First civilizations - common factors?

Are there any common factors behind the rise of the first civilizations? IIRC there are mainly some villages in Anatolia and south to Middle east, that are considered the oldest civilizations. I understand that civilization once established somewhere can spread due to it's ability to attack innocent tribes with war and force their ideology upon them, and that others afraid of that treatment might find civilization interesting to adopt as a form of self-defense, plus leaders liked the idea of enslaving others, getting more power, and having harems. But what is considered the reason for why these things, commonly known as civilization, appeared the first time? Coincidence? Aliens :laugh4: j/k? Or was it just gradual?

I think gradual sounds probable, but there are holes in the timeline. Furthermore, what combinations of historical events, sociological theories and psychology are most commonly considered the roots of which parts of civilization according to the most recent research?
- What caused slavery?
- What caused larger-scale warfare as opposed to the more biological teasing and scaring games? The biological scaring and teasing games could be spotted as late as in tribal warfare around year 0, as well as today sometimes in football supporter fights :laugh4: But what caused the determined struggle to kill opponents? When was the first case we can consider an example of this in nature totally unique behavior, which differs us humans from the lower animals?
- What caused harems? What caused marriage in the same societies where harems existed? Was monogamy caused by civilization or did it exist before (biology can't reveal much here as some close relatives to humans have monogamy and others have polygamy)?
- What caused human sacrifice? I mean, not the normal explanation "people believed in religions and wanted to sacrifice to the gods". I mean - why did they initially decide their gods wanted sacrifice? Also could there have been Freudian subconscious thoughts behind human sacrifice, such as wanting power to kill competitors for women, or competitors for power?
- Could carthaginian infant sacrifice have begun as birth control, later gone wrong by becoming a religious tradition?
- When did power over a group become a goal of an individual? In biology, it's status and rank that matters, not power to tell people to do things, or power over deciding whether someone should be allowed to live or not. Leaders in nature don't have the same control over the subjects as human leaders have. So when did humans start getting hungry for power in this way? Hungry for depriving people of their free will and self-control by being able to control their actions, through power?
- When were the first weapons made for killing humans, rather than hunting, made?
- Did making fire really have such a huge impact on man? Initially, they couldn't grow things, so the usage of fire to prepare fields from forest couldn't have mattered in the early stages. Did making fire cause religion and mysticism, as is sometimes claimed?
- Why did gold become valuable? It can't be that it's rare, because panda extrement is rare, but isn't a valuable trade good because of it. Is it that humans have a thing for shiny things, in combination with being rare? Truly, the only reason why gold is valuable is because there's a silent agreement that gold is valuable. End that agreement, and gold is worth nothing, because it can't be used for anything practical (very few exceptions at least, and even fewer exceptions in pre-civilization societies and early civilizations).
- Where the first cave drawings/art really art? Couldn't the drawings of animals they hunted have been used to instruct new, young hunters? Did spirals and geometrical figures really have a religious importance, or where they just decorations? Geometrical figures are quite natural things for a modern man to draw on a paper when you don't know what to draw and just move the pen around. So wouldn't the geometrical figures rather be explained because it's a biological-mathematical necessity that geometrical figures are simpler to draw?
- Usage of clothes - did this happen before or after humans got less hairy than their relatives? What is more probable: that clothes were made to cover certain... uhm... parts, or to keep warm?
- When exactly did people stop "worshipping" fertility and start "worshipping" sex? When were the around ice-age period with pregnant women and phallos men statues replaced by only phallos cults?
- When did explosion of birth numbers begin? Much indicates that "casualties", diseases, suffering etc. was higher in early farming societies than in hunter and collecting societies, at least until growing of wheat, corn etc. had been altered to become more effective. So the only way the population in farming societies could increase more in numbers than population in hunter societies would be by a huge explosion of number of children born. Why did humans suddenly have significantly more children and start overpopulating, which has for example today made a nomadic hunting life-style became impossible?

Very interesting subject, albeit huge and broad… I got some time so I can attempt to reply to your questions (hope so, at least…). Well, here goes


- What caused slavery?

Lack of sufficient workforce. Slavery was of pivotal importance for the advancement of the early cultures and I believe it was present from the wake of civilization, even in the late tribal stage. Or so anthropological and sociological models are telling us.

- What caused larger-scale warfare as opposed to the more biological teasing and scaring games? The biological scaring and teasing games could be spotted as late as in tribal warfare around year 0, as well as today sometimes in football supporter fights But what caused the determined struggle to kill opponents? When was the first case we can consider an example of this in nature totally unique behavior, which differs us humans from the lower animals?

This was the case from the beginning. When the first tribe tried to survive by grabbing the hunting fields of another tribe, extermination of the "other" became an essential tool in human society. Of course the point at which tribal quarels became actual warfare, is rather obscure. I'd guess when the first organized and stratified societies emerged.

- What caused harems? What caused marriage in the same societies where harems existed? Was monogamy caused by civilization or did it exist before (biology can't reveal much here as some close relatives to humans have monogamy and others have polygamy)?

In war males took part, males died. The females left behind could not be left barren, it would be an incredible waste of resources for the tribe. The only way to ensure fertilization of all available women with the lack of sufficient males, was polygamy. Polygamy was a given in many early societies, although strict monogamy seems like a civilization thing.

- What caused human sacrifice? I mean, not the normal explanation "people believed in religions and wanted to sacrifice to the gods". I mean - why did they initially decide their gods wanted sacrifice? Also could there have been Freudian subconscious thoughts behind human sacrifice, such as wanting power to kill competitors for women, or competitors for power?

I think human beings have been sacrificed from time immemorial: for food. There was little distinction between game and human, methinks. With the development of religious beliefs, the killing of humans became integrated to the religious aspect, and in the next ages it was considered rather normal to sacrifice a human instead of an animal. Something many people don't know: even in 8th century Greece (yes, the place that gave a few centuries later birth to people like Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Archimedes etc. etc.) there was limited human sacrifice practiced. The population control thing doesn't hold water, really.

- Could carthaginian infant sacrifice have begun as birth control, later gone wrong by becoming a religious tradition?

As I said, no population control. Religious tradition, maybe. A way to enhance the power of the clergy over the people? I am not sure. Got to read something about this…

- When did power over a group become a goal of an individual? In biology, it's status and rank that matters, not power to tell people to do things, or power over deciding whether someone should be allowed to live or not. Leaders in nature don't have the same control over the subjects as human leaders have. So when did humans start getting hungry for power in this way? Hungry for depriving people of their free will and self-control by being able to control their actions, through power?

- It's a very human thing, I fear. Primitive, but human. The first organized society must have marked that kind of distinction (the rulers and the ruled).

- When were the first weapons made for killing humans, rather than hunting, made?

I said above that fellow human beings were a common game, so it must've developed simultaneously.

- Did making fire really have such a huge impact on man? Initially, they couldn't grow things, so the usage of fire to prepare fields from forest couldn't have mattered in the early stages. Did making fire cause religion and mysticism, as is sometimes claimed?

Never actually thought of it that way. Don't forget that fire made it easier for humans to distant themselves from animals, so harnessing the power of fire was a huge step forward indeed.

- Why did gold become valuable? It can't be that it's rare, because panda extrement is rare, but isn't a valuable trade good because of it. Is it that humans have a thing for shiny things, in combination with being rare? Truly, the only reason why gold is valuable is because there's a silent agreement that gold is valuable. End that agreement, and gold is worth nothing, because it can't be used for anything practical (very few exceptions at least, and even fewer exceptions in pre-civilization societies and early civilizations).

Actually, not. Gold became so valuable because it is almost eternal. Gold doesn't rust and doesn't decompose. And of course it looks good. And it's rare.

- Where the first cave drawings/art really art? Couldn't the drawings of animals they hunted have been used to instruct new, young hunters? Did spirals and geometrical figures really have a religious importance, or where they just decorations? Geometrical figures are quite natural things for a modern man to draw on a paper when you don't know what to draw and just move the pen around. So wouldn't the geometrical figures rather be explained because it's a biological-mathematical necessity that geometrical figures are simpler to draw?

Define art, please. Human expression when combined with (some sort of) talent is "art", methinks. And much depends on context. Under that light, it was art. Absolutely.

- Usage of clothes - did this happen before or after humans got less hairy than their relatives? What is more probable: that clothes were made to cover certain... uhm... parts, or to keep warm?

Actually, those …ahem… parts shouldn't be kept warmer, because they overheat quite easily and that causes nasty consequences. I'd say it's another of those things separating animal from men, although in the early instances dressing up was a way to protect themselves.

- When exactly did people stop "worshipping" fertility and start "worshipping" sex? When were the around ice-age period with pregnant women and phallos men statues replaced by only phallos cults?

Pregnant women cults exist even now in certain primitive parts of the world. The whole myth of matriarchy behind those assertions you present, is just that: a huge myth. Sex was always intervened with fertility and vice versa. I can't find any distinction.

- When did explosion of birth numbers begin? Much indicates that "casualties", diseases, suffering etc. was higher in early farming societies than in hunter and collecting societies, at least until growing of wheat, corn etc. had been altered to become more effective. So the only way the population in farming societies could increase more in numbers than population in hunter societies would be by a huge explosion of number of children born. Why did humans suddenly have significantly more children and start overpopulating, which has for example today made a nomadic hunting life-style became impossible?

I don't think that the early agrarian societies had more "casualties" than hunters-gatherers. This is perhaps another of those revisionist twists by which some people try to make a reputation for themselves? Dunno, but I'd say the creation of the first "great villages" and subsequently the first organized and stratified societies, was the turning point: by rendering tribal warfare into a more massive thing, the society managed to acquire the aid of much more workforce (slave labour) and so had the chance to grow further.

Just a few quick possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

What caused slavery?

---

Slavery would allow to compensate for a lack of manpower in early days; also, it'd allow the local males to spend more time fighting others while crops would still be harvested back home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

What caused larger-scale warfare as opposed to the more biological teasing and scaring games? The biological scaring and teasing games could be spotted as late as in tribal warfare around year 0, as well as today sometimes in football supporter fights :laugh4: But what caused the determined struggle to kill opponents? When was the first case we can consider an example of this in nature totally unique behavior, which differs us humans from the lower animals?

---

It'd probably be when personal safety came to mean group safety. It's the natural instinct for self-preservation, but self-preservation is much easier in a team. Expanding groups of people competing for the same resources would come into contact and fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

What caused harems? What caused marriage in the same societies where harems existed? Was monogamy caused by civilization or did it exist before (biology can't reveal much here as some close relatives to humans have monogamy and others have polygamy)?

---

Rosacrux Redux did an excellent job on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

What caused human sacrifice? I mean, not the normal explanation "people believed in religions and wanted to sacrifice to the gods". I mean - why did they initially decide their gods wanted sacrifice? Also could there have been Freudian subconscious thoughts behind human sacrifice, such as wanting power to kill competitors for women, or competitors for power?

---

Possibly since people consider themselves most important another human would be seen as the greatest thing to sacrifice; quite frequently voluntary sacrifice was considered most important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

When did power over a group become a goal of an individual? In biology, it's status and rank that matters, not power to tell people to do things, or power over deciding whether someone should be allowed to live or not. Leaders in nature don't have the same control over the subjects as human leaders have. So when did humans start getting hungry for power in this way? Hungry for depriving people of their free will and self-control by being able to control their actions, through power?

---

Ultimately power over a group grants the best assurance of a (biologically) good life. It creates an assurance of reproduction, food and safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

When were the first weapons made for killing humans, rather than hunting, made?

---

Very little distinction. Weapons were needed for the hunt; later, when confronting groups of other humans also armed tactics would become more important to give an advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Did making fire really have such a huge impact on man? Initially, they couldn't grow things, so the usage of fire to prepare fields from forest couldn't have mattered in the early stages. Did making fire cause religion and mysticism, as is sometimes claimed?

---

Fire would be needed for warmth. Also, fire was typically a danger to animals, so it would be an excellent deterrent (particularly at night) when confronted with more powerful creatures such as bears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Usage of clothes - did this happen before or after humans got less hairy than their relatives? What is more probable: that clothes were made to cover certain... uhm... parts, or to keep warm?

---

As Rosacrux Redux stated, protection was important; both against the elemants and other creatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

When did explosion of birth numbers begin? Much indicates that "casualties", diseases, suffering etc. was higher in early farming societies than in hunter and collecting societies, at least until growing of wheat, corn etc. had been altered to become more effective. So the only way the population in farming societies could increase more in numbers than population in hunter societies would be by a huge explosion of number of children born. Why did humans suddenly have significantly more children and start overpopulating, which has for example today made a nomadic hunting life-style became impossible?

---

The advantage of an agrarian society lies in reliability and protection. It allows for larger groups of people to work together allowing a lot more to be done, certainly making the survival chances of the individual higher. It's basically a stable enviroment, and your statement of a decline in population seems farfetched; it is possible that initially more diseases would be spread after which the population may be immune, but it still seems a bit off.

Just a quick one...

Fire was important because of meat... Unprocessed meat is extremely tough to eat. In fact you use just about as much energy as you get (if you are human). But if you cook meat it retains the energy but becomes easier to eat (and you don't get sick as much).
Also, fire can be important in hunting.
It protects from the dangerous predators that humans haven't always been very good at defending themselves from, especially not at night when we have bad eyesight (our most important sense).
And not to say of the qualities of warmth in cold nights.

So fire has many properties that would help early humans to survive. But here we are back in the days of Homo Erectus, hardly the time for civilizations and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Just a few quick possibilities.

Slavery would allow to compensate for a lack of manpower in early days; also, it'd allow the local males to spend more time fighting others while crops would still be harvested back home.

---

The phenomenon can be seen in the animal kingdom, where ants would raid other colonies and capture larvae, who would be raised in their captors' colony. When these grew up they would be used to tend other captured larvae and crops. These raiding colonies tend to have a larger proportion of fighters compared to termites and termite-like ant colonies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Just a quick one...

Fire was important because of meat... Unprocessed meat is extremely tough to eat. In fact you use just about as much energy as you get (if you are human). But if you cook meat it retains the energy but becomes easier to eat (and you don't get sick as much).

---

Meat is easier to extract nutrients from than plants, which has a fair proportion of indigestible cellulose. That's why some animals became predators in the first place. Plant eaters spend a larger proportion of their time eating than meat eaters to gain the same amount of energy. Some plant eaters get around this by extremely low metabolism and hence inactive lives (sloths), while others have to eat all the time.

The giant panda manages to combine the worst of all worlds, a body that's biologically adapted for meat eating but whose diet consists solely of near-indigestible bamboo leaves, from a specific type of bamboo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Meat is easier to extract nutrients from than plants, which has a fair proportion of indigestible cellulose. That's why some animals became predators in the first place. Plant eaters spend a larger proportion of their time eating than meat eaters to gain the same amount of energy. Some plant eaters get around this by extremely low metabolism and hence inactive lives (sloths), while others have to eat all the time.

The giant panda manages to combine the worst of all worlds, a body that's biologically adapted for meat eating but whose diet consists solely of near-indigestible bamboo leaves, from a specific type of bamboo.

---

Yes... Of course. But think about it for a moment, 'Predators' evolved. That they did, but they came equipped with the tools of actually eating meat. Our teeth on the other hand are simply not equipped to cut meat up into manageable pieces. So we have to grind it like we would with plantmaterial, and here we have the problem. For us to eat the meat we will have to use almost, if not as much, energy as we get out of it.
Even chimps have that problem, and we all know they are better equipped for raw meat than we are, and they only target young animals for their more tender meat, bullying past the adults (and often not even harming them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Yes... Of course. But think about it for a moment, 'Predators' evolved. That they did, but they came equipped with the tools of actually eating meat. Our teeth on the other hand are simply not equipped to cut meat up into manageable pieces. So we have to grind it like we would with plantmaterial, and here we have the problem. For us to eat the meat we will have to use almost, if not as much, energy as we get out of it.
Even chimps have that problem, and we all know they are better equipped for raw meat than we are, and they only target young animals for their more tender meat, bullying past the adults (and often not even harming them).

---

Or another way for our early acestors was to wait until the meat is nice soft and maybe just a little rotten.~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Or another way for our early acestors was to wait until the meat is nice soft and maybe just a little rotten.~;)

---

Cured is the nice word for it, but 'a little rotten' is a perfectly acceptable term for me.

Almost all meat we eat today is cured, but even then it isn't enough. Have you tried a streak that wasn't cooked enough? It is like having a blob of undigestable matter in your mouth. It takes forever to chew it and your jaws get very tired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Cured is the nice word for it, but 'a little rotten' is a perfectly acceptable term for me.

Almost all meat we eat today is cured, but even then it isn't enough. Have you tried a streak that wasn't cooked enough? It is like having a blob of undigestable matter in your mouth. It takes forever to chew it and your jaws get very tired.

---

Yup.That is why i like the Filee parts of the Cow and other big mammals, becouse its so tender that you barely have to cook it to have a great Stake.~;)

Ok, but if slavery was to cover lack of workers, then the slaves would just create more work because they mean more mouthes to feed? So could the real reason for slavery actually have been that people didn't want to do their share of the work? Divided on enough people, a single person's refusal to work becomes a lighter burden. Or is that what you meant? The ants example is interesting, but not really comparable because ants are insects, who can reproduce in large numbers and where droners are common - in slow reproduction animals a completely different ethics and morals system is needed for survival. For example there's this insect that eats the male after mating - such behavior isn't really possible among most slow reproduction animals, especially not humans who get one child per birth normally - then population would be halfed every generation. But perhaps human beings are able to lighten morals because they're nowadays reproducing faster?

The pologamy aspect is interesting, but hasn't the trend rather has gone towards monogamy than from it? So there were reasons for going towards polygamy as you wrote above - but why then going towards more monogamy as so many civilizations have?

Also some have mentioned that even early neolitic societies had better survival rates, but IIRC they DID have lower survival rate for a long time before getting better than hunting societies. Can anyone point in the direction of some relevant study about the subject? Even if they did have lower rates for a while that doesn't at all contradict common sense because given enough groups of people the chances that one or two will try something strange is quite large, but their settled lifestyle could give an advantage relative to other humans (notice: not relative to nature), and when also farming methods improved, they also got an advantage relative to nature, so to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

- What caused slavery?

---

Apperantly, from an economic perspective, slavery isn't profitable, paid workers would have been cheaper. Maybe there was a lack of workers willing to work for pay ? Maybe people just like dominating others. Even in today's societies you can have 'second class citizens' (see a random immigrant thread). People like to dominate it's in our nature I guess.
Also, don't underestimate the attraction of sex slaves.

Quote:

---

- What caused larger-scale warfare as opposed to the more biological teasing and scaring games? The biological scaring and teasing games could be spotted as late as in tribal warfare around year 0, as well as today sometimes in football supporter fights :laugh4: But what caused the determined struggle to kill opponents? When was the first case we can consider an example of this in nature totally unique behavior, which differs us humans from the lower animals?

---

I doubt we're the only species that goes to war, we're just the best at it :laugh4:
War is nearly always fought out for economical reasons. I think the 'evolution' of war from petty fighting to full scale masacre has something to dow ith human nature again, do just a little bit worse than they have done to you...

Quote:

---

- What caused harems?

---

I assume you're referring to polygamy here and not to the broader concept of a harem. Men who had accumulated enough wealth and/or power and wanted to translate that in sex. In the end pretty much everything we do can eb traced to our desire to procreate. It might have something to do with a lack of men at certain times (war !) or people wanting to marry their daughter to someone important (Phillipe of Macedon used his polygamy rights to tie himself to some important people, I'm sure there are other examples). Men are notoriously bad at being faithful, this was a way to make it little more acceptable to sleep with more women I guess. (see also: sex slaves !)

Quote:

---

What caused marriage in the same societies where harems existed?

---

Marirage is as old as polygamy, possibly older. I don't think men wanted to see their daughters as just sex slaves (not too many women would want that role either), marriage at least makes men and women a bit equal.

Quote:

---

Was monogamy caused by civilization or did it exist before (biology can't reveal much here as some close relatives to humans have monogamy and others have polygamy) ?

---

Some ancient societies were 'pretty' monogamous, the Jews and the Assyrians (unless i'm mixing them up here...) for example. Often (sex) slaves were allowed too, or a second wife if the first didn't bare any children.

Quote:

---

- What caused human sacrifice? I mean, not the normal explanation "people believed in religions and wanted to sacrifice to the gods". I mean - why did they initially decide their gods wanted sacrifice? Also could there have been Freudian subconscious thoughts behind human sacrifice, such as wanting power to kill competitors for women, or competitors for power?

---

Wow, very difficult to find a reason for human sacrifice. Possibly power hungry priests scaring the people into submission. Possibly started as a way to kill heretics and 'bad luck bringers', might have evolved from there. Probably evolved from animal sacrifice, maybe they started killing humans if the Gods didn't seem pleased ? If it helped once, a bright new tradition has started...

Quote:

---

- Could carthaginian infant sacrifice have begun as birth control, later gone wrong by becoming a religious tradition?

---

Doubtful, birth control was pretty advanced in the classical times.

Quote:

---

- When did power over a group become a goal of an individual? In biology, it's status and rank that matters, not power to tell people to do things, or power over deciding whether someone should be allowed to live or not. Leaders in nature don't have the same control over the subjects as human leaders have. So when did humans start getting hungry for power in this way? Hungry for depriving people of their free will and self-control by being able to control their actions, through power?

---

It's a sign of rank and sstatus when you can tell other people what do to. It attracts the womenfolk (or you could just claim them, even ebtter !).

Quote:

---

- When were the first weapons made for killing humans, rather than hunting, made?

---

Probably weapons preceded hunting tools...
It's human nature.

Quote:

---

- Usage of clothes - did this happen before or after humans got less hairy than their relatives? What is more probable: that clothes were made to cover certain... uhm... parts, or to keep warm?

---

Well, there used to an ice age, I'm guiessing warmth was the most important factor.

Quote:

---

- When did explosion of birth numbers begin? Much indicates that "casualties", diseases, suffering etc. was higher in early farming societies than in hunter and collecting societies, at least until growing of wheat, corn etc. had been altered to become more effective. So the only way the population in farming societies could increase more in numbers than population in hunter societies would be by a huge explosion of number of children born. Why did humans suddenly have significantly more children and start overpopulating, which has for example today made a nomadic hunting life-style became impossible?

---

People didn't necessarily breed more, they just died less often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Apperantly, from an economic perspective, slavery isn't profitable, paid workers would have been cheaper. Maybe there was a lack of workers willing to work for pay ? Maybe people just like dominating others. Even in today's societies you can have 'second class citizens' (see a random immigrant thread). People like to dominate it's in our nature I guess.
Also, don't underestimate the attraction of sex slaves.

---

Ok but didn't slavery start before money came into use? And sex slaves is very contraproductive and unbiological - among all higher mammals the woman has a lot to say about who to mate with and when. Same goes for birds. Among reptiles and amphibians however there seems to be different. So if sex slaves wasn't just something that occured very seldom this must really be added to the list of unique and civilized behaviors that only humans do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Doubtful, birth control was pretty advanced in the classical times.

---

Interesting. How was the interpretation of religion in terms of for or against birth control in early Christian and Jewish societies? Would they have disagreed to the catholic views of today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Probably weapons preceded hunting tools...
It's human nature.

---

Interesting. I think the sharpened flint stones used among homo erectus could be considered hunting tools. Did already homo erectus develop weapons too? I've heard of an archaeological site in Denmark where probably some pre-historical human cranium had traces of weapon impacts, but I can't again seem to find the info on which period it was dated to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

People didn't necessarily breed more, they just died less often.

---

Yes, but today in Europe we have something like 2-3 children each, while at times in Europe it was fashionable even for pretty poor people to have up to 15. So why would there be such changes up and down in birth numbers seemingly independent of survival numbers? Is there any study that provides data on estimated birth numbers and population increase independently, for different periods?

The only humans that have lived in Denmark that we can find traces of, are us. Perhaps there were some Neanderthals, but they were after all the first in Europe.
In any case Denmark was either submerged or covered with ice for most of the period in question. So I would like some info on this.

Humans are not the only ones to go to war (not like ants mind you, they do it as a way of living, that is how they are). Chimps go to war as well. Not armed though. But they do invade each other territories with groups of males and attack hapless loners in there, and kill them of course (including castrating them). And the way they do it is pretty sophisticated too. Silent, not at all like normal chimp marches, and inline which is also very unusual. And of course they stop often to listen or to make sure they are not being ambushed.

When I saw this in moving pictures I got stunned... These chimps looked like soldiers, and they WERE! It was pretty nasty though, when they cornered a poor single male of the other 'tribe' (fitting name I think given how they act).

Quote:

---

When did power over a group become a goal of an individual? In biology, it's status and rank that matters, not power to tell people to do things, or power over deciding whether someone should be allowed to live or not. Leaders in nature don't have the same control over the subjects as human leaders have. So when did humans start getting hungry for power in this way? Hungry for depriving people of their free will and self-control by being able to control their actions, through power?

---

Memes evolve just like Genes, what works and survives gets repeated.

This particular one could be asked why did cells move from single to multiple?

Same reasons ultimately why societies survive... they could out compete individuals. People in societies are normally far better off then individuals.

As for nature... Social insects have phenomenal ;) control over their subjects. Animals will fight and kill each other for leadership in a group. Male lions will kill each other for control of the females, if a new male gets control over a group he will kill all the cubs to bring the females into heat.

Ants will raid termite mounds to feast on the termites, leaving plenty of them alive to repopulate for the next harvest.

Animals go to war all the time.

@all: So then, given your view of the instincts of humans, why do we at all have laws in society if it's our greatest urge to always break them, by as often as possible creating "special conditions" as excuses for it? If the answer to that is "it's benefitial to keep calm and minimize murder", then that's a contradiction to what has been mentioned above. That would make law, just like moral according to Nietzsche, a pure power tool.

Quote:

---

When I saw this in moving pictures I got stunned

---

Is there any link to such pictures? I'd like to find a whole heap of chimp movies so I can evaluate this for myself. People keep mentioning chimp movies but it's seems they are nowhere to be found... Also - how long period of filming was necessary in order to capture one sequence of this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

The only humans that have lived in Denmark that we can find traces of, are us. Perhaps there were some Neanderthals, but they were after all the first in Europe.
In any case Denmark was either submerged or covered with ice for most of the period in question. So I would like some info on this.

---

I will see if I can find it. I got an idea on where I might have seen it the first time, so I'll take a look, if I can only find the book :2thumbsup: Oh, and the author was Danish so that might explain why he chose to describe mostly Danish archaeological sites...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Is there any link to such pictures? I'd like to find a whole heap of chimp movies so I can evaluate this for myself. People keep mentioning chimp movies but it's seems they are nowhere to be found... Also - how long period of filming was necessary in order to capture one sequence of this?

---

There are numerous BBC natural history programmes and series that include footage of chimps on the hunt. A more recent one is the Charlotte Uhlenbroek-presented "Cousins" 3rd programme, "Apes".

At around the 39 minute mark, Frodo leads a column (yes, a recognisable column) of 4 to patrol the borders. Some hangers on follow them in dribs and drabs but they fall back when they near the borders. The patrol sits on a ridge that marks the boundary of their territory, scanning the valley below for disturbances. They see something, and they resume column formation and make their way to the area. A lone chimp descends from his tree, and the hunt is on. The patrol chases down the interloper, and beats the snot out of him. Frodo does most of roughing up, but the others throw in the odd punch.

I always knew it that Frodo was in it for the power, poor gulliable Sam. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

There are numerous BBC natural history programmes and series that include footage of chimps on the hunt. A more recent one is the Charlotte Uhlenbroek-presented "Cousins" 3rd programme, "Apes".

At around the 39 minute mark, Frodo leads a column (yes, a recognisable column) of 4 to patrol the borders. Some hangers on follow them in dribs and drabs but they fall back when they near the borders. The patrol sits on a ridge that marks the boundary of their territory, scanning the valley below for disturbances. They see something, and they resume column formation and make their way to the area. A lone chimp descends from his tree, and the hunt is on. The patrol chases down the interloper, and beats the snot out of him. Frodo does most of roughing up, but the others throw in the odd punch.

---

Yeah... that was it. It wasn't so much what they did that surprised me, but how they did it. They were very 'professional' about it. And the way they did it was very unlike when they hunt those Colobus monkeys.
They seemed so... human, when they did it. The term 'cousin' is fitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Is there any link to such pictures? I'd like to find a whole heap of chimp movies so I can evaluate this for myself. People keep mentioning chimp movies but it's seems they are nowhere to be found... Also - how long period of filming was necessary in order to capture one sequence of this?

---

Is there a guide to posting pictures somewhere? I'll post some from the sequence if I know how.

Pictures can be posted using www.imageshack.us or www.photobucket.com, but it requires an account. If you need to post a video sequence then perhaps rapidshare.de is a good choice. All you need to do is upload, press ok, and scroll down to get the link, which you can copy+paste into a forum post here. If you want you can bother about remembering the delete link too, otherwise it auto-deletes the file after it's been uploaded for long enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Ok but didn't slavery start before money came into use?

---

You could always pay in goods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

And sex slaves is very contraproductive and unbiological - among all higher mammals the woman has a lot to say about who to mate with and when.

---

Humans are one of the few 'higher' animals were the male is significantly stronger than the female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Same goes for birds. Among reptiles and amphibians however there seems to be different. So if sex slaves wasn't just something that occured very seldom this must really be added to the list of unique and civilized behaviors that only humans do.

---

There are animals where the male literally drags the female to his lare and tries to keep her there as long as possible, while the female tries to escape. The mating isn't exactly 'romantic' either...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Interesting. How was the interpretation of religion in terms of for or against birth control in early Christian and Jewish societies? Would they have disagreed to the catholic views of today?

---

I don't know, the Romans and the Greeks certainly knew about birth control and used it. The jews might have been against it, seeing as how they were such a small group to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Yes, but today in Europe we have something like 2-3 children each, while at times in Europe it was fashionable even for pretty poor people to have up to 15. So why would there be such changes up and down in birth numbers seemingly independent of survival numbers? Is there any study that provides data on estimated birth numbers and population increase independently, for different periods?

---

I've read somewhere that raising 2-3 children to puberty (it could have been adulthood) was the average for a human couple pretty much all throughout history. The main exception is when a society transgresses from a primarily agricultural to an industrial society. it probably has to with the sudden increase of the standard of living. People where used to having a lot of kids and seeing a few survive, now pretty much all survived and it takes some time before people adjust their mentality towards (more) birth control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

There are numerous BBC natural history programmes and series that include footage of chimps on the hunt. A more recent one is the Charlotte Uhlenbroek-presented "Cousins" 3rd programme, "Apes".

At around the 39 minute mark, Frodo leads a column (yes, a recognisable column) of 4 to patrol the borders. Some hangers on follow them in dribs and drabs but they fall back when they near the borders. The patrol sits on a ridge that marks the boundary of their territory, scanning the valley below for disturbances. They see something, and they resume column formation and make their way to the area. A lone chimp descends from his tree, and the hunt is on. The patrol chases down the interloper, and beats the snot out of him. Frodo does most of roughing up, but the others throw in the odd punch.

---

Patrol in column, Frodo leading.
https://img348.imageshack.us/img348/9595/column13vw.jpg

Patrol in column (2)
https://img348.imageshack.us/img348/2959/column26tw.jpg

Column passes camera
https://img348.imageshack.us/img348/...scamera7zv.jpg

Patrol on ridge
https://img348.imageshack.us/img348/141/ridge6gz.jpg

Thank you Pannonian, it does indeed resemble a column, but is it possible to obtain moving pictures of the actual fighting that took place? In the meantime I'll see what google can find...

Edit: lol, only thing I found so far, pretty funny man vs chimp duel: http://www.stupidvideos.us/video.aspx/IDp~499

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Thank you Pannonian, it does indeed resemble a column, but is it possible to obtain moving pictures of the actual fighting that took place? In the meantime I'll see what google can find...

---

The fighting is just a scrap. The patrol, having got there without giving themselves away, clusters in the area where they saw the movement. The lone chimp descends the tree, spots them, then scarpers, but is caught by Frodo, who proceeds to give him a thumping.

Frodo
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/...ne_extra2.html

I'm turning this into the chimp thread, but this seems relevant enough to the discussion.

http://www.bornfree.org.uk/primate/chimpweek.shtml

CHIMPWEEK Sunday 8th Jan BBC1 17:20 (60' prog)
Chimpanzee Frodo is a big, violent bully. He fancies demure female Gremlin, but she's more interested in his older brother Freud, the popular leader of their clan. While the boys face off, a disease epidemic strikes the chimps causing death and misery, and Gremlin faces a torrid time... This first episode kicks off a week of programmes spanning eight years in the life of the Gombe chimps (famous through the work of Dr Jane Goodall), making this the most ambitious ever wildlife biopic on TV - full of incident, drama, humour, charm and pathos.

CHIMPWEEK Monday 9th Jan BBC1 19:00 (30' prog)
Gremlin's had twins. It's rare for wild chimp twins to survive past their first year, so can Gremlin beat the odds? Meanwhile dad Frodo's been taken ill and has gone into hiding - he's hated by the other males and too weak to defend himself. With Frodo off the scene, brother Freud flexes his muscles. The scene seems set for a major showdown, if and when Frodo returns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Edit: lol, only thing I found so far, pretty funny man vs chimp duel: http://www.stupidvideos.us/video.aspx/IDp~499

---

Proof of chimp power. They weigh 30-40kg yet are strong enough to beat this guy even if this particular one hadn't bitten him. Humans are weak compared to chimps. Yes even 1v1 as you can see.

The little war I have mentioned is not so much human in that they act like us, but the way they march, the silence, the awareness and most importantly the intent in their eyes, that all makes them pretty scary. Organized attacks are war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Proof of chimp power. They weigh 30-40kg yet are strong enough to beat this guy even if this particular one hadn't bitten him. Humans are weak compared to chimps. Yes even 1v1 as you can see.

The little war I have mentioned is not so much human in that they act like us, but the way they march, the silence, the awareness and most importantly the intent in their eyes, that all makes them pretty scary. Organized attacks are war.

---

Was the incident you talked about the one shown in Cousins? If so, they start off by beating the buttresses on local trees to gee themselves up (I've seen footage of US marines doing similar before a patrol), then are silent throughout the patrol until they reach the target. Some jumpiness at the start, but their movement become more deliberate as they near the borders until they form the regular column seen in the pictures. Once they reach the ridge that borders their territory, they sit in a line, scanning the valley below, still silent. When they spot something, they move off in column towards where they saw the movement. When they get there, they sit and wait and watch. Chimp comes down, fight follows.

Dolphins are supposed to indulge in even larger scale wars, but it's harder to describe their tactics in human terms, as terrain is not much of an issue, and they are too agile to follow clearly. I've certainly seen footage of two schools clashing.

A good popular science book on human civilisation is Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

Add to that another popular science book the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

Now popular science books aren't always based on peer reviewed papers. In fact some of them are published in a glossed up manner to bypass the whole review process.

But as primers these ones are pretty good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Was the incident you talked about the one shown in Cousins? If so, they start off by beating the buttresses on local trees to gee themselves up (I've seen footage of US marines doing similar before a patrol), then are silent throughout the patrol until they reach the target. Some jumpiness at the start, but their movement become more deliberate as they near the borders until they form the regular column seen in the pictures. Once they reach the ridge that borders their territory, they sit in a line, scanning the valley below, still silent. When they spot something, they move off in column towards where they saw the movement. When they get there, they sit and wait and watch. Chimp comes down, fight follows.

Dolphins are supposed to indulge in even larger scale wars, but it's harder to describe their tactics in human terms, as terrain is not much of an issue, and they are too agile to follow clearly. I've certainly seen footage of two schools clashing.

---

Yes... I have only seen that one, but from how natural it comes to them to act this different from the percieved view of chimps, I must assume that it is in fact something they share more broadly.

You know, I have heard about this dolphin issue, just forgotten it, but isn't that more similar to lionprides fighting hyenas (or similar)? Fighting over the best territory/eliminating the worst competitors. Meaning there is a clear connection to the livelyhood of the group, while our wars (and apparently those of the chips) are often for less physical reasons, indeed sometimes for no clear reason at all besides pure hatred or bloodlust.

- What caused slavery?
Lack of cheap, disposable labour

- What caused larger-scale warfare as opposed to the more biological teasing and scaring games? The biological scaring and teasing games could be spotted as late as in tribal warfare around year 0, as well as today sometimes in football supporter fights But what caused the determined struggle to kill opponents? When was the first case we can consider an example of this in nature totally unique behavior, which differs us humans from the lower animals?
Conflict of interests, eg in the Warring States period in China when different families who were all influential and with military support, all fought, vying for the throne of the Emperor.

- What caused human sacrifice? I mean, not the normal explanation "people believed in religions and wanted to sacrifice to the gods". I mean - why did they initially decide their gods wanted sacrifice? Also could there have been Freudian subconscious thoughts behind human sacrifice, such as wanting power to kill competitors for women, or competitors for power?
Maybe the priests wanted power, and invented stories about the gods. eg the Mayan priests were the only ones to be able to talk to their 'Gods', keeping them and their family powerful for generations. Also, having human sacrifice would show them how bloodthirsty the gods were even in times of peace, so if you offend them something very bad would happen.

- Could carthaginian infant sacrifice have begun as birth control, later gone wrong by becoming a religious tradition?
It isn't actually definitely true, with only Plutarch and some other Romans mentioning it. Maybe the babies found were just stillborn and buried together.

- When did power over a group become a goal of an individual? In biology, it's status and rank that matters, not power to tell people to do things, or power over deciding whether someone should be allowed to live or not. Leaders in nature don't have the same control over the subjects as human leaders have. So when did humans start getting hungry for power in this way? Hungry for depriving people of their free will and self-control by being able to control their actions, through power?


- When were the first weapons made for killing humans, rather than hunting, made?
- Did making fire really have such a huge impact on man? Initially, they couldn't grow things, so the usage of fire to prepare fields from forest couldn't have mattered in the early stages. Did making fire cause religion and mysticism, as is sometimes claimed?
Religion, and also as defense from animals as early as the last ice age, I believe.

- Why did gold become valuable? It can't be that it's rare, because panda extrement is rare, but isn't a valuable trade good because of it. Is it that humans have a thing for shiny things, in combination with being rare? Truly, the only reason why gold is valuable is because there's a silent agreement that gold is valuable. End that agreement, and gold is worth nothing, because it can't be used for anything practical (very few exceptions at least, and even fewer exceptions in pre-civilization societies and early civilizations).
Shiny objects are usually precious in a human's view. Silver is also valuable, and was even more so than gold in the Egyptians' point of view. In China it was jade that was valuable due to a lack of gold mines.

- Where the first cave drawings/art really art? Couldn't the drawings of animals they hunted have been used to instruct new, young hunters? Did spirals and geometrical figures really have a religious importance, or where they just decorations? Geometrical figures are quite natural things for a modern man to draw on a paper when you don't know what to draw and just move the pen around. So wouldn't the geometrical figures rather be explained because it's a biological-mathematical necessity that geometrical figures are simpler to draw?
The cave drawings were religious I think. The fire in the cave would make it appears as if the drawing was moving, so again the priests use this to become influential and powerful in the tribe.

- Usage of clothes - did this happen before or after humans got less hairy than their relatives? What is more probable: that clothes were made to cover certain... uhm... parts, or to keep warm?
Probably look more intimidating to others. Gradually as the humans wore clothes, they lost their fur and clothing was necessary to keep warm. I think.

- When exactly did people stop "worshipping" fertility and start "worshipping" sex? When were the around ice-age period with pregnant women and phallos men statues replaced by only phallos cults?
When religion came to be.

- When did explosion of birth numbers begin? Much indicates that "casualties", diseases, suffering etc. was higher in early farming societies than in hunter and collecting societies, at least until growing of wheat, corn etc. had been altered to become more effective. So the only way the population in farming societies could increase more in numbers than population in hunter societies would be by a huge explosion of number of children born. Why did humans suddenly have significantly more children and start overpopulating, which has for example today made a nomadic hunting life-style became impossible?
There wasn't an explosion of birth. Birth and death rates were always very high, and recently (somewhere a few centuries back) medical advances lowered the death rates, while the birth rates remained high, thus the population skyrocketed.

Re chimps: The passage quoted below is also pretty interesting IMO. Many scientists claim humans have more common DNA with bonobos than common chimps, but these two species are the ones we're most closely related to. So - are we humans bonobos or chimps? It seems like we might have a combination of both in our behavior:

Quote:

---

Professor Frans de Waal, one of the world's leading primatologists, avers that the Bonobo is often capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience and sensitivity.

Recent observations in the wild have confirmed that the males among the Common Chimpanzee troops are extraordinarily hostile to males from outside of the troop. Murder parties are organized to "patrol" for the unfortunate males who might be living nearby in a solitary state. This does not appear to be the behavior of the Bonobo males or females, which both seem to prefer to "make love" with their group rather than seek "war" with outsiders. The Bonobo lives where the more aggressive Common Chimp doesn't live. Possibly the Bonobo has given a wide berth to their "murderous" stronger cousins. Neither swim, and they generally inhabit ranges on opposite sides of the great rivers.

---

Yeah... the Bonobo is indeed the good side while the chimp is often the evil side. And yes it is more closely related to us, but even more closely related to chimps as far as I have understood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

A good popular science book on human civilisation is Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

Add to that another popular science book the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

Now popular science books aren't always based on peer reviewed papers. In fact some of them are published in a glossed up manner to bypass the whole review process.

But as primers these ones are pretty good.

---

Guns, Germs, and Steel yes indeed, was made into a tolerable documentery I recently watched on Nashville Public Television (yes, they do occasionally pump in the sunlight down here) about a month ago. It was a frank look at European Imperializm and the colonization of Africa. Very good look at human aggression at its best.

They screwed up Africa. They screwed up some of India too. Imperial bastards!:furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

They screwed up Africa. They screwed up some of India too. Imperial bastards!:furious3:

---

Indeed! Speaking of India, I read a good book recently about the possiblility that the Indus River Valley might have been the site of a civilization much earlier than in Mesopotamia. I can't recall the title right now, but it was very convincing. It is possible that many of the ideas for civilization came from there to the west. It kind of ties in with the notion of some modern day archeaologists that claim 10,000 BC might have been the "dawn of civilization. The evidence is inconclusive, but intriuging.

If I mention well first cities (if we could call these things cities) were Ur,Uruk in Mezopotamia and Jericho.

Remember that archaeology has a huge blind spot. It can only make guesses based on the study of finds that have been made. It tends to ignore possibilities which don't have easily explored sites. Early archaeology tried to make pat answers based on limited, but very real and accessible evidence. On top of that you have the usual bias of one group trying to prove it was first or best or oldest or smartest.

Imagine the dismay of the Chinese government when it was proven that the Takla Maklan desert mummies were European. Imagine the dismay of the entrenched historians when it was proven that Scandinavians got to North America, and even settled it, half a millenium before Columbus. Imagine the political fallout in academia if it is ever conclusively proven that Zheng He's fleet did indeed reach the west coast of the Americas. Politics and racial bias and entrenched paradigms are as much a part of archaeology as they are in any other field of academe.

Against that background in archaeology, is the fact that our understanding of pre-written history is based only upon what we have so far found. There are areas which we haven't yet explored, like the deep jungles and the places which are now underwater but weren't up until the end of the last ice age raised sea levels. Where do civilizations start? By rivers, we assume, for the ease it gives to agriculture which is the one necessary ingredient for a large populace to congregate in cities. But what of the coasts? What of those places where rivers meet the coasts? Coasts which were, in some cases, hundreds of miles further out than they are today. The possibilities have been essentially ignored by archaeology, because they couldn't be studied. And yet, archaeology makes assumptions based on what is plainly only part of the data.

There is some evidence, and maybe someday we'll be able to find out more, of a city that once existed in what is now the Gulf of Khambhat, in the Gujurat Plain of India.

What if the first major civilization began in a lush jungle setting, with structures made from wood instead of stone? What would be left to study, if it were overgrown and decayed, as would happen in such a setting? We are only now beginning to discover some signs that a rich agricultural civilization flourished in the pre-Columbian Amazon basin, because the usual signs of civilization were hidden from view, decayed and overgrown and flooded. They didn't leave behind temples of stone like the Inca and the Maya; but they did exist, perhaps even as late as the Spanish explorers, giving rise to the Seven Cities legend. If a Spanish explorer going by boat up the Amazon were to find a series of large towns built out of jungle material, with thriving agricultural works, what would he call them but cities?

Look at the pyramid cities in the Peruvian Andes which are just now being fully excavated, having been assumed to be just odd hills on the high plain. They weren't hills. They were a huge city, with massive temples, in the middle of what it now a desert forgotten and ignored until someone had a "hey, what if?" moment.

We know the sea levels rose after the end of the last ice age. Archaeology has a difficult time with the concept of possible sunken evidence. It is hard to find, nearly impossible to investigate and was thus, largely, ignored as the science of archaeology developed.

We now know that the former Black Sea lake region was inhabited. Ballard found the mounds characteristic of centuries of dwelling building on top of the detritus from previous generations, along what would have been rivers prior to the flooding of the Black Sea some 7500 years ago. We know that the oldest evidence of gold working was in the same general area, along the Danube leading down into this same Black Sea lake region.

The Indus valley civilization is a prime example. We are only just now beginning to delve into what was or wasn't there. It is made more difficult by the conditions. What happens to the evidence of city building when the civilization moves or is conquered or dies out and the material they used to build is easily washed away by millenia of monsoon rains? If you build from mud brick, what happens when it isn't constantly repaired by a thriving civilization after thousands of years of heavy rain? It disappears.

Archaeology, as a science and not just the province of amateurs, is little more than a century old. The assumptions made based upon what was known are continually being overturned, as our ability to investigate grows more sophisticated. One of those assumptions is that Ur, and Mesopotamia, were the "cradle of civilization" based upon what we knew at the time. The sites are comparatively easy to access. There is a written record which reaches back far enough to link to even earlier pre-written legends and with the available remains to study. So assumptions were made. But the archaeologists who made those assumptions didn't know about the Black Sea flood. They didn't know about the Indus river finds. They didn't know things which we still have not as yet discovered. I expect that the assumption that Mesopotamia was the first is going to be found wrong in the not too distant future, as our ability to investigate previously ignored areas increases. We know that the Black Sea flood predates the Mesopotamian civilizations by several millenia. We know that the Indus river settlements were contemporary with Mesopotamian cities, and may have been as large and possibly older. So much still that we don't know. We don't know what existed in the massive Amazon river basin, or what were once the fertile plains of high Peru. We don't know what existed in the fertile river deltas along the coasts of every land mass, prior to the rise of the seas some 10000 years ago. We do know, now, that there is much we don't know. I'd hesitate to make claims of "first" civilization based on what was possible to discover 100 years ago.