

Ancestral Hierarchy and Conflict in Early Primates (2012) [pdf] - benbreen
http://peaceispatriotic.org/articles/HumanAncestralHeirarchy_Conflict.18May2012.pdf

======
tokenadult
For an article published in _Science_ , it's remarkable how little follow-up I
see to this 2012 article after searching Google and Google Scholar for a
while. I wonder what other researchers on the early origins of humankind think
about this. On my part, as an amateur about these issues, it does seem
plausible that human beings have a lot of capacity for peaceful cooperation,
which could readily have been selected for through many forgotten events of
human prehistory.

~~~
benbreen
It's getting attention in the history community - I found out about it because
it was prominently cited in this (unfortunately paywalled) article that just
came out in the American Historical Review, the leading history journal.
[http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/content/119/5/1529.extract](http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/content/119/5/1529.extract)

------
spiritplumber
I've often wondered - maybe bonobos were too friendly, chimps were too
aggressive, to sort out technology, but prehumans hit the Goldilocks for that.

~~~
s_q_b
I always wonder that too. Then I think reality is just too messy for the nice
dualistic explanation.

My current hypothesis is this. At one point in time, prior to the accepted
exit date for the "Out of Africa" hypothesis, various populations of
intermittently isolated but still interbreeding groups of descendants of
_Erectus_ existed. Their maximal range stretched from the Cape in Africa in
the South to Europe and Asia in the North.

At some point, one of these groups got stuck in an isolated environment with a
small population. Our genetics show that all modern humans are descended from
a breeding population of a few thousand individuals. While in the midst of
this "Great Pinch," this population evolved a "killer app," most likely making
extreme use of our strong but tactile hands coupled to our (comparatively)
massive glucose-gobbling brains.

Through chance event they then reintegrated with the breeding populations
similar enough to them to produce fertile offspring. But those with more
_sapiens_ like genes received such a genetic advantage, that they were able to
spread those genes far and wide, until all the human-like species were
destroyed or submerged in _H. Sapiens_.

What was that killer app? I don't know. But some fundamental sea shift
occurred when our population dwindling so low: perhaps true language, or maybe
larger group size through religion. But its defining feature seemed to be that
it enabled mass organization on a large scale, larger than was possible in
simple hunter-gatherer bands.

The basic "tribal culture" of humanity, in which we can extend our imagined
community of kin beyond the next mountain range, is the manifestation of that
change. Even the most untouched hunter-gatherer bands we encounter have some
sort of allegiance to a larger group, which was often termed "tribe."

Imagine hunter-gatherer warfare vs. tribal warfare. Your total numbers
constrained by Dunbar's number while your enemy can call consistently call
upon thousands of loosely allied bands to come to his aid.

It reconciles both "Out of Africa" with the increasingly bizarre findings that
of human-like artifacts predate the theory's predicted exit time.

It's too bad, I would have rather liked to talk to a Denisovan or Neanderthal.

At this time, I'd like to note that I wish I was an evolutionary biologist, or
that one would be kind enough correct me :)

