|
euphronius posted:You’d think with small (small) populations and large distances you get lots and lots of diversity due to drift and sexual selection I brought up the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis a few weeks back and I still find the idea fascinating; that agriculture allowed farming groups to drastically out-populate foragers, and so they out-competed and displaced/assimilated them, causing the spread of much more homogeneous language families and genetics over vast areas. One of the big qualifiers when it first was proposed was how it's not universally applicable; it was originally only theorized wrt: the Indo-European family, and more recently has also been applied to some inner Eurasian language families + Korean and Japanese, but even within those areas it wasn't only spread through neolithic genocide. But it still paints a really interesting picture imo; maybe there actually was a lot of diversity, until agricultural peoples came and homogenized everything.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Yeah And I am kind of wondering about the use of “species” above (not criticizing just trying to be careful !) Species is a bad word anyway I guess
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
Nessus posted:e: Wasn't there one anchor stone or something? No. There are a couple stones that look like it, but they're just local stones that got weathered. It is possible to get blown across the entire Pacific, there's at least one documented case of a Japanese ship traveling from Nagoya to Tokyo that got caught in a storm and ended up in Washington over a year later (three crew even managed to survive) but there's no evidence for any Chinese ships. Currents are also involved and there aren't any that can carry you from China to the Americas, you have to be up on the Pacific coast of Japan. Chinese trade ships to Japan didn't go there, at the time that part of Japan was a backwater and there was no reason to. They traded in the Ryukyus and Kyushu mostly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
It seems like "There were very recently sorts of human other than H. s. sapiens" gets kinda yikes pretty quickly, though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah It's tricky with humans because it looks like various human species (subspecies?) kept loving and mixing the lineages. They're distinct enough that their DNA is identifiably different, and some of them looked different like Neanderthals, but for the most part they could breed with one another when they met (homo floresiensis is a possible exception). We don't have a lot of ancient human remains so there's a lot of speculation. Also "species" is a nebulous concept anyway, biology doesn't fit neatly into our attempts to categorize it. There were lots of different kinds of homo, now there is just one, but our DNA has evidence that the one remaining species got it on with the other ones and we have bits of their genetic legacy in us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:It seems like "There were very recently sorts of human other than H. s. sapiens" gets kinda yikes pretty quickly, though? Why? It's true. There haven't been any in recorded history as far as we know, but it's neat that it wasn't that long ago. Probably for the best the other species died out though, I can't imagine a modern world with multiple human species would be an improvement over what we already deal with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
Not only is it true that there were other human species around within the last few tens of thousands of years, but it’s also practically guaranteed that one of your ancestors hosed one
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
If the concern is about racists using the existence of other human species to be racist, I don't think it matters. If racists were into science and evidence they wouldn't be racist. There's no reason to avoid research because some chud rear end in a top hat will try to twist it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
skasion posted:Not only is it true that there were other human species around within the last few tens of thousands of years, but it’s also practically guaranteed that one of your ancestors hosed one I mean, it's called "strange" for a reason, one assumes? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
There's no reason to think it would be strange though. We know interbreeding between hominids happened, and it happened multiple times in multiple places with multiple different groups. Appearance-wise it's possible some of the members of species A might have fallen well within the normal variation of appearances of species B, meaning there would have been nothing for them to even notice. Or maybe they were actually super racist and oppressive all in their own ways! It's pretty impossible to know, and not worth getting upset about. See also: cannibalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:46
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Grand Fromage posted:If racists were into science and evidence they wouldn't be racist. No, the current consensus of the scientific community is that the obviously racist should be shouted down. But this consensus was achieved within living memory by the work of guys like Boas (not to mention the image problem for scientific racists caused by, say, the Holocaust). Racists today can find plenty of what they consider to be science and evidence to back up their opinions; that the common man does not consider this to be legitimate is evidence of the success of the intellectual program opposed to scientific racism, but doesn’t tell us much about racists. from a tall enough pulpit, such racists could very well bring such opinions back into dominant position. to assume that the aforementioned current consensus is invulnerable because self-evident is Whiggism. PittTheElder posted:There's no reason to think it would be strange though. We know interbreeding between hominids happened, and it happened multiple times in multiple places with multiple different groups. Appearance-wise it's possible some of the members of species A might have fallen well within the normal variation of appearances of species B, meaning there would have been nothing for them to even notice. Or maybe they were actually super racist and oppressive all in their own ways! It's pretty impossible to know, and not worth getting upset about. If modern man is any evidence, prehistoric man was probably an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
If homo sapiens had taken another 50 thousand years to develop agriculture (and thus the eventual invention of technologies that enable much easier global travel) we might have legit homo sapiens subspecies running around and that would be a huge mess to navigate I do find it interesting that anatomically modern humans have existed for at least 50k years, being hunter-gatherers for tens of thousands of years straight--and then farming was invented independently in the old and new worlds only about three thousand years apart from each other. Probably best not to try to read too much into that because it's only two data points (it's hard to imagine the people domesticating crops in Africa hadn't at least heard of farming from the societies to the north, even if their crops didn't grow in the tropics), and Australia never developed it before Europeans arrived.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The thing I remember from 1491 was that the first inland (European) visitors to what is now the Mississippi valley found it already ravaged by plague and civil destruction Second visitors. First visitors were a bit I'll and brought some pigs that got loose in the forest. The next visitors came across the Fallout/Mad Max version.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Ælfred: hand me the aux cord Goddammit now I'm into Bardcore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 01:36
|
|
|
cool how there are so many cognates that are close to comprehensible but not quite, like quicker and cuicra or bow and boghan
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
the part of 1491 about the first european encounters with post-smallpox america draws heavily from the Chronicle of the Narvaez Expedition by Cabeza de Vaca circa 1540 and i couldn't recommend it enough the full text in english is free and a really fascinating read, it's an absolutely unbelievable journey: they land in Tampa Bay, act like monsters to the locals until they ultimately come across the Apalachee, who harry and raid them and disappear back into the swamps until Spanish give up and try to sail away. Then they sail right into a hurricane, which crashes them into South Texas, and they have to walk overland to Mexico City, where they pass countless dying cultures and ghost towns and become faith healers (????). it's totally wild
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
1500s America is a crazy time, I wish there were more good books focusing on Mexico in particular. You read other history books and they just casually mention "and he was attacked by the the community of samurai expats in Mexico City in 1547" and I'm just what the poo poo I want to read that book not this one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:If homo sapiens had taken another 50 thousand years to develop agriculture (and thus the eventual invention of technologies that enable much easier global travel) we might have legit homo sapiens subspecies running around and that would be a huge mess to navigate There was absolutely agriculture in Australia before European invasion. Dark Emu by Bruce Pascoe breaks down this myth and is a very accessible read. There are plenty of accounts from the first European settlers of fields of grain and root vegetables which are cultivated, towns with permanent structures, silos of grains, permanent fish traps etc. Much of this was then destroyed by cattle and European farming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
Yeah there were permanent Aboriginal settlements, it's just that the settlers destroyed all evidence to continue the myth of tera nulius
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's tricky with humans because it looks like various human species (subspecies?) kept loving and mixing the lineages. They're distinct enough that their DNA is identifiably different, and some of them looked different like Neanderthals, but for the most part they could breed with one another when they met (homo floresiensis is a possible exception). We don't have a lot of ancient human remains so there's a lot of speculation. Also "species" is a nebulous concept anyway, biology doesn't fit neatly into our attempts to categorize it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
Big Willy Style posted:There was absolutely agriculture in Australia before European invasion. Dark Emu by Bruce Pascoe breaks down this myth and is a very accessible read. There are plenty of accounts from the first European settlers of fields of grain and root vegetables which are cultivated, towns with permanent structures, silos of grains, permanent fish traps etc. Much of this was then destroyed by cattle and European farming. oh neat I'm glad to learn that
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
Like a point Pascoe makes is that the type of agriculture that the aboriginals practiced didn't utilize enclosure or constant monitoring to exclude herbivores, don't need someone constantly watching over the fields and tilling them and spreading seeds. You could keep one eye on it, forage for food when needed, and chill the rest of the time. So it didn't resemble old-world agriculture, which was used to justify why it was okay for the settlers to push the natives off their land. Not like they needed an excuse, it's just a post-facto justification.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 03:49
|
|
|
No it was more than that, they destroyed anything remotely civilization looking and spun a narrative that the aborigonals were so uncivilized they weren't even people. Tera Nulius. Land of Noone and Nothing
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 03:57
|
|
|
I don't buy that there was some continent spanning conspiracy to cover up all evidence of civilization. Not like anybody bothered doing that in North America or India or even New Zealand. The author of Dark Emu is an amateur with no training as a historian, if I was going to read into it I would look for something a little more rigorous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
Doesn't need to be a conspiracy just people destroying their stuff to set up settler farms and racism letting them disregard stuff. Same way that America as a land untamed by its natives was allowed to permeate as a widely held idea despite oodles of evidence against it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
also civilization and technology don't always look like brickwork and sextants
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 06:00
|
|
|
It sounds like they probably did not make massive works of stone or metal which would tend to be the most durable evidence. OctaviusBeaver posted:I don't buy that there was some continent spanning conspiracy to cover up all evidence of civilization. Not like anybody bothered doing that in North America or India or even New Zealand. Nessus fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Jul 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Second visitors. First visitors were a bit I'll and brought some pigs that got loose in the forest. The next visitors came across the Fallout/Mad Max version. The first visitors were Hernando de Soto's expedition. De Soto was basically one of history's great assholes and he left a trail of death destruction through America.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 11:09
|
|
|
I live in Chicago, and there's an early map of the city from the 1830s? Iirc that shows a small lizard mound on the north side. Like most of those mounds, the local settlers didn't give a poo poo cuz why should they and it got plowed for farmland/developed. No records, no pictures. We don't know how many of those there were and we never will. And that's how you get a bunch of italian-americans smoking cigars in front of a columbus statue and declaring that columbus found nothing but savages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 13:30
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Doesn't need to be a conspiracy just people destroying their stuff to set up settler farms and racism letting them disregard stuff. Same way that America as a land untamed by its natives was allowed to permeate as a widely held idea despite oodles of evidence against it. Sure, I buy that the settlers destroyed stuff but: quote:it's just that the settlers destroyed all evidence to continue the myth of tera nulius Doing it specifically to cover up all evidence of civilization across the whole continent? No way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 14:23
|
|
|
I think you're being overly pedantic about phrasing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
They imply pretty vastly different things about the outlook of the settlers. For an internet forum it's not a big deal but I don't think it's just pedantry.OctaviusBeaver posted:The author of Dark Emu is an amateur with no training as a historian, if I was going to read into it I would look for something a little more rigorous. There was an Ask Historians post asking about this a bit back, the top answer there recommends The Biggest Estate on Earth as something with more academic rigor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
It wasn't a conspiracy. It was open policy. The concept of tera nulius has a very very specific meaning in law, even today. I'm on my phone and it's 2am but that is the outcome of what happened. Captain Cook declared Australia nobodies land, a very specific legal term, and then everyone that followed perpetuated it. Some wrre just following orders, some beleived it, some just wanted farm land. The result was a lot of violence, and much like the rest of the world, death via imported disease. When Cook came here his mission was to establish whether or not there were people, and take sovereignty with permission if there was. He said the continent was completely uninhabited, a lie, and that's the foundation of the nation of Australia. We didn't make treaties because they were not people. We were still trying to exterminate them up until the 70s and it wasn't until the 90s that tera nulius was challenged. Read the wiki page for the stolen generation. The Maoris got treaties because they were considered people, Australia was an invasion where the native nations were officially non existent in British law. They never did make zigurats or giant marble temples or stone pyramids. But what they did make, official policy was to just steamroll over it. We don't know much of what was destroyed because there's no reason to keep records of your conquest of a nation that official policy says doesn't exist, and many of these nations were completely wiped out. We are still destroying their historic sites too btw, a cave system estimated to have had residents for the past 40000 years was blown up to make a mine by I believe Rio Tinto just the other week. Imagine that same attitude but 100 years ago without the internet or any friendly faces in white civilisation. We shouldn't be a nation. Even under British law the establishment of colonies here was completely illegal. Australia was and is legally stolen land
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:The first visitors were Hernando de Soto's expedition. De Soto was basically one of history's great assholes and he left a trail of death destruction through America. Well, unlike Pizarro and Cortez he suffered consequences for his behavior, so he doesn't rank quite has high on the list.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:It wasn't a conspiracy. It was open policy. The concept of tera nulius has a very very specific meaning in law, even today. I'm on my phone and it's 2am but that is the outcome of what happened. I consider Australia to be an open air prison even to this day and frequently call my australian friends inmate. Joking aside, this side of history is something that is so rarely taught in history books that most people today would go "Nu uuh no way!" and I really wish education systems would do a better job at explaining just how horrible some people were treated to convey not only the information, but the horror of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
sullat posted:Well, unlike Pizarro and Cortez he suffered consequences for his behavior, so he doesn't rank quite has high on the list. Pizarro got smoked in his own house by the mestizo son of a man he betrayed and killed over the spoils of their ravages, hard to get more consequential than that
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
Let's steer this back to antiquity. Is there a consensus here on which of the Hellenic peoples was best? I'm talking late 6th, 5th, and early-mid 4th century. I think we can immediately narrow the race down to two front-runners: Ionians and Dorians. The Achaeans were too insignificant to merit attention, and the Aeolians sadly had their reputation ruined beyond redemption by T****s. Focusing on Dorians and Ionians, I'm inclined to say that the Dorians should be the favourite. I'd like some input from you guys, though. It's tough to say what makes a people "best"; perhaps we should only focus on individual city-states and leagues for this period. However, here's a general analysis: Dorians: - Solid reputation as a brave and reliable people. - Formed the most powerful city-states and essentially preserved/led the Hellenic world. - Greatest metaphysical thinkers (Elea is Dorian by Phocaia -> Phocis. Eleatic Philosophers had the best metaphysics.) - Best Generals (Spartan generals were desired throughout the known world and were the cause of many stunning reversals/victories) - Best Admirals (Melissus by way of association with Eleatics, and his home state of Samos was associated with Epidauros. Syracuse and Sparta led navies that smashed Athens') - Most diverse range of city-states; if you love Athens then you can probably make do with places like Syracuse or Corinth. If you love the utopian world of Sparta, though... substitution is probably impossible, but any alternative involves Dorians (Crete). - By extension, the above point about diversity suggests that they had the most broad-minded law-givers/political theory guys. Let us also not forget that there was a time when Sparta (Dorians) held the Hellenic world in the palm of her hand, and the Spartans could have genocided the centre of Ionian civilization (Athens). In fact, many city-states begged them to do so. However, in an ultimate act of noble grace and charity, Sparta spared the Athenians. For this reason, everyone who loves the work of people like Plato should maintain a small shrine to Sparta and give regular thanks. Only through the wisdom and consistency of the Spartan people was Athens (and the Hellenic world generally) able to survive and flourish. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Parmenides posted:Is there a consensus here on which of the Hellenic peoples was best? This seems like a bad concept for a discussion
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:This seems like a bad concept for a discussion I guess that's a bad sign for the "best pre-historic hominid species" bracket then
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I guess that's a bad sign for the "best pre-historic hominid species" bracket then that one played out in real time with a death sentence for the loser of each round
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 21:19
|
|