A separate sapient race in human (pre)history

[TithonusSyndrome]

Imagine that when the paleoindians first forged across the Bering Strait to North America and when the first migrants who would become the indigenous Australians made their way to Australia, both found themselves intruding on the domain of an established race of sapient humanoids. Their biological specifics aren't especially important to me; they can be another species of primate long split away from us if you like, or even humanoid reptiles if you don't consider the inherent problems with a reptile getting that kind of brainpower to be insurmountable. The important thing is that they can't interbreed with us and that they are overall physically and mentally our equals, but first contact events carry on as normal. This second species makes no attempt to foray beyond their own continents, the Americas and Australia, to seek us out, and so human history in Europe, Asia and Africa carries on as normal until contact takes place.

How is the course of human history changed? Are they accepting of the prehistoric migrants given their fundamental differences, or does their exodus alarm the second species and spur them to militarize, drive out the wanderers and prepare for repeat incursions? European imperialism, the USA, Canada, Australia, etc as we now know them, the world wars and the Cold War - does anything remotely similar still transpire just the same as before?

[Drooling Iguana]

Isn't this basically what happened with the Neanderthals?

[TithonusSyndrome]

They lived among us for a while and weren't as brainy as we. Not the same as inhabiting entire continents and making us fight for a foothold.

Also, I should've said something about this, but I'm assuming that the second species has at least as sophisticated a civilization in place in the Americas and Australia by the time of these migrations as exists throughout Europe, Asia and Africa - naturally, this means some places will be better off than others.

[LadyTevar]

Isn't this basically what happened with the Neanderthals?

Some theorize that we could interbreed with the Neanderthals.

There is also the idea that the Neanderthals were stuck as a culture -- paleoanthologists started finding evidence of stone and bone jewelry and other personal adornments in Neanderthal sites in the upper levels, dated after first contact with our ancestors. Older layers do not have such artifacts, implying that the Neanderthal stole the idea (and perhaps some of the jewelry) from our ancestors.

The hominoids in the OP would have to be more culturally advanced than the Neanderthals, who seemed to be so focused on simple survival that they did not have time to develop arts.

[Mayabird]

They lived among us for a while and weren't as brainy as we. Not the same as inhabiting entire continents and making us fight for a foothold.

I WILL NOT HAVE THE NEANDERTALS UNFAIRLY MALIGNED. MAKES ME MAD AND NEED TO SHOUT!

Neandertals inhabited Europe for nearly 200,000 years during the harshest parts of the Ice Age. They survived the worst conditions this planet could throw at them for longer than our species has existed (The exact time when modern H. sapiens evolved is heavily debated now, but it was probably sometime between 100-200,000 years ago.) They had brains that were, on average, bigger than the average modern human brain (granted, they were also physically bigger, but saying they weren't as brainy as us isn't true at all).

The when is debated, but the where is quite supported by multiple lines of evidence: modern H. sapiens evolved in Africa. From there, a small subset of the population migrated out, and increasingly small fractions of colonizing populations went on to colonize other places. They came out of Africa and some went to Europe, where the Neandertals, who'd been doing their thing quite successfully and efficiently for two hundred thousand years start to vanish and go extinct. Before they did, their tools did change quite a bit, reflecting things they seem to have been learning from the new species that was arriving.

Analysis of Neandertal and contemporary human remains show that while the Neandertals were specialist big game hunters, eating mostly meat and apparently being the absolute top predator in the Ice Age environment, the humans were eating damn near everything and anything. Plants, fish, small game, you name it. Generalists vs. specialists. The Neandertals were already at a disadvantage, and a goodly amount of evidence suggests that their population levels were never very large to begin with (can't support many top predators). Sure, there wouldn't have been many humans at first, but they'd eat damn near anything and be able to generate and support a much larger population. It may well have been a long, slow undeclared war of attrition, one valley and tribe at a time.

They didn't "live among us." We're fucking usurpers (let's all be honest here - our species is very good at being bastards) who probably killed them off one way or another (maybe directly, maybe indirectly by eating everything to death, including the big game they relied on - I mean, why doesn't anyone get suspicious when the megafauna all "mysteriously disappear" the moment our species shows up?), and in a fraction of the time they had existed surviving everything an ice age could throw at them.


Drooling Iguana is EXACTLY right, and I was even going to say it but he beat me to the punch. It's exactly what happened to the Neandertals. They weren't dumb. They had effective tools, they had fire, they buried their dead ceremonially, etc. etc. And they died.

[Mayabird]

Isn't this basically what happened with the Neanderthals?

Some theorize that we could interbreed with the Neanderthals.

It's possible, but all current genetic evidence seems to indicate that even if there was interbreeding, none of it ended up reaching the modern day. The lines that produced the Neandertals and us split about 600,000 years ago. The poor folks are extinct. Not absorbed. Extinct.

The hominoids in the OP would have to be more culturally advanced than the Neanderthals, who seemed to be so focused on simple survival that they did not have time to develop arts.

A little unfair to them as I've said, but basically right. This species would have to be more technologically/culturally advanced than the people arriving, and also would have to be much more numerous. Note: once we start talking Australia and the Americas, we're talking people who can competently built sea-worthy boats.

[Academia Nut]

Well, as to the OP, the native sapient groups are probably screwed in the long run because it was specified that they wouldn't launch a counter-invasion. Why does this screw them over? Because simply put that suggests that they would lack the drive to keep expanding that forced on human conquests of the non-icebound continents. And even if they could force the incoming humans back long enough for the Ice Age to end and the easy routes to the Americas and Australia to disappear, that would just delay the conquest by a few thousand years until Europeans show up.

That said, the arrival of Europeans would probably go not quite as lopsidedly in this scenario for a couple of reasons. The first being that if these people aren't humans, they won't be affected by the European diseases that wiped out something like 95% of the Native American population. The other factor would be that if the non human sapients evolved natively on their continents then it would be very likely that the megafauna would have evolved appropriate responses to sapient hunters. The best theory I have seen for why Africa is the only continent with surviving megafauna is because the animals there had a long time to learn that the funny looking apes were dangerous. It takes an enormous amount of skill and technology to successfully hunt down an elephant that knows you're planning to stab it with pointy sticks, but the mammoths in North America and the giant kangaroos in Australia had no fucking clue that the creatures a tenth their size intended to make them a meal until it was too late.

So here's how it would probably play out. Initial human advances get stalled as the locals are entrenched and know how to hunt the local wildlife better, which is aware of the fact that these smaller creatures know how to kill them. If the local intelligent guys are specialists, they'll probably get screwed over like the Neanderthals as the humans don't need to compete directly, at which point the rest of history goes like normal until archaeologists find these weird bones. If the locals are generalists like the humans then they probably win out in the end... until Europeans start exploring with access to guns, horses, and steel, and discover people who aren't remotely human. Cue genocidal crusades across the seas with the locals countering with tamed mammoths and other giant creatures, but the same problems that prevented humans from developing the same kind of advanced civilizations as those in Eurasia would probably be in effect so they would probably be ground into oblivion in the long run, it would just take a great deal longer as there would be a disease barrier keeping most of the populations intact except for direct military action and displacement.

[ArmorPierce]

They lived among us for a while and weren't as brainy as we.

That's debatable

Not the same as inhabiting entire continents and making us fight for a foothold.

Kind of the same actually. They were in Europe and Asia when we were leaving Africa. Also it seems that they may have indeed out competed our ancestors when we were each using the same technology. A cave in the middle east is evident of that. In this cave there are homo sapien sapien remains later replaced with neanderthal remains. Neanderthals seems to not start being replaced until our ancestors tried once again this time with better technology.

[Junghalli]

I can see one of two things happening.

1) Humans outcompete natives on the new continents, like they did with Neanderthals in the Old World. Human history continues more-or-less as before.

2) Natives outcompete humans and remain safe until the 1500s, when we have the European conquest of the Americas but replace Native Americans with these nonhumans. On the plus side they might not be decimated quite as badly as the Native Americans were because there might be less in the way of communicable diseases. Depending on various factors the Spanish conquests might actually fail and the New World civilizations might be able to hold out for another few centuries, but unless they develop advanced technology themselves they'd probably be boned by the age of steam.

[Johonebesus]

They lived among us for a while and weren't as brainy as we. Not the same as inhabiting entire continents and making us fight for a foothold.

I WILL NOT HAVE THE NEANDERTALS UNFAIRLY MALIGNED. MAKES ME MAD AND NEED TO SHOUT!

Neandertals inhabited Europe for nearly 200,000 years during the harshest parts of the Ice Age. They survived the worst conditions this planet could throw at them for longer than our species has existed (The exact time when modern H. sapiens evolved is heavily debated now, but it was probably sometime between 100-200,000 years ago.) They had brains that were, on average, bigger than the average modern human brain (granted, they were also physically bigger, but saying they weren't as brainy as us isn't true at all).

According to what I was taught, Neanderthal brains were shaped differently then ours. Their frontal and prefrontal cortices were proportionally smaller, and so they might have had difficulty with abstract thought and creativity. Their toolset didn't evolve much over time, and they evidently didn't come up with art on their own. Their technology was quite well suited to their environment, but they didn't innovate the way sapiens does. As pointed out, early on they may have been able to out compete us, but our technology advanced while theirs didn't.


As to the OP, if the second species has a relatively dense population and can stall or deflect the migrations of sapiens, that will effect the population patterns in the Old World, which means that the history of Asia and Europe probably won't be the same.

Regarding disease, if the other species is hominid, can we be certain they'd be immune to the various diseases that evolved with husbandry, unless they start herding on a large scale too? A couple of bugs have managed to spread from chimps to humans without sex, and poxes are pretty virulent.


I think it would be more interesting to posit a very old species with moderately advanced technology (at least metallurgy at the time of first contact) but without the impetus to explore and challenge sapiens directly. As mentioned by others, if their only metallurgical technology is a bit of soft bronze for art, and if European history is basically the same, then they will die.

I had a dream once that the Skeksis were real. They evolved from theropods and lived in the American Southwest, with an ancient and fairly advanced civilization. Their technology and cultural sophistication were much as depicted in the film, including the soldier robots (though they weren't magical and they weren't cartoonishly evil, and they only had four limbs).

[JointStrikeFighter]

Good luck with any civilisation eevolving in the Australia. What are they going to do? Electrolise tri-bauxite spears? The climate in AU was and is fundamentally unsuited to civilization forming.

AND NO JOKES ABOUT AUSTRALIA

[Block]

Good luck with any civilisation eevolving in the Australia. What are they going to do? Electrolise tri-bauxite spears? The climate in AU was and is fundamentally unsuited to civilization forming.

AND NO JOKES ABOUT AUSTRALIA

You mean something along the lines of oh say... There's civilization in Australia now?

[Lord of the Abyss]

It's been pointed out that one reason progress lagged in the Americas was due to the lack of draft animals; if horses and mammoths and whatnot survive in the Americas in this timeline that could easily lead to them being more advanced and powerful.

And while they would almost certainly be screwed if they didn't discover steam power and guns and such on their own, they wouldn't be screwed to the same degree as the real world native peoples. Places like India and China were dominated and exploited for a long time by the European imperialists, but they weren't devastated to the degree the Native Americans were; probably because they weren't nearly exterminated by disease. And they've recovered control of their territory, which the Native Americans certainly haven't. I think the odds are good that in this new timeline they'd be back in control eventually of the Americas, largely or completely, just like India and China and so on.

However, if the paleoindians mentioned in the OP do manage to survive, I expect that their descendents die of plagues just as the real world ones did.

[Vehrec]

Good luck with any civilisation eevolving in the Australia. What are they going to do? Electrolise tri-bauxite spears? The climate in AU was and is fundamentally unsuited to civilization forming.

AND NO JOKES ABOUT AUSTRALIA

You mean something along the lines of oh say... There's civilization in Australia now?

But it's all imported. Rice, wheat, sheep, camels, rabbits, dingos, all these species are imports to Australia. Furthermore, agriculture and Civilization are costly, and might not be attainable, especially in a marginal continent like Australia. Nutrient depleted and vulnerable to ENSO, Australia's soil and climate were never conductive to establishing native agriculture, even if any of the native species had been conductive to that.

[Mayabird]

According to what I was taught, Neanderthal brains were shaped differently then ours. Their frontal and prefrontal cortices were proportionally smaller, and so they might have had difficulty with abstract thought and creativity. Their toolset didn't evolve much over time, and they evidently didn't come up with art on their own. Their technology was quite well suited to their environment, but they didn't innovate the way sapiens does. As pointed out, early on they may have been able to out compete us, but our technology advanced while theirs didn't.

While we take advancement for granted now, it's actually a new-ish thing even in our species. H. sapiens didn't really start the rapid advances in tool using and artistry until somewhere between 50-70,000 years ago even though our species had evolved around 100,000 years before that. Had the brains, didn't know how to use it perhaps.

That said, yeah, their heads and skulls were shaped differently and those areas were proportionally smaller, but once they started making contact with H. sapiens their tools did start changing. Maybe they couldn't make the actual leap themselves, or didn't have the stroke of luck that one random person somewhere in Africa had (I mean, how do you learn how to think and imagine on your own when you're surrounded by people who don't know it themselves? I imagine it must've been rather scary, actually) but they did seem somewhat capable of change right at the end. It's really hard to say.

I stand by my statement that Neandertals weren't stupid, though.

[LadyTevar]

You're right, Neanderthal were NOT stupid. They simply did not have the outside influences on them that forced them to change what worked. Ex-telligence, I think it's called ... where some outside pressure forces an evolution. The Neanderthal did not have that pressure to change for centuries, so they survived just fine. Then the Sapiens came and started competing with the Neanderthal, acting as Extelligence or an Outside Context Problem.

The Neanderthal, while competent apex predators, simply did not have the numbers or the time to adapt themselves to beat out the Sapiens. Stupidity did not kill them. If they were stupid we'd not have seen their attempts at better weapons. They fought hard... but in the end they couldn't adapt fast enough to win.

[Ender]

That they are not expansionist beyond their original territories implies a very low breeding rate. So we win.

[Johonebesus]

It's been pointed out that one reason progress lagged in the Americas was due to the lack of draft animals; if horses and mammoths and whatnot survive in the Americas in this timeline that could easily lead to them being more advanced and powerful.

And while they would almost certainly be screwed if they didn't discover steam power and guns and such on their own, they wouldn't be screwed to the same degree as the real world native peoples. Places like India and China were dominated and exploited for a long time by the European imperialists, but they weren't devastated to the degree the Native Americans were; probably because they weren't nearly exterminated by disease. And they've recovered control of their territory, which the Native Americans certainly haven't. I think the odds are good that in this new timeline they'd be back in control eventually of the Americas, largely or completely, just like India and China and so on.

However, if the paleoindians mentioned in the OP do manage to survive, I expect that their descendents die of plagues just as the real world ones did.

I don't think it was lack of draft animals but lack of metallurgy that caused the problems. By and large the American Indians didn't use metal for tools or weapons. In Meso- and South America they used copper and gold for art, but their weapons were still made of stone. Europe and Asia were blessed with large deposits of iron right at the surface. The Americas don't have much exposed iron, so people there never figured out how to use it on their own.

The Mayans and Incas were quite advanced. They had intensive agriculture (maybe too intensive), writing, wonderful masonry, commerce and trade routes spanning the continents, all they lacked was metal tools and weapons. The most advanced pre-Columbian civilizations would have a hard time dealing with Medieval or Roman armies, not because they were less sophisticated then Roman or Medieval civilizations, but because their "swords" were clubs studded with sharpened pieces of obsidian. If our non-humans are to stand a chance at all, they must figure out how to use iron.

As for surviving like the Asians, I'm not so sure. Would the Christian explorers have any qualms about exterminating creatures that are clearly not human?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It should be noted that there was some measure of contact between China and India, and the West for centuries before the Europeans decided to make the former real estate. For example, Gunpowder cam from China and headed West.

The point about metallurgy is important. The iron age was a very fundamental revolution in technology. If you miss the boat for too long, others are going jump very very far ahead. Iron is still among the most important of elements in the modern era.

[Lord of the Abyss]

As for surviving like the Asians, I'm not so sure. Would the Christian explorers have any qualms about exterminating creatures that are clearly not human?

Qualms, no; they'd have cheerfully wiped the planet clean of everyone but themselves. But judging from history, unless the population is small they weren't likely to bother, and would subjugate them instead. They would have forcibly converted them to Christianity.

[Block]

Good luck with any civilisation eevolving in the Australia. What are they going to do? Electrolise tri-bauxite spears? The climate in AU was and is fundamentally unsuited to civilization forming.

AND NO JOKES ABOUT AUSTRALIA

You mean something along the lines of oh say... There's civilization in Australia now?

But it's all imported. Rice, wheat, sheep, camels, rabbits, dingos, all these species are imports to Australia. Furthermore, agriculture and Civilization are costly, and might not be attainable, especially in a marginal continent like Australia. Nutrient depleted and vulnerable to ENSO, Australia's soil and climate were never conductive to establishing native agriculture, even if any of the native species had been conductive to that.

The joke clearly went over your head.

[Themightytom]

I believe Antonion Bendarez would join a group of twelve viking warriors and wipe the civilization out before they ever got a foot hold.

[Stuart Mackey]

As for surviving like the Asians, I'm not so sure. Would the Christian explorers have any qualms about exterminating creatures that are clearly not human?

Qualms, no; they'd have cheerfully wiped the planet clean of everyone but themselves. But judging from history, unless the population is small they weren't likely to bother, and would subjugate them instead. They would have forcibly converted them to Christianity.

They would also be equally happy wipe them out if it suited their purposes, as happened in Australia to the Aborigines there. Their only hope would be able to fight them to a stand still in some way, as in NZ, and gain a peace of some sort.

[Sarevok]

The restriction by the thread poster preventing the other species from venturing out seems artificial and contrived. It's possible they could have developed technology long before humans did. Then humans in Eurasia could have been the ones getting steam rolled by gun toting damn dirty apes.

[Lord of the Abyss]

As for surviving like the Asians, I'm not so sure. Would the Christian explorers have any qualms about exterminating creatures that are clearly not human?

Qualms, no; they'd have cheerfully wiped the planet clean of everyone but themselves. But judging from history, unless the population is small they weren't likely to bother, and would subjugate them instead. They would have forcibly converted them to Christianity.

They would also be equally happy wipe them out if it suited their purposes, as happened in Australia to the Aborigines there. Their only hope would be able to fight them to a stand still in some way, as in NZ, and gain a peace of some sort.

It was far easier in real-world Australia than it would be in a North/South America that wasn't decimated by European plagues. The native Australians were decimated by plague as the American natives were. Places like Africa, Asia, India that WEREN'T decimated generally didn't suffer the genocide-and-replace treatment.