!!sS2TVHm9A4b 11/17/08(Mon)04:31 No.3012053|
But that only deals with European neanderthals. Is the theory now that all neanderthals everywhere were assimilated? I would actually find it more believable in the case of non-European neanderthals. They all looked stranged, but the European ones were just fugly.
This theory makes more sense, particularly in the case of European neanderthals, who continued to live in caves even as H. sapiens moved into the area and settled hilltops. From hilltops, H. sapiens had a natural advantage in hunting and foraging. The neanderthals were just out-competed.
Ah, but the neanderthals had much more effective tools in general at that point and, if I recall correctly (I might not), had much improved spear technology by that point. They were at a disadvantage living in caves, but in some ways they were advanced.
Still, bows are a lot more useful in hunting small game than spears.
Nonetheless, stone age history is all conjecture with far too little to really work with.
Back on topic: It took me several years of roleplaying before I really stopped and thought about the way a long-lived or immortal creature's perspective would differ from a humans. I don't know why. I suppose it was because I mostly played Human or Halfling Rogues and Fighters throughout high school. I mean, I was aware that there would be a different outlook, but I never really gave it any thought. When I did, the appeal of it struck me very suddenly. My next character was a 300 year old Necropolitan historian. Then, when he got his head blown off 3 or 4 sessions into the game, I saw why this doesn't actually work so well for the adventurin' types.