Stone Age D&D Games?

[Mystaros]

As for early colonisation of the American continents. Most of the so called evidence is very flimsy and circumstantial. There have also been reports of fire places from 50.000 BP, but there are also very suspect. There is no clear evidence of early colonisation. Personally I do not have any problems with an earlier colonisation, but if there were people in America at such an early date, why did they not spread more out and why do we not have more evidence?

Because nobody has been looking for it. It's the same problem with the whole "out of Africa" theory. The reason we are finding lots of early proto-human races in Africa (A. Afarensis, A. Africanus, etc.) is because research into that period is almost exclusively done in Africa, specifically, in the Great Rift and in South Africa. Why? Because the fossil deposits of that period are both easy to access and relatively undisturbed. Elsewhere, you would either have to dig down through hundreds of feet of sediment in random areas, or, if the proper strata are on the surface and easy to get at, they were long ago cleared away or otherwise destroyed through inhabitation.

I'm not saying the out of Africa theory is wrong, mind you. There's other good evidence to back it up so far, ranging from the various work with mitochondrial DNA to the fact that the greatest diversity among humans is found among the peoples of Africa. But saying that modern humans came out of Africa just because "that's where we happen to find their remains" is like saying the highest form of life on Earth is the Penguin, because the only place you happened to effectively sample was Antarctica!

The same goes for early habitation in the Americas. We aren't finding evidence quite possibly because almost no one is looking for it! And the little that is found by accident is regarded as an aberration or a misinterpretation of the data...

The truth is, humanity is far, far older than any of our current civilizations are willing to admit (Hell, our main "civilization" still thinks we were created in a garden in 4004 BC). "Civilization" is also far, far older. It doesn't take much to wipe out all remnants of even a "modern" civilization... there are whole modern cities that existed in Europe before WWI and WWII that even an archaeologist would have a hard time finding today! And wait another 10,000 years or so, and there won't even be *any* remnants left of the Pyramids or the Great Wall of China... the largest and greatest edifices ever built by man in modern written history. Remember, many of the ancient Middle Eastern civilizations were thought legendary until the smallest remnants of them were actually found... as was the case with Troy.

"Modern" humans have been around for at least 200,000 years, if not far longer, and "genus Homo" (differentiated from Australopithecus primarily because they are found in areas where tools happen to be found), was around at least 2.5 to 4 million years ago...

We are a far older people than most can ever even imagine...

 

[TheLostSoul]

Your theories on this are pretty different from what I'm familiar with, but then again my information is pretty old. And it may just be a question of comparitive values, as I'm certain the tundra is better than the pine forest, but the warm plains might be better than both.

The other issue is that there is a huge difference in flavor, if nothing else, between a band that subsists on bison and a band that waits for the tuna cactus season. So I felt that lifestyle based anti-prestige classes gave you an easy way to reflect that without having to do that much retooling.

Then again it may just be that I prefer six fast and easy classes where you're willing to take the work to make three more robust ones.

My problem with the DMG classes is that they really don't reflect the skills and abilities that people would need in a such a society. They reflect medieval stuff nicely, but not so great for hunter gatherers.

But I'm not terribly familiar with the UA generic classes so I might be missing something here.

Modern classes would be all right, but I guess I see most of the diversity as being environmental.

I learned most of these theories when I began studying archaeology at the University of Copenhagen 2003. They are very discussed, so I am sure that plenty of people support your theories as well. When you go this far back in time, there is a lot of theories, but practically no certain facts

The UA classes are a lot more flexible in comparison to the DMG classes. You chose a number of class skills, depending on your class and you may multiclass freely. Instead of classabilities, you gain Bonus Feats, which may be use on said abilities (there is a list of most important abilities and their requisites). They can be used in practically any setting and does not focus on any particular area. I am planning a Steampunk game with the generic classes as well as a future Mesolithic game (set in Southern Scandinavia around the time of the neolithisization)

 

[TheLostSoul]

Because nobody has been looking for it. It's the same problem with the whole "out of Africa" theory. The reason we are finding lots of early proto-human races in Africa (A. Afarensis, A. Africanus, etc.) is because research into that period is almost exclusively done in Africa, specifically, in the Great Rift and in South Africa. Why? Because the fossil deposits of that period are both easy to access and relatively undisturbed. Elsewhere, you would either have to dig down through hundreds of feet of sediment in random areas, or, if the proper strata are on the surface and easy to get at, they were long ago cleared away or otherwise destroyed through inhabitation.

There are plenty of places where palaeotologists are searching for the various human predecessors and offshots. China is one very important location and some of the Maleysian and Indonesian islands are also being searched. Europe is also a hotspot for palaeontological digs, but there is just not material before the Homo Neandertalensis.

I'm not saying the out of Africa theory is wrong, mind you. There's other good evidence to back it up so far, ranging from the various work with mitochondrial DNA to the fact that the greatest diversity among humans is found among the peoples of Africa. But saying that modern humans came out of Africa just because "that's where we happen to find their remains" is like saying the highest form of life on Earth is the Penguin, because the only place you happened to effectively sample was Antarctica!

The same goes for early habitation in the Americas. We aren't finding evidence quite possibly because almost no one is looking for it! And the little that is found by accident is regarded as an aberration or a misinterpretation of the data...

I am not saying that Homo Sapiens (or earlier species) did not inhabit the Americas, but I am very sceptical. It is very easy to misinterpret archaological and palaeontological data and one large problem within these sciences (as well with most others) is that researchers interpret the data with what they want to find. There are just not enough conclusive finds to say that there has been human habitation of the Americas before trhe last ice age.

There are even today alot of researchers that suggests that Homo Sapiens has developed seperately in a wide variety of areas. There are specific Asian, European and African strains. These was practically identical, but held features from their respective predecessors.

The truth is, humanity is far, far older than any of our current civilizations are willing to admit (Hell, our main "civilization" still thinks we were created in a garden in 4004 BC). "Civilization" is also far, far older. It doesn't take much to wipe out all remnants of even a "modern" civilization... there are whole modern cities that existed in Europe before WWI and WWII that even an archaeologist would have a hard time finding today! And wait another 10,000 years or so, and there won't even be *any* remnants left of the Pyramids or the Great Wall of China... the largest and greatest edifices ever built by man in modern written history. Remember, many of the ancient Middle Eastern civilizations were thought legendary until the smallest remnants of them were actually found... as was the case with Troy.

Humanity is very old, but "civilization" is alot younger. There are even palaeontologists that have suggested that speach was not developed until around 25.000 BP (if I remember correctly, it was during the end of the Homo Neandertalensis period). I do not support his theory, but it is possible.

Habitation always leaves a trail to find. Even if it might be weak. During WW I & II there were some villages (most having kept somewhat stale since the 19 century) that were wiped out, but they can easily be found again by archaeologist on basis of the influence they have had on the local landscape. Most modern habitaion (from the 15-hundreds and onwards, at least) leave a noticeable change in the landscape. Even if the buildings themselves are torn down and the material carried awayd, most will still leave discernable traces in the ground. Besides, it is impossible to eliminate every trace of a settlement. There will always be lost items and traces of structures (wether wooden or not). It is possible to find the traces of tents in the early mesolithic...

You are right that some of the early Middle Eastern cultures was considered legendary and mythological until found, but that does really not mean anything. We have also been certain that there were canals on Mars and that the Earth was flat, but experience has proven that wrong. In modern day science we has to have certain and clear evidence, before saying that anything is certain. It might create some wrong results, but it is the main scientific philosophy today...

"Modern" humans have been around for at least 200,000 years, if not far longer, and "genus Homo" (differentiated from Australopithecus primarily because they are found in areas where tools happen to be found), was around at least 2.5 to 4 million years ago...

We are a far older people than most can ever even imagine...

The various homo genious' range very far back, but the earliest does not show many signs of having been more than advanced (if even that) animals. Tool use is widepread in nature and is not something specific to humans and intelligence. There are even some animals that create their own tools.

I have personally always found it odd that Homo Sapiens wandered for more than 150.000 years and did not advance much. Evidence, however, shows that that is most likely the case. It might have to do with not having a proper social structure to lean on, mainly being a subsistance culture or even, not having developed modern speach. There are many possible explanations and no evidence to disprove it...

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I have personally always found it odd that Homo Sapiens wandered for more than 150.000 years and did not advance much. Evidence, however, shows that that is most likely the case. It might have to do with not having a proper social structure to lean on, mainly being a subsistance culture or even, not having developed modern speach. There are many possible explanations and no evidence to disprove it...

Honestly, I think it's simply because we are spoiled now. Tech advancement at the rate we've enjoyed for the past two millenia is probably something of a strong abberration. Certainly not an arbitrary one, there are a lot of good reasons for why it's happening, but it took a lot of luck to get them to work together to produce this result. And I have to admit to a certain amount of doubt about how long we will be able to sustain it.

The 150 millenia make more sense in terms of a general pattern then the last two or even the last one.

 

[TheLostSoul]

Honestly, I think it's simply because we are spoiled now. Tech advancement at the rate we've enjoyed for the past two millenia is probably something of a strong abberration. Certainly not an arbitrary one, there are a lot of good reasons for why it's happening, but it took a lot of luck to get them to work together to produce this result. And I have to admit to a certain amount of doubt about how long we will be able to sustain it.

The 150 millenia make more sense in terms of a general pattern then the last two or even the last one.

I completely agree with you. It is still odd in the light of our developement in the last 20.000 years, though, but not in comparison to the earlier million years.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I completely agree with you. It is still odd in the light of our developement in the last 20.000 years, though, but not in comparison to the earlier million years.

Well, on the other hand, we probably underestimate how much work a lot of the initial stuff took. Where I live it's very easy to believe that figuring out which cacti you could eat, what you could make baskets out of, and when you could do these things are not so much obvious knowledge or lore as pretty impressive technical advancements.

Cooking is just chemistry with a practical purpose after all.

 

[TheLostSoul]

Well, on the other hand, we probably underestimate how much work a lot of the initial stuff took. Where I live it's very easy to believe that figuring out which cacti you could eat, what you could make baskets out of, and when you could do these things are not so much obvious knowledge or lore as pretty impressive technical advancements.

Cooking is just chemistry with a practical purpose after all.

You are completely right and experimental archaeology has also shown the complexity of flint knapping, especially later, although the flint work of the Neandertalensis is also quite impressive