top | item 29223457

Why did modern humans take so long to settle in Europe?

87 points| diodorus | 4 years ago |theguardian.com | reply

73 comments

order
[+] netcan|4 years ago|reply
One of the most fascinating points, to me, in "Sapiens," is that we have no evidence suggesting homo sapiens were culturally or behaviourally more sophisticated than other species prior to this period.

We inhabited a different geography and evidently had a preference for different ecosystems than neanderthals. Skeletal injuries suggest different hunting and/or warfare methods. But, no signs of more sophisticated tool use or such.

That changes circa 40kya. I think the answer to the question in this article is the same (unknown) answer to many questions.

YNH's hypothesis is that it was language sophistication. Language got to the point where it allowed for different types of culture including cooperation in large groups to emerge.

If the neanderthal replacement story is a conflict story, cooperation in large groups, the ability to form alliances and such is a pretty straightforward explanation.

Who knows though. A lot appears to have changes in this period. Wolves were domesticated, for example. Wolf husbandry alone might be enough to explain sapien expansion into large game rich territory.

[+] wahern|4 years ago|reply
Joseph Jordania theorizes that human intelligence preceded articulated speech, which he suggests may have arisen as a simple neurological mutation in East Asia about 40k years ago and quickly migrated back toward Europe and Africa.

Jordania is an ethnomusicologist and believes that human vocal chords evolved for polyphonic singing, part of an adaptation (along with dance) permitting humans to act in tight unison for, e.g., defense and intimidation. This social mimicry permitted them to create an ecological niche into which both intelligence and altruism could grow, with articulated speech (i.e. language as we know it today) being the very last and quite recent step, and perhaps the most important distinguishing characteristic--IOW, presumably closely related hominids were nearly as or similarly intelligent and social, just lacking the ability for complex, individual speech with its concomitant benefits (greater specialization and more sophisticated culture?).

AFAIU, this is in stark contrast to most anthropologists, who generally believe things happened in the reverse order, with simple language (e.g. sign language) providing the impetus for vocal chord development and articulated speech, which in turn laid the foundation for rapid coevolution of greater intelligence.

[+] raxxorrax|4 years ago|reply
Could very well be that the real uncultured babarians survived as homo sapiens. I don't think more sophistication at this level necessarily leads to more evolutionary success against other intelligent primates.
[+] littleweep|4 years ago|reply
Inhospitable conditions when compared to temperate climates?
[+] JoiDegn|4 years ago|reply
That's not a sufficient explanation because Neanderthals faced the same conditions but were outcompeted eventually. The question is: if Neanderthals were going to be outcompeted, why did it take so long for homo sapiens to establish themselves in Europe. What changed so that they would become the dominant humans
[+] blfr|4 years ago|reply
Earlier groups of humans could have also been genocided by the later migration waves which would explain why they left no trace in modern populations. Although this is less likely for women.
[+] jleyank|4 years ago|reply
Low populations increased the likelihood that new wave n brought a disease that wiped out new wave n-1. We saw that with European arrival into the Americas.

And 2% Neanderthal dna might be all that is noticeable as humans are 98-99% similar to chimps.

[+] cyberpsybin|4 years ago|reply
[flagged]
[+] fsloth|4 years ago|reply
Nobody knows why neanderthals died. There was considerable amount of crossbreeding - modern europeans may carry genes inherited from neanderthals - so it's far from obvious what exactly happened.
[+] Mikeb85|4 years ago|reply
Considering modern Europeans all have Neanderthal genes, they could have simply just been bred out of existence.
[+] q1w2|4 years ago|reply
I imagine all human migrations resulted in genocide - everywhere they happened. This isn't Europe specific.

...it's not even human specific as other animals do the same thing.

[+] tasogare|4 years ago|reply
If wonder if Neanderthals discussed an idea akin to the great replacement and if most of them thought/argued that was a conspiracy theory.
[+] trhway|4 years ago|reply
>if most of them thought/argued that was a conspiracy theory.

about 42K years ago the Earth poles flipped and as a result there was a 1K years period of high UV which, especially without change in visible light to trigger pupil response, would have caused a lot of early cataracts and other issues to the large light colored Neanderthals' eyes with them not having any idea what is happening to them while African originated Cro-Magnon with smaller darker eyes used to stronger African Sun would have fared much better in Europe in that period.

[+] inpdx|4 years ago|reply
Are your genes inferior? Then evolution will replace you over time. That's how it works.
[+] glogla|4 years ago|reply
For those lacking context - Great Replacement[1] is a conspiracy theory about how white people are being replaced by non-white people on purpose as a form or "long-term genocide". It is very popular with alt-right and neo-nazis and in most variants, "the Jews" are the ones behind it.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement

[+] gargalatas|4 years ago|reply
Well, if life started from Africa then let's face it guys: Europe is not for humans unless you like hair because being naked in Europe your hair will grow back all around you body!