Earliest evidence for human violence

[Duncan Head]

A find relating to the remote origins of our subject:

Human remains from a cave in northern Spain show evidence of a lethal attack 430,000 years ago, a study has shown.

Researchers examined one skull from a site called the Pit of Bones, which contains the remains of at least 28 people.

They concluded that two fractures on that skull were likely to have been caused by "multiple blows" and imply "an intention to kill".

Full paper at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0126589

These are "hominin fossils belonging to the Neandertal clade", by the way.

[Justin Swanton]

Since Neandertals presumably were physically stronger than Homo Sapiens combat between the two could be be represented as Clubs (S), basic factor 4, vs Stoneaxe (O), basic factor 3. But the Homo Sapiens can throw in missile troops: Jav (O), basic 2, or even Archer (O), basic 2, to soften up the Neandertals before melee combat. 

[aligern]

Sapiens should also be able to break off and run away from Neanderthals.
R

[Erpingham]

Can we assume that, as more intellegent, Sapiens should get more stratagems?  Or is that based on history being written by the winners?

[Tim]

Duncan - much like Dynasty 0 changed our understanding of Egyptian history, will you now be putting forward a DBM(M) Book I, List 0 to cover these armies, on the basis that we now have more evidence for this than we do for the King Arthur Sub-Roman British option?

[Duncan Head]

The evidence seems to be for smaller-scale actions than I usually write army lists for.

[Jim Webster]

The evidence seems to be for smaller-scale actions than I usually write army lists for.

want me to do a DBMM 100 list then 




Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Might as well get it out before another study concludes they were flood victims who ended up down the nearest convenient plughole.

There is even the prospect of: 'Sticks and Stones: Combat Before the Birth of Warfare,' a set of rules for battles involving Neanderthals ...

[Justin Swanton]

To help things along let me suggest a few special rules for the two lists.

Neanderthals
These lack a commander. They are impetuous, and will break into a charge the moment Homo Sapiens comes into their LOS. (the player might wish to enhance the immersive experience by shouting "Agga wagga kill!" before declaring the charge*)

The Neanderthal player must aim at a judicious placement of the Neanderthal units to maximise the effect of the inevitable forward rush of his troops.

Homo Sapiens
These have a commander. They are also impetuous but their impetuosity works two ways: the commander must spend a pip to restrain his men from charging the Neanderthals in the flank and rear, and 5 pips to prevent them fleeing from Neanderthals advancing on them. They may use ambushes and, of course, missile troops (though missile troops will also impetuously flee unless separated from the Neanderthals by an impassible obstacle like a river).

Besides sloping foreheads of the Neanderthals and other physical differences, Homo Sapiens may be distinguished from their opponents by broad yellow steaks painted down their backs.


*this last is aimed at improving gameplay rather than striving for an exact historical recreation.

[Mick Hession]

*this last is aimed at improving gameplay rather than striving for an exact historical recreation.

Surely that should be a prehistorical recreation?

Cheers
Mick

[willb]

Can we assume that, as more intellegent, Sapiens should get more stratagems?  Or is that based on history being written by the winners?

Latest research indicates otherwise regarding Neanderthal intelligence vs Homo Sapiens
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825203924.htm

Other than some physical differences there would be little difference between the two lists.   Of course you could require the person commanding the Neanderthal army to speak with a higher pitched nasal voice

Also found this which I am not positive about
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/453562a.html

[Mark G]

Hey, what are you sayin about Glasgow women

[Patrick Waterson]

Just that it would not be too surprising if, say, 56 Neanderthals turned up in Parliament at the present day.

Curiously enough, Neanderthals seem to exhibit many of the characteristic features of the dwarves ('dwarfs' for grammatical purists) of Northern European legend: broad body frames, the capacity for remarkable skills and a tendency to live underground.  They do not however seem to exhibit features of achondroplasia, which appears to be a homo sapiens-related condition.

[Jim Webster]

Just that it would not be too surprising if, say, 56 Neanderthals turned up in Parliament at the present day.

Curiously enough, Neanderthals seem to exhibit many of the characteristic features of the dwarves ('dwarfs' for grammatical purists) of Northern European legend: broad body frames, the capacity for remarkable skills and a tendency to live underground.  They do not however seem to exhibit features of achondroplasia, which appears to be a homo sapiens-related condition.

According to Tolkien isn't the true plural of dwarf, dwarrows? (Hence one name for Moria, Dwarrowdelve )

Jim

[Sharur]

According to Tolkien isn't the true plural of dwarf, dwarrows? (Hence one name for Moria, Dwarrowdelve )

"True" by whose reckoning though? "Dwarrow" is "dwarf" in Tolkien's Westron speech only. The Dwarves called themselves "Khazad" in their own language, Khuzdul. To the Elves they were Hadhod or Gonnhirrim, or more commonly Naugrim, Nogothrim or Noegyth.

In modern English, "dwarfs" is correct, but the OED does indeed show a phonetic approximation to "dwarrow" was one of a number of earlier renditions for "dwarf", through to about the 15th century AD. The OED's online etymology for "dwarf" includes the following comments:

"(2) In English dweorg became regularly dwarf (eor > ar as in bark; g > f as in enough, draft). But (3) the plural dweorgas became dwerwhes, dwerwes, dwerows, dwarrows; and (4) the inflected form dweorge- gave dwerȝhe, dweryhe, dwerye, dwery. From these, by 'levelling', arose corresponding forms of the nominative sing."

In terms of the relative heights/sizes of Neanderthals as compared with Sapiens of the period, it's instructive to see H Helmuth's 1998 paper in Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie, Bd. 82, H. 1 (October 1998), pp. 1-12, "Body height, body mass and surface area of the Neanderthals" (e.g. here on JSTOR). The English abstract reads:

Body size, expressed as height or stature, is an important determinant of many other biological variables. Thus, it is surprising that many textbooks portray a wrong picture of Neanderthal height as being "very short" or "just over 5 feet". Based on 45 long bones from maximally 14 males and 7 females, Neanderthals' height averages between 164 and 168 (males) resp. 152 to 156 cm (females). This height is indeed 12-14 cm lower than the height of post-WWII Europeans, but compared to Europeans some 20,000 or 100 years ago, it is practically identical or even slightly higher. Considering the body build of Neanderthals, new body weight estimates show that they are only slightly above the cm/weight or the Body Mass Index of modern Americans or Canadians. The calculation of the relative surface area (approximately 240-244 cm²/kg) is very low and supports earlier findings of a morphological and anatomical thermoregulatory adaptation to a cold climate in the Neanderthals.

There's a useful summary of Neanderthal anatomy on Wikipedia as well, which seems to be reasonably up to date, although it draws comparisons purely with modern (for which I assume post-WWII) humans.