Are there any records of early man's interaction with other primates?

>Ancient societies regarded primates as human
>Not so old societies regarded other humans as primates

Really makes me think.

In the Ramayana, the Indian epic, there is a race o monkey people. One of the becomes Rama's servant. I find it EXTREMELY disturbing, but Hindus are like, it's so cute their devoted to Lord Ram.

It was during Hanno the Navigator of Carthage's exploration of West Africa

Seeing as gorillas were considered a cryptid up untill the later part of the nineteen century I highly doubt that either is true.

>they thought gorillas were really hairy people.
maybe they were just being poetic. ancient people weren't idiots

They were semi-settled peoples that built temples and other buildings but didn't have cities or permanent residences. Some peoples practiced primitive agriculture in that they would gather grains from naturally occurring fields and simply wait for them to regrow, and over time they began weeding these fields, planting seeds, fertilizing, etc. Agriculture was more of a development than a discovery, and it likely took many many generations to appear in various places around the world. These primitive peoples also had a lot of free time and did specialize in crafts, for example some stone carvings have been found dated to pre-civilized periods, and of course there is the human tradition of painting which has existed since before Homo Sapiens, only preserved on cave walls sheltered from the elements. These primitive peoples also used fire and the remains of campfires have been discovered.

So their day was probably like
>get up at dawn with the rest of the tribe
>eat breakfast of grains, meal, possibly gathered fruits and nuts left over from previous days
>go hunt for or gather today's food
>maybe visit the temple and make an offering
>eat lunch
>take nap
>after nap, use free time to work on perfecting your sexy fucking goddess waifu figurines
>have dinner, possibly including meat roasted over a campfire
>dance/sign/tell stories with the tribe and socialize around the fire, possibly perform rituals
>partake in the nightly orgy
>groom your tribe mates and be groomed by others
>go to sleep
>wake up in the middle of the night with the rest of the tribe, have some more sex or just go back to bed
>start all over again

Intersperse that with stuff like tribal conflict, childbirth and rearing, differing religions, primitive livestock herding, and the rise of agriculture and thats basically their day to day life. It's not much different from how we live now honestly, we just label things different and use modern technology.

>not that different
>actually completely and totally utterly different in every facet
why do people ruin good posts like this?

It isn't different, though. I mean from a behavioral point of view. Modern humans are anatomically the same as neolithic humans so it makes sense our behavioral patterns would be largely the same. To a great extent, every human's day still consists of getting up, eating breakfast, laboring in some way to make a living or acquire goods, engaging in a hobby in one's spare time, socializing with family and friends in a close social group, having sex. All of the things listed in that post, save those specific to neolithic society like worshipping a nature goddess or dancing around a campfire, are relatable to modern humans and even the neolithic specific parts have modern equivalents. Some aspects are modernized and some aspects are newly added thanks to inventions like writing enabling humans to spend time educating themselves, but in general humans now are the same as they were thousands of years ago. Only our society and the tools we use have really changed.

You're forgetting that up untill historically recently the world was a place of supernatural mystery and wonder.
For example, during the middle ages there was a serious discussion amongst western clergymen wether or not dog-headed people counted as humans or not. IIRC correctly the yes side won seeing as animals don't wear clothes.

Probably not Chimps or Gorillas, but the Romans and Europeans considered Apers to be mockeries of Humans.

African tribesmen consider apes to be examples of stupidity, because they are.

Sure. Read Oog's Compendium for a detailed analysis of human-ape realtions in 10,000 bc. Chisled on stone by Oog himself.

Also, Grakk's Introduction to Monkey-Mans was a big hit in its day. The leading prehistoric historians all swear by it. It also paved the way for Brogg's "Rememberances", which was huge with the wooly mammoth hunters because it claimed the first of them was a noble man who clubbed and dragged many women.

"Non Human" Hominins were largely "extinct" by the pre Sumerian times.

The only exception was H floresiensis.

>use free time to work on perfecting your sexy fucking goddess waifu figurines
KEK
Also in regards to those statues I read an alternative interpretation of them: According to that hypothesis the Venus-statues are actually self-portraits by pregnant women.

Alternatively, a 3D sculpture will look like a downward portrait if viewed from the same angle.

They'd probably be seen similarly as Woodwoses, since they basically are.

Woodwoses, or wildmen, are thought to represent a time when Hunter Gathers still lived in the wilds of Europe alongside civilized people.

Presumably the interpretation would be the same of similarly intelligent Hominins like Neandertal

There's some weak genetic evidence that early man interbred with chimpanzees just after the Pan-Homo split, effectively becoming one species again before diverging once more.

I remember reading about this. The article, if I remember right, said that humans and chimps share a common ancestor now extinct and chimps are really downgraded humans

Yeah, probably, but they would have been genetically similar enough to breed with, ie the same species, and thusly before the "Split."

I'm going to let you in on a secret; the Species lines are basically bullshit, based mainly on morphological difference, a left over of old Science.

If you can produce viable, fertile offspring, you're the same species.

floresiensis was way extinct long before Sumerian times

Huh, thought for sure they survived longer than that.

Oh, well, I'm even righter than I previously thought

t. I am the only man on earth to solve the species problem! BOW BRAINLETS!

...

No, the Biological Species concept is commonly known, but the way that comment was talking was as if there were something revolutionary about the notion that two lineages of the same species, with slightly different allelic frequencies, having some interbreeding events was an extraordinary thing.

>If you can produce viable, fertile offspring, you're the same species.

You speak from experience, do you? How many offsprings have you sired, fertile or not?

>Monkey soup
When will it stop? Brazilians are eating their own kind, now? I hope I never come across one of those around here.
Because, well, you know, apart from monkeys looking like us (which makes eating them at least disturbing), their DNA is really similar to ours, so the chances of getting a disease are higher. That's why we probably won't get sick after eating a cabbage. We're different.
But eating monkeys is disturbing. At least we don't hear about any interspecies sexings.

Also, OP, even if it's not about monkeys, have this:
>"Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated."
>"beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings." Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah, 14th century
>"If (all types of men) are taken, from the first, and one placed after another, like the Negro from Zanzibar, in the Southern-most countries, the Negro does not differ from an animal in anything except the fact that his hands have been lifted from the earth -in no other peculiarity or property - except for what God wished. Many have seen that the ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro, and more intelligent." Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Tasawwurat (Rawdat al-taslim):

There's a curious external genetic insert in the DNA of some tribes of Africans that dates back to around 15,000 years ago. It is unknown what this insert is, but at that point, all other archaic hominids had disappeared from the fossil record.

Sauce.

My bad, I thought I remembered it as 15,000 years ago, but it was 35,000 years ago.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426505/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3174671/

The second one will give you more relevant info.

That's from the Histories of Herodotus if I remember correctly

Oh, that's a lot more reasonable.

It could even just be from a basal population of Pre-Modern H. sapiens in Africa.

I dont think so. The most recent common ancestor between H. sapiens and the insert group is placed at 700,000 years ago. Long before H. sapiens sapiens evolved.

And not only that but even at 35,000 years ago, we were the only hominids remaining in the fossil record, excluding the hobbits.

Then it could be a population of Hominids either unknown, or ones who intermixed earlier with other archaic hominids.

Maybe a group descended from Heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis-taking them to be equivalent.

Honestly, though, I still think H. erectus should be lumped into H. sapiens. I think it represents a species lineage.

The hypothesis argued that they were used as a guide for determining how far along the pregnancy was IIRC. Uggsa could then use the guiding statues to check if she was on stage 3 or 4 of the pregnancy.

I don't know about erectus, but i think sapiens, Heidlbergensis, Neanderthals, and Denisovans all should. I think Erectus is different enough to be an ancestral group, but you're right, we need consolidation.

I think Neandertal and Denisovan are already called "Subspecies" which is an incredibly spurious term that boils down to calling them sapiens anyway. I'd like to see subspecies retermed as morphotype, honestly.

I think we'd need an erectus genome to properly categorize them, but I don't see any real reason to categorize them outside of sapiens, aside from the fact that they existed alongside them.

I should clarify that last point.

Despite existing alongside them despite also being ancestral. In this proposition, humans would have derived from one lineage of erectus while living at the same time as more basal lineages.

Erectus itself is already a hodge podge of multiple dubious species and subspecies like rudolfensis, floriensis, java and peking man, ergaster and naheldi. Looking at it, I think that erectus is different enough from H. sapiens to be classified as a seperate species, especially considering that there is no proof of interbreeding anywhere. You could be right, but the differences in brain size are pretty spectacular. I'd put my money on erectus being a different species.

some of the more ancestral groups (heidlbergensis, antecessor) lived alongside erectus but i doubt that any H. sapiens sapiens ever met anything other than extremely fringe relic populations in SE Asia. Unfortunately, we'll never get an erectus genome sequenced because the DNA is all way too old.

Alright, fair enough.

Also, are they calling Naledi erectus? I thought Naledi presented a morphology that was radically different from the lineage of Homo that led to modern human and human ancestors.

I thought they speculated it was a descendant from a much earlier split from the main homo lineage.

>every human's day still consists of...make a living...family and friends...having sex

Where do you think you are?

Is anyone sick of Bonobo memeing?

Does anyone else find it kinda weird that humans are more attracted to dogs and cats, but not other primates? Like why is there no such thing as furries who are into fucking monkeys? Is this related to some taboo against interacting with our cousins?

All those erectus "subspecies" are probably more analogous to Races, considering the timespan in which they diversified.

It'd be like some Aliens coming across our fossils and calling Pygmies a different subspecies than a Netherlander

Yeah, that's it! I found a link with his description of it.

shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Hanno.html
>On the third day after our departure thence, having sailed by those streams of fire, we arrived at a bay called the Southern Horn[11]; at the bottom of which lay an island like the former, having a lake, and in this lake another island, full of savage people, the greater part of whom were women, whose bodies were hairy, and whom our interpreters called Gorillae. Though we pursued the men we could not seize any of them; but all fled from us, escaping over the precipices, and defending themselves with stones. Three women were however taken; but they attacked their conductors with their teeth and hands, and could not be prevailed upon to accompany us. Having killed them, we flayed them, and brought their skins with us to Carthage. We did not sail farther on, our provisions failing us.

Chimpanzees and Orangutans are sometimes employed as prostitutes.

Also, the reason is because Chimps just look like ugly little freaks to us, the same reason most people don't want to fuck Beetlejuice, from Howard Stern.

They're not, but it definitely could be. Most of Erectus had nothing to do with modern humans. I've even read a hypothesis that Ergaster produced our lineage while erectus split off, but that wouldn't matter if it all gets consolidate as one anywyas. from what I've read, naheldi exhibits traits of both erectus and habilus, which, given, its temporal location, would make sense as a link between the two.

Exactly, although the racial differences might be exaggerated enough in alot of cases to warrant subspecies.

underrated post

Ergaster is commonly called an African representative of erectus.

Also, the most recent dates I've seen for Naledi is from 350o 250k, which is far, far later than the split from Habilus and erectus, making it almost contemporaneous with AMH.

I think they're calling it a distinct Homo lineage, which is fascinating, since before that everyone thought most of the non Human ancestors had died out

In all honestly African people are a mix of two broad categories. Afrasians which are the humans that colonized the whole planet and Paleo-Africans which are the people that made the Ishango Bone and other artefacts known of in Africa.

While I hesitate to take seriously the term "archaic" because it's used mostly by Eurocentric researchers to limit African technological development it must be said that the biodiversity of Africans in part is due to basal PaleoAfrican populations all absorbed today but most markedly found amongst Western pgymies, Eastern pygmies and tuu/kx'a/khoe who are all very much genetically distinct from one another despite superficial resemblances

Oh really? I thought Naheldi was dated to like 1.1 mya. Must be older information I guess.

>Ergaster is commonly called an African representative of erectus.

Yeah, by SOME people. Others only call individuals with certain traits ergaster, and some call any Erectus that may be part of the human lineage "ergaster". Its all very convoluted.

Colonization of Africa

Yeah, it's a lumper splitter issue, to be sure, and I did used to be a big splitter before becoming a critic of the morphological basis of species differentiation.

Whatever it actually is, it probably is the transition from the earlier homo line, whether that is Habilis or a contemporaneous hominin, to ours and our related sapiens.

Don't feel too bad, this article was literally published two days ago.

elifesciences.org/content/6/e24231

The Million year estimate comes from an assumption based on anatomy. Turns out, it was probably just some basal hominin that survived to relatively recent times

Egyptians spoke of stories about baboons that lived south of their land I have read about.

Well, I really assume OP meant apes, perhaps asking why cultures didn't draw the lines from them to us.

Lots of cultures talk about monkeys

Chimp women look ugly because chimps have short feet if they had human length legs they would start to fire our FUCK THAT signal in our brain.

I know there are dude that jerk off to fucking Australophithecan females.

Like how AIDS started?

HIV apparently came from Eastern Gorillas.

Sluts