Ho-NO Sapiens

[Geekhis Khan]

evidence suggests that Neandertals were pretty thoroughly carnivorous, which may have been one of the reasons that H.Sap. was able to outcompete him. If that is the case, you're not going to get more than hunter-gatherer (or rather pure hunter) societies, and you're not going to get settlements.

While you probably wouldn't get agricultural societies in the Neanderthal World, you'd likely, IMO, still see pastoral/herding societies. This could lead to some form of "civilization". Certainly shared cultures, possibly even sprawling "steppe nomad horse cultures", though probably not stationary urbanized cultures...unless someone gets the idea to grow fodder for their herds. There may end up being semi-permanent seasonal settlements near major resource areas, however. Perhaps these along with ""stock fodder" agriculture, could lead to some form of urbanization.




Or maybe they just turn into hippie-dippy-Darwinist eco-friendly gender-segregated free-love technotopias!

 

[mojojojo]

Or maybe they just turn into hippie-dippy-Darwinist eco-friendly gender-segregated free-love technotopias!

One interesting part of the above mentioned series was the continued existance of Mega-Fauna that went extinct in our TL (mammoths.mastadons,etc,) Would this be likely or even possible?

 

[Geekhis Khan]

One interesting part of the above mentioned series was the continued existance of Mega-Fauna that went extinct in our TL (mammoths.mastadons,etc,) Would this be likely or even possible?

Well, considering our own omnivorous Hunter-Gatherer cultures drove them extinct in a geological blink-of-the-eye when we only need a fraction of the meat of carnivorous Neanders, then I'd think the megafauna are doubleplus screwed ITTL.

 

[Polish Eagle]

I would disagree that most current Homo Sapiens civilization is descended from a single common ancestor. The Aegean civilization, for example, seems to have developed independently. The Minoans later had contact with Egypt and the Mespotamian civilizations, but their civilization was not created as a result of such contact...it already existed by the time contact took place. And of course you forget Harappan civilization, Chinese civilization, and Mesoamerican Civilization, and Andean civilization, all of which sprang up independently. I think that, given enough time, civilization of some sort is a likely result, not a fluke.

As for the statement that all we can do is speculate, that is perhaps true. But there are clues that might guide one.

For example, some anthropologists claim that Neanderthal did not think in the abstract, or at least not as much as Sapiens does. They cite the lack of evidence of art, body ornamentation, etc at Neanderthal sites as evidence of this.

Of course, it could simply be that the Neanderthals were doing their art in materials...wood, leather, etc...that didn't survive for us to find. If the hypothesis true, however. one could infer that a Neanderthal civilization might be a very stark, utilitarian sort of place, with lots of plain, unadorned buildings and where everything that exists, exists for a purpose. Very logically arranged and ordered, possibly. They might have a very authoritarian system of government, because democracy might seem to them very illogical, and they won't want to "let the crazies take over"...assuming there are any "crazies" in Neanderthal society.

There are other theories about Neanderthal thinking and Neanderthal society around that could make interesting fodder for such speculation. Some of the theories about the relations between males and females in Neanderthal society, for example.

What I meant is that no one can imagine what a civilization that evolves independently would look like without having an artifact of said civilization. No European could imagine what Chinese civilization would look like without having heard of it before hand, and I am certain that Europeans didn't expect Andeans and MesoAmericans to believe in Human Sacrifice. You just cannot imagine a civilization by having the parameters of Homo Neanderthalis, at such and such a latitude and climate, with such and such natural resources.

 

[abas]

I would disagree that most current Homo Sapiens civilization is descended from a single common ancestor. The Aegean civilization, for example, seems to have developed independently. The Minoans later had contact with Egypt and the Mespotamian civilizations, but their civilization was not created as a result of such contact...it already existed by the time contact took place. And of course you forget Harappan civilization, Chinese civilization, and Mesoamerican Civilization, and Andean civilization, all of which sprang up independently. I think that, given enough time, civilization of some sort is a likely result, not a fluke.

As for the statement that all we can do is speculate, that is perhaps true. But there are clues that might guide one.

For example, some anthropologists claim that Neanderthal did not think in the abstract, or at least not as much as Sapiens does. They cite the lack of evidence of art, body ornamentation, etc at Neanderthal sites as evidence of this.

Of course, it could simply be that the Neanderthals were doing their art in materials...wood, leather, etc...that didn't survive for us to find. If the hypothesis true, however. one could infer that a Neanderthal civilization might be a very stark, utilitarian sort of place, with lots of plain, unadorned buildings and where everything that exists, exists for a purpose. Very logically arranged and ordered, possibly. They might have a very authoritarian system of government, because democracy might seem to them very illogical, and they won't want to "let the crazies take over"...assuming there are any "crazies" in Neanderthal society.

There are other theories about Neanderthal thinking and Neanderthal society around that could make interesting fodder for such speculation. Some of the theories about the relations between males and females in Neanderthal society, for example.

If we would consider Aurigniacan culture Neanderthalian, then they had art.

 

[mojojojo]

What I meant is that no one can imagine what a civilization that evolves independently would look like without having an artifact of said civilization. No European could imagine what Chinese civilization would look like without having heard of it before hand, and I am certain that Europeans didn't expect Andeans and MesoAmericans to believe in Human Sacrifice. You just cannot imagine a civilization by having the parameters of Homo Neanderthalis, at such and such a latitude and climate, with such and such natural resources.

Well, we can try!

 

[robertp6165]

If we would consider Aurigniacan culture Neanderthalian, then they had art.

Well, what we are talking about here is very early Aurignacian. The Aurignacian culture generally is said to begin about 40,000 years ago. The first art doesn't really appear for another 5,000 to 10,000 years after that (scholars disagree about the dating of the earliest pieces). So there is a 5,000 to 10,000 year period when the first Aurignacian tools are appearing, but the art hasn't arrived yet. This has been interpreted by some scholars as indicating that Neanderthals originated the Aurignacian tool kit, which was added to and expanded by Sapiens when he arrived 5,000 to 10,000 years later...at which time the art also arrives.

I am not saying I necessarily agree with all this, mind you...just showing that Early Aurignacian Neanderthals need not have had art.

 

[robertp6165]

While you probably wouldn't get agricultural societies in the Neanderthal World, you'd likely, IMO, still see pastoral/herding societies. This could lead to some form of "civilization". Certainly shared cultures, possibly even sprawling "steppe nomad horse cultures", though probably not stationary urbanized cultures...unless someone gets the idea to grow fodder for their herds. There may end up being semi-permanent seasonal settlements near major resource areas, however. Perhaps these along with ""stock fodder" agriculture, could lead to some form of urbanization.

All this presumes, of course, that they retain their overly carnivorous habits once the Ice Ages end. I would argue that their carnivorous habits were the result of the environment in which they found themselves, where meat was the only readily available food source for almost the entire year. Once placed in an environment where more vegetable food is available, why would they not make use of it?

The most likely advantage modern humans had over Neanderthals as far as competition for food goes is not that they were eating plant-based foods...which were simply not available in Ice Age Europe except during very short seasons of the year...but because they had mastered fishing. Fishing was a skill early modern humans had mastered before they left Africa. The warmer conditions and relatively more abundant food sources in Africa allowed early modern humans the luxury of experimenting with new technologies and food sources. I would argue that conditions in Ice Age Europe, on the other hand, stifled innovation, because literally all one's time had to be spent searching for food in an environment where it was very scarce. Given the opportunity to experiment, there is no particular reason why Neanderthals would not branch out into other resources, whether we are talking about fish or veggies.

 

[abas]

All this presumes, of course, that they retain their overly carnivorous habits once the Ice Ages end. I would argue that their carnivorous habits were the result of the environment in which they found themselves, where meat was the only readily available food source for almost the entire year. Once placed in an environment where more vegetable food is available, why would they not make use of it?

The most likely advantage modern humans had over Neanderthals as far as competition for food goes is not that they were eating plant-based foods...which were simply not available in Ice Age Europe except during very short seasons of the year...but because they had mastered fishing. Fishing was a skill early modern humans had mastered before they left Africa. The warmer conditions and relatively more abundant food sources in Africa allowed early modern humans the luxury of experimenting with new technologies and food sources. I would argue that conditions in Ice Age Europe, on the other hand, stifled innovation, because literally all one's time had to be spent searching for food in an environment where it was very scarce. Given the opportunity to experiment, there is no particular reason why Neanderthals would not branch out into other resources, whether we are talking about fish or veggies.

This may be true, since AFAIK all assumptions about carnivores nature of Neanderthals are linked with Western variety of Neanderthals.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

All this presumes, of course, that they retain their overly carnivorous habits once the Ice Ages end. I would argue that their carnivorous habits were the result of the environment in which they found themselves, where meat was the only readily available food source for almost the entire year. Once placed in an environment where more vegetable food is available, why would they not make use of it?

Except that every source I can find that compares H.sapiens and H.neandertalensis diets using isotope data shows considerable plant sources in the diet of H.sapiens, where H.neandertalensis is as carnivorous as the wolf. Supposedly in similar environments.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a biological/digestive/physiological reason for the Neandertal concentration on meat. Actually, I'd be surprised if there weren't. Note that the big news 'recently' was their eating seals and dolphins in one locale. While that's a big change from large game, it's still 'meat'.

 

[robertp6165]

Except that every source I can find that compares H.sapiens and H.neandertalensis diets using isotope data shows considerable plant sources in the diet of H.sapiens, where H.neandertalensis is as carnivorous as the wolf. Supposedly in similar environments.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a biological/digestive/physiological reason for the Neandertal concentration on meat. Actually, I'd be surprised if there weren't. Note that the big news 'recently' was their eating seals and dolphins in one locale. While that's a big change from large game, it's still 'meat'.

You must have missed this one.

Interestingly, the article cited says that isotopic studies ONLY are capable of determining which kinds of meat is eaten (i.e. animal versus fish, or which kinds of herbivores were preferred eating material), because it is a test for a protein isotope. Vegetable intake is effectively invisible to such a study, and, as the article states...

As for the rest of the the Neanderthal diet, various lines of evidence - including a wonderful paper by Henry and Piperno (2008) presented at the Paleoanthropology Society meetings two weeks ago - are beginning to clearly show that Neanderthals also appear to have made extensive use of plant resources whenever they had access to them. Unfortunately, this is effectively invisible from an isotopic standpoint.

So, as it turns out, the whole "carnivorous Neanderthal" theory apparently has some major problems.

 

[robertp6165]

As long as this world doesn't look like the one created in that certain Robert Sawyer series, I'd be very curious myself to see what it would look like.

I've enjoyed the other TLs you've written on here. I hope you decide to run with this idea too.

I will second that motion
Please give us more

Well, I actually have so many irons in the fire as far as AH writing goes, adding another one is not extremely feasible right now (of course, that's not stopped me before, so who knows...LOL). I mainly posted this thread as a discussion thread without the intention of necessarily developing it.

As for the Robert Sawyer series, I've never read it, so if I do undertake this POD, any resemblance between my work and Sawyers would be purely coincidental.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

You must have missed this one.

Interestingly, the article cited says that isotopic studies ONLY are capable of determining which kinds of meat is eaten (i.e. animal versus fish, or which kinds of herbivores were preferred eating material), because it is a test for a protein isotope. Vegetable intake is effectively invisible to such a study, and, as the article states...



So, as it turns out, the whole "carnivorous Neanderthal" theory apparently has some major problems.

Hmm... Interesting. Grains contain significant protein, so a major use of grass seed/grain in the diet OUGHT to affect the isotope ratios. Still, clear evidence that SOME Neandertals ate significant amounts of plants (which the Henry/Piperno paper certainly seems to provide), even if possibly in one locale does indicate that Neandertals elsewhere COULD, whether they did or not.

OK, so Neandertal agriculture is definitely arguable.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I also find it interesting that the Henry/Piperno paper deals with Levantine Neandertals. This is interesting for several reasons.

1) most of the isotope data is from European Neandertals
2) the Levant is where H.sapiens agriculture started (one of the places)
3) I believe there is evidence that the Levant population of Neandertals wasn't quite so stereotypically Neandertalish as the European ones were.

Note that, even if these points are vaild, this doesn't prevent a Neandertal civilization - it might just have to arise were OTL Sapiens civilizations arose. Or even if there were genetic adaptations needed in Europe, gene transfer is easy - I'll bet you could get hundreds of (male) volunteers

 

[Malta]

A world of Kromaggs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kromagg