[linearrust]

> For anyone curious, there is absolutely no evidence of coordinated violence between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens [0]

'coordinated'.

> and it is believed that war developed during the Neolithic when well defined territories became more important.

What about simple tribal violence?

> If it was just "to the victor go the spoils" you'd expect a mix as sometimes one side would win and sometimes the other over the thousands of years.

Two examples refutes your assertion. In the US/Canada/Australia, the natives won a few and yet the male native lineage has been effectively wiped out. Almost all the interbreeding between the europeans and natives was between european males and native females. Mexico is another example. About 65% of the male Y chromosome is european while almost 100% of the female lineage is native. Mexico never experienced whole mass european immigration like the US, Canada or Australia. With only a tiny spanish population, over 400 years, the spanish male lineage has come to dominate mexico.

> The evidence is much better explained by only male sapiens-female neanderthal couplings producing fertile offspring, which is a common thing for hybrids.

Except that modern homo-sapiens completely displaced the neanderthals. If it was simply a matter of innocent hybridization, neanderthals would still exist as they breed better with each other than hybrids do. Not to mention most animals have an innate aversion to hybridization. It only tends to happen as a last resort in the wild.

[StopTheWorld]

> What about simple tribal violence?

Is there any evidence of any tribes whatsoever existing over 20,000 years ago? All the evidence points against it.

There was no tribal violence 47,000 years ago because there were no tribes!

[defrost]

    Take a guided tour with Clinton from Ngurrangga Tours as you travel through the Murujuga National Park.  With the highest concentration of rock art in the world, rediscover the petroglyphs (rock art) created by the Yaburrara (Northern Ngarluma) people. The rock art has been dated back to before the ice age ended and is approx. over 40,000 years old and there is up to 1 million rock art images scattered across the entire Burrup Peninsula and Dampier Archipelago.

    As you venture down the creek at Deep Gorge, surrounded by huge granite boulders and Currajong trees, marvel at the petroglyphs etched into the rocks, and gain an appreciation of the Jaburara Tribe’s self sufficient lifestyle. Shell middens provide evidence of their seafood diets; the granite boulders would have offered shelter from the harsh weather conditions; and the creek, now mostly dry, would have been their only water supply.

~ https://therangeskarratha.com.au/explore/rock-art

And all the other aboriginal sites across Australia that are older than 20,000 years.

And the sites tracking back toward Africa that line the human expansion outwards.

What kind of world do you live in that has denied you access to evidence of early human existence?

[StopTheWorld]

> What kind of world do you live in that has denied you access to evidence of early human existence?

I didn't say humans didn't exist 20,000 years ago, I said there was no tribal violence. There's no evidence the Jaburara were organized as a tribe 40,000 years ago, although later on that may have happened.

[linearrust]

> Is there any evidence of any tribes whatsoever existing over 20,000 years ago?

Hunter gatherer tribes.

> There was no tribal violence 47,000 years ago because there were no tribes!

Unless you are arguing semantics, yes there were. Tribes and tribal violence.

[StopTheWorld]

> Hunter gatherer tribes

Hunter gatherer bands. There's no evidence of any tribes 20,000 years ago.

> Unless you are arguing semantics, yes there were. Tribes and tribal violence.

There is no evidence of any tribes existing 47,000 years ago. Insofar as tribes, and tribal violence, the OP mentioned them, which is wrong in that time frame, semantics or not.

[keepamovin]

Well this spawned a very lengthy multi day discussion! Hahaha! :)

[jjk166]

> What about simple tribal violence?

That is what I mean by coordinated. Group on group violence. Presumably there were interpersonal conflicts over such an immense period of time, and we have evidence of individuals potentially being injured by artifacts, which could be accidental or intentional, but we don't find anything like signs of a struggle at an inhabited cave or post battle burial pit or stolen artifacts that would be loot, or attempts at creating defenses like fortifications or armor, or cave paintings depicting battles, or signs of a culture that valued warriors. There is no evidence of any coordinated conflicts at all, nonetheless a specific Sapien vs Neanderthal conflict. We only see evidence for such conflicts in the neolithic after people adopted sedentary lifestyles and territory would be defended.

It's further worth noting that in observations of modern hunter gatherer societies, interpersonal violence is common but group violence is basically non-existent. The idea of savages killing the men and stealing the women of neighboring tribes is a myth. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that things were substantially different then.

> Two examples refutes your assertion. In the US/Canada/Australia, the natives won a few and yet the male native lineage has been effectively wiped out. Almost all the interbreeding between the europeans and natives was between european males and native females. Mexico is another example. About 65% of the male Y chromosome is european while almost 100% of the female lineage is native. Mexico never experienced whole mass european immigration like the US, Canada or Australia. With only a tiny spanish population, over 400 years, the spanish male lineage has come to dominate mexico.

Those examples do not refute the assertion. For starters, Native American Y-chromosomes come from many haplogroups and are predominantly not european in origin, so your claim is just incorrect on the face. Second, we know for a fact that Homo Sapiens came to europe for several thousand years and then died out. The Neanderthals didn't just get a few licks in, they won overall. Yet we have no evidence of any male neanderthal ever fathering a child with a sapien female. Finally, the europeans didn't murder all the men and rape all the women in the americas; while Europe gained polical hegemony and did numerous terrible things, there were numerous alliances with various native polities, and the overwhelming majority of the Americas' depopulation was due to disease.

> Except that modern homo-sapiens completely displaced the neanderthals. If it was simply a matter of innocent hybridization, neanderthals would still exist as they breed better with each other than hybrids do. Not to mention most animals have an innate aversion to hybridization. It only tends to happen as a last resort in the wild.

I don't understand what you are trying to argue here. Sapiens having difficulty producing fertile offspring with Neanderthals would make it more likely that Neanderthals die out, not keep them around. And given that this interbreeding was happening rarely over the course of thousands of years as Neanderthals were going extinct, hybridizing as a last resort is a very likely explanation for the pairings.

[linearrust]

> but we don't find anything like signs of a struggle at an inhabited cave or post battle burial pit or stolen artifacts that would be loot, or attempts at creating defenses like fortifications or armor, or cave paintings depicting battles, or signs of a culture that valued warriors. T

We don't see that amongst primitive peoples who lived a basic subsistence living? How shocking! We don't see any of that for chimps either, but guess what? Chimps fight neighboring groups of chimps.

> It's further worth noting that in observations of modern hunter gatherer societies, interpersonal violence is common but group violence is basically non-existent.

This is true for pretty much all human and all social animals. Humans, like most animals, try avoid deadly fights. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also, the 'modern' hunter gatherer societies that survived to this day probably were the less violent/more cowardly variety. The violent hunter gathers probably did a good job of killing themselves. Especially when europeans came around with modern weaponry.

> The idea of savages killing the men and stealing the women of neighboring tribes is a myth.

That it happened with frequency is a myth. But given the lack of diversity in the male Y chromosome compared to female mitochondrial, it isn't rocket science to assume it happened.

> For starters, Native American Y-chromosomes come from many haplogroups and are predominantly not european in origin, so your claim is just incorrect on the face.

No shit. That's my point. In the US, which haplogroup dominates today? The native haplogroup or the european?

> Second, we know for a fact that Homo Sapiens came to europe for several thousand years and then died out. The Neanderthals didn't just get a few licks in, they won overall.

If the neanderthals 'won', homo sapiens wouldn't have survived in europe for several thousand years.

> The Neanderthals didn't just get a few licks in, they won overall.

Any evidence for that? Of course not.

> Yet we have no evidence of any male neanderthal ever fathering a child with a sapien female.

Hmmmm... I wonder why?

> Finally, the europeans didn't murder all the men and rape all the women in the americas;

No shit. Why are you playing these manipulative games? Did I say every single native was raped and killed in half the globe?

> while Europe gained polical hegemony and did numerous terrible things, there were numerous alliances with various native polities

No shit.

> and the overwhelming majority of the Americas' depopulation was due to disease.

Nonsense. Native depopulation was primarily a result of war and habitat loss. But what does that have to do with the haplogroup assertion?

> Sapiens having difficulty producing fertile offspring with Neanderthals would make it more likely that Neanderthals die out, not keep them around.

No. You wrote: 'The evidence is much better explained by only male sapiens-female neanderthal couplings producing fertile offspring, which is a common thing for hybrids.' That's what I was responding to.

> And given that this interbreeding was happening rarely over the course of thousands of years as Neanderthals were going extinct, hybridizing as a last resort is a very likely explanation for the pairings.

Are you being intentionally dense? What does 'hybridizing as a last resort' even mean? The neanderthals were realizing they were going extinct so they decided to speed up the process by intentionally mixing with humans?

You wrote: "Again, there is no evidence to suggest that things were substantially different then." Humans today aren't different from humans 100000 years ago. Or 50000 year ago. Think about it.

[jjk166]

> We don't see any of that for chimps either, but guess what? Chimps fight neighboring groups of chimps.

Chimps don't inhabit caves, or bury their dead, or keep artifacts, or build structures, or wear clothing, or paint events. Neanderthals and sapiens did.

We do have evidence of wars, it just comes from after the development of agriculture.

Again the claim is there is no evidence of group violence, not that it never happened ever over all those millenia.

> This is true for pretty much all human and all social animals. Humans, like most animals, try avoid deadly fights. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

That is what I am saying.

> But given the lack of diversity in the male Y chromosome compared to female mitochondrial, it isn't rocket science to assume it happened.

This is circular reasoning. My entire argument is that the lack of y chromosome diversity is not from warfare, and thus can not be used as evidence of warfare.

> No shit. That's my point. In the US, which haplogroup dominates today? The native haplogroup or the european?

Among the native american population? Haplogroup Q, which comes from Siberia. If you're asking what haplogroup dominates the current residents of the US, that is European, as the overwhelming majority of people who currently live there are not descended from the natives. You claimed that europeans wiping out the Native American Y chromosome is proof that the neanderthal Y chromosome was wiped out the same way; given that the native American Y chromosome was not wiped out, how could it be evidence?

> If the neanderthals 'won', homo sapiens wouldn't have survived in europe for several thousand years.

By won, I mean Neanderthals were the sole survivors in Europe after that period of time.

> Hmmmm... I wonder why?

You should wonder why. In case it wasn't clear, I'm not just saying there is no evidence of the neanderthal male line continuing to today, I am saying that if you dig up fossils of neanderthals in places where interbreeding has happended, and you check the genomes of the individuals there, you will find neanderthals living amongst neanderthals, descended from sapien males, but to date none have been found descended from sapien females.

> No shit. Why are you playing these manipulative games? Did I say every single native was raped and killed in half the globe?

These aren't manipulative games. You are claiming that sapiens murdered the males and raped the female neanderthals, and citing the european colonization of the americas as an example of the same bahavior to show a pattern.

> Are you being intentionally dense? What does 'hybridizing as a last resort' even mean? The neanderthals were realizing they were going extinct so they decided to speed up the process by intentionally mixing with humans?

Hybridizing is the verb for mating with a member of a different species. Hybridizing as a last resort means when you can't find a mate of your own species, you then try to mate with a different species, as a last resort. As they died out, neanderthals would have become fewer and fewer in number, and it would be harder and harder to find another neanderthal to mate with. They would probably have rather bumped uglies with some sapiens than die virgins.

> You wrote: "Again, there is no evidence to suggest that things were substantially different then." Humans today aren't different from humans 100000 years ago. Or 50000 year ago. Think about it.

And if you look at humans living today under circumstances very similar to those of the past, they do not engage in war rape. There is no reason to believe people in the past behaved differently.