The Tall Thin Tribe; or Musings on Neanderthals and Prehistorical Myths

To get the most out of Evolver, create your profile now!
8
groks

So most of us all have a little neanderthal in us? I find this really fascinating. Here we have a story of an ancient, well-established human species that set themselves up for habitat in a harsh Ice Age. They were built to survive. They had their own language, spirituality and culture and tool making.  Perhaps not as imaginative as us, but nonetheless they were human beings. We newcomers stepped into their lands and mingled with them, brought them new ideas and culture.

I can only imagine what it must have been like for the Neanderthals to witness these strange, tall dark and thin tribes entering their lands. Who were these odd humans with their exquisite bodily decorations, & new tools? It's good to know that we didn't simply wipe them out, but nevertheless I am reminded of how the Native Americans encountered the Europeans.

Pre-history reflects known history, as we have the meeting of the ancient with the novel. It may have been a mix of peaceful co-existence, coupled with competition for resources. Humans established themselves well at the end of the ice age, and these over specialized Neanderthals were literally absorbed into our tribes and cultures as their Era came to an end. As we stepped in, they began to fade out.

I am sure we learned from them, though, and probably very quickly. They might have shown us how to survive in those harsh winter lands as we brought them exquisite art and imagination. This is not to say they didn't have culture! It seems, however, that they did not take the imaginative leap that the homo-sapien-sapiens did. We were the late bloomers.

Neanderthals had larger brains, interestingly, yet not as rich a culture as we. Was most of their brain power put into survival? They were shorter, stockier, built to be tough and survive in the cold. Is this where most of their energy and adaptation went into? This may be the case, but I also find it fascinating that these beings were the first to leave the African Nest. We appear to have remained behind for a long time (going through our own trials) before we stepped off the continent. Did their larger brains play a part in this early-exodus? Give them the "head start" (pun intended) to brave the frontier?

I find it fascinating that Neanderthals, as well as earlier hominids, made the jump out of Africa and can be found living in other places of the world. We weren't the first to leave, not by a long shot, but the pattern of hominids leaving Africa and spreading into new environments is something we share with our ancestors.

Evolution appears to reverberate with a Teilhardian theme: one of a "groping" towards Mind. As each hominid exits Africa, the image that we get is a series of evolutive "waves," each one overlapping the other in a gradual leap across the pond towards Mind. I don't think it's pure chance that the successive waves of hominids and humans from Africa follow this pattern. Each one slightly either "more" successful or equally successful in its own way, each one necessary to give way to the next mutation. Not a linear progression but much more like a series of branches unfolding and moving towards the sun. Teilhard would argue that while these beings were like the many necessary first branches, we were the latent trunk that had finally begun to shoot for the sky.

Myth, Evolution & Ancient Memories

I wonder if many creation mythologies hold in them a racial memory of neanderthals and other hominids we crossed on our journey out of Africa. Evidence suggests we co-existed with them for a (long) time. Imagine being an early human and seeing these similar beings that already exist in the foreign lands you enter. Many mythologies have stories of humanity being created as an imperfect process. Certain things needed to be changed and re-created. From the Popol Vuh's story of humans made of mud and wood, to the Hopi myth on how the gods created us, but then needed to give us speech. Keep in mind the excluded Biblical tales of God creating first Lilith, then Eve for an unsatisfied Adam.

Does myth contain within it certain prehistorical and evolutive memories? Reflecting on their similarities and differences to us, perhaps our encounters with other hominids set the embryonic form of historical creation myths. These myths exist in a place where science, evolution and imagination overlap.

The Hopi speech myth reverberates with what we know about hominids and their more limited language capacities. Early humans incorporated clicks and other sounds where there was not yet the vocal cords to speak as later humans would be able to do. This is not to say that such languages are inferior, but instead to show how our early ancestors were actually highly creative, using exactly what they had available to them.

Our exodus from Eden is also an interesting story with many different interpretations. As a myth, it may reflect our ability to be more conscious and self-reflective. Suddenly we were no longer embedded in nature. Thompson argues this has to do with our shift from the jungle to the Savannah, and our subsequent shift in sexuality to the menstrual cycle. It may also be about humanity's early trials during a climate upheaval that nearly drove us to extinction. Was this our "exodus?"

Myth can have many meanings and reflect multiple things, because it exists in a place outside of literal interpretation or pure fantasy. Woven within the imagination, we have the ability to understand more than we are consciously aware of. It is a way of nature, the universe, the cosmos and even the divine, to speak to us. The "boat" over which we cross the sea of the unknown.

Weaving myth, biology and anthropology together in one tapestry is an important practice when one wants to understand the evolution of consciousness---which we could definitely say extends beyond any one species. It is part of the story of life on Earth. Having a comfortable space where we are not afraid of placing mythological narratives placed next to scientific ones allows us to introduce a "third," alternative space, where we can discover underlying patterns and archetypal themes that were not evident if we were looking strictly within one context or another.

So to conclude with our tapestry: we have Teilhard's organic progression of forms in life's stride towards Mind, the historical and evolutive pattern of the novel becoming the ancient & succeeded by the novel again (waves, expansion and contraction), anthropological evolution of language & culture, the Hopi and Mayan human creation myths.

I believe we can at least consider one of the archetypal themes is the pattern of the life-cycle. The new explodes into the world, overtaking older layers. Eventually becoming the established layer itself, it succumbs to new forms and new seasons of life. This is a common thread, I believe, throughout evolution, with a definite fugue or symphonic like quality to it. The emergence and evolution of consciousness is more like a song which has many layers, some create a base for which further layers may unfold, all necessary, and extended in a qualitative time that is not a neat linear progression (there is direction as "flow" and not linear succession). A cosmic song that we play out in history, in evolution, in mythology. Is this the same song that the mystics hear playing creation? If so, then we may have found it here in the densest forms, in time and space itself, the divine song can be heard! Something to consider!

Thanks for reading!

-Jer

Comments

A huge subject...

You've hit one of my soft spots of personal thought work.
Neanderthals.

In brief, a culture that lasts 200k years can't be classified as specialized especially comparing them to the "modern" counterparts which as we see today evolved into one of the most specialized species on the planet. The over dependence on frivolous technology has de-evolved us into a discontented, myopic culture devoid of a sublime appreciation for the beauty and spirit around us.

Most concepts about early man, no matter how learned the studies, whether cultural, geologic, anatomical or archeological, have any idea how Neanderthals actually felt, thought or believed. The studies are admittedly purely speculative and nothing more.

I contend that the Neanderthal was one of the most sublime hominid species. They LIVED their own mythology. They had no discontents to drive them to specialization. Their concerns were purely natural and not manufactured by their culture. Their spiritual connections were direct. We have no relative comparison of experience in our modern lives today, so we can't understand this state of being the Neanderthals lived.

As for lacking more advanced evidence, I contend this: Our current advanced culture develops more and more technology to REPLACE human senses and abilities, there by self destructively diminishing the human capacity voluntarily. Think about that for a moment.

The Neanderthal, were at one with all their senses and related directly with nature. Why paint a picture of a pastoral scene, when you live in one and it gives you full contentment. Why write about the wind, thunderstorm, hunting struggle, when you live it, are spiritually at one with it, and you are content with the outcomes because you are part of it, not trying to live apart from it?

Do we know conclusively that Neanderthal clans grouped in the thousands or hundreds of thousands and waged war or participated in mass terra forming practices? I don't think they did. Does that make them less "advanced" or more aware of the importance of life and the importance of the BALANCE of that life? Did they participate in writing or was there an added empathy to their communication that brought deeper meaning to the communication without the invention of a more complex language or the technology of writing.

My points can go on and on. I have read very little studies or speculations by others on these few points alone.

I believe the Neanderthal had an innate and intimate capacity to communicate and understand the spiritual and physical world around them in the most sublime sense. One that modern man never learned or has forgotten long ago.

A "primitive" that creates a musical instrument and creates a simple sound based music, from nature and based on the nature around them, is not primitive. A culture that understands all around them, adapts and lasts for 200k years without mass wars or oppressive civilizations I call sustainable, intuitive, adaptable, and content.

To be content, you have to have belief, confidence and enjoy your part and place in the environment you live within. Tell me how many cultures since can allude to those attributes?

In conclusion, I think the speculation base about the Neanderthals is flawed by the discontent, competitive and technology dependent perception of the culture trying desperately to understand and is looking in all the wrong places, with all the wrong perceptions.

short reply

"more and more technology to REPLACE human senses and abilities"
In my opinion; technology alone, does not replace but enhance, like growing extra arms maybe. Which could be in turn viewed as evolution.

"A "primitive" that creates a musical instrument and creates a simple sound based music, from nature and based on the nature around them, is not primitive."

like above mentioned statement regarding technology, "primitive" or not, these beings in creating tools and musical instruments, which was early "technology"

Not trying to disagree with anything you said, just pointing out what I noticed:)

good discussion

What technology is developed for and HOW it is used are two different things. How mainstream consumers use technology and how scientists and surgeons use technology or how corporate and wall street speculators use technology are very different indeed.

I see people texting each other when they are side by side. I see people contacting other people when they are already in one group but communicating with another. Why don't they make a decision to be with the group they are physically in? Why don't they talk to the person next to them, verbally, eye to eye?

People use GPS because they didn't plan their trip, they didn't look for landmarks, and they give the responsibility of completing their journeys over to someone or something else. Why don't they use their eyes to locate landmarks? Why don't they talk to people and ask for directions?

Saying the answer to these things is "because its easier" or "because its safer" are not answers. We have come to believe those are the goals of life, they are not. Nor were they the goals of the Neanderthal in my opinion. Easier or not easier was not their mindset, BEING, living within their worlds was and it was also the sublime reward. That's how I believed they lived.

People for what ever myriad of reasons, are trending to participate and in some cases live their biological lives in virtual worlds. People relax or de-stress by sitting zombie like in front of television which does not stimulate critical thinking.

These are a few of "mainstream" consumer usages of technology. There are many more, but compare the numbers of the mainstream consumers with the select few using technology as it is ideally designed?

There is another discussion on larger aspects of technology like pollution production, environmental hazards like nuclear power plants, the artifacts of consuming, plastic containers, and other junk.

These numbers in my opinion far outweigh the ideal usages and outcomes and are causing a social development malaise.

In regard to "early technology" I concur, yet what we don't stop to realize today is that we have a choice as to WHAT technology we use and develop and WHY and HOW we use it.

If we develop technology to alleviate boredom, entertain, increase communication that really doesn't increase communication, increase specialization or a compartmentalization of society, I feel these are negative developments.

In contrast, if Neanderthal society was content with their lives, enjoyed their environment, adapted to the natural changes around them and had practical tools and creative tools, then they choose "technology" that was a result of their lives.

I just offering my speculations in the trying to determine the mind of the Neanderthal world. The modern replacements developed more advanced technologies, and in far less than 200k years, look what it's gotten us...

I contend that we have a choice of what technology to develop, and why we develop it. Currently, our choice of developing technology seem to be in a majority for the sole purpose of creating profits. Military technology, developed for war, killing, is later adapted to a mainstream consumer market, again for the purpose of profits. Cell phones and computers were developed for information and communication, yet have become in the mainstream usage, profit engines and entertainment or social replacements.

Again only a few prominent examples. BUT, those are the modern choices. Maybe the Neanderthal era didn't need those replacements... maybe their society was complete enough, interacting with each other and experiencing their environments on a sublime spiritual level, we can't begin to imagine, all derived from a simple selection of the inclusion of some simple technologies.

Just because we can invent new technologies, doesn't mean we should.

You mention having more than two arms...then you are talking biological and genetic technologies, transhumanism, the result of the race to singularity. Once we make that move, there is no going back...

So the pattern goes from Neanderthal, modern man, then trans-human man... I wish I could say I'll be gone by that time, but at the speed things are "developing" I"ll probably witness it before I go.

The lesson to be considered here is, that there is something we are missing in the mere fact that Neanderthal's era existed over 200k years. Modern man and his technology can't compare. Yet we constantly bemoan sustainability... to me 200k years is sustainability. Maybe there is something in a sublime simplicity.

We should enjoy our lives more, be far more selective of our technology, live within nature instead of against it, understand that the one with the most technological toys does NOT win, and maybe, our lives would provide more contentment and enlightenment because we engage more of who we are and less of what's new and will entertain us more every two seconds.

My comments are also in regard to how I think archeology and anthropology speculations miss the mark. Our culture is already too changed to recognize anything accurate at all about our past. It's been tens of thousands of years since Neanderthals. Given our rate of advancement, in just another thousand years, would that evolution of man even recognize us or even distinguish us from insects?

I believe one of the answers to sustainability is through selective simplification, less complex technology and more natural innovation.

Sorry, it's not a short subject.

reply

Then we do agree, there is a big difference as to defining "technology" and "what technology has been used for" and that's all I was bringing up, when we use the term, we should be careful to denote what we mean.
As far as the arms, I was speaking kinda metaphorically, as in the use of certain technological advances gives us abilities we do not possess`solely with our bodies, Could be likened to having extra appendages.
As far as the singularity, we are definitely not ready for these new developments, until we stop using technology for profit driven motives, and instead use it for the betterment of all. maybe?

Syndicate content

"Banish the word 'struggle' from your attitude and your vocabulary. All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration. We are the ones we have been waiting for." — Hopi elders

Sponsored by