The current "Out of Africa" is really not the same as what you might have learned 2-3 decades ago, despite the branding. David Reich is probably the leading researcher in this field and his description of our best guesses is highly nuanced and open to new data.
While I agree with your assessment from my subjective (european) perspective, this is inherently a value judgement and has no place in discussing genepools.
> they have better overall baseline health indicators, sustainable living practices etc…
This is a totally ridiculous claim and not supported by any evidence.
> So humans left Africa, interbred with neandertal, created a less socialized, more sociopathic hybrid
This is one of the more stunningly racist things I've seen on here in quite some time. It's scarcely worth trying to point out that this is a completely baseless claim.
Yeah, using a small number of geographically locked groups of modern foragers to project backwards in time to before agriculture is a fools errand. As interesting in as the Hadza are, it's impossible to really know what their lives looked like before the Bantu expansion, let alone later developments.
> As interesting in as the Hadza are, it's impossible to really know what their lives looked like before the Bantu expansion, let alone later developments.
As much as I agree with this, there are better models than the Hadza where we have better records of (plausibly) pre-colonial culture and behavior—the san people, the aboriginals of Australia, many of the peoples of Papua New Guinea, etc. The evidence for this is that language seems to encode a lot of culture, and though many of the languages are rapidly vanishing we've documented many of them. (Think about how northern north-american languages have so many distinct words for "snow", for a particularly famous example, showing how language embeds the cultural relevance of snow and ice.) For instance, looking at just the art in the Australian record there's strong evidence for the emergence of very limited social stratification. This, in my opinion, gives significant evidence to the idea of some sort of pre-marxist "primitive" communism (I wish we had better terms as there are good reasons to reject "primitive" but I'm explicitly trying to quote marx here).
Granted, the christians have done their best to "convert" away cultural evidence of many pre-christian beliefs, to an unfortunately devastating effect on our understanding of pre-colonial cultures all around the world, so the extent to which pre-colonial neolithic cultures were egalitarian and communal and non-hierarchical will likely be difficult to understand fully.
...but even just through "traditional" western anthropology, we've long assumed that social stratification arose at the same time as sedentary agriculture. What would be the point without hoarded resources to distribute? And figures such as the nebulous "shaman" associated with animist cultures still divide anthropologists as to whether or not they qualify as social stratification—in many cases, this seems to result in less use of resources than others in the community, or usage of distinct resources.
(and you also have cultures like the pre-colonial Hawai'i peoples that had such a ridiculous level of stratification and gendered use of resources that modern students often have difficulty believing the record—these trivially contradict the primitive communist narrative. But I say don't throw the baby out with the bath water!)
I think you can grasp at the extant evidence of a lot of forager societies and see all sorts of social arrangements. Some of them may appear to be pre-MArxist communism if that's what you're looking for but the idea that it was ubiquitous is plainly false and there's scant evidence that it was necessarily common. For example the Coast Salish while foragers were also inveterate slavers who held personal property (slaves counting as such). We know that the Poverty Point culture built great mounds, engaged in a trade network running from present day Louisiana to the Great Lakes, didn't farm, and built ceremonial spaces.
We could go down this hole pretty far. There are numerous examples of foraging societies that held hunting grounds not in common, but among families by hereditary right. Many gifting cultures had a feature where people tried to accumulate personal property in order to be able to attract followers through their largess, some of the cultures did not practice agriculture.
> but even just through "traditional" western anthropology, we've long assumed that social stratification arose at the same time as sedentary agriculture.
More recent work of "traditional" anthropology, as you've so derisively called it, has called this into question. There are numerous examples of cultures that were not sedentary agriculturalists who had complex hierarchy, personal possessions, social distinctions, and complex cultural practices. If anything it is increasingly clear that cultural difference and complexity was the
David Graeber & David Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything gives a great treatment to the subject and shows hoe political heterogeneity of ancient peoples and foraging cultures was far greater than previously assumed.
I think that the records such that they exist show that per-colonial Hawai'i was less of an outlier than you may believe.
> For example the Coast Salish while foragers were also inveterate slavers who held personal property (slaves counting as such).
Slavery in the new world isn't really comparable to chattel slavery. It's more like a permanent hostage situation than anything. To be clear I don't know much about the Sailish situation per se but that's true across many of the other peoples of North America. I'd be pretty shocked if Sailish were breeding and making commerce from human slaves when nobody else was. That said, this seems kind of unrelated to the topic at hand.
Besides, there's a lot more interested stuff to discuss in the forms of stratification you find in north america, and stratification doesn't necessarily imply non-egalitarianism. One-vote-per-person elections, for instance, as you see with the Haudenosaunee are a form of egalitarianism and stratification in the same breath—albeit one that intersects with the clan structures (which were, themselves, egalitarian). To be honest I'm unsure how gender intersects with stratification in anthropological literature (or I've forgotten), but that would be an interesting way to attack the concept of egalitarianism. I suspect/recall that was treated distinctly, though, as basically every human population alive today has some form of meaningful gendering. My point being: complex societies and complex stratification isn't itself enough to dispute the existence of primitive communism, even if I implied (incorrectly) it was before. The important aspect is communally-determined division of resources and labor under a natural economy, as you can still witness today (or in recent memory) on most (all?) continents.
In fact, this is discussed in the first few chapters of Dawn of Everything—see the bit about how the natural economy allows people to basically walk away from coercive social structures, especially in high-resource areas like wetlands and river deltas.
I can't speak to the people of Hawai'i specifically, but I'd assume that the stratification (potentially re-)arose when hitting the population cap of the natural economy.
Anyway, as I think you can read, I wasn't arguing for ubiquity, but rather the existence of it or a comparison to the social stratification we are forced to deal with today. Graeber's own Debt: the first 5000 years gives excellent arguments how the introduction of commerce exacerbated basically all the social structures we associated with sedentary society. Just because you can find some cultures (as I noted with the pre-colonial Hawai'i people) that have stratification doesn't mean you should chuck the entire idea in the trash. It's still an extremely useful concept and comparison to the society we live in today.
> Slavery in the new world isn't really comparable to chattel slavery
That's not relevant though, it's a good example of a foraging culture practicing something completely unlike pre-Marxist communism. My point is that this was a highly stratified culture that raided neighbors for slaves and held them as personal property and symbols of status. Its a perfect counter example to the notion that anything like communism was a norm among non agrarian cultures.
That's a very different goal post. Egalitarianism is clearly a spectrum and even at one extreme it isn't synonymous with proto-communism.
> One-vote-per-person elections, for instance, as you see with the Haudenosaunee
The Haudenosaunee practiced agriculture so they don't demonstrate anything about "hunter-gatherers". I'd also like to point out that their "Mourning Wars" show something about as far from egalitarianism as I can imagine. Ritually sacking neighboring towns to torture and kill people to find cosmic justice for your own towns dead is... well hardly friendly. With respect to women in the Five Nations, they did in fact own land, homes, and various small goods and the lands and homes were hereditary. This is not pre-Marxist communism.
>In fact, this is discussed in the first few chapters of Dawn of Everything—see the bit about how the natural economy allows people to basically walk away from coercive social structures, especially in high-resource areas like wetlands and river deltas.
Right, but that isn't communism or even really related. Yes you could clearly just fuck off before the world was so full of people.
> Anyway, as I think you can read, I wasn't arguing for ubiquity, but rather the existence of it or a comparison to the social stratification we are forced to deal with today.
It's an interesting set of comparisons, but it's really apples to oranges. I'd certainly rather live in the US today than to be a neighbor or slave of the Salish people or to be captured and tortured to death by a Haudenosaunee war band. I'm happy to not have to bow to a Natches sun king. I think if you read The Down of Everything more carefully you find that the message is not that people in the past necessarily lived freer lives, but that their social arrangements were more experimental across time and place, and that there were more different ways of living. Some were at times and places freer in some key ways, but it's hard to generalize. Moreover all of the talk about pre-Marxist communism just feels like a warmed over attempt at historical materialism which is a dead idea.
> Would any evidence that contradicts the 'Out-of-Africa' dogma even get considered by Western scientists?
An easy example is that neanderthals, denisovans, h erectus, etc contribute via admixture to Homo Sapien Sapiens and well predate "out of africa" dates by hundreds of thousands of years. It's not a hard stretch to presume that other yet-unnamed branches of modern humans left earlier and admixed the same as the other named groups.
I don't think anyone is proposing an extant group of humans that don't have relatively recent roots in africa, though.
Out of Africa was fought by the majority of Western scientists during the early 20th century because of their pro-European biases. The reason its accepted is because the preponderance of evidence supports it.
there were also a lot of sociocultural changes coming out of the 60s/70s that changed the scientific conclusions we drew.
it used to be that we saw changes in ancient pottery and language and assumed that previous people had been replaced by new people with different techniques. then, in the 60s/70s it became popular that these changes didn’t mark population replacement but were more cultural spread and shift.
then genetics came around in the 90s and obliterated the cultural hypothesis and showed that in most of these cases it was largely population replacement.
there are lots of theories from the mid-20th that haven’t yet had their ‘genetics in the 90s’ moment.
> then genetics came around in the 90s and obliterated the cultural hypothesis and showed that in most of these cases it was largely population replacement.
I think the current consensus is a fusion of the two stances, particularly as some of the changes have appeared to be too rapid to reflect population displacement, and genetics clearly indicate genetic admixture with varying distinguishing characteristics relevant to the region and timeperiod as opposed to straight displacement.
Unsatisfying, I know, but basically any firm position on either side has equally firm arguments against it.
I had a recent discussion about this, will try to pull up the sources, but my understanding is displacement is the majoritarian current and cultural shift with same population very much a secondary that only applies in a minority of the cases
a lot of these admixture events show near total displacement of the y chromosome also
I'm not disbelieving your source entirely, but it seems a little ridiculous to assume population displacement across all pre-history (or undocumented history if you'd prefer that term). Particularly when modern populations are so genetically diverse.
For one example, the idea a single "sea people" were responsible for the shift from bronze age to iron age in the eastern mediterranean is nearly universally rejected at this point. The populations of the mediterranean seem to descend at least in part from the bronze-age populations of the area. However the economic and cultural impact of the same period undeniably transfused rapidly through the region as heavily demonstrated with the archaeological record.
Even in the case of neanderthals we didn't fully displace so much as mostly displace but also admixed. Same with denisovans, cro magnons, etc. Genetic testing of cro-magnons shows modern-day descendants, and not just in the matrilineal or patrilineal line (i.e. presumably indicating either descendants of rape or partial infertility, as is presumed in the case of neanderthals).
With the spread of agriculture (seed cultivation, husbandry, plow, etc) we also see a mixture of genetic and cultural transfusion. Ditto with the horse, except much more rapidly, and horse-based technology much slower. This is partially why there's a gradient of genetic similarity across europe rather than a "european" set of genes—and with the horse technology, we have the benefit of an archeological and in certain cases textual evidence of trade between northern europe and the rest of the world.
Now, some of this is a matter of quibbling over semantics—is it displacement or is it admixture? Understandable. But the cultural diffusion in the material record is undeniable regardless of which term you pick. I'm not so sure it's worth picking a primary cause rather than accepting the inherent messiness of the archeological and genetic record where, as in the case of neanderthals, there isn't very solid evidence of infertility demonstrating firmly that the migration was mostly, if not entirely, displacement, as presumably non-hss-mixed neanderthals are extinct.
>when modern populations are so genetically diverse.
Are they? Are there any studies that confirm that hypothesis?
My understanding[0][1][2][3][4][5][6] (there are plenty more references, but I assume you get the point) is that modern human populations are incredibly similar, and not very diverse at all. In fact, all humans are more genetically similar to each other than many other species are, including chimpanzees and wheat.
> Are they? Are there any studies that confirm that hypothesis?
??? what is there to confirm? Why are you trying to spin an internal comparison as external? Indigenous populations tend to be more related to physically close indigenous populations than physically far apart indigenous populations. This is what I was referring to with the "genetic gradient". Comparing us to chimpanzees makes zero sense, let alone wheat, as we aren't trying to have sex with either, let alone "displace" them. I mean, hopefully not.
It's true that our diversity has lessened over time but this is "I don't see color" levels of delusion.
when modern populations are so genetically diverse.
They are not. Humans as a species (in case you're not understanding what I mean by "species," I mean all the bipedal primates generally referred to as "Homo Sapiens") are not very genetically diverse.
And I provided documentation to support that assertion.
I didn't even get into the genetic evidence that variation within human population groups is greater than the variation between such groups.
That you made some sort of assumption as to the reason for my assertion, is on you and not me.
I merely pointed out that your assertion is not supported by the genetic evidence. Full stop.
I don't understand why you're using diversity in this comparative manner when I was clearly not. I was just pointing out there's a lot of genetically distinct humans and this genetic distinction follows geographic trends. It's your choice to interpret it as a comparison to other species and frankly I'm bewildered why you decided to take the conversation there.
>I don't understand why you're using diversity in this comparative manner when I was clearly not.
Clear to whom? You? I'm sure it was. To anyone else? Not so much.
I read your words "I'm not disbelieving your source entirely, but it seems a little ridiculous to assume population displacement across all pre-history (or undocumented history if you'd prefer that term). Particularly when modern populations are so genetically diverse."
And you made the claim that "modern populations are so genetically diverse." Did someone commandeer your account or force you to write that at gunpoint?
If not, it was you who referenced genetic diversity.
Or does "modern populations are so genetically diverse" mean something other than "modern populations are so genetically diverse?"
As for my response, my apologies. Clearly I did not communicate my thoughts effectively. I will attempt to do so again.
>I was just pointing out there's a lot of genetically distinct humans and this genetic distinction follows geographic trends.
And your assertion is flat wrong. In fact, modern humans have very little genetic diversity, measured any way you'd like.
What's more, the human populations with the most genetic diversity are those native to Southern and Eastern Africa.
Populations everywhere else in the world are incredibly genetically similar to each other.
So much so that the differences within geographical population groups are greater than those between such groups.
As to my references to chimpanzees and wheat, that was just to point up that humans -- regardless of geographical population -- are not genetically diverse at all.
And that's it. Humans, regardless of geographic population, are remarkably similar in genetic make up. Humans are not, as you asserted, "so genetically diverse." Exactly the opposite.
Do you understand now? If not, I obviously need to learn to write more clearly.
Diversity does not imply comparison to other species. I'm still struggling to figure out how that entered the conversation. We are either diverse or not, and we are not clones, so we are diverse.
This is one of the most unpleasant conversations in recent memory. Haven't you ever heard of good faith conversation? Jesus. Absolutely rank vibes.
Humans, regardless of geographic population, are remarkably similar in genetic make up. Humans are not, as you asserted, "so genetically diverse." Exactly the opposite.
No doubt those biased Europeans felt their theory had the preponderance of evidence behind it. Funny how often the settled science is like that until the incumbent scientists die off rather than because better evidence was considered and adopted by science.
Even if your theory is correct that the entire academic establishment in the US is conspiring to mislead people, how do you explain research outside the US?
You think the study of archeology, anthropology, genetics, and ecology across the entire Western academic system is being subverted to support DEI using a theory that existed long before the time "DEI" was a known acronym? And you can't provide evidence?
> that has an obligation to advance DEI efforts in order to receive grants in the first place,
Nah they don't. Anti-"DEI" billionaires like Elon Musk are free to likewise fund research or create "free speech" universities if they so choose. But they choose not to.
You sound like you're pushing a theory that anthropology is biased, what do you have to back that claim up?
DEI is a term used by a vague group of people to vilify certain media, or in this particular case, push an anti-science narrative claiming DEI is used in an anti-scientific fashion.
It does not allow anyone that questions it to be called racist per se, but the questioning itself is just unsubstantiated and vague.
This comment chain started with someone claiming contradictory evidence is not considered; where is this contradictory evidence? I mean sure, if there is an effective suppression campaign going on then said evidence would be gone, but surely there'd be whistleblowers and first hand accounts of scientific oppression and the like? If not, it's more effective than e.g. North Korea's regime in keeping information hidden, and like the moon landings, hundreds of thousands of people would be complicit. Which would be really interesting.
DEI does exist at universities, but the idea that human evolutionary biologists let their research be directed by DEI concerns is ridiculous.
The whole out-of-Africa vs. multiregional debate played out over many years between different research groups, and what ultimately settled it was DNA evidence that heavily favored the out-of-Africa hypothesis.
With more data and more findings, it's become clear that modern humans do have some DNA from different populations outside Africa, but out of Africa is still basically correct.
Nope! I'm just interested in what a fellow HNer has found, if they're interested in sharing. That's why I have discussions on HN, so I can learn from others with more knowledge than me!
