I'm trying to think of ways the cultures of early human species could be different from our own.
And trying to avoid tropes such as: They're more aggressive (not Orcs). More in touch with nature (not Elves).
Etc.
Any ideas?
We know so little about the Denisovans, they're almost a ghost lineage. We don't even have a good idea what they look like, much less cultural attributes, so you could make up nearly anything you want. For neanderthals, the biggest difference is probably abstract thinking. It's not even clear whether neanderthals wore adornments, had religion, practiced death rites, or even had language. They're clearly outside the bounds of any human culture.
Quote from: TimothyWestwind;1126223I'm trying to think of ways the cultures of early human species could be different from our own.
And trying to avoid tropes such as: They're more aggressive (not Orcs). More in touch with nature (not Elves).
Etc.
Any ideas?
Greetings!
Welcome to the RPGsite, TimothyWestwind!:D
Your question is an intriguing one, though it also presents some problems.
First off, ask yourself the proposition of how historical do you want your primitive caveman cultures to be? Do you want them to be very historical, or fantastical?
Historically speaking--along with archeology and anthropology, of course--we do not know a whole lot for certain about the Neanderthals, or the Denisovians, and so on. They may have had some minimum semblance of religion and no doubt some form of spirituality, likely focused on the natural world, the elements, and animals. Beyond that, their mode of living was often in caves and caverns, though probably not always so, as their above-ground settlements have long since vanished with the passage of time. This gets us into the fact that they were entirely devoted to a mode of living that was based on Hunting and Gathering. They did not have agriculture. Then, we also have the likelihood that they lived in migrating bands, probably between 50 and 200 people. Thus, they didn't have "buildings" or real structures. They likely had temporary shelters crafted from branches, rocks, larger logs, bones, and animal furs. Such structures were temporary, made from whatever local materials at hand, and also left behind when the band moved on to follow the animal herds, or travel to more fruit and plant rich areas, based on the seasons and local availability.
They also didn't have any true "professions". Everyone likely did a bit of everything, taking care of themselves, and contributing also to the rest of the band. They likely had a leader of some sort, a primitive "chieftain", and a primitive shaman. Women no doubt were probably keen to be spiritually involved, especially as counselors and midwives. Women giving birth seemed to be a very important event and power. Such early humans survived in a brutal world by hunting a wide variety of animals, from bears and lions, to mammoths, wooly rhinos, and various kinds of herd animals. In warmer areas, they also ate prehistoric breeds of hippopotamuses. We also know that they ate birds, and also fished, using spears, small darts, and simple nets. We know that Neanderthals possessed bows and arrows, simple clubs, and axes.
Their clothing, primitive tools and weapons, were all of the most basic kind. Beyond trading basic supplies of animal products, furs and teeth and such, and the trading of women for breeding, there was no form of economy. Thus, there was no real class, or status, politics, or anything remotely resembling even late stone age and copper age society.
They lived in a truly harsh and brutal world, almost entirely focused on simply surviving from week to week, and season to season. Warfare no doubt existed, in the form of small, savage skirmishes in the forests, hills, and steppes, though was likely sporadic. In addition, occasional trade with nearby friendly or allied bands would have been engaged through the seasons, and by chance meetings within the area.
From a historical perspective, there isn't much to go on, I'm afraid. That is a rough outline of what I can come up with, based on the bit of evidence we have, and educated guesses from anthropologists and archeologists.
From a fantastical perspective, though, you could of course add some additional elements. However, if you do decide to really add more elements of culture, religion, society, technology and so on, then you are definitely moving into higher stone-age and copper-age environments. That would move away from the whole primitive cave man and primitive wandering band lifestyle that such early human groups existed as.
I hope my commentary has been of help to you, Timothy.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Thank you Shark!
Pretty much what others have said already. People keep veering back and forth between more "primitive" and more "sophisticated" views of neanderthals. But I think you would have found them quite rough, not only by comparison to today (which is obvious), but probably also compared to early Homo sapiens. There is some evidence that quite a bit of incest might have been occurring for instance, but we don't know just how common it was, or if it was something that happened more when neanderthals were dying out. They also sustained a lot of injuries, although they did take care of each other, so there's that too.
Early Homo sapiens are much easier to relate to; much clearer evidence of religion, art, trophies etc., but with brutal inter-tribal warfare, mammoth-hunting and such.
It could also be cool to run it as a campaign where you don't take the archaeology too seriously; somewhere between "Fire & Ice" and real paleolithic times.
Quote from: TimothyWestwind;1126223I'm trying to think of ways the cultures of early human species could be different from our own.
And trying to avoid tropes such as: They're more aggressive (not Orcs). More in touch with nature (not Elves).
It's not a completely unique trope, but what if they are more rational and practical than humans? Somewhere between Vulcans and Klingons. They won't go to war over honor or vengeance, but they will go to war if logically, the enemy has stuff that they really want and the benefits outweigh the expected war losses.
They have feelings, but they don't have religion or excessive sentimentality. So when a fellow dies they're like "Man, I liked him. It sucks that he died, and now I'm bummed. Damn. Well, better him than me."
They only build enough for their practical needs and comforts -- so no cathedrals or stone circles or burial mounds. They will absolutely make practical tools and dwellings, but if a cave is well-situated and good shelter, then they'll stay there rather than do extra work. They don't make artifacts or dwellings to outlast their lives, though -- that's impractical.
They're not capital-E evil, but they're casually amoral -- willing to abide by rules if it's to their benefit, but also willing to lie and cheat.
Quote from: Trond;1126259Pretty much what others have said already. People keep veering back and forth between more "primitive" and more "sophisticated" views of neanderthals. But I think you would have found them quite rough, not only by comparison to today (which is obvious), but probably also compared to early Homo sapiens. There is some evidence that quite a bit of incest might have been occurring for instance, but we don't know just how common it was, or if it was something that happened more when neanderthals were dying out. They also sustained a lot of injuries, although they did take care of each other, so there's that too.
Early Homo sapiens are much easier to relate to; much clearer evidence of religion, art, trophies etc., but with brutal inter-tribal warfare, mammoth-hunting and such.
It could also be cool to run it as a campaign where you don't take the archaeology too seriously; somewhere between "Fire & Ice" and real paleolithic times.
Greetings!
Excellent points, my friend! I have read somewhere that the Neanderthals were indeed larger, broader built, and very powerful, compared to modern humans. I also saw some documentary about Neanderthals found in the Alps, where they had fur clothing, as well as clubs, axes, and bows and arrows. Also evidence of wounds and such, indicating warfare and injuries from past combat. Larger jaws, thicker skulls, even the female Neanderthals were likely as strong as a modern day professional football linebacker. Then evidence of exploring and spreading out into Turkey, and deep into Asia. Lots of low-level trading and interbreeding going on with other *kinds* of human species!:D Neat stuff!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Thanks Trond, yes that's what I'm thinking.
I have a home-brew campaign setting set in Southeast Asia during the last Ice Age and there seems to be some evidence that Denisovans intermingled with our ancestors.
I fudge the history already somewhat to give the human cultures a tech level ranging from Bronze Age to Classical Antiquity. This is all inspired by fringe archaeological research about the area (out of Sundaland model).
So I'm not looking for historical accuracy but something that is somewhat plausible for my tastes.
It would be easy to to describe the Denisovans as the noble in touch with nature types or as brutish barbarians, but perhaps there are other possibilities?
There are some recent articles (which unfortunately I can't seem to find at the moment) about the possibility that Neanderthals were adapted to colder climates than homo sapiens. I gather that the evidence is still in the preliminary stages of evaluation. Even if not true, its a another possible fantastical take. Part of the theory of why they may have died out when they did is that it corresponded to a mini-warming period, which radically restricted the territory where they were comfortable.
Quote from: TimothyWestwind;1126266It would be easy to to describe the Denisovans as the noble in touch with nature types or as brutish barbarians, but perhaps there are other possibilities?
Those two are the same :D
BTW someone should definitely make a campaign, or perhaps a glorious B-movie, about Homo floresiensis. They were miniature ("hobbit") people, who sometimes fought against komodo dragons (which would have been even bigger by comparison) and hunted miniature elephants :D
Quote from: TimothyWestwind;1126266I have a home-brew campaign setting set in Southeast Asia during the last Ice Age and there seems to be some evidence that Denisovans intermingled with our ancestors.
I fudge the history already somewhat to give the human cultures a tech level ranging from Bronze Age to Classical Antiquity. This is all inspired by fringe archaeological research about the area (out of Sundaland model).
So I'm not looking for historical accuracy but something that is somewhat plausible for my tastes.
It would be easy to to describe the Denisovans as the noble in touch with nature types or as brutish barbarians, but perhaps there are other possibilities?
I think a rational, unsentimental - borderline sociopathic - view of Denisovans can be consistent with their being nomadic and seemingly less civilized.
Without serious religion, they'll have less trust/faith - so they're less likely to organize in huge groups, but more likely only in bands large enough that an individual can casually know everyone in the group.
If you're fudging the history to make homo sapiens much more civilized, then you could still show the Denisovans as having superior skills and/or physical characteristics in many areas, which make their nomadic ways still practical for them. Nomads can be powerful and successful, as the Mongols showed.
Quote from: jhkim;1126264It's not a completely unique trope, but what if they are more rational and practical than humans? Somewhere between Vulcans and Klingons. They won't go to war over honor or vengeance, but they will go to war if logically, the enemy has stuff that they really want and the benefits outweigh the expected war losses.
They have feelings, but they don't have religion or excessive sentimentality. So when a fellow dies they're like "Man, I liked him. It sucks that he died, and now I'm bummed. Damn. Well, better him than me."
They only build enough for their practical needs and comforts -- so no cathedrals or stone circles or burial mounds. They will absolutely make practical tools and dwellings, but if a cave is well-situated and good shelter, then they'll stay there rather than do extra work. They don't make artifacts or dwellings to outlast their lives, though -- that's impractical.
They're not capital-E evil, but they're casually amoral -- willing to abide by rules if it's to their benefit, but also willing to lie and cheat.
That's an interesting take. Thanks!
Quote from: Trond;1126275BTW someone should definitely make a campaign, or perhaps a glorious B-movie, about Homo floresiensis. They were miniature ("hobbit") people, who sometimes fought against komodo dragons (which would have been even bigger by comparison) and hunted miniature elephants :D
That's also in my setting. There were giant lizards called Megalania that lived in Australia up to 50,000 years ago.
Can I link to my blog? Check it out here: https://sundaland-rpg-setting.blogspot.com/2019/10/beasts-and-monsters-megalania.html
Quote from: jhkim;1126278I think a rational, unsentimental - borderline sociopathic - view of Denisovans can be consistent with their being nomadic and seemingly less civilized.
Without serious religion, they'll have less trust/faith - so they're less likely to organize in huge groups, but more likely only in bands large enough that an individual can casually know everyone in the group.
If you're fudging the history to make homo sapiens much more civilized, then you could still show the Denisovans as having superior skills and/or physical characteristics in many areas, which make their nomadic ways still practical for them. Nomads can be powerful and successful, as the Mongols showed.
These are some good ideas. It leaves room for different kinds of relationships to develop between the groups. It allows for peaceful coexistence or hostility depending on circumstances rather than just because 'the others are bad'.
Quote from: Trond;1126275BTW someone should definitely make a campaign, or perhaps a glorious B-movie, about Homo floresiensis. They were miniature ("hobbit") people, who sometimes fought against komodo dragons (which would have been even bigger by comparison) and hunted miniature elephants :D
The Asylum did that. They are the company that makes knockoffs of blockbusters. Their version of The Hobbit was like that.
Quote from: Trond;1126275BTW someone should definitely make a campaign, or perhaps a glorious B-movie, about Homo floresiensis.
Clash of the Empires (https://www.imdb.com/video/vi3549210393?playlistId=tt2456594&ref_=tt_ov_vi).
The rating of 2.2/10 is unjust, it probably deserves a 2.3.
Quote from: TimothyWestwind;1126266Thanks Trond, yes that's what I'm thinking.
I have a home-brew campaign setting set in Southeast Asia during the last Ice Age and there seems to be some evidence that Denisovans intermingled with our ancestors.
I fudge the history already somewhat to give the human cultures a tech level ranging from Bronze Age to Classical Antiquity. This is all inspired by fringe archaeological research about the area (out of Sundaland model).
So I'm not looking for historical accuracy but something that is somewhat plausible for my tastes.
It would be easy to to describe the Denisovans as the noble in touch with nature types or as brutish barbarians, but perhaps there are other possibilities?
My take on the
Denisovians, and perhaps the
Neanderthals is that they didn't need language because they were natural empaths or telepathic. They had much larger brains than we do, and there is no evidence their brain matter was less advanced than our own, only the bias of our not so objective scientists, but that fits well with them not having spoken and written languages. The presumption that ancient is more primitive than modern may not be correct as well. They navigated the globe without maps, compasses, or any modern tech, built boats, small settlements. There is no evidence that they did not have any religion, they might have been deeply spiritual without being vocal about that. They did hunt alot of megafauna almost to extinction. Prove me wrong about them. There is every evidence that the most homicidal, cannibalistic. and rapey of all the hominids was the Homosapiens (i.e. that would be us, modern man... who wiped them out).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4251[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4252[/ATTACH]
Quote from: TimothyWestwind;1126223I'm trying to think of ways the cultures of early human species could be different from our own.
And trying to avoid tropes such as: They're more aggressive (not Orcs). More in touch with nature (not Elves).
Etc.
Any ideas?
Dragon Magazine has at least two articles for playing a prehistoric campaign. One in the Ice age and not sure when the other is set. Thers an older thread or two on the subject and related.
Other RPGs that have taken a crack at are things like Gurps Ice Age and the like.
Quote from: Omega;1126357Other RPGs that have taken a crack at are things like Gurps Ice Age and the like.
I like GURPS Ice Age, but it's primarily focused on the real world, and it was written in 1992. Things have changed. No hobbits, no Denisovans.
That said, it's a decent overview, game-focused, a quick read (64 pages), and easily worth the $2.99 on Warehouse 23 or DTRPG.
Edit: And if you can find a copy, "Thrills and Chills: Ice Age Adventures" in Dragon #68 is by Arthur Collins, who was a veritable font of DM-wisdom. It's not really focused on the different types of human, as much as making the life and death struggle to provide for the clan gameable, but it's really sound advice for building a campaign.
Neanderthals:
They have a great sense of smell, unlike us.
They are much stronger than us.
Their shoulder joints aren't great for throwing, so they use spears and clubs.
They use spears and clubs to hunt enormous Ice Age monsters - they are Metal.
Both males and females hunt enormous Ice Age monsters - they have less sexual dimorphism than we do.
'Beastmen' - Neanderthals - play a fairly big role in my Primeval Thule games. They have powerful female shamans; they certainly have language, and fire, but no writing or metalwork. At this time (ca 25,000 BP) they are a fading race, and resent their declining status. Normally bitter foes of humans, they are still capable in some cases of empathy and even coming together to face the Great Doom - the Ice - that will one day destroy the Thulean world.
From an older thread.
Lets see.
AD&D: Axe Beak, Baluchiotherium, Cave Bear, Hyenadon, Irish Deer, Cave Lion, Mammoth, Mastadon, Woolly Rhino, Titanothere and Dire Wolf. Think Fiend Foloio added the Megetherium?
2nd Ed adds some more in MC3.
3e module called Frostborn? Glyptodon, Megaloceros, Smilodon, Woolly Mammoth, and Zeuglodon, and more in Frost & Fur? Coelodonta, Chalicothere,
5e: Aurouch was added in Volo's Guide.
5e fan-made: Gorgonopsid and Megacerops.
But more impressively Issue 137 and 167 of Dragon added alot more each. Get those two issues and you are fairly set. Also great source material for running that Ice Age cave man D&D campaign.
More animals
Issue 176 Added more animals from the Paleozoic era.
Issue 204 adds Cambrian creatures.
And three setting articles.
Issue 68 has "Thrills & Chills"
Issue 118 has "Out of the Stone Age"
Issue 175 has "The Perils of Prehistory"
Still havent found the one was looking for though.
Still havent found that Pillsbury Ice Age article. But did find 2 more dinos in issue 66 of Dragon.
The issue 68 article is pretty thorough though with tables for encounters, weather effects and more.
The Euparkeria and the Compsognathus.
GURPS Low-Tech covers early human specias.
GURPS Fantasy 2 - The Madlands covers some hunter/gatherer tribal culture.
Both are fantastic resources in this area.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1126330My take on the Denisovians, and perhaps the Neanderthals is that they didn't need language because they were natural empaths or telepathic. They had much larger brains than we do, and there is no evidence their brain matter was less advanced than our own, only the bias of our not so objective scientists, but that fits well with them not having spoken and written languages. The presumption that ancient is more primitive than modern may not be correct as well. They navigated the globe without maps, compasses, or any modern tech, built boats, small settlements. There is no evidence that they did not have any religion, they might have been deeply spiritual without being vocal about that. They did hunt alot of megafauna almost to extinction. Prove me wrong about them. There is every evidence that the most homicidal, cannibalistic. and rapey of all the hominids was the Homosapiens (i.e. that would be us, modern man... who wiped them out).
Well, there's the evidence of incest, and then there's this:
https://www.livescience.com/1187-neanderthals-cannibals-study-confirms.html
Our understanding of Neanderthals has certainly evolved over time.
Neandertals have a faint genetic presence, yet pervasive. Nearly all populations outside of Africa can discover some Neanderthal genetic legacy. It was once postulated that red hair was a Neanderthal legacy, but that has since been disproven. Also, it was thought that they had no spiritual side to their character as for a long time there were no graves discovered with grave goods. In contrast, humans buried their treasured dead with spears and other tools that took considerable time to make, thus a significant loss of effort when they were buried. Relatively recently, however, there have been some finds where there have been Neanderthal graves with some ritualistic aspects to it, so that is now in question.
They were unquestionably stronger and possibly better adapted to the cold. They were probably clannish; we have a lot of cannabalistic evidence, but also the tell-tale healed femur. A member of the tribe was cared for a long time to allow that bone to heal and have that member rejoin the hunt. As S'mon mentioned earlier the joint changes that allowed for a greater strength may have prohibited them throwing something any great distance. There is some interesting research in genetic shadows going on. There are a number of places where there is a chance someone might have Neanderthal DNA. There are also other places where there is never Neanderthal DNA. For some reason, having those particular genes was fatal in the human population.
Some coagulopathy disorders and Type-II diabetes are thought to have Neanderthal origin. In this case it may have been that Neanderthal's blood clotted quickly, and could possibly lead to strokes, &c., later in their lives.
Whether or not they could speak is an interesting question. They only part of the voice box that would last is the hyoid bone, and that is easily lost since it's the one part of the skeleton that isn't connected to any other bone directly. And, it's rather small. A theory is that if they could talk, their language might sound "thick". Instead of "Look out for that lion!" we might hear "loog uht for taht liun!" And they might have a lower limit that we do for the volume of a shout. There is the FOX-2 (?) gene discussion as well. That is thought to be the gene that allow us to cognitively construct speech. It is present in humans, but not Neandertals, chimps, bonobos, or gorillias or their fossils. They might have been confined to a form of sign language, which other primates can learn. There is quite a lot of conjecture there, however.
For Densivoians, there's practically nothing. The genetic presenence is slightly greater, but usually limited to populations SE Asia. So, maybe they were slightly shorter and slimmer than Neanderthals or Out-of-Africa humans. Right now about the only heritage that we think still exists is that some humans might have gained an improved tolerance to elevation from them (Nepal / Bhutan / Tibet, &c.). But, again, lots of speculation.
For my D&D game, my humans are H. sapiens with +2 to CON (we are the foremost pursuit hunters). Dvergar (dwarves) are H. neanderthalis with +2 STR (broad chest, large muscle anchor surfaces in the joints). Henggrin (halflings) are H. denisova with +2 DEX, mostly just for symmetry as we don't have more than a few bone fragments.
Quote from: SHARK;1126265Greetings!
I also saw some documentary about Neanderthals found in the Alps, where they had fur clothing, as well as clubs, axes, and bows and arrows.
I've never seen any evidence that Neanderthals used bows (or atl-alts for that matter). Are you maybe thinking of Otzi the Iceman?
Its not what you are looking for but I have been treating Orcs as fantasy Neanderthals. They are stronger, more resilient, more pragmatic, less creative and not green. The idea that you can have non-sterile half orcs means that they along with Elves are the same species as Humanity (biologically speaking).
I love the idea of the Hobbits hunting komodo dragons and riding mini elephants.... that's got to go into a setting somewhere....
Quote from: Mjollnir;1127015I've never seen any evidence that Neanderthals used bows (or atl-alts for that matter). Are you maybe thinking of Otzi the Iceman?
Greetings!
Hello, Mjollnir! I'm not certain if it was Otzi the Iceman or not. It was a documentary about Neanderthals in the Alps, how they must have hunted and survived, and how they think that the Neanderthals in the north may have been engaged in trade or something with Neanderthals in the south. They showed they had fur clothing, primitive axes and clubs, and primitive bows. I'm sorry I cannot remember the name of the documentary. It was from a number of years ago.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1127102Greetings!
Hello, Mjollnir! I'm not certain if it was Otzi the Iceman or not. It was a documentary about Neanderthals in the Alps, how they must have hunted and survived, and how they think that the Neanderthals in the north may have been engaged in trade or something with Neanderthals in the south. They showed they had fur clothing, primitive axes and clubs, and primitive bows. I'm sorry I cannot remember the name of the documentary. It was from a number of years ago.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Very unlikely. Neanderthals used thrusting spears not bows, large thrusting spears because they went after big game like Mammoths and Giant Sloths and such. They had to, ...you know, fight
Sabre Tooth Tigers, so they needed BIG weapons that delivered LOTS OF MASSIVE DAMAGE. Bows were used against smaller creatures, and in areas where the larger creatures had been hunted to extinction. The new tech (bows) was all about making precision ranged weapons (unlike a large heavy spear or atl-atl) that could take out small fast targets like birds and small fast mammals. As long as they had large slow moving game, Neanderthals and early people didn't need bows, so it wasn't invented. Oldest hunting arrowheads ever discovered come from Africa and have been dated to 64,000 years before the present (stone arrowheads), Sibidu Africa. The oldest bone arrows are from the same region and date back to 61,000 years ago.The oldest bows ever found in
Europe are from Germany and Denmark and date back about 10,000 years ago. The oldest arrowheads found in Europe date back to the Solutrean period 22,500 Before present to 17,500 years ago, and were found in France and Spain. 11,500 years ago there was a mini ice-age, and 21,500 years ago most of Northern Germany and Denmark was covered in half a mile of ice. Only the immediate Mediterranean area was temperate. North Africa was a verdant lush grassland with many swamps and heavy annual rainfall. The Sahara wasn't a desert and large rivers flowed on the surface in Libya and Tunisia, and all of North Africa was rich in Wildlife. That is why there were so few settlements in Europe.
Clovis points are found throughout North America and date back to about 13,500 years before the present. Most of them were spear tips, but there were also some Atl-Atl tips, as well as some smaller arrows that would only be used with a bow or very small atl-atl. It is quite possible there were bows in North America, before there were bows in many parts of Europe though.
Pointed stone and bone objects have been discovered on many Middle Paleolithic archaeological sites, such as Umm el Tiel in Syria, Oscurusciuto in Italy, and Blombos and Sibudu Caves in South Africa. These points were probably used as thrusting or throwing spears, by both Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans, as long ago as ~200,000 years. Sharpened wooden spears without stone tips were in use by ~400–300,000 years ago. Bow and arrow hunting is at least 70,000 years old in South Africa but was not used by people outside of Africa until the Late Upper Paleolithic, about 15,000–20,000 years ago. The atlatl, a device to assist in throwing darts, was invented by humans during the Upper Paleolithic period, at least 20,000 years ago.
The youngest Neanderthal sites date back to about 40,000-35,000 years before the present time (In Spain), so Neanderthals had died out before bows were commonly used.
Your new vocabulary word for the day:
Archaeotoxophily (Archaeology = the study of antiquities; Toxophily = archery)
Holmmgaard Bow dates to 7,000 BC ~9,000 years oldhttp://www.theinfinitecurve.com/archery/the-oldest-bow-in-the-world/
Solutrean Flintmaking (France & Spain)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean
The Meare Heath Bow ~4,800 years oldhttp://www.digitaldigging.net/meare-heath-bow-reconstruction/
Greetings!
Interesting stuff, GameDaddy!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1127102Greetings!
Hello, Mjollnir! I'm not certain if it was Otzi the Iceman or not. It was a documentary about Neanderthals in the Alps
It sounds like it was probably about groups of neolithic modern humans, within the past 10,000 years or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic
Before that you have extensive glaciation in the Alps and not somewhere you'd expect to find cro magnons, who during the peak of the last Ice Age ca 25,000-12,000 years ago were confined to small refugia in southern Europe. They first entered Europe ca 40,000 years ago, when the Neanderthals started disappearing (funny coincidence) :D
Quote from: S'mon;1127154It sounds like it was probably about groups of neolithic modern humans, within the past 10,000 years or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic
Before that you have extensive glaciation in the Alps and not somewhere you'd expect to find cro magnons, who during the peak of the last Ice Age ca 25,000-12,000 years ago were confined to small refugia in southern Europe. They first entered Europe ca 40,000 years ago, when the Neanderthals started disappearing (funny coincidence) :D
I found this about Neanderthals, about recent analysis of their bones for throwing motion.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28663444/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/neanderthals-lacked-projectile-weapons/#.Xpn2-5NKgdU
Still, even if they lacked bows in history, they weren't necessarily technologically backwards. Many humans of that time period lacked bows as well, and the article cites evidence that the Neanderthals used bitumen to attach stone heads to hafts. Trying to keep this on-topic for Timothy Westwind -- he was specifically trying for avoiding tropes of more aggressive (orcs) or more in touch with nature (elves). I think there's reasonable doubt that Neanderthals were the stereotype of more brutish or beastly than mainline humans. They were more primitive mostly because they lived in a very primitive time - before either homo sapiens or Neanderthals had agriculture or other advancements.
Quote from: S'mon;1127154It sounds like it was probably about groups of neolithic modern humans, within the past 10,000 years or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic
Before that you have extensive glaciation in the Alps and not somewhere you'd expect to find cro magnons, who during the peak of the last Ice Age ca 25,000-12,000 years ago were confined to small refugia in southern Europe. They first entered Europe ca 40,000 years ago, when the Neanderthals started disappearing (funny coincidence) :D
Greetings!
That's a very cool article on the Neolithic Age, S'mon! I especially like all the different details on different regions, different tools, animals and building styles.
And yes, Humans have been killing each other forever!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim;1127159I found this about Neanderthals, about recent analysis of their bones for throwing motion.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28663444/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/neanderthals-lacked-projectile-weapons/#.Xpn2-5NKgdU
I found this part interesting:
Quote"Nobody in Africa uses spear-throwers, and they use spears mainly for warfare and hunting the really big game, such as elephants, rhinos and hippos," Shea explained.
I've seldom see game systems that give more damage to a thrown spear or javelin than to an arrow. Runequest 2 being one of the rare exceptions.
Quote from: Bren;1127167I found this part interesting:
I've seldom see game systems that give more damage to a thrown spear or javelin than to an arrow. Runequest 2 being one of the rare exceptions.
Game weapon stats tend to base off best-of-type, so they tend to stat more off English longbows and Mongol composite war bows than the typical bows most people have used throughout history. I guess Runequest is more classical-historical - a Roman pilum certainly did way more damage than a Roman bow!
Quote from: jhkim;1127159I found this about Neanderthals, about recent analysis of their bones for throwing motion.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28663444/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/neanderthals-lacked-projectile-weapons/#.Xpn2-5NKgdU
Still, even if they lacked bows in history, they weren't necessarily technologically backwards. Many humans of that time period lacked bows as well, and the article cites evidence that the Neanderthals used bitumen to attach stone heads to hafts. Trying to keep this on-topic for Timothy Westwind -- he was specifically trying for avoiding tropes of more aggressive (orcs) or more in touch with nature (elves). I think there's reasonable doubt that Neanderthals were the stereotype of more brutish or beastly than mainline humans. They were more primitive mostly because they lived in a very primitive time - before either homo sapiens or Neanderthals had agriculture or other advancements.
I don't believe they were more primitive. In fact I think they were more advanced than modern humans. They didn't need bows because they hunted big game which was plentiful. Their brains were as large or larger than human brains, Smithsonian says they were less advanced here:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-shows-why-youre-smarter-than-a-neanderthal-1885827/
I'm inclined to disagree with the Smithsonian though, because not enough actual data on Neanderthal brain function is available to support their conclusions conclusively. Neanderthal brains was as large or larger than modern humans. It very possible they had extra brain functions that were empathic or telepathic in nature, and simply didn't need what Smithsonian describes as "Higher Order Thinking". Just like they didn't need bows because there was plenty of large game, they didn't need to use their brain for "higher order thinking", and instead only needed it to cope with their immediate environment. The Neanderthal didn't need language because they could communicate better emotionally, and directly. They didn't need writing for the same reason. Writing was a lower order function because the elders could collectively remember everything, and share what they knew, as needed with the younger tribe members.
I think modern humans came in from Africa and hunted through the Neanderthal ranges depleting the large herds of large game animals, and the Neanderthals were not equipped to deal with the suddenly changing hunting environment in much the same way as the Native Americans were wiped out when the Buffalo and other Western game herds were hunted for sport and fashion almost to extinction instead of for food and simple survival. Thier numbers, never very large, because the reproduced slowly, and when they lost hunting ranges, they either competed unsuccessfully directly with modern humans, or avoided them completely retreating to ever smaller and smaller areas, just like North American Native Americans. I think Neanderthal had much keener sense, and definitely a better sense of smell than modern humans. It was modern humans that invented agriculture, but they had to, becuase they hunted out all the game and wildlife, where ever they roamed. If modern humans weren't hunting, they were raiding other settlements for food. Right up until the time they invented agriculture and began building cities. Agriculture needs cities, and organized groups. Hunting doesn't.
I don't think the Neanderthal achieved such a high population density that they depleted the resources in the areas where they lived, and if they rarely did, they simply moved being nomadic.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1127203I think modern humans came in from Africa and hunted through the Neanderthal ranges depleting the large herds of large game animals, and the Neanderthals were not equipped to deal with the suddenly changing hunting environment in much the same way as the Native Americans were wiped out when the Buffalo and other Western game herds were hunted for sport and fashion almost to extinction instead of for food and simple survival. Thier numbers, never very large, because the reproduced slowly, and when they lost hunting ranges, they either competed unsuccessfully directly with modern humans, or avoided them completely retreating to ever smaller and smaller areas, just like North American Native Americans. I think Neanderthal had much keener sense, and definitely a better sense of smell than modern humans. It was modern humans that invented agriculture, but they had to, becuase they hunted out all the game and wildlife, where ever they roamed. If modern humans weren't hunting, they were raiding other settlements for food. Right up until the time they invented agriculture and began building cities. Agriculture needs cities, and organized groups. Hunting doesn't.
This is just made up stuff for the purposes of making fantasy races, right?
Quote from: Shasarak;1127207This is just made up stuff for the purposes of making fantasy races, right?
I hope so! Modern humans arrive in Europe ca 40,000 BC, Neanderthals died out by around 30,000-25,000 BC, then you get the last Glacial Maximum (with humans confined to small refugia on the southern fringe of Europe) from ca 23,000 BC, then AIR first permanent settlements in Anatolia ca 12,000-10,000 BC, first proper agriculture there ca 10,000 BC, followed by the Yellow River Basin shortly afterwards.
In Europe the first post-Ice Age humans were the western hunter gatherers expanding from the southern refugia, they were likely descended from the same guys who wiped out the Neanderthals. But they were REPLACED after a few thousand years by agriculturalists expanding from Anatolia and the Levant, the early European farmers. Then they in turn were largely replaced by pastoralists expanding from the Ukrainean steppe, who as far as we know were the Indo-European speakers (who also went south into Iran then India as the Aryans) who are the ancestors of most modern Europeans.
The Indo-Europeans/Aryans are actually more closely related to the Western Hunter Gatherers than either group were to the Early European Farmers, but they are not direct descendents - they were a mix of Ancient North Eurasian (whose genes also show up in the Americas, Na-Dene speakers especially I think) and eastern European hunter gatherers who were related to the western hunter gatherers replaced by the Near-Eastern farmers.
Quote from: S'mon;1127221I hope so! Modern humans arrive in Europe ca 40,000 BC, Neanderthals died out by around 30,000-25,000 BC, then you get the last Glacial Maximum (with humans confined to small refugia on the southern fringe of Europe) from ca 23,000 BC, then AIR first permanent settlements in Anatolia ca 12,000-10,000 BC, first proper agriculture there ca 10,000 BC, followed by the Yellow River Basin shortly afterwards.
In Europe the first post-Ice Age humans were the western hunter gatherers expanding from the southern refugia, they were likely descended from the same guys who wiped out the Neanderthals. But they were REPLACED after a few thousand years by agriculturalists expanding from Anatolia and the Levant, the early European farmers. Then they in turn were largely replaced by pastoralists expanding from the Ukrainean steppe, who as far as we know were the Indo-European speakers (who also went south into Iran then India as the Aryans) who are the ancestors of most modern Europeans.
The Indo-Europeans/Aryans are actually more closely related to the Western Hunter Gatherers than either group were to the Early European Farmers, but they are not direct descendents - they were a mix of Ancient North Eurasian (whose genes also show up in the Americas, Na-Dene speakers especially I think) and eastern European hunter gatherers who were related to the western hunter gatherers replaced by the Near-Eastern farmers.
This last group of modern humans that you mention is the one that held the most interest for me when I began this Paleolithic research about twenty-five years ago. Turns out they have another name based on the research of Dr. Marija Gimbutas, of UCLA. They were called the
Gumelnita/Karanov culture... the Gumelnita were from India, the Karanov from the far east. They were the first horseback riders who came from the east with their goats and sheep and plundered the tribal settlements of the Starcevo peoples and the Capsian peoples. Before the arrival of the Karanov, the modern Europeans that had replaced the Neanderthals lived in open communities and were not organized for war. Families and clans typically settled in large beautiful houses located on grain rich hillsides, that overlooked broad rich lush river valleys full of game. They gathered honey, grew a wide variety of wheat, spelt, and legumes, hunted, and lived for several millennia from about 8500 BC to about 6500 BC in about the ideal environment, a Shangri-la if you will. They built this vast network of Stone Henges and sacred gathering places honoring nature, science, and Astronomy. Then the Karanov came on their Horses, and suddenly hilltop fortifications sprung up all over Europe and their was a massive increase in evidence of fighting, with human remains in graves showing a marked increase of battle damage, broken bones cause by spears, stone hammers, or axes, cut marks on bones, etc.
The Starcevo were settled in the area of Greece and were mostly Non Indo-European Celtic type farmers who lived along rivers, and subsisted more on farming and gathering than on hunting. Along the Donau in Austria it was the Koros peoples, very similar to the Starcevo. They were replaced by the Karanov as well.
The Capsian peoples lived along the North Shore of Africa and during this period, the environment of the Maghreb was open savanna, much like modern East Africa, with Mediterranean forests at higher altitudes. The Capsian diet included a wide variety of animals, ranging from aurochs and hartebeest to hares and snails; there is little evidence concerning plants eaten so they were bow using hunter/gatherers. During the succeeding Neolithic period of Capsian Tradition, about the time the same time the Karanov invaded from the east into Greece, there is evidence from one site, for domesticated, probably imported, ovicaprids (sheep & goats for us normal humans..) Also at this time 6600 BC to 4500 BC or so the Indo-European Gumelnita invaded Greece from Anatolia and mixed with the Karanov/Starcevo peoples
Further west in England was the Windmill Hill peoples. The Windmill Hill culture was a name given to a people inhabiting southern Britain, in particular in the Salisbury Plain area close to Stonehenge, c. 3000 BC. They were an agrarian Neolithic people; their name comes from Windmill Hill, a causewayed enclosure. Together with another Neolithic tribe from East Anglia, a tribe whose worship involved stone circles, it is thought that they were responsible for the earliest work on the Stonehenge site. The material record left by these people includes large circular hill-top enclosures, causewayed enclosures, long barrows, leaf-shaped arrowheads, and polished stone axes. They raised cattle, sheep, pigs, and dogs, and grew wheat and mined flints. So they were fighters, and built fortified hilltop settlements. Not much else is known about the very early peoples of the UK Archaeologist and prehistorian Caroline Malone noted that during the Late Mesolithic, the British Isles were something of a "technological backwater" in European terms, still living as a hunter-gatherer society whilst most of southern Europe had already taken up agriculture and sedentary living. Prior to about 7000 BC the sea levels were lower and Britain was connected to mainland Europe in the Doggerland hills area, which is now the Doggerland banks, very shallow waters east of England The windmill people were replaced by the Beaker Culture around 2500 BC or so when they invaded Briton which had become isolated with the rise in sea level. The Celts invaded Briton from Europe from about 1400-800 BC, and they were very warlike, and liked taking the heads of their enemies as battle trophies.
The languages in Europe coalesced and the predominate language around 4500 BC was Indo-European dialect probably brought by the Gumelnita. The 5th millennium has become a startpoint for calendars and chronologies, though only one has any basis in reality. The year 4750 BC is the retrospective startpoint for the Assyrian calendar, marking the traditional date for the foundation of Assur, some 2,000 years before it actually happened.(Not, the Assyrians Calender does mark the true foundation of Assur and the Assyrian Kingdom).
Map of Paleolithic cultures in Europe 6600 BC or so...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star%C4%8Devo_culture#/media/File:Neol%C3%ADtico_en_Europa.png
Map of Neolithic cultures including the Karanov after the Karanov invasion around 5000 BC
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Karanovo_culture#/media/File:European-middle-neolithic-en.svg
UK Windmill Hill Culture 5000 BC - 3500 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill_Hill_culture
Capsian Culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture
Sites and settlement pattern 9000-3500 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe#/media/File:Chronology_of_arrival_times_of_the_Neolithic_transition_in_Europe.jpg
Quote from: GameDaddy;1127226Before the arrival of the Karanov, the modern Europeans that had replaced the Neanderthals lived in open communities and were not organized for war. Families and clans typically settled in large beautiful houses located on grain rich hillsides
As I said, those Early European Farmers were not the people who replaced the Neanderthals in Europe.
Neanderthals > Western Hunter Gatherers (who contract to refugia at LGM then expand after Ice Age) > Early European Farmers (from Anatolia) > Indo-Europeans
Thanks everyone, I've been giving this more thought.
Perhaps the difference between the other species could be their inability to former larger groups like us? A lower Dunbar number in effect?
This would lead to smaller groups travelling around, inability to form stable stationary settlements, a higher distrust of strangers.
In order to ensure adequate gene mixing they might develop cultures that have formalised interaction between groups, special events where they can meet, trade, 'marry' etc.
Interacting with human characters would mean they take longer to feel friendship or as someone mentioned earlier, perhaps they are more utilitarian in how they interact with others.