Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

mikaelnorqvist OP t1_j50c94j wrote

According to ancient bones discovered at a German archaeological site, prehistoric fashion or bear skinning by ancient people dates back at least 320,000 years.

The patterns discovered on the phalanx and metatarsal paw bones of a cave bear (Ursus spelaeus or U. deningeri) are among the earliest examples of this kind of evidence and show one strategy our prehistoric ancestors employed to survive the harsh winters that prevailed in the region at the time.

334

bittoxic00 t1_j52vjys wrote

Replying to JACCO2008 (#1,411,009)

It wasn’t us, article said it was Homo heidelbergensis which split off into homo sapian and Neanderthal. They were smart though and sometimes I wonder if the smartest ‘human’ that ever lived lived 250k years ago

162

long_dickofthelaw t1_j52y0dz wrote

Replying to JACCO2008 (#1,411,009)

Ehhh I wouldn't call these humans in our current form. Behavioral modernity for humans is generally accepted to begin about 160,000–60,000 years ago. Nailing down exactly when Homo Sapien as a species emerged is a lot more difficult.

26

The_Human_Bullet t1_j52yjrc wrote

So early humans wore bear pelts to stay warm?

Colour me surprised?

53

FunnyGlove t1_j53dvu6 wrote

Isn’t this Wilma and Betty from the flint stones? Are we saying the Flintstones are historically accurate now?

1

LeagueOfLegendsAcc t1_j53e737 wrote

Replying to JACCO2008 (#1,411,970)

Honestly I don't think there's any reason to think they would be much different behaviorally, we know at least 3 species of human have mated in the past. They also existed well into the time period of modern humans so I would bet we mated with them too but it may not be easy to tell in the genomic record. They probably wouldn't mate unless they were similar in many ways, but mainly behaviorally. Classifications that distinguish between different species of human are mainly physical differences, this leads me to believe that ancient human species were much more alike than we would be led to believe by our current colloquial definitions of species.

14

LeagueOfLegendsAcc t1_j53f0eq wrote

Replying to Lagiacrus111 (#1,412,189)

Homo Heidelbergensis, not homo sapiens. We evolved in Africa and migrated out to populate the world. To pick a random ancestor the human/chimpanzee last common ancestor (CHLCA) is theorized to possibly be graecopithecus, whose fossils were found in southern Europe. So at some point between CHLCA and homo sapiens our ancestors migrated into Africa and stayed there. The implication is that other human species could have left Africa sooner, or never came in the first place.

2

poppadoppacoppa t1_j53jgf5 wrote

Oh my god, did you see what grunts was wearing yesterday? That was so paleolithically fetch!

3

TheVentiLebowski t1_j53jk27 wrote

Replying to long_dickofthelaw (#1,411,800)

Good point. Humans became anatomically modern around 300,000 to 200,000 years ago, but intellectually modern around 70,000 to 50,000 years ago. Though this is disputed.There's a good summary on Wikipedia if you're interested.

There was a massive volcanic eruption around 74,000 years ago. It has been proposed that this caused a genetic bottleneck in the human population. Though this, too, has been disputed.

19

bittoxic00 t1_j53lehp wrote

Replying to Blenderx06 (#1,412,722)

Of the over 100 billion humans who’ve walked the earth plus our close relatives I just think it’s hard to imagine our recent history has the best and the brightest, statistically

11

DConstructed t1_j53lfxj wrote

Replying to RedditIsPropaganda2 (#1,412,957)

I read a hypothesis that said since they didn’t have a way of recording things they had to have excellent memories.

If you are a hunter, gatherer you have to be able to remember successful hunting grounds of the past and how to return to them. Some could be quite far away.

Could be true. Who knows.

77

FortunateInsanity t1_j53mesq wrote

Nothing about fashion in the article. Fashion is art. Using bear hides for warmth in the winter is a practical survival method. The article can be summed up by saying “evidence points to Neanderthals hunting bears for their pelts.”

79

Blenderx06 t1_j53n8fs wrote

Replying to bittoxic00 (#1,413,325)

It's really fascinating to look at these intelligent relatives who are long gone with hardly a trace they ever existed. Puts modern humanity in perspective. We are just as expendable in the scheme of things.

6

NeObi-WanKenoLetItBe t1_j54005g wrote

Replying to The_Human_Bullet (#1,412,048)

They were badass. Even in nomadic lifestyles, because they combined their efforts, they had a ton of free time on their hands. Some American Indian tribes from just a couple hundred years ago could pack up and move to follow their game within 30 minutes or less. Or else it was free.

8

Cyanopicacooki t1_j543m7a wrote

Replying to Photon_Farmer (#1,413,109)

I was clearing on office last year and found a 20ish year old palm pilot - I put it in the charging cradle, and 3 hours later I had - and stil have -a fully functioning, touch screen palm pilot. Which I could use. And it would be about as much use as an axe made by Homo Heidelbergensis - work maybe once or twice then disintegrate.

2

GrandBed t1_j544ikp wrote

Replying to RedditIsPropaganda2 (#1,412,957)

We would have to define smarter.

People 5,000 years ago were identical to people today, yet “we” still a few thousand years until people were writing of burning bushes that could talk.

“We” don’t need our brain’s abilities as much as we did 100,000-10,000 years ago when civilizations were being built such as Göbekli Tepe.

Since we don’t need to know/remember as much information as a person ten thousand years ago for survival. We don’t need to be “smart” to order food to our homes via our phones. Modern society in most cases just doesn’t let us die for something stupid, like starvation, or curable diseases. So we could have plenty of smarter people in the past, certainly within our “Modern Human” group of the past 30,000+ years.

It’s interesting to imagine that a recent ancestor such as the ones responsible for this article, who had larger Brian’s, could have been smarter, just not connected with enough other smart people to leave any significant remnants that survived to recent history to be studied.

−4

GrandBed t1_j544soy wrote

Replying to DConstructed (#1,413,726)

They could have also had maps galore written on animal skins, papyrus or a hundred other types of parchment. It’s just not anything that would have survived today.

That’s why we should all build large megalithic structures, so in 100,000 years we aren’t viewed as being as dumb as we might be.

21

automatvapen t1_j54c3o7 wrote

Replying to DConstructed (#1,413,326)

There was a study on London cab drivers and their ability to remember every street and addresses in their daily work. Their brain masses had increased and where bigger than your average joe. Can't remember the name of the study, but it does show that brain matter increases when you need to remember a lot of stuff.

8

InGenAche t1_j54fe8o wrote

Replying to GrandBed (#1,414,313)

I would argue that modern man has to remember far more than our ancient ancestors.

Consider our education; even disadvantaged nations have compulsory education until 12 or 16 where even the most basic of subjects would seem incredibly complex to prehistoric man, maths, reading and writing.

And even if the vast majority of what we know is comparatively mundane compared to the tools for survival they required, it doesn't detract from the fact of its complexity.

I'm no expert, but even their art was only as complex as our grade schoolers which to me is indicative of an ability to form and communicate abstract ideas.

9

OldManChino t1_j54gy60 wrote

Replying to bittoxic00 (#1,413,325)

Edit* I'm an idiot who believed a factoid, no need to school me anymore, my lesson has been fully learned

There's more people alive now than has died previously. I'm no statistician, but those numbers alone surely mean the smartest has to be now no? Can someone smarter than me chime in on this?

0

LimpCroissant t1_j54rwam wrote

Summary: Scientists found that ancient human's wentuged the paw bones of cave bears with cutting implements. Because of this, they surmise that they must have been using the bear pelts to stay warm, as there is not enough meat on a bear paw to bother carefully skinning it.

My perspective: That was a terribly written article that said practically nothing in a whole lot of words. Oh and Wentuged for President! Hopefully this same AI is the one that ends up coming for the human race eventually.

5

CptHammer_ t1_j54x8co wrote

Replying to DConstructed (#1,413,326)

>they didn’t have a way of recording things

They did though. Not only the same method as any other animals, but they also had at least pictographic writing and tally marking.

A recent discovery shows what we're considered random tally marking of cave art, was probably moon cycles counting from the animals natural reproductive cycle, next to pictures of those animals. Possibly an indication of when and where to hunt for them, aka the good months and near these drawings.

The tally marks line up with animals that still exist. This gives us a lot of insight into the extinct animals pictured.

Keep in mind, if this information is useful to us today, how much more useful it was then. This is also the minimum amount of recording and communication, there likely was more.

5

bittoxic00 t1_j55id0e wrote

Replying to OldManChino (#1,414,822)

I think they’ve theorized over 100 billion modern humans have existed on earth, so 8%ish of all humans ever are alive today, 92% have passed. So 9/10 chance the human with the greatest capacity for intelligence and or strength never lived in modern times. The best bodybuilder with modern training and medicine has likely existed but the person with the most potential has likely passed. I think the same with intelligence, there might have been someone in Ancient Greece with the most potential

3

Somnisixsmith t1_j566jdn wrote

Replying to bittoxic00 (#1,411,636)

While those living 250k years ago would have looked very very similar to us physically, the evidence suggests we did not become as smart as we are today until about 70k years ago. My understanding is that this claim is based on the fact that the earliest evidence we have of things like art, musical instruments, fish nets, etc. don’t appear in the archeological record until 70k years ago.

My personal theory on this is that humans became significantly more intelligent around 74k years ago as a result of extreme selective pressures due to the cataclysmic eruption of the super volcano known as Mount Toba (in Sumatra I believe). We know for a fact this eruption occurred and that it sent the world into a 1000 year ice-age (think nuclear winter minus the radiation for a decade followed by a thousand years of significant global cooling). During this period the human population fell to only a few thousand or less. That this population bottleneck occurred is a result of the eruption is a fairly well known hypothesis supported by some genetic evidence.

The part of this that I came up with on my own (my personal theory - though I’m probably not the first to connect the dots) is that during this period of genetic bottlenecking only the smartest managed to survive. The extreme environment those people must have lived through would have challenged them far beyond anything they had faced before. Most did not make it. Whole clans/tribes died out in those first years after the eruption. Only the cleverest (and perhaps most cooperative/social) managed to survive and procreate. With a massively reduced population, any genetic variation that could provide additional survival advantages would be selected for, and that selected process would have an exaggerated effect due to the low population numbers.

This theory would help explain why we start seeing archeological evidence of modern human intelligence (again, via art, nets, etc.) around 70k years ago. Perhaps it also explains why we almost seem “too smart” or seemingly smarter than necessary today.

7

Torodaddy t1_j576ca1 wrote

Replying to notblackblackguy (#1,419,118)

the study is biased, they should of used for control brains of taxi drivers that were just starting out versus veteran drivers. All the study is saying is taxi drivers have larger hippocampus you can't use this to say it grew. It's like saying basketball players grew tall because they play basketball

1