|
|
Post by mrsandman on Feb 9, 2016 1:00:44 GMT
Let's take some tribes. Some from the Mediterranean, some from the Congo, some from Indus, Tigris/Euphrates, and Yellow River areas. We can even throw in some people from that bit of land between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
We're moving the bastards - all the way back to the late Cretaceous, about 25,000 years before the asteroid hits. Each group is placed near similar groups - Mediterraneans are near Mediterraneans, Congolese by Congolese and so on, and are placed in areas of similar climate.
Each tribe is taken from about 25,000 years ago. They come with any tools they have, however anything made out of animal skin, fur, or bone (or plant materials) is replaced with an equivalent item made out of locally available items. No domestic animals/seeds/whatever come along, with the exception of bacteria necessary for human life.
|
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Feb 9, 2016 1:42:51 GMT
Let's see. First of all, lots of drownings. A lot of the places you mentioned were under water at that point in history. Mediterranean, Indus, and Euphrates folks are gone.
Then there's the much higher oxygen content, so let's hope they work that out quickly or else they'll be killed off in wild fires.
Then there's the diseases, poisons, viruses, bacteria, fruits, seeds, nuts and berries which humans have never evolved to deal with.
Finally, there's the mother flipping dinosaurs. Have you ever stopped to think that the largest predators ancient man ever had to deal with were of roughly the same size? The true megafauna were the herbivores, and they were terrified of us because we had the biting hot and the throwing claws. You think a Tyrannosaurus Rex gives a shit about us or our spears? What about a Quetzalcoatlus? Or a pack of fucking Dromaeosaurs?!
Maybe a few small populations might survive in ideal areas. Inland, few large predators, favorable forage and not a lot of trees to burn down. But yeah, I doubt they're going to be reaching our level of advanced society before the KT.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsandman on Feb 9, 2016 4:04:45 GMT
You'll notice that I never said that they would be sent to the same geographic area, and in fact specified that they would be sent to areas of similar climate. The implication being that similar climate would include being on land.
Seriously, I'd love to know where I gave the impression that they'd be sent to the same exact place/wherever the continent they were on happened to be, since that represents a serious error in my wording of the prompt. If anything, I had already addressed the issue in you present in your first paragraph preemptively.
That said, the dinosaurs are the point. Humans are smart, and most of that megafauna is going the way recent megafauna (the giant lizards in Australia come to mind). Being big is a disadvantage here. Big means you're a big target, and one big target isn't surviving against large numbers of small ones - particularly when the small targets are notoriously clever bastards. So do I think the T-Rex will care about spears? Yeah, after it's been tripped. Or forced to run off a small cliff. Or incapacitated in one of myriad of other ways that could be accomplished with even the tiniest amount of creativity and situational awareness.
In fact, I wonder if a tyrannosaur would even bother hunting man. He'd probably use more energy hunting us than he could get from our carcasses.
The initial die off will be significant, but it is the most adaptable that survive. People would survive, and though they likely won't have the time to industrialize, I think they'll at least get literate agricultural societies going before everyone dies.
Really, apart from some apparent ambiguity as to where they end (which, to make it abundantly clear: populations emerge scattered across the then extant continents, in an appropriate climate, and near ethnically similar populations) the big issue with the prompt as I laid out is I don't give enough time. Let's add another 10,000 years. It may seem excessive, but they need time to deal with the local fauna and to get a head start domesticating the local plants/animals. If that still isn't enough, let's get ludicrous and add another 10,000 years, giving them a full 45,000 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Feb 9, 2016 4:27:08 GMT
I'd have to argue that Humans may develop weapons even faster. One simple spear won't kill a t-rex and most of the dinosaurs, certainly arrows would be the equivalent of a splinter, Pikes and halberds could be quite devastating though, but a good ol' cannon would make them go a-running. Humans would probably try to advance really fast to get a good weapon to defeat the savage beasts, although the first couple thousand years would be precarious until the invention of either extremely accurate or extremely deadly weapons could be made.
I imagine, no matter what, hunting and gathering would be the most efficient style of life, until such weapons are created, since staple agricultural foods such as grain, rice, and corn hadn't evolved yet
|
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Feb 9, 2016 10:04:13 GMT
You'll notice that I never said that they would be sent to the same geographic area, and in fact specified that they would be sent to areas of similar climate. The implication being that similar climate would include being on land. Seriously, I'd love to know where I gave the impression that they'd be sent to the same exact place/wherever the continent they were on happened to be, since that represents a serious error in my wording of the prompt. If anything, I had already addressed the issue in you present in your first paragraph preemptively. Well I don't know how I missed that. My mistake. On the subject of a T rex hunting a human, we are very very slow. I imagine we'd make tempting snacks. My only point is that tactics used against furry elephants which were trying to run away from us will probably be difficult to translate to a gigantic, fast, warm blooded reptile which is actively hunting us. Maybe large numbers in coordination could drive off a therapod who was just having a sniff around, but if it was actively hunting us as easy targets then it's going to be devastating. Not to mention the raptors. We're fucked against those. That said I can see some interesting developments in the way of settlement defense. Trenches, stakes, walls, tripwires, log traps etc. Any group which survives their first generaton is probably going to start developing relatively advanced settlements. Europe will most likely survive if they're not drowning. Small islands inhabited by relatively small dinosaurs. If they can work out suitable anti-dinosaur measures then the greatest threat would probably stripping their environment. |
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Feb 9, 2016 22:19:25 GMT
I think you're all underestimating the human capacity to kill things when it comes to dinosaurs. Considering humans have successfully hunted megafauna like mammoths I find it unlikely that humans would have much issue hunting large dinosaurs of the Late Cretaceous, especially herbivores living in herds like Triceratops and its related Ceratopsids, or Hadrosaurs. Admittedly humans would have no experience dealing with predators as large as the T-Rex, but humans have the advantages of being able to learn and communicate the predator's weak spots to one another, as well as being able to damage predators at range using spears thrown by hand and using spear throwers/atlatl. I've no doubt that large predators would be safer hunting the small dinosaurs they're adapted to than the small mammals that can stab you multiple times at range before you even get close enough to bite them. Humans may not exactly thrive in the Late Cretaceous, but they're not as good as dead by any means. Regardless, the main issue regarding the future of human development is domestication - 25,000 years ago humans didn't even have dogs so they're starting from scratch, but without domestication humans will never develop agriculture, and thus will never develop the population densities and food production efficiency needed for more complex societies with specialised classes of people. Early domesticates seem to have taken a "commensal" path to domestication. This involves the domesticate feeding off of scraps and refuse around human communities, thus benefiting the animal and generally not affecting the humans, but as feeding off of human refuse and scraps becomes a viable strategy the animals with the shortest "fight or flight distance" (i.e. how close humans can get before the animal runs away or tries to attack them) will be more successful, and you'll get a feedback loop where the animal gradually becomes more and more social over time. Once they've become okay with humans' presence, then humans can start using them to their own benefit (hunting partners as with dogs, vermin eradication as with cats, livestock as with pigs, etc.). I guess the big question is "What animals in the Late Cretaceous were likely to find feeding off of human scraps a viable strategy, and what use might humans make of them once they're non-aggressive towards humans?". I'm not 100% sure I'm able to answer that one - the fossil record is incomplete, and there's only so much I can glean from browsing Wikipedia. There seem to have been plenty of small Theropods in the Late Cretaceous - such as Dromaeosaurids and Arnithomimids - but I'm unsure if any would've been well suited to commensal domestication, and whether they'd be of much use to humans afterwards. It's possible we may never know, though, considering a lot of this depends on the exact diet, lifecycle, and behaviour of these animals, which are difficult to impossible to reconstruct with certainty, so it's probably safe to speculate. There is likely a number of small Theropods that could live off of human refuse, an omnivorous scavenger would be idea. Once they've evolved to be sociable with humans, it's possible they could be useful in hunting - they'd be faster than humans over short distances, and some Theropods have an excellent sense of smell ( Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptors apparently had "the nose of a bloodhound"). If a Theropod that is less predatory, with a worse sense of smell and a more herbivorous diet managed to become sociable with humans, they could be domesticated as livestock similar to turkeys and chickens. Once humans have learned how to domesticate animals (and, indeed, that they *can* domesticate animals) this opens up new possibilities. Large grazing animals might be domesticated and take the place of cattle - Hadrosaurs seem to have been very large (6 to 12 metres long, well over a ton in weight) so some form of small ceratopsid would work better. Ischioceratops and Montanaceratops seem about the right size at 2 and 3 metres long respectively, and they both seem to have had a wide range over (what would later become) Asia and North America. I'm unsure of their usefulness as mounts, but they'd certainly be useful as draft animals. In terms of plant domesticates I have no idea what exact species would be suitable but the Late Cretaceous did have grasses, so cereals are possible, as are pseudocereals and other staple foods derived from angiosperms. Textiles might be an issue, since mammals in this period are very small and have only very recently evolved hair. Fibre from trees/plants might be the best source, if there are any that would be suitable. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsandman on Feb 9, 2016 23:05:22 GMT
Europe will most likely survive if they're not drowning. Small islands inhabited by relatively small dinosaurs. If they can work out suitable anti-dinosaur measures then the greatest threat would probably stripping their environment. I'd have to argue that Humans may develop weapons even faster. One simple spear won't kill a t-rex and most of the dinosaurs, certainly arrows would be the equivalent of a splinter, Pikes and halberds could be quite devastating though, but a good ol' cannon would make them go a-running. Humans would probably try to advance really fast to get a good weapon to defeat the savage beasts, although the first couple thousand years would be precarious until the invention of either extremely accurate or extremely deadly weapons could be made. Clearly, then, one group of people are going to be the clear geographic winners (to a much greater extent than Eurasians are, according to Professor Diamond). The Earth of the late cretaceous was warm enough for the temperate zones to extend into the poles - those who find themselves on the southern coast of Europe, and the islands between Europe and Africa would appear to be the winners, at least in terms competition from the downtime apex predators. This area is well outside of the region of the t-rex we've been using as the example of the big terrifying predator. Quetzalcoatlus could (depending on its range) be a major problem - what I've read indicates they were as tall as giraffes and lived near rivers. Big problem for early agriculturalists, and farming likely won't take off until their numbers are reduced. On the positive side, they probably weren't the best of fliers, if they could fly at all. Raptors, depending on species and temperament are both a curse and a potential blessing. Encounters with pack hunters could, in some cases, lead to the same scavenging behavior that led to the domestication of dogs. The smaller ones are, of course, more likely to be tamable, with the bigger ones maintaining a nuisance comparable or worse than wolves in pre-industrial times. I imagine, no matter what, hunting and gathering would be the most efficient style of life, until such weapons are created, since staple agricultural foods such as grain, rice, and corn hadn't evolved yet I don't really see such weapons coming into existence before the development of large scale agriculture - hence why some places (Europe, maybe Australia/Antarctica) are clear geographic winners. As far as our staple foods, those are gone. However, grasses were beginning to emerge at this time, and fruits certainly existed. What other staple crops could potentially be used, well that's the problem with going further. There was probably something, but there just isn't enough information to know what. And, well, hunting/gathering is arguably a more efficient lifestyle than subsistence agriculture, even in the actual historical period. On the subject of a T rex hunting a human, we are very very slow. I imagine we'd make tempting snacks. We're also significant;y more stealthy, and significantly more able to use our environment to our advantage. Mankind has been thrust into an environment in which they aren't the apex predator, and it'll be a hell of a time climbing back to the top. In an open field, five minutes after everyone wakes up and see that the gods have completely remade the world, and a t-rex shows up? Yeah, that tribe is fucked. After enough time, those that don't get killed are going to be really good at only being seen by the big scary birds when they want to be seen. And that' only happening when they're confident they can blind the monster, confuse it with sounds coming from every direction and lure it down a long drop. It'll be a hell of a lot more difficult than what was used against bison or mammoths, but I'd say its doable. Now, they won't be engaging them on purpose - at least not near the beginning. Its a matter of being prepared for a likely worst case scenario. Eventually, tyrannosaurs will decide it isn't worth the effort. And eventually, some idiot and his buddies will get cocky enough to try and take one down for glory. Europe will most likely survive if they're not drowning. Small islands inhabited by relatively small dinosaurs. If they can work out suitable anti-dinosaur measures then the greatest threat would probably stripping their environment. A very valid issue for island societies. In fact, an inevitable issue if our geographic "winners" are stuck on their islands. However, fishing will likely be a major part of early economies in the coastal regions - it always is. Eventually someone'll try to make a cheap barge to get bigger fish further out, and that'll turn into fishing boats. At the point its just a question of how big a problem mossasaurs are. Competition from pterosaurs is also an issue. The initial die off are going to be entirely as a result of unfamiliarity. No one knows what plants are edible - and the really unlucky will have an early encounter with the local carnivorous megafauna before they see tracks and are able to prepare. A good majority of the people sent back in time will die. Those that won't will have children, who will have children, who will have children. and so on. Flash forward to say, 10,000 years after the ISOT. What does the world look like? What's life like for these people? Are they still living as ambush predators, or have some develop fortified agricultural compounds? EDIT Krall posted while I was writing/researching this, and pretty much addressed every main point I did. I'd just like to reinforce the huge advantage throwing spears/arrows/friggen' rocks give humans over local fauna. Earlier I mentioned blinding a t rex and confusing the bastard with sound. That's the best use of them I can think of off the top of my head, but it isn't the only one. The ability of people to surround potential large animals (t rexes, sauropods, whatever) and hitting them from multiple sides at a range is a huge advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Feb 10, 2016 2:15:58 GMT
Clearly, then, one group of people are going to be the clear geographic winners (to a much greater extent than Eurasians are, according to Professor Diamond). The Earth of the late cretaceous was warm enough for the temperate zones to extend into the poles - those who find themselves on the southern coast of Europe, and the islands between Europe and Africa would appear to be the winners, at least in terms competition from the downtime apex predators. This area is well outside of the region of the t-rex we've been using as the example of the big terrifying predator. Quetzalcoatlus could (depending on its range) be a major problem - what I've read indicates they were as tall as giraffes and lived near rivers. Big problem for early agriculturalists, and farming likely won't take off until their numbers are reduced. On the positive side, they probably weren't the best of fliers, if they could fly at all. Raptors, depending on species and temperament are both a curse and a potential blessing. Encounters with pack hunters could, in some cases, lead to the same scavenging behavior that led to the domestication of dogs. The smaller ones are, of course, more likely to be tamable, with the bigger ones maintaining a nuisance comparable or worse than wolves in pre-industrial times. Just be clear the Europe of your time period looks like this. So it's more like the islands between Africa and the North Pole, which are all there is of Europe at this point. However this does give homo sapiens sapiens an advantage, far greater land area to exploit than just the few measly islands from our current Mediterranean. Quetzalcoatlus could most definitely fly, and quite well paleontologists seem to think. Our best estimates of the damn thing seem to indicate that it may have been a transcontinental migratory flight path, which explains why remains are found in both Europe and Texas. Then again I also read that it's genetic cousin lived in the landmass which is now mostly Romania. Oh and they could run too. Horrifying fuckers. However there is still a silver lining. It has to land to attack us, that's when to strike. Membrane wings and hollow bones are weak to a a few arrows and some hefty clubs to break it's neck once it's on the ground. If the migratory theory is true then that also means that there's some leeway throughout the rest of the year for these downtime Europeans. Interestingly Magyarosaurus (one of the smallest sauropods) was also found in Romania. Quetzalcoatlus ate them, humans can to. This website, as stupid as it looks, seems to have a list of known dinosaur species by both landmass/continent and time period. Lots of duckbills and other herbivores in Europe, very few carnivores. Seems like the islands will be the best bet for some sort of early civilization taking off. How dangerous were the Cretaceous seas? Well mosasaurs are a start. There's also all manner of sharks of all sizes, and Xiphactinus, like a Piranha, only twice the size of you. Possibly some pliosaurs too, I'm not sure how well they were competing with mosasaurs at the time. Basically there's a lot of reason to stay out of the water. That said the map I posted is likely missing a lot of smaller islands, so island hopping isn't out of the question once canoes are built. If your Europeans manage to get their dissipated tribes in contact with each other then I see a primitive sort of thassalocracy developing. Since there were no grasses in this period agriculture is going to be difficult to kick off, then there's whether or not the tribes work out any effective dino slaying/taming methods. The interior is basically going to suck, therefore humans are going to be dominating the coasts; there's fewer large predators, beached sea creatures, good fishing etc. It's just easier for them. So for Europe at least I see settlement and civilization growing up on the beachfront property, and generally just resource extraction from the island interiors. Anyone who can tame or wipe out local dinosaurs will have the entire island open to them, but they'll probably be seen as bumpkins. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsandman on Feb 11, 2016 5:36:11 GMT
See that big island continent that north of the islands between just south of the pole and north of the islands, the one that looks very similar to Europe, minus the peninsulas? That's the bit of land I was referring to as Europe. I'm no paleontologist, so the fuck do I know, but everything I've read gives the impression that how capable Quetzalcoatlus was of flight is controversial, with one view being that they couldn't with another, more likely, view being that they glided instead. Your link's broken, bro. As both Krall and I mentioned, there most certainly did. However, they seem to have been limited to India (though the last article does mention that the most primitive grasses around today are from tropical American, which could indicate that they were already widespread. Assuming that they weren't, India seems like an interesting place for civilization develop. Actually, its position on the globe would cause me to guess that it would have a climate similar to the Congo, though this could be wrong depending currents and suchlike. Can't do the resource stripping you mention without having access to inland. Taming (by which I mean, creating a situation in which the wildlife isn't the top priority) confers a huge advantage. People that do it sooner will be more able to project power onto neighboring islands. 'Course, no one's going to know that ahead of time. Its just going to be glory killings at first, with side effect of each kill on the bigger beasties giving you more meat than your tribe can eat. As for the mossasaurs and other oceanic creatures, well it largely depends on how likely they are to go after boats. Granted, on land people are better able to defend themselves/set ambushes, so their less incentive to hunt us for our relatively little meat than there is on water. A canoe is a pretty easy target - consequently, the harpoon is definitely going to have a ton of cultural significance to these early cultures. Aight, so, we've got a developing Polynesian/Aegean-esque civ. The next big area looks like it'll be India. I'll see what I can find on conditions there.
|
|
