originally posted by: SentientEruditeSapien
Pre-deluvian social interactions between distinct species of humans. Which interaction would have had a greater psychological impact, the initial
meeting or the sudden departure?
before I get too far ahead of myself I need to ask, when you say PreDeluvian do you mean in a religious context I.E, Noah's Flood event or are you
referring to the somewhat exaggerated geological events of the rising of sea levels post the most recent Glacial Maximum? Even if you're utilizing a
religious point of view I'm ot trying to prejudge your personal opinions, just trying to give the most appropriate answers I can.
Lately I have been very interested in pre-deluvian social interaction among all the various types of humans. I've been reading a lot of books
and articles, and watching documentaries from every source I can think of, and something occured to me. During the course of these article and
documentaries there is an almost inevitable diversion from facts where the author ventures into the realm of philosophical opinion and/or speculation,
and this almost always happens when they breach one of the most important issues; social interaction between multiple seperate species of humans.
I would agree that as a result of one simple fact, written language had yet to be invented, we are forced to approach from point of view that relies
somewhat on speculation but there are also more recent corollaries that we draw from as well. Particularly European interactions with people in the
Americas, the South Pacific and East Asia over the past half millennia during the "golden age of exploration".
In each documentary and in almost every book there is a description of the first meeting between our species (modern humans), and other types
of humans (typically neanderthal). This first meeting is always dramatic, sometimes violent, sometimes peaceful. In most cases the authors describe
curiosity, fear, resentment, adoration, desire, and a myriad range of human emotions that a person would logically conclude the two human species must
have felt towards each other in those first meetings.
Again, while somewhat speculative, there are legitimate parallels between what likely occurred 100,000 BPE and what occurred during the 16th and 17th
centuries as Europeans began to leave their mark on indigenous populations across the previously unexplored world. Or at least a world that hadn't
been explored in that magnitude since Homo Erectus left Africa and made its mark across the Middle East, western Asia and all the way down to what is
By the most modest estimates we lived around, and sometimes along side our closest cousins for at least ten times longer than the current
modern era of civilization, which academia tells us started around 3,500 b.c.e. Many of us even share some of their DNA, which means that at some
point we were relatively close to one another as cousin species.
This I completely agree with and, especially over the last 15-20 years as we have explored and learned more about these people and advances in our
ability to map the genomes of Neanderthal.
I can't help but feeling that the introduction was far less traumatic than the departure. Could you imagine spending generation after
generation with a group of similar yet distinctively different humans, only to wake up one day and there just aren't any left? Does anyone else think
that the loss of our closest cousins would have been traumatic for the first few generations after their extinction? Did our ancestors even care? Did
they scour the earth for their lost friends, or were modern humans actually the cause? Does anyone think that our ancestors would have even noticed
the loss of the other humans, let alone mourn such a loss?
I think that if it were to have occurred in that fashion then certainly it would have been a massive shock for people to 'wake up one day and find
themselves alone'. My own research leads me to believe that it was not at all an abrupt alteration of the human landscape though.
The fact that we can trace Neanderthal dna in the vast majority of people of European descent shows that we were not so far removed from our earlier
cousins that we were yet entirely separate species as we were able to still breed with them.
As to your question about whether or not we would have mourned their loss despite being slightly different freom ourselves, I would say undoubtedly
that was the case. There are several sites in the Levantine valley, an area that runs from Northern Israel up into central Lebanon was an area where
not only did both types of humans occupy it but they did, at least at times, share the very same living areas or villages. Not only did they live,
work and cooperate to maintain mutual survival, they buried their dead in the same cemeteries which to me indicates they considered themselves close
enough friends or family to share not just their homes and meals but even their burial practices if not indeed their religious practices. The
Levantine valley was quite literally the first melting pot of cultures coming to gether and learning from one another. A huge misconception of many
people is that one of the major downfalls of HNS was that HSS moving north out of Africa were slightly smarter and possessed better tools that allowed
them to out compete their older relatives who were already there for 100's of thousands of years.
The fact of the matter is that the HNS already in the Levant had the superior tool kits and likely hunting strategies not the other way around. This
means we in fact owe our very existence and our long term survival to the assistance of these people who had to have welcomed us into their
communities. There is some evidence that the HNS who were already there in the middle east survived a little bit longer than their European counter
parts who were slowly pushed out of their territory as it was over run by HSS. My pet hypothesis is that those in Europe were decimated at a more
rapid pace in the same way the indigenous Americans were after initial contact with modern Europeans 500 years ago... diseases for which they has no
natural immunities. Just like in the modern era, there is always a small percentage with natural immunities and they were able to survive a little
longer as they slowly lost ground to encroachment until finally sometime between 20 AND 30 thousand years BPE the last vestiges of truly pure
Neanderthals were hanging on by a thread on the edges of Portugal and Gibraltar and possibly the island of Malta.
Back to your thoughts on whether or not they were mourned, I believe that at that point, the lines between us and them were so blurred as a result of
intermingling of genetics that it wasn't seen as a loss to the degree you are hypothesizing.
The reason the percentages of HNS dna being in the 2-6% range is something like this... generation one results in a 50/50 hybrid. As the influx of HSS
continued to leave Africa and continued to breed with the now hybrid indigenous Europeans, the next generation results in a higher percentage of HSS
DNA and a lower % of HNS DNA with the process continuing for millennia until the only "pure" HNS were relegated to isolated areas on the farthest
fringes of Europe slowly loosing ground to the new comers.