prehistoric burials make me really emotional because people go “it’s natural to only think of yourself to get ahead! people who don’t do anything shouldn’t be a part of society! back in caveman days they would have died!”
but there is archaeological proof that this is wrong. That even at our most “primitive” we cared about the well being of others.
like Shanindar 1. Shanindar 1 is a neanderthal from 35,000 to 45,000 years ago who was buried with many others in Shanindar Cave, Israel. At this point in time we had not yet developed settlements. Shanindar 1 was part of a nomadic hunter-gatherer group.
Shanindar 1 was severely disabled. From his skeleton we can gather the following
At a young age he had suffered a blow to the face which left him blind in one eye
He had significant hearing loss from birth deformities. One ear canal was completely blocked, while the other was only mostly blocked.
His right, and probably dominant, arm was withered, fractured, and the bottom half amputated.
He had a limp, possibly from a degenerative disease.
If you believe that it’s only natural to abandon the weak he should have been left to die instead of drain the group’s resources. Someone like that would have needed assistance for his entire life. He would have slowed the group down with his limp. His sensory impairments meant he would require help to spot and defend himself from predators. His arm meant he couldn’t hunt or build.
He lived well into his 40s. For a neanderthal of that era he would be considered old. His group decided that they would help him survive not because he brought anything to the group, but because he was still a person who mattered to them. Even at the end of his life he wasn’t abandoned; he was buried with dozens of others.
His group decided that they would help him survive not because he brought anything to the group
this… this is why I get uncomfortable with discussions about Shanindar 1. Because none of this is necessarily wrong, but there’s an underlying assumption being made in that phrasing.
You don’t know what he brought to the group. He probably wasn’t a great hunter or gatherer. But neanderthal life was, despite common belief, not just a matter of eating and not getting eaten. Most social animals have additional needs, which aren’t necessarily archaeologically evident.
Maybe he told really good jokes, and kept people’s spirits up. Maybe he was very good with children, and could look after them while their parents went out gathering food. Maybe he had a good memory, and could help to draw on past experiences; maybe he could tell interesting stories and keep social cohesion; maybe just the act of caring for him brought the tribe together.
Maybe none of that is true, and his survival was genuinely despite him bringing nothing to the tribe. I don’t believe it would have been wrong or foolish to keep him around just because he was family, and for no other reason. I don’t think he necessarily was a key part of the tribe.
I just think it’s very disconcerting that everyone assumes he wasn’t.
remember when you were a kid and whenever your parents came into the room while you were doing something for pleasure like looking at something on the computer or watching tv and you’d immediately close the thing like you’d just been caught watching porn when you were actually doing nothing wrong this post was made by strict parents with no boundaries gang
my dad: walks into the room while i’m playing club penguin the family computer
