will have a hard time. I even doubt that his/her bones will last as long as those from the hunter, because they are less stable and robust generally today in humans than they were at those times.

Quote

Why Siberia and Beringia? What had they lost there if no competition was forcing them?

I do not know. Nobody knows, and nobody can answer such a question. They did live there, moving around, sometimes meeting with other groups, probably exchanging stories, genes, nice pendants, etc. You can carry on thinking that if you actually find an ensemble that somehow implies that people were having problems, underfed, sick, etc. A red cross in cave or so *rolleyes*

Edited January 15, 2019 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

Also, Siberia was not closed up by an ice sheet, unlike North America or even Europe - maybe telling something ?

It wasn't covered with a shield, but it was still frosty and snowy. Nobody would leave the Central Asia to live in -40° and colder without a deadly reason.

1 hour ago, YNM said:

Those people who moved up north must have known their tricks.

Even with tricks there are just ~100 k of all (several tens of) Native North Peoples living there since paleolithic times. (~130 k in 1920s, ~180 k in 1980s).

Numbers in brackets - the count of persons of the peoples.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Коренные_малочисленные_народы_Севера,_Сибири_и_Дальнего_Востока_Российской_Федерации

~20 k of Chukchi per 0.8 mln km² Chukchi Peninsula.
Without Russians (~1 M) and Yakuts (~500 k) who came in Medieval, that was a snowy desert with rare people (though,  having their wars), so it was added without significant outrages.

The Russia-vs-Chuckchi war was lasting for 200 years (the Russians were asked to protect the fishers and shepherds of the local allies, otherwise it even wouldn't happen), because the Russian army (happily fighting in Europe and Black Sea) was for 200 years represented by 1 battalion (per 0.8 mln km²), because of poor local supplies and enormous distances.
At last it finished with a draw and a treaty: every Chukchi pays one fur per year if he can, the Russian monarch becomes a sovereign and sends gifts when he/she wants, no local shepherds and fishers should be attacked.

This shows what climate we discuss.

And in those times they didn't have metal things bought from the neighbors.
(Guns, knives, kettles, etc.)

So, again, nobody would move to the white hell from Central Asia without _{cops on the trail} an extreme need.

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

Bring on an evidence for war in the paleolithic !

The war. The war never changes. (c)

Bring the explanation of how the aggressive chimps became the aggressive neolithic people having a pacifist paleolithic between, where have disappeared all other human species who were not our direct ancestors, and how could the originally-rich food not cause an overpopulation and struggle for food.

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

>400 Neandertals, i do not know how many AMH from the upper pal, probably slightly more.

So, about a thousand identified and partially remained skeletons from a 200 ky long epoch. Of probably several billions, well, hundreds millions.
One representative from 200 years per whole planet.
I have a feeling that we have found very bad...back ones. We don't know anything about all others. Probably, the wolves worked hard.

This reminds me of "Scythian amazons". About 300 tombs of armored women have been found there, so "the ancient Amazons were Scythian women",
Ok, but where are millions of non-armored Scythian women buried there?

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

You have absolutely no evidence, you are just guessing.

I just look at the modern history.
Unless the paleolithians were hyperborean/cymmerian conan-the-barbarians, I see no reason for them to be supermen. Just better food and health than in neolith, and a lot of running.
So, I would await a marathon champion, but unlikely anything more.

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

I do not know. Nobody knows, and nobody can answer such a question.

So, the "paleolithic eden" hypothesis can hardly explain this.

Edited January 15, 2019 by kerbiloid

[tater]

2 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Please do understand, we have no sign that the concept of competition between humans did apply before the neolithic. Maybe in rare unique cases, we can't exclude that, but until now we do not have a "smoking gun" other than probable hunting accidents.

Male chimpanzees in groups of 3+ that come across lone males from other troops kill them, pretty much 100% of the time. There is no reason to expect us to be much different than our cousins. I can't remember what they do with females, but I can guess, and our ancestors likely did the same.

Will we ever have anthropologists following early hominids around to check? Nope. It's a reasonable extrapolation, however.

As I said above, I'd imagine most times groups split up, they do so in a way that is not usually lethally competitive (though who knows, maybe one leaves with another's mate, and the other guy wants to murder that group). I seem to recall reading that remote, tribal people tend to meet and have discussions around who they are related to, as long as there are connections, they tend to get along. Assuming such splits sometimes tend to send elements of one group towards fragments of other, much more distantly related people (who don't know they are related at all), then I'd expect violence at those meetings---"This is our valley, shove off!"

[Green Baron]

43 minutes ago, tater said:

Male chimpanzees in groups of 3+ that come across lone males from other troops kill them, pretty much 100% of the time.

Source ? They can be aggressive, but every time ? Surely an exaggeration (provoke, provoke ...).

Quote

There is no reason to expect us to be much different than our cousins.

Yes, there is. Behaviour is not set in stone, that mindset is existentialism, which is rather a philosophy or belief. Behaviour can change fundamentally from generation to generation. Wild Guinea pigs for example are extremely aggressive with a strong hierarchy among males and females. The domesticated or even tamed forms have lost nearly all of the aggressiveness. All domesticated animals have changed behaviour, many tamed ones do so during a liefetime, and so can humans simply because our nervous system allows us to.

And, btw., humans are no chimpanzees, analogies do not work without an evidence, but there is enough evidence to the contrary, for example that co-operation makes us accomplish big things and controversy does only destroy or at least slows an otherwise positive development (argh, politics, sorry). Anyway, you cannot set your mindset as a measurement for that of former societies, or even other individuals. A common error, committed in many books subtitled "scientific" ;-)

Bring on an an example for paleolithic violence, then we can talk. I do not exclude it categorically, though i admit that the consciousness that there may have been an easier way somehow comforts me. Anyway, there is no way back :-)

Quote

I can't remember what they do with females, but I can guess, and our ancestors likely did the same.

Evidence, mate, evidence. Guessing does not count ;-)

Quote

Will we ever have anthropologists following early hominids around to check? Nope. It's a reasonable extrapolation, however.

As I said above, I'd imagine most times groups split up, they do so in a way that is not usually lethally competitive (though who knows, maybe one leaves with another's mate, and the other guy wants to murder that group).

One can actually study paleoanthropology, then there'd be less need for imagination (still some). Murder is a legal concept from our time and btw. depends on local jurisdiction. We have no evidence for a murder from the paleolithic. I do not exclude that, but it would be extremely rare. Analogies (sic !) from recent hunter/gatherer groups suggest more like banning or a ritual castigation in case of severe failures, because the group may still need the one who strayed. But this is actually documented work, not imagination ;-)

Quote

I seem to recall reading that remote, tribal people tend to meet and have discussions around who they are related to, as long as there are connections, they tend to get along. Assuming such splits sometimes tend to send elements of one group towards fragments of other, much more distantly related people (who don't know they are related at all), then I'd expect violence at those meetings---"This is our valley, shove off!"

The first part is okay, the second has too much modern day interpretation in it. The ownership of land is not necessarily a concept from hunter / gatherers, at least not in sparcely populated areas, in contrary, possession is strictly frowned up. What someone brings to the fire belongs to all. This effectively prevents most upcoming controversies, and it apparently did so for 10,000s to 100,000s of years. This is anthropological work from the early/mid 20th century. It was so partially in central Africa in the late 19th/early 20th century (i am sure i can fnd documented cases but am too lazy to search), because westerners where pressing in and the available hunting grounds where getting narrow. And even work among circumpolar peoples suggest so. Unfortunately we do not know the mindset of paleolithic people in the cold steppe.

I know, this is difficult to grasp for people who firmly believe in property, the stock market and the roles of men & women. It takes a few years of training on the subject and discussions with others until it settles in the mind :-)

------------------

So, it apparently boils down to "i believe they beat each up because chimps do" and "i do not think so because no evidence, but hints to the contrary from anthropolgy and different mindset". It seems like you have chosen and so have i.

Peace on Earth, at least for another while :-)

Edited January 15, 2019 by Green Baron

[tater]

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

Source ? They can be aggressive, but every time ? Surely an exaggeration (provoke, provoke ...).

It was quoted with a source in one of Pinker's last books (Better angels of our nature?). 2 v 1 sometimes happens, 3v1, 100% happens. (from memory, I'll have to reread to bet my life on the %, so say "almost always happens)

I wasn't talking about the valley as property, but as hunting territory with finite resources.

Human being are, and have always been violent. Civilization have reduced human violence. "Ritualized" warfare where perhaps one person in a band is killed seems trivial compared to, say WW1, but 1 in 50 is more than the US lost in WW1. In places like New Guinea, I recall reading that within the time period for which the local peoples have been studied, lifetime death rates from homicide were in the double-digits.

Edited January 15, 2019 by tater

[Green Baron]

47 minutes ago, tater said:

It was quoted with a source in one of Pinker's last books (Better angels of our nature?). 2 v 1 sometimes happens, 3v1, 100% happens. (from memory, I'll have to reread to bet my life on the %, so say "almost always happens)

I wasn't talking about the valley as property, but as hunting territory with finite resources.

Human being are, and have always been violent. Civilization have reduced human violence. "Ritualized" warfare where perhaps one person in a band is killed seems trivial compared to, say WW1, but 1 in 50 is more than the US lost in WW1. In places like New Guinea, I recall reading that within the time period for which the local peoples have been studied, lifetime death rates from homicide were in the double-digits.

that is an opinion and not reflected in findings from pre civ times. humans are peaceful and cooperative by nature.

Chimpanzees have magnitudes higher violence rates than humans. comparative study from 2006, Wrangham. am on mobile, sorry.

 

[James Kerman]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I'm not sure if the Native Australians had canoe 20ky (or how much) years ago.

Probably far earlier than that.  It is accepted by historians that prehistoric humans must have used canoes to migrate from Sunda (now Southeast Asia) to Sahul (New Guinea and Australia) about 40,000–50,000 years ago.

Quote

The oldest inferred watercraft of 44,000-50,000 years ago, was sufficient to bring numerous ‘immigrants’ to Sahul, but was presumably not capable of supporting colonisation of the Pacific Islands at that time. Those early settlers travelled on land and probably by coastal navigation to occupy the entire Sahul landmass in a relatively short time. By 40,000 years ago the main parts of this land were occupied and a little later Tasmania (then part of the mainland). The Solomon Islands and Buka Island, some 180km distant from the then occupied New Ireland and New Britain, were reached about 30,000 years ago. This was nearly three times the distance of the initial crossing from Sunda to Sahul. The new island communities must have retained, and in time replaced, their boats as it was vital to keep the connection with other people for the long term viability of the islands’ populations.

https://media.australianmuseum.net.au/media/dd/Uploads/Documents/38547/Indigenous Australian Canoes_Chronology Florek 2012.25c7d4a.pdf

 

[tater]

23 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

that is an opinion and not reflected in findings from pre civ times. humans are peaceful and cooperative by nature.

LOL.

They are among their own family.

Warfare among tribal people is utterly normal behavior, even though the raw numbers killed are small, the %s are huge. This was true and observed by Europeans in the Americas. Tribes here were constantly fighting, not "cooperating." (stone age people, BTW). The local tribes here in NM that were sedentary were predated on by warrior tribes like the Apache---there's a reason Pueblos have the door on the roof, with ladders that get pulled up, it's to protect against other human beings. As were the cave dwellings that were so common here.

Violence among humans has always been endemic, and has decreased over time, not increased.

It's also important to understand that what we can actually observe (remains with injuries, etc) is a tiny fraction of people who ever existed. It's like dinosaurs, we get to see those individuals who just happened to die in exactly the right place at the right time to be preserved. Nothing at all like most deaths, or even typical deaths. The best analogs to pre-state humans would be tribal peoples who were extant when people with written language found them, and could write about them. New Guinea, South America, North America, etc.

I just read a book about the Mayflower, and the years afterwards through "King Philip's War" in New England. The most interesting bit was not the Pilgrims, but the natives. They were every bit as Machiavellian as any European. Tribes were constantly at war with each other, and the tribe that helped the Pilgrims did so specifically to counter their hegemonic neighbors who were driving them out of existence. Befriending the Europeans gave that one tribe access to technology the others didn't have, so they could prevent attack by their enemies, or possibly to kill them. They then intentionally did things like try and convince the English that the other tribe was preparing to attack (when they were not), so that the Europeans would attack them. They didn't learn this from the English, they were smart, political players (they just didn't always look far enough ahead).

Edited January 16, 2019 by tater

[YNM]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It wasn't covered with a shield, but it was still frosty and snowy. Nobody would leave the Central Asia to live in -40° and colder without a deadly reason.

Maybe the paleoclimate of Siberia wasn't as bad as it is today... Central Asia would've been an equally worse desert in that time, a grazing steppe would still be better.

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Even with tricks there are just ~100 k of all (several tens of) Native North Peoples living there since paleolithic times. (~130 k in 1920s, ~180 k in 1980s).

10,000 yrs ago the total world population is estimated at only 3 million people. Any "significant" population in that time would've been small anyway.

4 hours ago, Green Baron said:

The ownership of land is not necessarily a concept from hunter / gatherers, at least not in sparcely populated areas, in contrary, possession is strictly frowned up.

Given what Native Americans and Polynesians do, this makes sense. You can have your family dwellings, and you can have your single-tribe village, but the wilderness ('land') would be "possessed" by everyone.

1 hour ago, tater said:

Violence among humans has always been endemic, and has decreased over time, not increased.

I think it is a case of "bad people will always be around". The Polynesians had their story of a bloodshed that stopped their long-distance voyages as well.

But then there were the Moriori.

I suppose all depends on whether it'd be more advantageous to be good or is it not. If your mission is trying to discover a new site then everyone has to work together. But if it's about exploring a new land, and settling there, the pressure to cooperate might lessen.

Edited January 16, 2019 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, Green Baron said:

They (chimps) can be aggressive, but every time ?

Afair, mostly. Very hierarchical and hard ones. Though not so aggressive like pavians.
Especially when there is no caretaker who brings them food several times per day, and no explorer who gives them banana every time they wave with a hand.

7 hours ago, Green Baron said:

The domesticated or even tamed forms (of guinea pigs) have lost nearly all of the aggressiveness.

.A domesticated human has mostly, too.
Though, WW I/II... 

7 hours ago, Green Baron said:

And, btw., humans are no chimpanzees, analogies do not work without an evidence, but there is enough evidence to the contrary, for example that co-operation makes us accomplish big things and controversy does only destroy or at least slows an otherwise positive development

Unluckily, most of big things have been done under a whip motivation and for food.

7 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Bring on an an example for paleolithic violence, then we can talk.

Here is a dilemma.
He who makes a claim that something exists should give a proof, that's well known.

But what should be treated as a claim in this case?
"There was paleolithic violence."
"There was a contrast difference between the paleolithic times and all ape/human history before and after, for no visible reason."

1k skeletons (including the Neanders) from a 200k _{(even longer if count Neanders)} lasting epoch looks not a large sampling to say if they were having wars.

So, personally I would appeal to the "modus operandi" argument.
If the species demonstrates the same stable aggresive modus operandi since apes till nowadays, there should be a reason if it temporarily changed this in between and later returned back.
I see no such reason, maybe anybody else does.

Spoiler

8 hours ago, tater said:

I can't remember what they do with females

Probably nothing special. Their girlfriends do, lol...

 

7 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Murder is a legal concept from our time and btw. depends on local jurisdiction.

Murder has become a concept in our time.
Apes just kill each other without concepts, and eat smaller ones, google "chimps hunting monkeys".

Even in early anticity the murder was treated as something special only between the compatriots, reread the antique myths.

8 hours ago, Green Baron said:

The ownership of land is not necessarily a concept from hunter / gatherers, at least not in sparcely populated areas, in contrary, possession is strictly frowned up.

They don't pretend this land itself is theirs.
They dislike everybody eating the food they are going to eat.

8 hours ago, Green Baron said:

I know, this is difficult to grasp for people who firmly believe in property, the stock market

My property believes are probably 150° opposite to the @tater's ones here, but I believe that a hungry animal won't be glad to see you near its food.
Unless it treats you as a food, too.
And hungry humans are often animals. Probably won't eat, but probably will rob and get rid..

8 hours ago, Green Baron said:

and the roles of men & women

Since apes till XX the women mostly were living like binary switches: pregnant/milking, Mostly dying during another birthgiving.
So, unlikely in paleolithic times something was differ. If one thinks so, he would bring a reason why.

5 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Chimpanzees have magnitudes higher violence rates than humans

And the paleolithic times are right in between.

 

5 hours ago, James Kerman said:

It is accepted by historians that prehistoric humans must have used canoes to migrate from Sunda (now Southeast Asia) to Sahul (New Guinea and Australia) about 40,000–50,000 years ago.

From your link: 

Quote

We don’t know if such a vessel had its equivalent in canoes known in the recent past.

I never argued that they had some rafts or primitive boats. But if they had canoes, why did it take 20 ky to reach Micronesia right aside?

 

4 hours ago, YNM said:

Maybe the paleoclimate of Siberia wasn't as bad as it is today...

There was a mammoth steppe instead of the nowadays tundra.
Probably not as deadly, but still not a place of choice if one doesn't need food for any price.
Still cold, still polar nights, still shocking amount of flesh-eating insects from the same bogs everywhere.

4 hours ago, YNM said:

Central Asia would've been an equally worse desert in that time

It wasn't. But if it was - a one more reason never to get close the North Siberia.

5 hours ago, YNM said:

10,000 yrs ago the total world population is estimated at only 3 million people.

That's their nowadays population. When they trade for centuries with others peoples and have guns, ammo, all modern things.
20 ky ago nobody had metals or powder to sell.

[James Kerman]

6 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I never argued that they had some rafts or primitive boats.

My mistake, apologies.