Did We Kill Off Another Species of Humans Ten Thousand Years Ago?

[Judi Lynn]

February 3, 2020

We came to dominate the planet somehow.

by Nick Longrich

Key Point: Like language or tool use, a capacity for and tendency to engage in genocide is arguably an intrinsic, instinctive part of human nature. There’s little reason to think that early Homo sapiens were less territorial, less violent, less intolerant – less human.


Nine human species walked the Earth 300,000 years ago. Now there is just one. The Neanderthals, Homo neanderthalensis, were stocky hunters adapted to Europe’s cold steppes. The related Denisovans inhabited Asia, while the more primitive Homo erectus lived in Indonesia, and Homo rhodesiensis in central Africa.

Several short, small-brained species survived alongside them: Homo naledi in South Africa, Homo luzonensis in the Philippines, Homo floresiensis (“hobbits”) in Indonesia, and the mysterious Red Deer Cave People in China. Given how quickly we’re discovering new species, more are likely waiting to be found.

By 10,000 years ago, they were all gone. The disappearance of these other species resembles a mass extinction. But there’s no obvious environmental catastrophe – volcanic eruptions, climate change, asteroid impact – driving it. Instead, the extinctions’ timing suggests they were caused by the spread of a new species, evolving 260,000-350,000 years ago in Southern Africa: Homo sapiens.

The spread of modern humans out of Africa has caused a sixth mass extinction, a greater than 40,000-year event extending from the disappearance of Ice Age mammals to the destruction of rainforests by civilisation today. But were other humans the first casualties?

More:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-we-kill-another-species-humans-ten-thousand-years-ago-119941

[hlthe2b]

1. Every ten years or so, it is interesting to see how our knowledge has advanced.

Honestly, can one possibly think there can't be more sophisticated forms of higher life somewhere out in the universe?

Our own history is so incomplete. How can we even begin to know what we "don't know"

[Turbineguy]

2. If there are

they have been smart enough not to try and make friends with us.

[wnylib]

3. I made a point of checking the credentials

of the publication and the author because there are some dubious statements, assumptions, and omissions in this article.

The publication, "The National Interest" was founded by neocon Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol who founded PNAC (Project for a New American Century). The PNAC is a blueprint for a Pax Americana, and advocates, among other things, the use of bioliogical weapons to eliminate some ethnicities or 'races' of human beings. Its goals and beliefs were available online back in the early 2000's. I printed a hard copy and read it then.

The credentials of this article's author, Nick Longrich, are given at the end of the article as lecturer of paleontology and evolutionary biology at the University of Bath, UK. Sounded impressive, so why the dubious points that I noticed? I looked him up.

Longrich himself describes his expertise as the study of life in the Cretaceous Period, 145 million to 66 million years ago; the mass extinctions of the Chicxulub crater event (dinosauer and other extinctions); and the evolution of new life forms (birds from avian dinosauers, worms and snakes from small lizards).

In other words, human evolution is not his forte. It shows. There are subtle undertones and hints in his article that some modern humans are superior to other modern humans, according to inherited ancestrai DNA from now extinct ancestors of modern humans.

Perhaps that is why he chose to publish this article in The National Interest, and why they accepted it for publication.

I will point out his dubious, and perhaps biased, statements, assumptions, and omissions in another post.

[wnylib]

4. Dubious claims, assumptions, and

omissions in the article.

Right at the start, Longrich is incorrect in putting Neanderthals (HN) exclusively in Europe. They ranged from Iberia in SW Europe to the eastern Mediterranean region of western Asia, northern Africa, into central Asia, and as far as central Siberia. Modern humans, including Native Americans, have some degree of HN DNA due to their widespread range and intermating. The exception is sub-Saharan Africa because HN evolved from Homo erectus (HE) outside of Africa.

Longrich then says the "related Denisovans" were in Asia while "more primitive" HE lived in Indonedia. ALL of these variations of early humans were related because they ALL descended from HE, some of whom remained in Africa when other HE left to spread far and wide. HE continued to evolve, both in and out of Africa, producing many offshoots who could and did interbreed when they encountered each other. Denisovans (HD) are more closely related to HN than to other HE offshoots, but all HE descendants were related enough to interbreed.

HD interbred with HN in Asia, but HD was not exclusive to Asia. They were also in Indonesia and, I believe, Melanesia. The "more primitive" HE in Indonesia were also evolving, because that is what HE did. We do not have fossils of a distinctly separate HE offshoot in Indonesia, but to call them "more primitive" has no foundation.

Longrich says that Homo rhodesiensis (HR) was in Africa. HR was named for an African fossil and evolved in Africa from HE, but had a number of variations often identified together as Homo heidelbergensis (HH). HH or HR is a likely direct line ancestor of HS (Homo sapiens -- us), but not yet firmly established in the fossil record.

Longrich references the brain size of HN to suggest that they had near HS intelligence. HN's brain case was actually larger than ours, so by Longrich's standards, we are a step down in intelligence from HN. However, brain size alone does not determine intelligence. Proportion to overall body size is a factor and there are other biological factors involved with HN and brain size. But this association of HN and HS intelligence, combined with Longrich's earlier, incorrect placement of HN in Europe exclusively is part if an old, debunked racial supremacy belief of superior European intelligence. It was part of an old, now disproved belief that modern humans evolved in Europe as direct descendants of HN and all other humans are inferior unless they have some European genes from modern intermarriage.

[wnylib]

5. More problems with this article

Longrich claims that there were no major geological or climate events to account for human evolutionary changes, extinctions, and developments. But climate changes played a major role in human evolution. Periods of glaciation changed forests to grasslands (around the time that our ancestors left trees to live upright on the ground). Grasslands became deserts and separated our African ancestors from each other to evolve separately while still in Africa, some to extinction and others toward more upright and human-like ancestors of us.

Climate changes favored those who could adapt to various habitats via tool development, broadened diets, and social groupings for cooperation and interdependence, the ability to make clothing, shelters, etc. Habitat and local resources influenced evolution. So did isolations of gene pools due to geographical separation by habitat changes. But at the edges of a habitat, our ancestors sometimes encountered other evolving ancestors and intermated enough to maintain enough similarity among various evolving homonin forms to allow fertile intermixing.

Sometimes localized or widespread climate events caused extinctions of large groups of one type of hominin, e.g. flooding, drought, or warming that brought insects, germs, and disease. Genetic bottlenecks occurred, nearly extinguishing a group. Later interbreeding would finish them off as a distinctly separate homonin form.

Longrich assumes that culture in the form of artwork was a modern human (HS) invention. But we know that HN at least (and maybe others) had decorative beads and ritual burials that included placement of flowers. Maybe it was HS who learned from HN sometimes.

[wnylib]

6. The article is correct, sort of, about aggression.

Territorialism and social group identity are intrinsic to human nature, to a degree, and appear to be biologically inherited from our ancient ancestors. But, so are cooperation, negotiation, acceptance of 'the other' into a group.

Our closest relatives today, chimpanzees, are territorial. The males are hierarchical and follow the leadership of an alpha male in their troop (band of chimps). In Jane Goodall's studies, the males used posturing, intimidating grunts, and gestures to assert themselves until one remained dominant. They did not physically fight for the role. Some other studies in other locations report some serious physical fights.

Chimps are not monogamous. They do not form parental pairs, but sometimes preferences develop and males will sometimes protect their own offspring from internal threats by other chimps in the troop. This happens when other chimps, usually mothers, steal an infant to kill and feed to their own offspring.

In general, chimp males protect the entire troop from external threats. They will attack outsiders in their territory and follow them to kill off the invaders' entire troop. Chimp genocide. But, they will also sometimes accept a single 'foreign' female into their troop.

But, we do not descend from chimps, so we do not inherit our traits from them. We are close relatives because we have a common ancestor. Our ancestors diverged from our chimp cousins to develop along our own, separate evolutionary path.

We have another close relative who also shared a common ancestor with us and with chimps. They are bonobos. They look like chimps but are smaller and are a separate species of their own. They are more peaceful and cooperative than chimps. They defend their territories but do not engage in genocide like chimps do. They have troop leaders but they settle differences among themselves through mediation and negotiation. Often, females are the mediators between 2 males. They sometimes adopt outsiders, other times drive them off.

We do not descend from bonobos, either. But we share some traits of both of our ancestral relatives because all 3 of us share a common distant ancestor. Our ancestors diverged onto our own evolutionary branch of the family tree. Along the way, our inherited traits evolved, both genetically and culturally, according to environmental and social pressures and genetic changes..

Our ancestors formed small social groups and larger ones. They evolved customs, or social rules, to maintain social stability and unity. They distrusted the 'outsider' or stranger, but developed customs for dealing with them in hospitality, trade, or rejection, which might include death, varying from one culture to another.

Longrich cites the skeletal remains of injured bones to back up claims of a genocidal past. Nonsense. They indicate the existance of wars or maybe a fight between 2 people, but that is not genocide. Skeletons of 20+ people that he cited might have been part of a sacrificial custom, or a ritual treatment of people who died from disease. He cannot know if they indicate genocide. Nor can we.

But, yes, we know there were wars and that some were brutal. Some were genocidal in historic times as far back as the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, or as recent as the Nazis. I don't doubt that our pre HS ancestors also fought over territories and resources sometimes. That capacity is part of our nature as humans. But I do not believe that it accounts for the extinctions of our various pre HS ancestors.

We have also biologically inherited the capacity for negotiation, mediation, acceptance of 'the other' which is just as much a part of our intrinsic human nature as murderous tribalism. We have a dual nature and some societies emphasize one of those dual traits over the other. As HS, with a well developed brain, we can choose.

Longrich seems to be arguing for the existence of the murderous tribal trait as the only true biological nature of human beings, and to brush off our more peaceful side as mere cultural teachings. In fact he appears to be using pseudo science to justify tribalism and genocide as the only aspect of our 'true nature.' He brushes off the peaceful side of our nature as articially induced.

The mid 20th century saw the use of pseudo science and the misuse of real science to justify sterilization of 'inferiors,' isolationism, nationalism, conquest wars, and genocidal slaughters. I am not buying Longrich's proposition at all. But it does not surprise me that it appears in a publication founded by neocon Irving Kristol, whose son favors the extinction of whole ethnic groups.