Would the scientific discovery of Sasquatch revolutionize Paleo Anthropology

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

9 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I think that's a reflection of an assumption that's already in serious doubt.  (The shift of our assumptions as our culture changes is a topic in another thread .. quite relevant, I think.)  We assumed that because we saw few, there were few, and because we assume there are few, they must not have a complex social structure.   The alternate view is that there are many but precisely because of a complex social structure (including cooperation), they're able to mostly avoid us thus we see few.    I go back to habituators I've been connect with ... consider what they describe.   It's a whole lot more like tribal humans than merely a herd of animals.

 

MIB

You can only have a complex society if the math of sufficient individuals makes it so.

No need to develop the ability if you only have a couple of peers, so what is the counter thesis?

Perhaps apples and oranges since you are arguing tribal, I would need to see a tribe and not a family group.

Seems the only cooperative structure is for mating and child rearing, and not, say, for organizing work.

If they have combat teams, who knows?

Edited January 18, 2017 by Cryptic Megafauna

[FarArcher]

On 1/17/2017 at 6:04 PM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

You can only have a complex society if the math of sufficient individuals makes it so.

No need to develop the ability if you only have a couple of peers, so what is the counter thesis?

Perhaps apples and oranges since you are arguing tribal, I would need to see a tribe and not a family group.

Seems the only cooperative structure is for mating and child rearing, and not, say, for organizing work.

If they have combat teams, who knows?

 

Cryptic, is it possible that family groups have certain terrains for hunting/water/shelter and nearby other families may live likewise?  And a few of these families would likely be more of a loose tribal group?

 

I've spoken with a few folks who have independently told me pretty much the same thing - but one in particular was interesting.  He said, "If you throw them off (when they're aggressive), they may leave.  But they'll be back - with more."  

 

Another told me that in the evening, it seems that individuals from multiple locations seem to call to each other, gather, and then hunt together.  Not all family members, but one or two maybe from each "family."  

 

I'd never thought of that - but when I'd plug that possibility in to other narratives - it's not impossible.

[hiflier]

That actually makes sense as what are the odds that several hunting males in a group would all be from the same family? One could also use the idea to help with multiple sightings in an area; as in it wouldn't have to be one individual who "gets around". It would certainly be something to keep in mind when doing extended adjacent-county research that takes into account same-year sightings of different animal descriptions.

Edited January 20, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

On 1/20/2017 at 1:13 PM, FarArcher said:

 

Cryptic, is it possible that family groups have certain terrains for hunting/water/shelter and nearby other families may live likewise?  And a few of these families would likely be more of a loose tribal group?

 

I've spoken with a few folks who have independently told me pretty much the same thing - but one in particular was interesting.  He said, "If you throw them off (when they're aggressive), they may leave.  But they'll be back - with more."  

 

Another told me that in the evening, it seems that individuals from multiple locations seem to call to each other, gather, and then hunt together.  Not all family members, but one or two maybe from each "family."  

 

I'd never thought of that - but when I'd plug that possibility in to other narratives - it's not impossible.

Well, seems plausible.

My reactions is since Humans, earlier Habilis, Erectus and Australopiths all had larger groupings withe the grouping becoming more complex as the brain evolved it seems that our lineage was social and whatever you think Sasquatch represents (I guess the boundary between Erectus and Habilis) then they should be verging on the socialization and groupings of early Homo species which I believe where thought to be up tp a maximum size of 100 to 200 individuals with Australopiths being half of that and why we out competed our Austrolpith like relatives.

So smaller grouping of a subsequent species on a branching lineage that are smaller speaks to an evolutionary change.

In you example I think extended family groupings are what you are seeing (Uncles, Aunts and their families).

Natives reported some villages such as the cave in the south west with giants and "tribes" in the PNW.

My guess is that prehistoric Native tribes found large groups of organized Bigfoot groups threatening and competing and targeting tribal members.

So the Natives probably warred against the larger groups and they adapted by living through necessity in smaller interrelated groups that infrequently come into contact.

Classic strategy of outlier fugitive species that have a major predator (US) that reduces their numbers to a point close to extinction.

[guyzonthropus]

Perhaps, but realistically, that is largely conjecture, which is pretty much  all most of us have at this point, and to assign the developmental level of their brain physiology, cognitive ability, and the nature of their social constructs is a bit of a stretch, especially if you're using the human fossil record as the standard or scale, in that it is so far from complete that even trying to determine such phases as coinciding, much less causitive, in our own bio-social development is sketchy at best.

 

In that we have no certainty in regards to our knowledge of their means of communication, actual numbers, degree of cognition (for both an average, as well as exceptional cases or potentials) regular behaviour patterns, activities, range of environmental roles and functions, mobility patterns, life cycles, possible conscious intents, drives , goals(? Who can say?) and motivations, the extent of their elusiveness and subterfuge, the history of their evolution, their capacity for long distance communications, the nature of their endoparasites, what they see as a reasonable distance to travel for a date, or even why  the dogmen say they're sasquatch when they're talking in yer, just to mess with the hairless dwarves or is it part of  a grander agenda with effects more far reaching than the self impressed social think apes will perceive or even imagine before it's far too late

 

"those pinks think they're so social! Once we get our numbers up, develop rudimentary technologies and then leave it all laying about the forest, they'll all be too distracted to see the Centaurian plasma transformational device as they send selfies with the "non-natural stick tools" to their ex's and debating whether a blender comprised solely of twigs and alder leaves is actually the result of last week's storm or the remnants of a practice beaver **** that just looks an old Oster, as their individual DNA  samples are collected, catalogued, analysed, alphabetized, and added to the "products available" supplemental page for monkeygenesforcheap.com/earth/wildcaught"

 

We just can't make these assumptions from a non-existent fossil record, as many 5 second sightings you want  to list, print casts or  audio recordings(unless they think the Mic isn't on still and they start say things like"are we ever gonna tell em how many of us there really are? No.. we're still sticking with the no more than 10000, honest, nothing to see hear, just a stump...hold still til they look away!") Sure we can consider, contemplate, discuss and debate any number of possible realities but to designate what it is, define its nature, determine its social complexity, and delineate its cognitive depth, from what we have currently at hand is to limit our potential to realize and recognize what they actually are and can do, if or once we obtain actual knowledge or founded understanding of these creatures.

 

Just my Tuesday morning rant....

 

 

[hiflier]

^^^^

Hi, GZ. As soon as I find a better word than "EXCELLENT"  regarding what you wrote I will post it.

[guyzonthropus]

Aww shucks, Hiflier! That word'll do just fine! Than' you ver' much!