THE PALEO ENLIGHTENMENT HERITAGE

THE MENU

NEGROES TODAY WANT OUT OF AFRICA THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY 1.3 B OF THEM
THE MODERN HUMAN ENLIGHTENMENT 

SEE BELOW

WHY NOT READ THE REAL BUTT UGLY PALEOGENETIC RACIAL STORY ?

WADE, I FIND, SPELLS OUT, MUCH BETTER THAN SACCARIN LIBERAL DAVID REICH,  WHAT I HAD DESCRIBED IN PRIOR POSTS: 

REPELLENT LOOKING DUMB NEGRO MODERNS RAN BULKY DUMBER BUTT UGLY  WHITE NEANDERTHALS TO GROUND, TO EXTINCTION, IN VERY LONG, SMALL TRIBE BY SMALL TRIBE, ON EACH SIDE, SMALL GRASS ROOTS DEMOCRATIC POPULATION SHORT DISTANCE GUERILLA WAR MOVEMENTS, EVERYWHERE, AN ENORMOUS ULTRA LOCAL GUERILLA WAR ON A THOUSAND OR TWO THOUSAND  TINY FRONTS, ALL AT ONCE, A FIVE OR TEN THOUSAND YEAR HAND TO HAND RACE WAR OF ATTRITION

Before The Dawn, p. 93.

I will just add these choice tidbits he fails to note in passing:

Did tiny groups of Neanderthals, here or there, each welcome or accept as neutral or friendly, a small new group of moderns, or vice versa? No.

Did moderns, greet on friendly terms a new tiny group of just encountered Neanderthals, as new friend or modern tribe member possibilities? No.

As the moderns gradually advanced, tiny tribe by tiny tribe expansion, against tiny groups of Neanderthals, in fitful and intermittent retreat, what do you think also happened?

I will spell it out for you, but I don't want you to lose your lunch too early: 

As moderns, slowly, generation by generation, moved and encroached into Neanderthal territory, they were not able to just suddenly, in a day or a year or three years, take it over. No. 

Many times, certainly countless times, over 5 or 10 thousand years, they would have been, for a time, driven back, iback nto their prior range, or even into a previous range, one march further back. 

Guess what they would have confronted back there, in their abandoned and evacuated range?

This is the problem for these pioneers: Their prior ranges were still occupied by the modern tribes, their relatives,  they had to leave behind. 

The range they inhabited could not support both of them, and may have been stretched more and more, over time, supporting even the same population as they had before. 

As Wade notes, in Australia, larger mammals went extinct several thousand years after the arrival of moderns there, around 45k years ago, with no archaic humans even there to compete against their encroachment into the continent. 

That tells you a lot about the dynamics,  forces, and circumstances of early human and archaic human settlements and movements.

So, back to the discussion above, about the problems for both moderns and Neanderthals which encountered reverses.......What did they each then do, and why?

What happened when Neanderthals retreated in the face of the new moderns' onslaughts?
They would have retreated in some cases, in others not.
What happened if they had had to retreat back into their former range?

They would have been viciously attacked, killed, and eaten by residents of the ranges they had left one or two generations ago. It was a matter of brute survival: both of the Neanderthal groups could not survive on the limited food supply in the previously vacated overpopulated range.

What happened to moderns when pushed back into prior ranges by Neanderthal onslaughts?
The same things, vicious attacks by their relatives living in the pioir range, and ending up on their own relatives' menu.

But let me hypothesize something new here, something I do not knnw has been broached or not in the paleo literature. 

Why could the moderns push ahead given such antagonisms before and in back for each?

One answer has been that the moderns were more intelligent and had language which Neanderthals may not, or may have had less of. 

Granted, but their tools, and especially their weapons, were both rather rudimentary, no bows or arrows yet on either side, and the Neanderthals were much bigger and stronger.

Furthermore, the Neanderthals were being backed into their own heritage ranges and terrains, whereas the moderns were advancing, both in the Middle East and Europe, into unfamiliar land. And land for which moderns were less well fitted genetically than neanderthals regarding cold.

What kinds of thing might have swung the balance in favor of the smaller lighter built and not much more intelligent, if any, moderns?

Disease is one obvious possibility, that moderns brought with them diseases for which they had already developed resitance Neanderthals did not have.

I have a suggestion: Call it several related hypotheses.

Let us suppose that the moderns invented a new weapon, but it was not a new physical external one at all. But much more effective than all their advances in physical weaponry over the Neanderthal combined.

Let us suppose that the first modern humans, even before they left Africa, had invented torture.

This may sound bizarre, and highly speculative. That may be.

Let us suppose that they had practised it first only on their enemies (often even partially blood relative tribes) in Africa (although this is not necessary to the argument.), but perhaps first, actually, even  on themselves. 

And let us suppose that in spite of studies suggesting that modern humans had no hierarchies, that in fact they did have very rudimentary ones making decisions regarding whom to torture or not, decisions made somehow by these groups, perhaps at first by consensus.

(Even this is not necessary to the argument, since the decision to torture a modern group member could  be just another nebulous equalitarian group decision or non decision, done without a group interdiction. Torturing enemies, on the other hand, would not be a decision of the kind requiring a leader in any event.)

So, what happened when moderns confronted a Neanderthal group? The moderns grabbed one or more and refrained from killing them right away. This itself was an innovation in human history, putting off immediate gratification; Wade discuses it at many places.

They tortured them, maybe where the Neanderthals could see them, maybe not. 

So, with terror now a new and innovative behavioral weapon for humans, maybe the Neanderthals were more willing even to turn and face the hostile nearby populations of their own cannibal relatives in their prior ranges rather than to stand and confront so terrible, vicious, and ugly a people as modern humans obviously were to them, and vice versa.

On the other hand, and just as tellingly, suppose that Neanderthals had prevailed in skirmishes, and had at times driven some groups of modern humans back into their own former ranges?

(After all, Wade points out that Neanderthals appear to have bottled up anatomically modern humans coming out of Africa around 100,000 years ago, exterminating whatever remnant managed to escape into the Middle East.)

There, moderns would once again have confronted their own kind, now already well established and very hostile to giving up their range now to a defeated returning group.  What would they have done?

They would have killed and eaten those they did not need to enslave, and would have tortured returning prodical son modern humans they left alive, as a lesson not to return again from the Neanderthal frontier to trouble them in their hinterland homeland.

This is the Eenlightenment: the insight that torture works, both within the home group,  against  enemy Neanderthals and any others, and against your own kind sent out against them but returning to the old homeland in failure.

Failed modern human incursions into Neanderthal territory would have been less likely because of modern human discovery of the use of terror, and would have fought more vigorously and successfully in the first instance, but  knowing also the consequences if they had to retreat, even temporarily, back into their recent homeland range again.

Some modern researchers claim that archaic and moderns did not eat eachother so much for the calories as for the ritual value, as if the archaics were trying to make mainly or only a religious ritual doctrinal statement by killing and eating other hominids. 

That may be one tiny insignificant point, but I doubt it, really. This is nonsense. 

Let's put it this way: They would have been no less likely to be ritualistic about slaughtering and eating a boar, or a rat.

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-stone-age-cannibals-worth-hassle.html

This post is dedicated to Nicholas Wade, sine qua non.