
Grisly find suggests humans inhabited Arctic 45,000 years ago - fforflo
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/grisly-find-suggests-humans-inhabited-arctic-45000-years-ago
======
kazinator
> _“Surviving at those latitudes requires highly specialized technology and
> extreme cooperation,” Marean agrees. That implies that these were modern
> humans, rather than Neandertals [sic; UK spelling] or other early members of
> the human family. “_

Hasn't the idea been debunked that neanderthals were ape-like idiots incapable
of cooperation or sophisticated tools?

~~~
Scriptor
They weren't ape-like idiots, but nonetheless newly arrived Homo Sapiens used
noticeably more sophisticated tool-making techniques. This is one of the ways
archaeologists are able to distinguish Neanderthal sites from, say, Cro-magnon
sites. It is also thought that modern Homo Sapiens lived in groups much larger
than Neanderthals did.

~~~
kazinator
But the _homo sapiens_ of 2016 uses more sophisticated tool-making techniques
than the _homo sapiens_ of 10,000 years ago!

Flint arrowheads versus microchip fabs; same species.

~~~
tosseraccount
Same genes though?

Perhaps there has been selection for sophisticated tool making abilities.

~~~
seizethecheese
10,000 years is extremely short from an evolutionary perspective.

~~~
euyyn
The selection still happened: It's probably the main reason we're still here
and the other homo species aren't.

------
jayess
It amazes me that ancient people put up with such harsh conditions. Why not
just move south, where it's warmer. I suppose part of the issue is lack of
knowledge of other places, but still. Why stay in such a harsh, difficult
place?

~~~
beat
Food.

Colder climates often produce an abundance of food, relative to warmer climes,
and less competition. Mammoths, specifically, are terrific targets. Bringing
down just one could feed a tribe for weeks, and they had almost no other
predators. And besides food, the carcass had an abundance of skin and fur,
powerful tendons for "rope", ivory that could be carved into more subtle
shapes than stone - all sorts of uses, relative to small game. A rabbit might
feed a family one day, and you're competing with all sorts of dogs, cats, and
predatory rodents for them.

The human survival advantage is primarily intelligence. Intelligence is what
made it possible for a coordinated, armed group of human hunters to bring down
mammoths, when even sabertooth tigers and wolf packs couldn't do it. No
competition for the biggest food source on legs? That's a huge win from a
survival perspective.

~~~
cgh
Speaking as a hunter, your assertion that northern climates (I live in the
north) produce more game is false. Deer populations, to use one example,
thrive in warm temps. Also, compare the African savannah and its abundance of
game animals to, say, northern Canada.

The real reasons are probably topography and game habits. The north is
generally pretty flat and the ground is often frozen, making travel easy. And
in cold temperatures, game often clusters together for warmth and follows
predictable movement patterns because there are only so many places to find
food. And finally, snow makes it easy to track game of any size.

These are all important in modern hunting too. Not much has really changed in
that regard.

~~~
has2k1
Northern climates, offer(ed) predictability for a very long time. In ancient
times, you will probably not get human population explosions, but they will
thrive in the North.

It was easier for populations to blow up in southern climates but then there
were resets(generational disasters) -- specifically famine.

------
JoeAltmaier
The real tragedy is, how little of the animal appears to have been used. The
tongue; some of a tusk. That's it. No wonder they went extinct so quickly.

~~~
frankjaeger
That is far from a tragedy. Aside from the fact that 'how little of the animal
appears to have been used' is the exact reason we all have the benefit of this
discovery, one should realize this extremely rare find is in no way indicative
of how early hominids utilized the mammoth population they preyed upon. I'm
not sure if you've experienced current Arctic weather, but feel free to
compare it to any refrigeration techniques of say, the 19th century, and then
consider that at the time of the kill the world was a colder place. It is not
unrealistic to assume that roaming hunter-gatherers would find it more
efficient to simply store the meat of a literally gigantic kill at the exact
site of the kill; harvesting what they needed, when they needed it. If you can
assume that, it's not a far leap to assume that those who made this particular
kill were unfortunately deprived the opportunity to fully harvest it.

I'm sure if you were around back then, there would be a zero probability such
a 'tragedy' could ever occur. By the way, super interested in all of your
current acts of altruism that might directly or indirectly combat the
innumerable current 'tragedies' levied by humanity on any other species. I'll
donate $1 USD in your username to a charity of your choice for every one you
feel compelled to list. To deprive a cause you care so deeply about an influx
of capital, I dare say, would be a real tragedy.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Dang, this simple observation about ancient hunting practices sure has stirred
up some vitriol. How does a 40,000 year dead hunter create an emotional bond
like this? That's a more interesting question.

~~~
frankjaeger
If you believe your observation about one discovery of the remains of one
ancient hunt is an observation of ancient hunting practices in general, you
really need to look into the importance of sample size. If you believe any
response here to your observation was anything close to cruel, how fair do you
really believe your observation of those dead hunters is?

Regardless of how long someone has been dead, or how remote they may be to
you, slandering them is not something you should do, especially on such a
misinformed basis. To label their acts of survival a tragedy is incorrect,
it's not an opinion.

