the Neanderthal Mind

I might have a hard time comparing the Neanderthal mind to anything else. I think it may have operated differently all together. The same instincts and needs would have driven their subconscious but Neanderthal brand consciousness is another story. There are some differences in hardware between them and later hominids. When it comes to ‘cave art’, those differences begin to present themselves. Neanderthals might have drawn in the dirt of their caves or maybe even on the walls but it would have been for pretty utilitarian reasons.
They might have tried to plan a hunt that way, I suppose. I don’t think they ever would have preserved a landscape with cave imagery the way Cro-Magnon Man did though. Their understanding of science might be different too. I would like to talk science with a Neanderthal. I think they would have interesting ideas if we had a common language to exchange them. Even if they had the vocabulary and understanding of it, they might have lacked the imagination to come up with the in-depth visual representations that started with cave art. It might just have been something their big minds didn’t have the imagination for.
Lack of imagination is a pretty conventional idea in regards to the Neanderthal mind. Their big powerful minds weren’t tasked with imaginative creativity. Some of that is anatomical. Development of parts of the brain responsible for imagination arrived later. I have wondered if legends about telepathy didn’t originate from Neanderthal lore, though. If they didn’t have the physiology for extensive communication through speech to go along with their fairly large brains, maybe they communicated by other means.
That’s pretty romantic speculation. At some point, I think we can only speculate though. At least without the cave-man to experiment with. The Neanderthal mind might have been purely archaic. It was probably consumed by instincts and other ancient recessive functions. Somewhere between primate minds and modern human ones, the powerful Neanderthal mind remains a mystery. A ‘complex artifact’ or relic of its own. In another time it was modern but sometimes relics serve to remind us what life was like in wilder times when primitive was contemporary.

there goes the neighborhood

When modern humans arrived in Europe, they were greeted by the continent’s resident population. Either possessed a Stone Age technology. They might have even been closer in tech’ than they were anatomy. And both were hunter gatherers. I’ve said before, ‘if there’s anything that would bring them together, it would be to exchange technology or for a hunt.’ If they were compatible it is likely that they might have even forged civil unions but genetic evidence is sketchy. Modern humans also brought complicated networks of trade and commerce along with their new anatomies, advancements in stone working and innovations in shelter.
Technological revolutions have historically been accompanied by migrations. Early stone tool technology and fire let the Neanderthals and other archaic breeds venture out of Africa’s woodlands and into the wildernesses of Europe and the Far East. Again, with Cro-Magnon Man and Homo sapiens sapiens, populations in the savanna thrived and expanded. The hunting grounds to the north were well preserved thanks to the Neanderthals and other ‘archaic’ races' primitive hunting techniques. Archaic hunters were bound to their caves and blade technology. That limited their tactics some, led to a traumatic history with big game hunting and most importantly for modern humans migrating out of Africa it left open a niche in the natural hunting order.
In the time between the archaics’ exodus and modern human kind’s migration from the savanna, they had continued to evolve on different courses. The moderns’ command of fire, complex social networks and advanced stone technology were beyond the Neanderthals’ grasp in Europe. With a niche in the hunting order and their other advantages, Homo sapiens sapiens were able to exploit the continent like Neanderthals never could. It might have been more of an issue of ‘supremacy’ for modern humans than it was for more instinctual Neanderthals. Negotiations between the two would have been disastrous. Over the course of their isolations, either had acquired distinct logistical issues. And the colonization that occurred during the Upper Palaeolithic might have absorbed the Neanderthals in its wake.
Tides and sea levels rose at the end of the Ice Age. It probably would have been a time of geological activity too. Stone Age cultures around the world had to adopt early seaborne skills and technology to reach what used to be overland destinations. Human kind had been migrating out of Africa for hundreds of thousands of years and the most recent exodus had been replacing more archaic cousin-breeds on at least three continents. Homo sapiens sapiens spanned the Stone Age World before a shrinking ice cap separated them until the Dark Ages. They might be most famous for creating the mystery behind the Neanderthals' fate. In a lot of ways they just had the misfortune of filling in a niche in the hunting hierarchy. They did it so well that they became the authority on the continent. What’s left of Neanderthal culture lives on in archaeology lectures and works of fiction. And maybe a history lesson on the importance of adaptability.

A Good Game

Bobby scratched his butt and rolled out of bed. He went to the bathroom. The girl in his bed stirred, but didn’t show any signs of getting-up. He slipped on a pair of sandals and crept into the kitchen. “I’m gonna need some coffee.” Bobby set-up his coffee-maker and sat down on the couch in front of the TV to wait. He didn’t want to wake the girl in his bed, so he kept the volume down. “Crap!” he whispered, “What is her name?” They had met the night before at a party that a mutual friend had thrown. He was tempted to call his friend, because he thought it would be rotten to call her ‘hey you’ all morning. But before he could call, it came to him. “Kelly" he decided, "that’s it!” He looked over his shoulder towards the bedroom, with his luck she would be standing there to overhear him thinking out-loud.
He was in luck. It looked like he was still the only one awake. The coffee smelled good. He got up to check on it. It was almost done brewing so he pulled a mug out of the cupboard. Faintly, he heard stirring from the bedroom. He poured himself a cup of coffee and peaked into the bedroom. Kelly rubbed her eyes and looked around the room. She saw Bobby in the doorway. She wanted to pull the covers over her head, but then she saw the coffee in his hands. “Is there any chance that’s for me?”
Bobby sat on a corner of the bed and handed her the mug. “I cannot function without-it in the morning.” Bobby scratched his head. “Are you hungry?”
“Not yet. I might wanna jump in the shower first.”
“Lemme get you a towel.” Bobby ducked out into the hallway and came back with a bath-towel. He dropped it on the bed next to Kelly. “I will get out of your way.”
Bobby got up and started to leave the room, but Kelly stopped him. “Do you want your coffee back?”
Bobby doubled back for the mug. “There’s more in the kitchen, if yer thirsty.” He stopped at the doorway. “Do you have anywhere to be today?”
“Not really. Did you have something in mind?”
“I think I could come-up with something. Lemme think about it while you take your shower.”
Bobby returned to the kitchen and fixed himself another cup of coffee and sat down in front of the TV. Before long the shower came-on. “We oughta do something fun!” Bars were fun, but not exactly what he had in mind. Maybe the movies, you can never go wrong there. He checked the sports page. There was a baseball game today, but Bobby didn’t know if she was a sports fan. “You don’t have to be a baseball fan to enjoy taking-in a game.” He thought it was worth a shot. He finished his coffee and got up to pour another cup.
Bobby sat back down in front of the TV. He heard the water shut-off, and before long Kelly came out. “Is there any coffee left?”
“Yeah, help yourself.” Bobby pointed to the kitchen. “I should probably grab a shower too.” Bobby squeezed Kelly’s shoulder as he passed her in the hallway.
“What did you come-up with?”
Bobby turned on the shower. “We’ve got the weather for a ballgame!” Bobby climbed into the shower and waited for a reply.
“Sure, that sounds like fun!”
“It’s an early game, we should head down to the park before too long!”
“Whenever you’re ready!”
Bobby figured he was clean enough so he turned the shower off and climbed-out. “Gimme a couple of minutes!” He mostly put on clean clothes, except for the jeans he picked-up off the floor. “I’m ready if you are.”
Bobby closed-up his apartment and they walked to the bus-stop. They sat quietly while they waited for the bus. “I haven’t been to a ball-game since I was a kid.”
“Did you play as a kid?”
“Yeah, shortstop on a softball team.” Their bus pulled-up. It wasn’t terribly crowded, so they were able to claim a couple seats together. “I am guessing you played baseball when you were younger?”
“Yeah, I always looked-forward to baseball season.”
“What position?”
“Mostly centerfield, but I played a little bit of everything.” Bobby put his arm over the back of the seat. “Do you have a favorite ball-club?”
Kelly thought for a moment. “I don’t really follow baseball, but I always liked the Cubs.”
“I think everyone does, at least a little. The Yankees and Red Sox thrive off of heated rivalries, but the Cubs appeal to everyone.” Bobby could have gone-on forever, but he decided to shut-up before he put Kelly to sleep.
“You were right about the weather, this oughta be a good day for a game.”
“I cannot take all the credit for that, the weather wasn’t really my idea.” Kelly chuckled. “It sure did cooperate today, though.”
It didn’t take the bus long to get into the city. Bobby and Kelly got off the bus and walked the rest of the way to the ball-park. “What do you have on the third-base line?”
“Would you settle for something behind the plate?”
“Yeah, that will work.” Bobby stuck the tickets in his pocket and turned back to Kelly. “We’ve got some time to grab a beer before we head into the game, if you want to?”
“That sounds good!”
There was a pub across the street from the park, Bobby grabbed Kelly’s hand and led her in. They found a quiet booth and the waitress headed over. “Did you kids bring your identification?” The couple reached into their pockets and pulled-out their driver’s licenses. “Okay, what can I get you?”
They ordered a couple of pints and a side of fries. The beer got there first. When the waitress showed-up with the fries Bobby was ready for another beer. “Couple more pints?” Bobby looked over at Kelly, she nodded.
“Sure thing, I’ll be right back.”
When the bar-maid came back with the drinks Bobby stopped her. “We might leave in a hurry, we’re going to catch a game. And I think this might be our last round. Can we settle-up, now?”
The waitress gave Bobby the bill and he took care of it, with a little left-over for the bar-maid’s tip. “Thanks. You kids have a good time at the game.”
“Thanks.” Bobby turned back to Kelly. “I hope you are having a good time?”
“Yeah, Bobby. But, when do we have to be at the park?”
“We’ve got time to finish our beers. We don’t have far to go.” They did just that. They sat there in their quiet corner of the almost romantic sports-bar and looked at each other as they joked over their beers and fries. When they were done, Bobby grabbed Kelly’s hand and walked her across the street. The line-ups were being introduced as they entered the stadium. “It sounds like we’re on time.”
Bobby walked Kelly down the tunnel into the stands. He looked down at the tickets and pointed to their aisle. She grabbed his arm. “I’ll follow you.” They got to their row and worked their way to their seats.
“Yeah, this will work!” Kelly sat down next to Bobby and he put his arm around the back of her seat. Kelly really got into the game. “Cool,” Bobby thought “she really likes baseball!”
They were just about the last to leave the stadium when the game ended. “Thanks, Bobby. I really had a good time.”
“Where do we wanna go next?”
“What do you mean?”
Bobby hesitated. “Do you have to go home now?”
“No, Bobby. Where do you wanna go?”
Bobby worked up his courage. “You’re welcome to stay at my place again tonight?” Bobby was hoping what they had wasn’t going to end-up being just a fling, and he figured he’d give her the chance to correct him if he was wrong. He worried, had he been too forward? “I can understand if you’d like to get home.”
“No, Bobby. I am having a nice time with you, I think I’d like to stay-over.”
Bobby was almost surprised, and he showed it. Everything about his expression was saying, “No way!” “Okay, then let’s get outta here!”
Bobby walked Kelly out of the empty stadium and down to the bus stop. They held hands as they waited. “Do the last couple of days seem like a blur?”
Bobby thought back to yesterday morning and wondered, how could so much happen over such a short time? “Yeah, Kelly. It has been eventful, alright!”
Kelly laughed. She looked closely at Bobby. He was kind of handsome, in a goofy way. But beyond that she could see that he was sincere. “Kelly,” she thought to herself “you could do worse.”
Bobby did the same thing, but came to a different conclusion. “Bobby,” he thought “you are awful lucky!”
Their bus pulled-up and they climbed on. They found a couple seats together and sat down. Bobby draped his arm over the seat’s back. He was kind of in shock and turned to Kelly to share his confession with her. “Kelly,” he said “I feel lucky!”

Modern Mysteries

I think the most conclusive proof can be historical influence. Ultimately, the Neanderthals’ fate continues through and resides in archeology and anthropology. They might have even contributed to mythology and socialism. In the short time it took for modern humans to colonize Europe, Neanderthals must have had some kind of influence. Negotiations between the primitive breeds might have been comical, until they found something in common. Neanderthals might have made a powerful ally for modern humans in a lawless time.
Genetic influence remains inconclusive. Some could be found in modern racial distinctions. If that is the case, Neanderthals may have been incorporated along with other archaic breeds. If one thing is conclusive about Neanderthals, maybe it is that they were no match for the Upper Palaeolithic Revolution. It might have contributed to Neanderthal genetic selection. A force as powerful as a technological revolution could easily select the most industrious candidates from an existing population. As the Upper Palaeolithic Revolution reached the Neanderthals and other archaic populations, it would have demanded that new traits were developed.
Along with Europe’s other predators, Neanderthals had to compete for the continent’s resources with the arrival of modern humans. Cave men everywhere must have thought, ‘we’re gonna need a bigger cave!’ Modern humans brought more sophisticated shelter but a good cliff dwelling can be tough to beat and Cro-Magnon Man seems to have adopted continental cave life too. Sometime before agriculture was developed and shires caught on, modern humans left portraits on the walls of caves. Between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon Man, a culture of cave life was shared. Europe’s later inhabitants moved out of the caves and wild.
Whatever happened to the Neanderthals, Europe had no more cave-men. I guess you can do a little more with a lodge than you can with a cave. Neanderthals that couldn’t meet the demands of progress and industry would become ‘extinct’, just like any of the other breeds of human kind that the Upper Palaeolithic Revolution crossed. I might make the distinction between ‘modern humans’ and ‘modern Neanderthals’ for any who survived the revolution. They both would have been modern by then but a ‘modern Neanderthal’ is a bit of a contradiction. It’s like saying ‘modern archaic’, or ‘modern throwback’. But any Neanderthals that were incorporated by the Upper Palaeolithic Revolution would have become just that.

the VVest

‘ovtlavv-Colvmbia’


Geographic Boundaries

Starting at the Rio-Grande (because it serves as the historical boundary between Mexico and the United States, in spite of its being east of the Rockies) in the south and running west (north of the Gulf of California) to the Pacific lies the West’s southern boundary. The Pacific Coastline itself serves as the West’s western boundary. The Rockies serve as its eastern boundary. The northern boundary isn’t quite as clear. That’s because the British Columbian cultures and landscapes are so similar to our own. If there wasn’t a checkpoint at the U.S.-Canada border, you’d never know you had left (at least until you pulled-up at a gas station to fill-up by the liter). And somewhere on the other side of western Canada waits Alaska. But for the sake of argument, the northern border rests roughly at the north-end of the Cascades.
The western boundary is fairly obvious. The Pacific is clearly where the West ends. The Eastern boundary is nearly as compelling. The Rockies divide the continent almost as effectively as the oceans limit it. The northern and southern boundaries are really just political borders. There are some well deserved grudges along the southern border though. By the time the Colorado River has reached the Gulf of California it has been drained. In an already arid environment, water-use like that condemns the residents of the lower Colorado to drought. The landscape itself doesn’t change much at the West’s southern boundary, but you’d still know you had left the states.
‘Contiguous’ might be the term to describe the West. Even the mountain ranges west of the Rockies seem to add to (rather than obstruct) its dominion. The political boundaries are the only thing to really interrupt Baja’s realm. Otherwise, the West is an unbroken range of unforgiving turf and “ecologically fragile mountain and desert habitats.” (McIlwraith/Muller - 282) North of the Rio Grande we are lucky to have so much latitude. As the Rockies make their way south to Mexico City they divide Mexico into narrow halves. Canada has even more latitude than we do in the states. Alaska may be the farthest west point on the continent but the contiguous span from Baja Canada to Labrador rivals only China and Russia for its continental span. So after the development of the United States’ eastern economies, the better part of Columbian geography commonly remains somewhat wild by nature. ‘Unbroken’, in spite of any of its political-boundaries.


Characteristics

Somewhere between British Columbia and Baja California is the United States’ frontier-West. It’s not much of a frontier anymore, but its residents still live like unbroken cowboys. They are modern cowboys, with ‘sport-utes’ and PDAs. They range from the Baja-coastline to the continental-divide. On the other side of the Rockies, colonial traditions prevail. I think the Rockies might be the most significant influence in distinguishing colonial Labrador from renegade Baja. To the west of the Rockies, epic expanses of the continent give its inhabitants a solitary life-style. To the east all the major markets are connected. There are only a handful of major markets in the West and they act like an oasis for the scenic wastelands surrounding them. Some might argue that it’s the scenery that coerces the West’s residents into acting like cowboys. But there’s some practicality in it too.
More than anywhere else in the U.S., it is the West that is undeveloped. “Compared with the eastern United States, and even with much of the Great Plains, one of the most striking features of the Far West today is its vast extent of uncultivated open land.” (277) There are a few dedicated agricultural regions. California’s Central Valley and Oregon’s Willamette Valley are among them. The Palouse is another. Montana and Wyoming are suitable for ranching but not so much for crops. And the Great Basin is almost uninhabitable altogether, except for the mineral deposits that keep industry there. The port-cities of the West Coast are the most livable cities in the West. Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle have favorable climates and connections to other ports and the railroad lines that still serve them.
The result of all the prevailing isolation in the West is modern ‘cowboy culture’. Cowboys come in all races here, unlike Texas where cowboy-culture is still dominated by rednecks. The only other segment among the West’s locals is really the surfer, but that doesn’t necessarily exclude anyone from being a cowboy. I guess I admire the resourcefulness in the cowboy way. Sometimes it takes a cowboy. And the West is one of those times.


The Difference Between the West and the Frontier

The West was the last of the United States’ continental frontier, but the West and ‘the frontier’ were never completely synonymous. The remnants of the frontier can be found in the West’s interior. The prime real-estate along the coastline has long since been developed. But to the east of the Sierras and Cascades, what is left of the frontier continues to fight-off civilization. The reason the West remained a frontier was coincidental. If the Russians had been more interested in establishing a colony here it might have been another story.
In fact, the west-coast’s most developed ports predate the United States’ presence there. It was nice of us to move-in on the Spanish missions like we owned the place, I suppose. Immigrants from the east arrived in coastal California “where an urban network was already in place.” (273) Three of old Mexico’s better harbors are now U.S. territory. Maybe the frontier was too hard for some early pioneers. Instead of build new cities in the wilderness they took-over someone else’s. That is one of the few examples of where the West wasn’t a frontier. Otherwise, everything west of the Rockies was pretty unsettled to all but native tribes.
The fact that the West was still a frontier by the time European settlers arrived is due to Columbia’s native tribes’ conservation. Today the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Department of the Interior keep the West’s wilderness preserved. Its rugged terrain prevents development too. I guess Columbia has a way of conserving its own sovereignty. That’s really what a frontier is. A place where nature still rules.

'local times'

Early navigation was subject to the limitations of supplies and power. Ships carried enough supplies to reach their destinations, sailing under normal conditions. But early navigation was crude. Latitude could be estimated by the position of the sun’s arc. It would be low in the sky at the poles and overhead at the equator. The time-zones that span the oceans could reflect longitude if ships could keep the times of the home ports. Ships sailing out of Greenwich could use their instruments to determine when it was noon at sea (based on the azimuth) but not what time it was in Greenwich.
If ships had a sea-worthy clock it could tell them how many hours and minutes they were off ‘the mean’. They could then chart and avoid/find geographic features at sea. But swells and other elements can be hard on clocks. So, before on-board clocks they had to subscribe to a lot of ‘guess work’ instead. ‘Lost at Sea’ is the story of a self-taught clockmaker that set-out to solve the problem by creating an on-board clock that would hold-up to the conditions at sea.
Every hour ahead/behind the time in their home ports represents 15 degrees. At twelve hours ‘off the mean’ a ship would be equal distance east or west (180 degrees) from where it had set sail. Like a British ship out of Greenwich would be in New Zealand. Cape Horn would be about ¼ of a day behind the mean and ¾ of a day behind the International Date Line. The cape of Good Hope isn’t far off the Greenwich mean. Ships lost at sea in the vast waters of the Indian and Pacific oceans could find their way to more familiar waters if they knew which waters they were closer-to.
Once it was proven successful it was widely adopted. The same method of navigation in ‘minutes’ is still used in modern on-board navigation systems. It can be done with sophisticated GPS systems or more simply with a good timepiece and a bearing. You need to keep track of mean and local times (and which hemisphere you are local to). It is a fairly young technique. It has only been in practice for the last 500 years or so since a sea-worthy clock was developed. But it might be one of the most significant advancements of the common-age. Thanks to the British Empire’s maritime interest in developing an accvrate global positioning system.

Simpler Times

Stone Age Realities



The Ice Age was apocalyptic. Palaeolithic Europe was more of a wilderness than it was a frontier. From N’ Africa to the steppes, Neanderthal culture was sparsely distributed throughout a loose confederation. They may have shared tool making technology and rituals. They probably married and traded between tribes too. Tribes spent most of their time isolated from one another though. In order to meet the demand for resources with the technology they had, they were confined to solitary dominions. Neanderthal tribes might not want to share hunting grounds with a big cat or cave bear either. Not only were large predators competition for resources, they were also a threat. The Neanderthals’ role as a niche predator in Ice Age Europe kept their numbers small.
It was a matter of logistics. For Neanderthals, efficiency was a small scale undertaking. Contact between tribes might include trade between them but trade wasn’t much of an extra-tribal practice. Instead of finding a Neanderthal on the trade routes, you’d be more likely to run into one on a game trail. Cro-Magnon Man was capable of efficiency on a larger scale with intricate trade networks over vast distances. Neanderthal tribes had to acquire their own resources instead of be able to rely on trade for them.


Subsistence

Ice Age provisioning is regulated by simplicity just like its industry was. They were each resource dependent. It made trade unique to its time. Life was defined between Ice Age trade, industry and provision. Hunting and foraging supplied most of the ‘subsistence’ for each tribe. Other resources were required for successful provisioning. Tool knappers would fashion spearheads or axes and craftsfolk would weave baskets or nets. Either foraging or hunting parties were usually led in at least small numbers to provide safety. Safety might be democracy’s origin. Even among predators, the ability to coordinate defenses requires some degree of democracy. For all their superiority, prides and packs and tribes provide more strength and resources than big cats and wild dogs and human hunters can alone.
Once food needs were met, hunting and foraging parties would return to the tribe’s campsite to share their haul. Distribution of resources might have been hierarchical. Whether or not the chief went on the hunt, he might get the biggest cut. A well respected medicine man or flint knapper might get choice cuts too. Hunters or foragers would then take their shares for their own hearth before the choicest cuts were all gone. Lower ranking members of the tribe would be last to get a cut. What’s left might have been used as tools or medicine, depending on its properties. That’s a simplified example of distribution but Ice Age democracy relied on rank to some degree.
Neanderthal politics made sure everyone had a role in provisioning the tribe. There were only so many things you could be. The labor force that drove provisioning comprised a good majority of the tribe. If you were disabled, you might be excluded from the hunt or harvest. If you had a more specialized role, you might be delegated to a support position. Neanderthal subsistence seems to have been a very social undertaking. Lacking commerce and complex trade, Neanderthals relied upon a system of common wealth distribution to ensure resource demands were met between the various roles and positions within the tribe once the resources had been obtained.


Daily Life

Cave men must have been brilliant politicians. Cave politics were a matter of simplicity. The tribe’s chief was the resident governor. It would have been a jurisdiction’s breadth to the next tribe, since either had to get by on their turf’s resources. It would have been primitively provincial. Turf wars might have occurred as populations grew or were established. Kinship might have been along patriarchical lines like their social hierarchy seems to have been. As a niche hunter like modern humans, Neanderthals must have been partly opportunistic. Any cave man can tell you, ‘you always share your cave with the biggest predator.’ A fight doctor might tell you the same thing. Bigger predators can turn a corner to their advantage. Rituals and habits might have reflected their rank in the wilderness’s order.
Industry would have been limited to the tribe’s labor and trade potentials. Technology was probably ruled by the tribe’s internal demands. Meteorological forces would have governed Neanderthal daily life too. A good storm could effectively leave you cave bound for its duration. Eventually though, I think daily life was defined by family. With a long hike between tribes, immediate support had to come from the tribe. Education, provisions and morale were all internal matters. With living conditions comparable to combat situations, the archaic breed must have developed a strong sense of duty. It’d be hard to avoid.


Social Life

Neanderthal social life was limited. Nightlife might include a victorious hunting party smoking and drinking around a bonfire before returning to separate corners of the cave to bunk down. Within the same cave, tribes broke up into smaller units with their own hearths. The hearth was like a family apartment inside the cave. With a limited selection of caves and ultimately cave space, Neanderthals “emptied and re-used hearths” that had proven suitable. (Barton – Mousterian Hearths and Shellfish) Meals could be cooked and served from there and sleeping quarters were found there too. It probably wouldn’t be uncommon to find three generations in the same hearth. Grandparents might have helped raise children while parents were hunting or picking wild cabbage. Neanderthals lived on into their thirties before their hard lifestyles caught up with them. Their childhoods lasted until they were able to hunt or run a hearth. If they were lucky, there might have been a good decade (from their mid teens to their mid twenties) that they could hunt and raise children. By their late twenties, old age would set in. For Neanderthals that might mean they had to acquire the winter blankets and clothes in addition to the status they would need for later years when they could no longer hunt.
There was no provincial government. Individual clans didn’t pay taxes to a regional authority for its services. It would have been a time of renegades and lawlessness. Instead there would have been expectations and fear to guide their conduct. If anyone is to blame for feudal society and all its shortcomings it might be the Neanderthals. Feudalism might very well have been derived from their brand of social democracy. At their most socially complex, Europe’s Neanderthals were a confederation of clans. While trade might bring them together with other human breeds, they might be more likely to get together with neighboring clans for an event than for commerce. At least until the trade industry arrived with the Upper Palaeolithic revolution. Aside from feudalism, any lasting influences absorbed from Neanderthal culture might be evident in certain aspects of the military and early European and Near Eastern mythologies.


Language

Telepathic or not, Neanderthals would have been easy to read. They probably didn’t have complex demands upon language. Their brains were devoted to their instincts and sensory functions. They might have had more use for language in their rituals as they invoked the spirits of their totems. They would probably be as blunt as they would be easy to read. They probably would have had ‘little white lies’, just like we have. When someone was ill, I think they would explain it to children through their beliefs. And they might have had legends and stories about heroics on a hunt.
It is hard to keep secrets in a cave though. Their spoken language would have been symbolic and pretty candid but their need for it would have been almost negligible. Like all primates, they would have expressed support through whatever language they possessed. And as a niche predator, they would have needed to issue calls out of distress and coordination when they spotted a big cat on their trail or closed in on prey of their own. There might have been limited industry jargon between stone-working, medicine and craft guilds. Like there was between modern humans who had to keep up with “relatively rapid shifts in core reduction strategies as well as bone and antler tool design”, during the Upper Palaeolithic. (Bar-Yosef – The Upper Paleolithic Revolution) Nothing very extensive because their confederation was a fairly distant one, but maybe enough to swap trade secrets.


The revolution of the Upper Palaeolithic might deserve more credit for the absorption of the Neanderthals and their culture than modern humans do. The commerce and industry that accompanied it were foreign to the Neanderthals’ way of life. They were no match for the innovation itself. It would take a patient Cro-Magnon tribe to teach a clan of Neanderthals how to trade. If they were capable of “an advance in culture, in the form of new tools and fire technology”, both breeds could have benefitted from the exchange. (Shreeves – The Neandertal Enigma) Ultimately, competition or cooperation would have been dependent on available resources.
There’s no substitute for technology. With or without the Neanderthals, innovation and social networks allowed modern humans to thrive in their new environment. Simple Neanderthal politics would have to be capable of compromise with successful outsiders. If they were, Neanderthal culture might have been assimilated by modern humans as it was overrun by them. I hope so. Their simple ways are as comforting as they were quaint. There’s something to be said for simplicity though. Neanderthals may have jvst done it better than anyone else.

cold-bloodz

How the Ice Age turned Bloodlines Cold



Once upon a time, human kind was wild. They hadn’t necessarily been ‘human’ very long. Their lineage had fairly recently diverged from other primates. Early hominids showed promise with simple tools. They began to evolve new biology to adapt and take advantage of their aptitude. In time, they started coming up with more sophisticated tools. They even learned how to use fire. It gave them another advantage but they were still at the mercy of the wilderness and nature until the agricultural revolution that marked the end of the Neolithic and the onset of the Bronze Age.
So were the other archaic humans and a more refined breed too. They all had some kind of stone tool technology in common. They might have shared some religious beliefs, I suppose. If they revered common totems, for instance. They must have been pretty different though. They were different enough to leave doubts about their potential genetic compatibility. After generations of living on a glacier ridden frontier, they adopted “extreme skeletal adaptations to the cold.” (Savvyer – The Last Human) Although, if the archaic races formed a minority of the population, the evidence might only be found in more contemporary racial distinctions.
At least one other significant factor would have determined the archaic populations’ survival. They would have to be industrious enough for the Upper Paleolithic Revolution first. The Neanderthals in particular might have been challenged by modern humans’ technological adaptability. What they lacked in adaptability, they’d have to make up for with brute industry. The fossil evidence has “helped inscribe the brutish picture of the Neanderthal.” (Sommer – Bones and Ochre) Clans were remote. Interactions with outsiders may have been natively foreign to them. They weren’t going to be business savvy from experience. Neanderthal tribes were usually left to forage for themselves.
Subsistence was an internal matter. Most traditional Neanderthal social functions were. Neanderthals seem to have mastered socialism on a tribal level. It took a military like approach to social rank but it was an effective way of organizing a platoon sized clan. Within a Neanderthal tribe, hierarchy was established based on historic needs and available resources. Throughout the Stone Age, hunting contributed to a tribe’s wealth and survival. Wild game “provided the key resource in the colonization and prolonged settlement of Europe.” (Gamble – The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe) Hunters were usually highly revered for their role in provisioning the clan and the risks they took. It would not have been uncommon for the tribe’s best hunter to become its chief. Leadership is bred through hunting strategy. There are other kinds of leadership too but few trades have ever demanded it like prehistoric hunting. A good hunter would have been trained to coordinate forces before he was ever made chief.
They may have revered tool makers and medicine men too. Neanderthals might have developed cult followings for the priests who invoked the clan’s totems. The ability to summon prehistoric supernatural forces was thematically the exclusive territory of witches and wizards. When someone was ill or the tribe needed favorable conditions on a hunt, the chief might appeal to the tribe’s priest to bless the endeavor. If the hunt was successful, the priest might even be credited with the kill. If it failed, the wizard might have to treat injuries instead. It must have been demanding. Even though tribal medicine men and hunters had pretty different job descriptions, they often shared same fortunes.
‘Bless this Hvnt’ and ‘Kiss the Chief’. For as sophisticated as they were in their brand of socialism, clan authority came down to its hunters and priests. And maybe its flint knappers. ‘Beware of Tool Man; he might be smarter than he looks’ could have been a realistic sentiment too. The flint knapper’s hearth or workspace might be the one lined with “large animal bones or piles of lithic flaking debris.” (Mellars – The Neanderthal Legacy) I admire the tool-maker’s artisanship in a primitive time. Like tribal priests, they must have been mentored to develop the skills the position required.
Any industrial trade of the Old Stone Age came with some authority and responsibilities within the tribe and its cave. It was a patriarchical establishment, largely. Labor was divided by gender, probably for the demands of the job. It benefitted everyone to different degrees. Women became skilled at foraging and crafts but possibly were forbidden to hunt where as men were bred for the demands of male-dominated industries. Within the same cave, the tribe came together from individual hearths. In the Ice Age, “proto-Neolithic inhabitants of the cave site built only simple domiciles of wood and brush within the shelter of the cave.” (Solecki – The Proto-Neolithic Cemetery in Shanidar Cave) Communal living like that might account for their socialistic tendencies.
I’m more of a Neanderthal historian but I think that was typical of Ice Age customs. Modern humans are typically credited with industry and customs that were more gender neutral. They may have been more brutish too before the Upper Paleolithic Revolution and resembled archaic breeds with robust features that were “strongly built, with short and dense bones and large joints.” (Trinkaus – The Neandertals) Other archaic populations were closer to the Neanderthals in their anatomies and customs. It’s not a genetic marker but ‘customary adaptation’ from the Upper Paleolithic technological revolution might still be present along racial lines. Customs tend to individualize us unlike industry with usually will bring races or breeds together.
The only way archaic bloodlines were preserved was if they were capable of the kind of customary adaptation that the Upper Paleolithic Revolution required. Industry is a machine. I think it was like a hunt or the Ice Age trading that would bring tribes together on a new scale. Archaic populations would have been drawn to it as it emerged from the sub-continent in the Middle East. It would have been a selective force too. It might have been selective about its candidates. Modern humans already had the advantage of experience with the revolution’s technology. What’s left of archaic populations would have to move out of their caves eventually. Agricultural demands required encampments that caves would impede.
It turned out that farming required a different kind of mobility than even nomadic foraging demanded. Turf dimensions changed too. Agro-industrial trade required network-scaled demographics and population bases. Governing beyond tribal hierarchy was also requisite to maintaining agricultural networking. It wasn’t necessarily the socialistic utopia Neanderthals were accustomed to but the rewards still might have interested ‘archaics’. Modern humans might have needed incentive to share their revolution with the outsiders though. Beyond their territories, the archaics might have been able to offer primitive treaties and labor if they could keep up with the revolution itself.
I think they’d have made a powerful ally. Turks, Greeks and Romans might have all incorporated their adventures in their mythology and militaries in the west and Near-East. Similar adventures would have occurred in the East. In the steppes between the Far-East and ‘Gaul’, ‘hybrids’ might have carried-on old nomadic traditions as they adopted new agricultural practices in deference to their collective ancestries. And by the time people were migrating to the New World at the end of the great Ice Age, new racial identities would have been forged.
Since then, demographics have continued to merge along the various networking lines of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Modern networking dimensions can be ‘provincial’. Larger markets act like an oasis to their industrial base. Instead of ‘hunting grounds’ and caves, resources are divided into regions’ industrial-productivity demands and the modern encampments that cater to them. I count three or more bona-fide archaic breeds (including ‘modern humans’). ‘Peking Man’ was as isolated in the Far-East as Neanderthals were on the other side of the steppes and modern humans were in Africa. At some point, all three breeds share an ancestry. According to Mary Leakey, common heritage among later humans is derived in the Miocene epoch from “an ape-like creature … not confined to East Africa.” (Leakey – Olduvai Gorge) Common ancestry might date back to the time of the three toed horse, a species whose fossils have “occurred only in Pliocene and Early Pliocene deposits.” (Lanpo – The Story of Peking Man) It might have been the last time the three breeds shared geography until the industrial expansion of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution.
Other archaic populations could have been incorporated too but there seems to be substantial material culture from Gaul, Peking and sub-Saharan Africa. Each old Ice Age demographic/population makes a legitimate candidate, given they weren’t ‘obsolete’ to the technological revolution. More than any rivalry ever could, the revolution itself was the threat to an old way of life. Neanderthal brand socialism might have survived on some level but tribal dynamics had to change. Later technological revolutions would demand schools and local government.
The Upper Paleolithic Revolution required the first real popular government. It was a confederacy of its own, like the earlier ‘hunting ground networking’ of the Ice Age, but it was more sophisticated. Until the Bronze Age, when institutions of slavery promoted large-scale labor forces and the empires that ruled them, government was limited by confederation. ‘Turf wars’ might have continued under the new confederacy without any overriding authority. I guess it was popular government on a primitive socialist level. It wasn’t even quite as sophisticated as feudalism but it was similarly ‘social’.
Chiefdoms took on esteem. Conflict would have turned chiefs into warlords. In more peaceful times, tribes might have resembled an industrial camp and chiefs would have been more of a local governor. Revenues could have been communal without a system of distribution. Taxation and allotment wasn’t perfected until the end of the Bronze Age when the republic caught on, at the earliest. A socialist brand of government waited even farther into the future than the early military-state republics that may have first mastered the employment of federal taxation.
Wealth distribution and government services were probably of minor significance to the peoples of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Resources and maximization of them was more important as the industry and trade of the revolution were established. Racial preservation was a secondary concern of the revolution’s too. All the old breeds were assimilated by it. Extinction was the only alternative. I think selection and shifts in ‘race’ must have played a role. A way of life certainly died-out as humankind became “to some extent a self-domesticated species.” (Montagu – Man’s Most Dangerous Myth) It wasn’t competitive enough for progress. In some ways, it was a sacrifice though.
The Ice Age came to a violent conclusion in the Neolithic period. Geographies shifted and a new age of isolation began on both sides of the Pacific. Eventually, old Paleolithic cultures and civilizations would be reunited. They had moved out of the Stone Age by then but common customs still dated back as far. In the meantime, the fate of archaic races had become a mystery. I guess the Upper Paleolithic Revolution and its wake were probably more important than ancestry or race was to our destiny. It selected its candidates on adaptation and industry instead. Our technology effectively domesticated us as it delivered safety from wilder elements. We’ve traded the demands that came with life in the wild for modern luxuries. What’s left of the wilderness is still home to wildlife. Once upon a time there were wild cave men too.

da Ice Age

‘VVhere have all da Cave-Men gone?’


Whenever civilizations meet they experience a revolution in technology. Even if they had crossed paths before. I think that is a throwback to our nomadic roots. It has been a while since bands of wild-nomads roamed the world’s plains. I guess you’d have a hard time even finding a bona-fide ‘wild-nomad’ anymore. Somewhere in our history we must have managed to domesticate ourselves. But it used to be a tradition. At least, according to legend. The nomadic life may have been doomed at the end of the Neolithic age when the new and old-worlds were separated.
Just like the game they hunted, nomadic-hunters were migratory. They were likely to return to the same camping grounds that had worked-out for them before but wouldn’t have left much behind waiting for them to return. Their camps had-to be mobile. Tools, huts and provisions all got packed-up for the journey between camps. A hunting party was needed. If tribes were gone for long enough they might bring a medicine-man to set any breaks or treat any hunting-wounds, or for a death rite if the hunter was mortally wounded. If they were staging their hunts from a camp, their whole clans might accompany them. A nomadic lifestyle would be different today. Permanent seasonal camps could be left secured and only essential items would have to make the trip. But the stone-age was unpredictable.
The heroics of stone-age survival inspired later legend. Before our nomadic tradition faded from custom it was common for some late/post stone-age tribes to welcome outsiders as guests. Like Greek and near-eastern legend, Irish legends from the bronze-age chronicle the exploits of strangers as if it were our older traditions’ way of surviving at the dawn of domestic-life. We didn’t follow big-game on the game-trails for our existence anymore but we suffered from wanderlust instead. Exploring the wildernesses ensured something else besides finding game too. In the Irish legend of ‘Cuculin’, a young Greek bride is instructed-to “never stop till you land in Erin”, where she finds her husband. (Curtin - 305) Marriage between distant tribes provided an exchange of genes and wealth. And the stories that returned with those exchanges fueled our imaginations and memories for ages.
Once upon a time, the nomadic people of the Neolithic age passed-on new customs from tribe to tribe. Language was primitive. We spoke enough to exchange ideas and innovations though. And since it wasn’t uncommon to run-into another nomadic tribe on the trail we didn’t view outsiders as strangers like we do today. Since then we have developed localized-dialects and jargon. These serve-to add-to our communal isolation. Language is unique that way. It can be most effective when it is localized. The trade-off is a loss of communication between peoples.
About the time nomadic culture and the cultural-exchange that accompanies it were fading from our popular customs, ‘modern-man’ (or at-least, then-modern African-exodus culture) was replacing Neanderthal customs on the plains of Eurasia. Whether it was by competition or assimilation, that culture had “in some very real sense … lived-on while Neanderthals had died-out.” (Trinkaus/Shipman – 380) Not that the Neanderthal bloodline was necessarily lost. Whether or not they were eliminated by other bloodlines remains a mystery. Archaic traits are subtle. And romantics like to hope that even though those traits may have gone undiscovered those bloodlines might have still been preserved.
Sometimes isolation is due to social factors, but history’s most tragic cases have been incidents of geographic isolation. At least twice in our history, mankind was cut-off from its neighbors by the ice-age. During the ice-ages the glaciers effectively kept outsiders out of Gaul and simultaneously lowered sea-levels to let tribes migrate beyond the Pacific. When the ice-age ended it was the tribes in the new world that had become effectively isolated and the same glacial retreat allowed outsiders into Europe once again. But the changes in customs (and traits) during the interim may have led-to significant conflict between the long-isolated clans. Stone-age rivals were “still motivated by traditions they had inherited from the hunting communities of the Upper Paleolithic.” (Wymer – 268)
Even with the earliest advance of African tribes into Europe there appears to have been some ‘turf-warfare’. All stone-age culture was primitive. Neanderthals and outsiders seem to have had at least that much in-common. They were also both nomadic, although the Neanderthals were hunters and their African rivals were nomadic-pastoralists. They were both aggressive too. The threat to any tribe resulted-in “a need to fortify the settlements” of the Neolithic Age. (Clark/Brandt - 89) Unfortunately, that need probably led to as much technological innovation as any exchange of culture between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal tribes ever did.
It was the Ice-Age (or its conclusion) that effectively halted our nomadic lifestyle on both sides of the Pacific and the exchange of culture that accompanied-it. The bigger game was suited for cold-weather and big-game hunters had to follow them as they migrated. Big-game wasn’t suited for the thaw. So obviously, neither was big-game hunting. Even though following big-game was no small effort, throughout the stone-ages nomadic tribes moved with the seasons. The steppes of Siberia are the native turf of nomadic life. It has historically been home to an “ill-defined confederation of nomadic tribes.” (Mair – 137) It was Neolithic hunters from Siberia that followed big-game to the other side of the Bering Sea and settled there after the glacial-melt flooded the land-bridge that spanned the North Pacific. When nomadic culture got separated by the oceans it was forced to evolve.
When agriculture replaced hunting and foraging we became bound to our fields. Agricultural camps built earthworks and defended the lands they farmed. No sooner had the stone-age ended than Gaul had become a feudal realm of farming villages. In addition to their earthwork-defended agricultural camps they also shared industry trends. A lot of history’s innovations occurred in the near-east but Europe’s farmers were responsible for developing ceramics for storage. Throughout the region farmers mined the earth for clay and fired-it in their homes’ kilns. They learned how-to build barrows and their defenses from the earth too.
It’s the utilitarian inventions that began to distinguish European culture from the near-east and beyond. And maybe a sense of community too. Farming camps weren’t large (at least not like a modern city). Even a large shire would really only consist of an extended family. In its own quaint way, a shire would have been peaceful. Shires were preoccupied with their own duties. Inside the gates of a shire, every day customs were limited to usual family dynamics. Living in a prehistoric shire kind-of meant you were cut-off from the outside world. Neighbors were a distant influence. It might be a day’s hike to the next shire. It would have been remote but must have bred strong communal bonds.
Nothing else fosters connection between a group’s members like being dependent upon each other. Even in farming. Agriculture in that age was a labor intensive enterprise. Tools were crude (but effective) and required considerable effort on the part of the user. Domestic livestock eased the burden some but the efforts of the members of an agricultural-camp were what ultimately determined its productivity. Relying on each other “ensured that every individual had a feeling of pride of belonging to the unit.” (Koryakova/Epimakhov – 212) It would almost be comparable-to a combat situation. It wouldn’t take long to forge a similar brand of comradery on a prehistoric farm. Like combat, survival was a matter of teamwork.
In our history, man-kind had always been relegated to the shelter that nature could provide. Once upon a time that had been the arboreal woodlands. Fire and tools forged from “locally available raw materials” allowed us to leave the savanna but not our fires. (Gamble – 286) But inside the gates of a shire we finally had our own turf. Predators only had an advantage outside our domain for a change. Even in the canopies and caves that provided shelter we never really held that advantage. We were still fairly defensive but our shires were the threat to predators that even caves couldn’t be. We could defend ourselves with tools and fire and not get cornered without a way out. Inside the gates of a shire, huts and long-houses provided even more shelter. They weren’t quite ‘siege-proof’ but shires were a formidable obstacle.
The nomadic tradition had been traded-in for a tamer way of life. It had its strong points, for sure. No longer were we at the mercy of nature to provide what we needed. We still had to answer to prevailing conditions but like the advent of tools, farming gave us a new survival-tool. Farming yielded year-round stores without having to follow the game-trails. Industry became sedentary. There was a new workplace. Fields became properties with the “shifting frontier between the forest and the man-made landscape.” (Jensen – 134) Instead of running-into other tribes on the game-trails we were preoccupied with agricultural cultivation. There were marketplaces where you could go to meet and trade with other tribes but the tradition of exchanging culture between strangers wasn’t the same.
Outside of Europe, the age of the military state was beginning. The farming camps of Europe had predators and barbarians to fend-off but not the large-scale political warfare that plagued the middle-east. The near and middle-east also had industrialized agriculture beyond the extent that Europe’s farming camps had. The combination led to a market for slave-labor. A slave in Europe (before Rome’s arrival) was more like a ‘page’, or personal servant. In the empires of the middle-east, slaves were the workforce. Neither capacity was an easy-life. But the life of a personal-servant is more ‘domestic’.
The slave-driven agricultural industry of the bronze-age middle-east was a state-sponsored (royal) institution. Histories diverge with their ethnic experiences in a crowded region. Turkey and Egypt block the middle-east in the west and the mountains of Bengal contain it from the east. Inside its borders the same old turf-wars continue to govern the middle-east’s policies. But no-one was above the slave-labor that started them. In the pursuit of ‘farming supremacy’ the dynasties of the middle-east created a legacy of conflict that has transcended “the agricultural life of Palestine and the challenging urban life of our own time.” (Patai - 86)
If anything has proven to be consistent over our history it is almost that conflict is directly liable for our technology. But it almost could-be a trend. We haven’t seen-it yet but aggressive-technologies could be replaced in the right global climate. The world would be ready-for one. In the meantime we follow more recent trends in historical diplomacy as competition continues-to play an important role in our advancement. Agriculture isn’t exactly ‘competitive’ by nature but it is driven enough to fuel future technological trends. That might arguably, make farming the most significant techno-industry of the common-age.
As an industry its disadvantage is found in its dependence upon the elements. Drought is still a prevailing condition. Climate always has regulated agriculture’s potential for productivity. Our other industrial practices can effect the climate and reduce the probability of drought but there is still a degree of chance in what the winds can deliver. Like big-game hunting, prehistoric farming was no minor-undertaking. The risk was almost as great. Often, drought would “be disastrous to pastoralists. Lack of water would reduce their flocks, and famine is usually the most potent agent behind mass-migrations.” (Mellaart - 94) It serves as a reminder of nature’s historic role in our survival. From our first fires through ice-ages and droughts we still have to answer to it.
The technological revolution to have followed us through most of our sometimes turbulent history might be the agricultural-revolution. Skeptics might argue that military-technology will too. But agricultural industry has proven to be irreplaceable and there are even some nomadic agricultural practices that are still effective. Seasonal crops could be farmed at different camps and livestock could be driven between them. It would be a return to older-ways. But it might also be a return to our real nature. Before we can realize the promise of any technological-revolution I think we might have-to find to our ‘wildernomad’ side again. It must be a recessive-trait by now. Generations have gone-by since nomads roamed the wildernesses. But it is the stone-age that today’s domesticated-nomad is still native-to. So, maybe we need to return to old stone-age ways in order to move forward. It ought-to come naturally to us all.

A Good Barfight

I don't make it to many college football games bvt if I covld see any game, I'd do it at Michigan. Yov can hear the roaring of the Indianapolis Brickyard inside the 'Big-Hovse' fans and the victory in even a loss to Ohio State. I jvst vvish they played ovtdoor ice-hockey there. And no home game ovt-rivals one at the hands of Notre Dame!

The rvral tovvns of the mid-vvest are avvfvlly vvelcoming. A hvmble degree of history making has happened there too. Ford's first assembly lines to Michael Moore's investigations of GM, Chicago's nightlife and all of the mid-vvest's great bands, the battlefields of the civil vvar and Mark Tvvain's chronicles of the greater Ohio River Valley dvring that age. And every time ya visit there, a third distant roaring can be heard (after the Brickyard and the avto-plants of Detroit) ... the bear-cat rvmblings of the Silver Bvllet Band somevvhere inda distanze vvill remind yov that there yov are.

VVhen ya do visit there, vvatch ovt for the berlin vvinds off the lakes chanting 'the vvindz drive the Dover planez dodge ... they drive the cliffs and the tides and the VVindsor straightez dodge!'

There might-be nothing else that serene. There covld be a hvrricane over Dover and it vvovld still seem tranqvil there. I think it is the cliffs. From behind the svrf, they seem to shovt to dodge vvinds 'do yovr vvorst, and vve'll still be the cliffs of Dover in the morning!'

Somevvhere north of Detroit, deep vvithin the honest hockey tvrf of Mackinavv ... vvhere local tovvnsfolk gather in their bar-rooms drinken for the VVings and still vvanna drive like the Leafz ... the vvind hovvls back from off of the lakes '... and in the morning, vve'll still be driven forza trades ovtta da straightez!'

And betvveen Great Britain’z defiant Dover cliffs and the vvindz of the commonvvealth’s lakes, itza steppes that remember 'the vvindz drive dodge ovtta the straightez forza Dover cliffs, and they'll still be the cliffs in the morning!'

I try reminding myself of this vvhenever Michigan or Notre Dame or Ohio State or even Berkeley play. Svre, someone is gonna lose. And it is jvst svpposed to be a game. Even ovtta the bloody scrvms of college football campaigns, the vvinds ofda straightez vvill be driving dodge forza tradez from off of the lakes and the cliffs in Dover vvill stand in its vvake.

vvhen ya need a cave-man

Sometimes a story takes-on an element of survival. There must have even been a few stories of survival that have been lost or buried under layers of time. When I think about those lost stories I wonder, how much luck is at work in destiny? Especially for a race like ours. We are a pretty adaptable species but for all our gifts we need-to be cunning. We aren’t solitary hunters like most big-cats are. We are really more dog-like. But even though we are pack-hunters too, we aren’t distinctively predators. It’s almost a niche. While the bears and the dogs and the big-cats survive on their skills, we depend-on our tools.
Our story of survival begins with man-kind as the ‘game’. The wilder animals had already established their niches and left us to catch-up. We abandoned the plains and took-to the shelter of the forests. We must have grown-up some there because when we re-emerged as ground-dwellers we were ready for tools and fire. Tool crafting became a science. If tools could be “fashioned out of locally available raw materials”, they could level the playing-field. (Gamble – 286) We’ve still looked-over our shoulders for the bigger hunters but we had finally inherited a little bit of domain. We couldn’t venture far from our tools or fires but we finally had a strong-hold.
Tribes grew and colonized new turf and our race began to develop some culture. Dialects and cultural specialization distinguished one clan from another. Eventually, the resources of the sub-continent struggled to hold us all. There was still wilderness to the north. Clans broke-up and those willing to take-on big-game headed to the middle-east. “The Aurochs, or European-bison, appears to have been abundant in Western Europe.” (Avebury – 299) But, not all of the clans followed game to Europe. The exodus passed through the middle-east and then on to either the far-east or Gaul (western-central Europe), or to the steppes in the north between them. There aren’t many big settlements in the steppes of Eurasia, unlike the more ‘cosmopolitan’ frontiers to the east or west. I get the feeling that medicine (maybe because the far-east is the birthplace of gun-powder) was studied in the far-east. The euro-frontier was more industrial. Flint was quarried and knapped and turned into heavy tools and weapons.
The frontiers also turned their residents hard. While the tribes who remained behind in the south became more refined, the frontier clans evolved into brutish stock. Both the climate and game they hunted demanded it. But the whole race suffered from isolation. The generations of regional adaptation led to incompatibility. There really isn’t proof of the extent of the incompatibility. The proof we have just indicates competition among the breeds. I’m a romantic. I like to think that we preserved the best characteristics of all our ancestors. The competition is undeniable but genetic evidence is more subtle. If those early breeds of man-kind did merge, they didn’t advertise it.
Again the resources in the subcontinent ran short and new tribes moved-in from the south. These rival stone-age hunters were “still motivated by traditions they had inherited from the hunting communities of the Upper Paleolithic.” (Wymer - 268) There would have been some turf-wars. But, if anything could reunite the long-isolated clans it would-be trade or a hunt. Were our primitive ancestors capable of hunting in cooperation. There would have been a technological revolution if they had shared their knowledge on the subject. They may have been more likely to have traded between themselves. The material record just doesn’t decisively show proof of the technological-revolution that would accompany a more invested endeavor like cooperative-hunts. But, somewhere after they had settled their turf-wars they must have exchanged some material-culture.
Eventually, the archaic tribes of Europe were overrun by their modern counterparts. The culture of the Neanderthals was replaced by the customs and technology of the Cro-Magnon tribes that succeeded them. Europe wasn’t the wilderness it once was. The climate was more hospitable and the frontier had been explored. And whatever happened to Europe’s original settlers has been a mystery ever since. I keep waiting for proof that the Neanderthal bloodline carries-on in the populations of their old realms. It might be a pretty recessive trait, all but lost through the generations. At least until someone needs a cave man.

Trade VVindz

Singapore is maybe the most unique nation in the far-east. It is a modern city-state. It doesn’t have a lot of autonomous history before the end of colonialism in the region. Before that it was Malayan turf. Situated at the tip of the Malay peninsula, it is the prime spot for sea-borne trade. To the west lie the straights of Malacca and the Indian Ocean. South is Indonesia. North along the coastline is mainland Asia. And to the east beyond the Philippines waits the Pacific. It may have had to wait for trans-oceanic navigation to arrive before it could really grow-up but I imagine Singapore must have been a solid (albeit quaint) port in early maritime history too. That’s what drew me to cover Singapore in the first place. Any kid from a Navy home inherits a healthy admiration for its tradition. There’s something about docks that remind me of home. And no other docks are so fabled.
Once upon a time it would have been more like a fishing village than a trade-hub. But, as maritime industry progressed so did the importance of Singapore’s location. By medieval times it had emerged as a chief maritime player. The British utilized its harbors during colonial rule in the Pacific Rim. These days the port of Singapore is renowned in some circles as the best set of docks in the trades. They might very well be the toughest. The entire island-nation is no bigger than Los Angeles or San Francisco counties, and Singapore’s docks probably do more shipping than LAX and SFO combined. Of course, the port of Singapore oversees shipping operations beyond its local docks. Such a rich history in shipping has developed into a role as an operations-broker. Less experienced ports seek advice from Singapore before upgrading their own operations. In return Singapore gains a working relationship with the smaller ports that support the trade-business.
Another distinction unique to Singapore may be its history with colonialism. In a region that saw so many failures among imperial colonies and their governing bodies, colonial Singapore may have been the exception. The British were a fairly late arrival to Malay. The Dutch were already in Indonesia and the Portuguese still had some influence in Malaysia from their sea-empire when Britain and the British East Indies Company moved-in to Singapore. Earlier influence came from feudal Malay. According to legend, the first settlement was built by a Srivijayan prince. It still retains a Malaccan influence, but has become distinctively Singaporean. In many ways the early empires didn’t leave a colony behind. Instead, Singapore gets its identity from industry. There are signs of European culture but not like what the Dutch left behind in their colonies. Of course sometimes it seems like business is the only custom on the yards of the port of Singapore. I think trade gives us all a common form of culture and Singapore is among its representatives.
When the Malay peninsula was a quieter place it was predominantly Malaccan. Now, it is ethnically Chinese. The local population is still present but with such a major interest in regional business it was bound to draw settlers from mainland markets. And anyone interested in working in shipping wants the experience they can get on Singapore’s docks. So these days Singapore has a make-up like the world’s other industrial trade centers. It must be a competitive place. Like the streets of New York. Maybe it’s not quiet the same as N.Y.C. but I think that the same kind of opportunism is present there. It might be more like San Francisco, though. Demography only goes so far in demonstrating cultural dynamics. On paper, New York and San Francisco might be similar in ethnic diversity and the size/age of the work-force. But the ethnic differences that give San Francisco its character just make New York hostile. So, I’d have a hard time describing the actual customs in Singapore without seeing them firsthand. In the bigger ports the only thing you can count-on is a fast pace.
Singapore’s importance in the trade-industry has ensured that it remains a modern nation. All the business that depends on its ports as it passes through guarantees that Singapore will keep up with technology. But politically it is kind of a regional lightweight. China is still the political authority for the far-east. With China’s massive military and central government, nations like Singapore negotiate with China based on their industrial clout. There just aren’t many nations who can strong-arm China. Political relationships in the far-east can be delicate. Singapore and China share customs and geography but western markets need Singapore’s docks for access to Asian markets. As a result, Singapore must be diplomatic with both its neighbors and business partners. Singapore practices a one-party parliamentary government and while not a pure democracy it is never the less a bastion of free-market capitalism.
I’m not what I’d call a ‘capitalist’ but I’d never do capitalism the justice that Singapore could, either. It is one of maybe a handful of nations that functions as a municipality. Education and health-care is as socialized as European government. I’ve compared it to the district of Columbia before but it is actually more industrious. Like Detroit would have been if it had ever been on a trade-route. I suppose it’s a lot like an international version of PDX. One day I might find-out for myself but it’s good to be in Portland in the meantime. I guess that’s where I’ll be until the streets of Singapore need me more. But, I’ve always been more at-home on the streets than I would-be in the trades. My old-man even knows where-to look-for me there.
Singapore’s unique position as trades-broker is what ultimately defines it. There aren’t many industries (that aren’t localized) that don’t have business there. There aren’t many exports that don’t need its access to Asia or imports that don’t clear its docks. Even Japanese business (with its own legitimate shipping fleets) cannot match Singapore’s maritime capabilities. They are a lot like Marines. If it needs to be mobilized, they’re up-to it. Singapore seems content in its role as ‘delivery boy’. Singapore’s ships operate in some heavy, hostile seas. They spend more of their time avoiding a fight then they do starting-one. But, fights aren’t always easy to avoid. I have got a lot of respect for that. There are better things to do than to pick a fight. And Singapore keeps a lot of business going in the process. It must be a cool place to land on shore-leave.
There never has been a shortage of action in Singapore. All of Malay seems to like a party. From the south coast of China (Hong Kong + Macau) through Thailand and Malay and beyond the straights into Java and Indonesia, the maritime-trade centers are known for their nightlife. Once upon a time they were pretty lawless. Singapore is somewhat of an exception. It never was the roughest port in the trades. And some of the rougher ports have gotten tamer than they were a generation ago. But the region is still a popular destination for gamblers. That regional image lends to Singapore’s identity. At the same time that it is driven by honest trade business it is also part renegade.
Singapore doesn’t have the production capability that Japan does but has modernized alongside it. That’s pretty good company. Japan prides itself on its industrial potential. In the future, you can expect Singapore to remain a hub of trade. It won’t be generating much trade. But, it will still be facilitating it. Other than tourism and the skilled labor force, Singapore is kind of resource-poor. That is often the case for island-nations. I guess it takes a continent to ensure that resource needs are met.
On the other side of Malay rest the resources of Sino-Asia. There are some throughout Indonesia also. No-one else brings it together like Singapore can with its docks though. As mighty as they are they still rely on maritime trade. We could use the work stateside too. Like a revival of the auto-industry. I think Detroit still knows enough about putting folks on the road to make a good partner with Singapore. Between the two of them a pair of continents could drive more people to work.
That depends on extra-regional politics though. Like I mentioned earlier, Singapore’s devotion to its docks means they have to answer to prevailing diplomacies and their impact on industry and trade. As of now, China and the U.S. are really almost rivals. If their markets open to more cooperative efforts like forecasts have been promising, Singapore could get caught in the middle of it. As much as I’d like to work those docks for that I would almost rather be on a line in ‘Mo-Town’ then. If things go well, I suppose Singapore (and Malay) might become a bona-fide player in international politics. In many ways it would be a good role for the maritime nation. It always has brokered exchange between markets. And China and the United States both stand to make mutual gains through cooperation. There might be some jealous parties in other parts of the world but no-one really loses in the offer.
‘Pacific Century’ describes Singapore as a ‘new Asian capitalist’. Along with the other ‘newly industrialized economies’. Mainland Sino-Asia is likely to be a people’s social economy for the near future, but they are becoming capitalistic in a soviet way. They seem to have discovered how profit can benefit the state. ‘Pacific Century’ goes on to credit some of Singapore’s industrial potential to Britain’s colonial efforts. Not that imperialism is without its faults but according to ‘Pacific Rim’ author Mark Borthwick, Singapore has “benefited from the early development of commercial and educational infrastructure” that colonialism left behind (pg. 267). Singapore might have been a quieter sea-port if it hadn’t been influenced by the British Empire. Instead it is caught-up in international trade. And it still has a rustic quality in spite of the speed at which it can take care of business.
Business in Singapore moves on through prevailing social climates. While some markets might be more forgiving than others, Singapore continues to drive trade between nations. Not really as a diplomat but as a broker. And an honest broker, as far as trade-drivers go. If trade-business were to dry-up Singapore might go back to being a sleepy little fishing village. But it would still be a welcomed harbor to anyone needing shelter from the sea. Maybe Singapore has some sort of understanding with the oceans. In exchange for favorable winds, Singapore fosters the exchange of culture across the seas and remains devoted to its traditions. In pursuit of a fair trade wind that is next to make landfall.

Nevv VVorld Covvboys

Spanish Legacy

For their role in Columbia’s development I think the new-world is in debt to Spain. Spain proved to be one of the more lasting influences upon it. Actually, if I had to pick one culprit throughout the world’s colonial history it would probably have-to be the Dutch regimes. They almost seem to have made everyone-else look even worse. All over the world Dutch colonial traditions have led to political disasters. And the Dutch didn’t even have much of a presence in the new-world (in spite of New York’s Dutch roots). But, some of their rivalries made their way here via France, Britain and Spain. Warring between those three for supremacy on the continent resulted in most of Columbia’s historical-conflict.
Spain was in some ways Columbia’s steward. At the time of Spanish conquest, European policy was ruthless toward other cultures. All of Europe’s major powers scrambled to occupy distant lands in the name of discovery. Spain stormed onto the continents of the new-world and seized power over most of Columbia. Their immediate impact was brutal. But they may have proven to be less abusive in the long-term than Columbia’s other two foreign-occupants (the Russians and Dutch having never really been ‘occupants’), France and Britain. The missions that colonial Spain left in the new-world still provide a sense of community to their surrounding areas. And the missions are important for reminding us of Columbia’s history before our arrival.
Spain is ultimately responsible for its role in occupying the new-world. Any of the other colonial empires were just as capable of that kind of exploitation if they had gotten to Columbia first instead. In some ways, Spain just had the misfortune of beaten them to it. After the Spanish empire settled-in they treated Columbia like a new home (which is what distinguishes Spain’s impact from France or Britain’s). And I think Spain remains burdened with Columbia until it is free from foreign interests.



British Influence

We subscribe to a predominantly ‘anglo’ culture in the states. It’s no wonder there is a significant British presence on the continent. From the nation’s founders to the commonwealth to the north, Britain has contributed to our way of life. ‘British’ makes a better culture than it does rule. I think our patriots felt the same way. The British are a fairly academic race. Some of (probably both) the motives behind the Revolutionary War are based on British principles. There was some distinctively non-British dissent, too. Everyone knows the story, British taxation was too high and we declared sovereignty (in a not altogether un-British way). Britain decided not to give-up it’s colonies without a fight and colonial Labrador went to war. When it was over the United States had been forged.
We tried (like many immigrants do) to adopt a new identity. And frontier-Labrador demanded we do, to some extent. We traded some culture with native tribes and some with French hunters. Spain was too far away from colonial Labrador to influence our customs much from Mexico. Later waves of immigrants brought customs of their own but British customs remained the standard even as they merged with the rest. Even after the war, Britain remained an influence on our customs with the Hudson’s Bay Company and their trades with locals. The company’s success at Fort Vancouver encouraged settlement of the Northwest. British culture had spanned a new continent.
Britain isn’t quite what I’d call ‘opportunistic’ but it has remained a close enough ally to come to our aid when it benefits Britain. I guess its presence can still be felt in its North American commonwealth. But, I think it has been a while since Britain really involved itself in continental policy. It’s Britain’s distance that makes it an absentee landlord. Its interest in Columbia has always been limited to Columbia’s resources and not Columbia’s development. That is a trademark of an island nation. Island nations and their empires (like Britain and Japan) are usually resource-poor. And an undeveloped continent like North America makes a good target for their ambitions. Our patriots decided to reject its rule but British customs are friendlier to Columbia’s residents. It has a minimal effect on the landscape but in subtle ways still influences how Columbia looks.



Exploration

After the revolution, our nation only had a share of the continent. There was still plenty of unexplored territory though. Baja wasn’t undiscovered. The Spanish already had settlements on the Pacific at southern Baja. The British had overland routes to the pacific but hadn’t exploited the Northwest’s harbors south of British Columbia. It was not until Astoria was established that British ships really docked off of Oregon’s shores. Jefferson knew he had an exposed-flank between Mexico and British Columbia. There was also a growing trade-market on the Pacific. Settling the territory would serve a defensive and economic purpose. Lewis and Clark were chosen to lead the ‘corps of Discovery’ overland to Oregon and survey the frontier.
The corps of Discovery was joined by native-guides and skirted the badlands to the head-waters of the Columbia river. The northwest’s native tribes were both peaceful and industrious. The corps of Discovery made the easy trip down-river without much trouble. The expedition wintered in Clatsop county and returned with their observations. The president decided it was time to expand and opened the west to settlers. The resources of the West led to most of its development. SFO and LAX’s growth justified railroads and upon their completion Jefferson’s vision was realized. The world’s two great oceans were now linked.
The founders of the United States are tough competition. But sometimes they distinguish themselves. Jefferson’s pursuit of a transcontinental nation distinguishes him from even Franklin, sometimes. The nation has been able to serve as an intermediary between the continents of the Pacific and Atlantic because of it. It demonstrates the West Coast’s importance as a maritime-hub, in-spite of its rocky coastlines. And accounts for the fondness held for it by locals.



‘Where have all da Cowboys Gone?’

Baja has always been ‘romanticized’. It seems to be untamable. Its residents are expected to live by the West’s rules. It even turns its visitors into ‘cowboys’. So what does the future hold for its cowboys? Its deep-water ports will need them for trade across the Pacific. And with significant trade its railroads could again serve the continents interiors. Vacation-destinations might still lie south of LAX and north of the Cascades, between there Baja is almost more likely to put any vacationers to work. But on the weekends the mountains and coast are open-for-business. I guess even cowboys ‘work for the weekend’.
That might be Baja’s real legacy. In return for its scenic wilderness, Baja expects its cowboys to keep-it up. The West is likely to drive away urbanites like a cowboy that don’t-belong in the city. Those who are upto it have got some work ahead of them. A lot of that work resides in environmental-legislation and that policy’s implementation. That might mean jobs for mechanics if emissions becomes a priority in legislation. And of course, the agriculture that drives the West’s economy.
I’m a ‘romantic’. I like to think that the West ain’t been broken for a reason. All of Columbia has a way of being wild. But the West alone could give the rest of Columbia a good bar-fight. I guess that’s become a cliché, but I’ve got a weakness for good bar-fights.