How do you suppose cavemen established dominance hierarchies...

How do you suppose cavemen established dominance hierarchies? They couldn't have constantly been engaging in fist fights right? Fist fights can get very fatal very quickly.

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/articles/ncomms5800
pnas.org/content/early/2017/02/17/1616392114
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I don't know if there'd be much of a need for dominance hierarchy in neanderthal groups since they were so small. Also, neanderthals were a lot more physically robust and able to cope with damage than we are now, or were back then.

Same way primitive societies have almost always done it.

The strongest leads, the oldest advise, and everyone leaves everyone else alone.

You have to understand that in a primitive society, barring war or hunting parties there isn't exactly a lot of 'leading' to be done. Division of labor is mostly handled by 'I'm good at this and I want to do this' or 'This needs done, someone go do this'

Complex forms of government and hierarchies with large numbers of layers only develop when civilization reaches a level of complexity to require them.

My foremost guess would be something like hunting prowess, lifting and throwing heavy stones or objects, I feel like there are a lot of ways you can test toughness w/out violence.

They didn't have much hierarchy other than respect for the old, experienced, etc in some cases.

I too am curious as to how primitive man and his ancestors behaved.

Specifically, how they selected mates. The morphological difference between human faces can be explained as due to a preference of selecting mates with novel features, but wouldn't just the strongest males choose to mate with every eligible female? With the survival rate of birth, mating selection could not be too fickle.

Here is a study : nature.com/articles/ncomms5800

Bullying, peer pressure and mind games. Just like today.

Dominance is usually established through posturing and other shit like that. Most people will back down if someone they perceive as more dangerous than them just gets in their face and lets them know that they'll get fucked up if they push the envelope.
I am sure that there was plenty of violence, but it's not like people would be constantly fighting (physically) for leadership.

Tribes have almost always functioned in the manner of clans or extended family units. Their composition would have varied radically but they would have been family bonds. Fights may have broken out periodically in the manner that families today fight, butyou probably didn't want to risk losing a hunter, who is also your first cousin, over some bullshit, as tribes pool resources and more hunters means more days when you get to eat meat.

Then, as it is now, domination is a combination of skill, seniority, social intelligence, and opportunism.

>wouldn't just the strongest males choose to mate with every eligible female?

As a matter of fact, that's just what happened most of the time.

We have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors.

also arm wrestling

I would guess it would go by experience. You don't "choose" leaders in a tribal society, the pieces just fit into place. If you go hunting with the tribe you aren't going to vote for a leader before you head out. It's going to be the guy who can best hunt. Lead by example and whatnot.

This can lead to certain people fighting for leadership and trying to prove themselves as more able than the other. It wouldn't be crazy to think cavemen killed each other to prove a point.

The guy who's best at leading takes charge. The guy who's best at a particular task takes over when doing that task. There wasn't a king caveman, but it was clear to all who was the best at things (they got to mate the most)

DELETE

>They couldn't have constantly been engaging in fist fights right? Fist fights can get very fatal very quickly.

Herd and pack animals seem to have no problem establishing a pecking order.

>strongest males

That's what your buddies are for 2bh

>How do you suppose cavemen established dominance hierarchies?
How do you suppose families establish dominance hierarchies?

First born being the dominant heir is not a coincidence, brainlet.

They were peaceful matriarchal people.
It was really the damn Kurgans who invented patriarchy.

No, it was the Nomadic Semites such as the Hebrews actually, Germanics were matriarchal

>Fist fights can get very fatal very quickly.
it is almost impossible to kill somebody in a fist fight

>Germanics

You just went full retard.

it's true, retard

Proto-Germanics are a 500 BC people. Kurgans spread from the Pontic-Caspian steppe to Europe 2500 years earlier and are not just ancestral to Germanics but Celts and Slavs and all the other Indo-European groups. There's a mountain of evidence that the Kurgans were indeed patriarchal people.

>There's a mountain of evidence that the Kurgans were indeed patriarchal people.

None at all, you fucking retard.

>rape

I think you underestimate how easy it is to kill someone, even accidentally. A good punch to the nose can do it, any sharp blow to the head can do it really. That's before you factor in eye-gauging / strangulation etc.

Fist fights aren't like in the movies.

It was actually documented in kent, in a cave strict instructions were found on how the leader is chosen, there were 7 stones and each clan member would take a stone, these stones would be taken all over the world, one was even found in paris, afterwards they would all return, and the stone thst returned the most would be the leader, this leader would lead them when close to death he would give the stone to the next leader they could not speak and nobody could know who posessed the stone, but he would be the leader.

I have been doing kickboxing for years, and neither me nor anybody i know has died yet
Also, if fistfights were really that dangereous, then bar brawl wouldn't be treated as a trivial offence

pnas.org/content/early/2017/02/17/1616392114

Bronze age Kurgans were hell bent on wiping out local males but more than willing to engage in cross ethnicity sex with local females. This is textbook patriarchy.

The Anatolian farmers who migrated to Central-East Europe before them were on the other hand willing to let local hunter males marry into their tribes and showed no sex bias towards accepting local females.

Human mental faculties make people angry when women get raped and males are uninvolved, so I think that unless elders and respected individuals who have condoned the practice of "strongest get everyone" mentality everyone except the weak and inept would manage to get a mate.

I don't doubt that there were cultures based around alpha male mentality, but humans as creatures seem too emotionally inclined to stand for it for too long.

>The morphological difference between human faces can be explained as due to a preference of selecting mates with novel features,
well first, it is not because ''the situation YYYY can be explained By XXXX'' that it is indeed what happens. Second, people today believe that it is obvious that sex results in pregnancies, but animals do not know this and animals have no idea what survival (of what anyway???) means.
At best you have a bunch of ''it is as if some animals ...'' statements. I know this passes as knowledge today towards liberals who cannot stop speculating, but they call it knowledge only because they have nothing else in their life.

t. MMA fan
Go hang out on a Friday in a third world country in front of a bar after midnight. Observe all the poor schmoes bleeding from the nose convulsing in for a three day hospital stay.

Fist fights aren't west side story shit.

>People get angry when women of their tribe are raped
Ftfy.
I know it's a nice meme but men do not inheritly care for woman's feelings /protecting them outside of their own gain. Most of that is instilled culturally and can be broken down with enough pressure. Source: how men have the capacity to treat women cruelly throughout history, mostly in terms of women from a different group. And no I'm not just referencing psychopaths.

Why would they have to rape anyone? If they're the leaders they're going to be popular enough that they don't need to rape.

You made this thread just so someone would reply something about anal sex

why they white tho

Neanderthals and homo sapiens lived alongside in Europe/ northern Europe.
Breeding happened between the 2 and in white people exclusively there is 2-4% Neanderthal DNA found. Homo neanderthals were white and so can the heidelbergensis be. Florensis was black, as was the erectus.

Small mistake, the homo neanderthalensis is also found in Asian people and is hypothised to contribute to an increased intelligence. Since Neanderthals had more brain capacity to be able to control the larger limbs.

The all life sprouted from Africa is a meme. Different races were found at different places and times. The homo sapiens was also found in Africa and in a way the purest homo sapiens is the African person.

>is hypothised to contribute to an increased intelligence
"Hypothesized" by no one outside of the stormfag community. There is no evidence that Neanderthal mixture contributed anything phenotypically to the human gene pool. A few percent isn't enough to have any effect.

> the purest homo sapiens is the African person.
False. Africans have archaic mixture just like everyone else; we just haven't found the well preserved DNA evidence to sequence like we have with Neanderthals and Denivosans.

Also I don't know what "African person" means. Nilotes, Khoisans, Pygmies and Ethiopians are all "African" but utterly distinct from each other genetically. Even amongst "negroids", many genetically distinct groups would fall under that category so which do you mean? I want stormfags to stop trying to into anthropology.

I think there has been some ideas that things like allergies may have come from neanderthals, but yeah, the "neanderdalz mad us smerter" meme is a /pol/

>le strongest male

Strength wasn't the only factor. It's hypothesized that the human vocabulary grew partially in order to impress women. Many cultural innovations might have been lowkey displays of intelligence.
Also, it's unlikely the strongest guy would have been able to stop his woman fucking around 24/7. Neolithics literally had no law as far as we can tell.

doesn't it prove my point?
fist fights are pretty harmless in general and cause a nosebleeding at worst

Matriarchy is literally a fairytale. A few societies like the modern west and early sumer were egalitarian. The rest are almost totally patriarchal.

>More brain to deal with larger limbs
>Whales are smarter than humans now with their 17 lb brains
>T.an idiot who thinks every part of the brain deals with executive functions e.i. decision making and intelligence.

/Pol/ is truly subhuman. And what's worse is they have the audacity to pretend they are smart and know what they are talking about. The worse kind of stupidity.

Even Australian aboriginals have Neanderthal admixture.

Are you a retard
I dont believe you've been kickboxing for years if you don't recognise the potential lethality of fighting. People die in streetfights all the time. Mainly because if they do get knocked out they crack their skulls on the concrete when they drop.

Barfights are treated as trivial because they happen so often and they generally get stopped or interrupted before they get past a punch/slap. There was a program a while back called 'One punch kill' or 'one killer punch' that outlined it pretty good. Ive personally seen alot of people get dropped and had to perform first aid till paramedics arrive.

t.bouncer

You are fighting with gloves in a padded ring. If you knock someone out in the wilderness there's a chance he's gonna knock his head on a rock and die

>I do a sport
>obviously this is representative of real life
You're matched up with someone of comparable skill, given rules and equipment to reduce injury, and both parties are trained to mitigate harm caused by strikes to themselves. If you don't have these things, the likelihood of serious injury is much greater. Imagine someone who can't roll with a punch getting slugged in the temple.

>then bar brawl wouldn't be treated as a trivial offence
Where I am, there is additional penalty for fights in bars than odrinary fights.

>They couldn't have constantly been engaging in fist fights right?
Animals don't do it either. Be bigger, yell louder, shove the the other guy farther, etc. fighting breaks out when all else fails.

It's a kernel of truth wrapped around a shell of exaggeration.

Even though ancient Rome was ruthlessly patriarchal by our standards, by the standards of virtually every other society of its day it was a place where women exercised a lot of self-agency. Literally nobody cared if a woman worked or owned her own business or exercised a LOT of power behind the scenes, and while it is true that they were subject to paterfamilias so were the men, and it was still far less oppressive than, say, ancient Athens, which would make the Taliban seem like womyn's lib by comparison

The only other ancient society where women exercised so much self-agency was Ancient Sparta, who thought that strong women breed strong soldiers so they let them participate in athletics and in wider Spartan society right along with the boys, and it was one of the things that Athenians really hated about Spartans, going so far as to mock them for being a gynotopia, a place ruled by women and intrigue. There's one story about a bunch of Athenian women meeting a Spartan woman and being totally blown away by how athletic and confident she was

Of course the irony is that after the Spartans defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian war, they were remarkably forgiving of their hated, defeated rival even over the calls of other city states who simply wanted the Athenians exterminated, so in a way, the reason western civilization didn't get snuffed out in its crib is because it was conquered by a society which was unusually "matriarchial", at least in the sense that it was a society where a queen could get away with saying things like "Spartan, either come back with this shield or upon it!" to her king, and was exceptionally forgiving to its conquered foes, especially compared to what all of Sparta's allied states wanted to do to Athens

TL;DR some of the most successful societies in history, both in a civic and military sense, were places where women wielded much more power than they did anywhere else

spartan women shamed their sons into courage not their husbands....but yes they did participate in society more. you also forgot to mention Greeks were also amazed by the fact Roman women sat with the men at banquets in the living area.
I'm not sure about women working a,"trade" outside of prostitution but yeah they definitely could own a business if they had the money or work a business if she was working along side her husband.
Anyway, matriarcies probably existed but were too small and inefficient unless a gender distribution of labortion was still prominent, even then, most patriarchies grew much larger so they could easily be overtaken.
but this thread is being derailed...dominanice had and is asserted in many ways even in the animal kindom. Mainly making oneself seem bigger or more "puffed up"