Anthropology started at a time when people thought civilizations evolved in a straight line from savages to England. But it's hard to pretend that the natives sat around a rock grunting at each other when their e.g. bone-setting techniques were essentially modern, so there's a tradition of "not as benighted as you might have thought" articles.

WHY that point of view still exists is a question every anthro novice asks, and it turns out that cultural evolution is too attractive an idea for some people to let go of.

Why is it written BP? These archaeology people / Phys.org really need to cease with that confusing nonsense. BP is supposedly "Before Present" or "Before Physics" modern referring to practical radiocarbon dating with a cutoff date of January 1, 1950. [1] Way too easy to transpose BCE / BC / BP.

[1] WP, Before Present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present

It's written like these people were supposedly cave people, yet based on this story's confusing usage, these people were caring for each other after the Spanish and Portuguese colonization of South America up to the 1700's. 4000 BP is the "really Late Holocene" 2050 BCE, 250 BP is 1700 AD. Also, the "late Holocene" goes all the way to Y2K (2000 AD). [2] The Meghalayan is the "the current age or latest geologic age." [3]

[2] WP, Holocene Era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

[3] WP, Meghalayan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghalayan

Really does make me wonder if these people know what they're doing / writing.

  I don't believe that humans evolve that fast

It's really wild to me how many humans believe their feelings are so different from animals. Most animals have similar incentives and desires, humans just have "better" tools to achieve them.

The people they talk about are contemporary to the Babylonions who have already absorbed the urban Uruk civilization that started to peak a millenium prior. The difference isn't biology but resource density and climate favorability leading to higher social organization.

The costs and benefits faced by ancient humans were very, very different. Maybe a different way to frame the question would be "At what probability of additional death, injury, or suffering (to you or other tribe members) would you abandon your injured/disabled?" Humans of that era did not have anything even remotely approaching modern medicine and most lived at subsistence levels with starvation always at their doorstep. A huge portion of ancient peoples energy and time was dedicating to obtaining calories. That means caring for the injured/disabled imposes a huge cost and risk. We can just as easily find examples of ancient peoples murdering or abandoning their injured, disabled, and weak. I don't think it would be right or fair to judge them through a modern lens. Of course they cared for their loved ones and mourned their deaths. But they were faced with much harsher circumstances to which their cultures and beliefs were suited.

Compassion exists and isn't just driven by self-interest or self-preservation.

Humans are profoundly irrational. These people were alive as well. Just like most people today they did not see the world as an optimization problem.

They took care of the injured because it was the right thing to do, just like we do today. Not because there was some utilitarian value, where you calculate effort spent vs. expected return.

Not taking care of a wise injured person who might recover & help guide others, teach children, care for children, help heal, reveal spiritual teachings, and otherwise be human would be profoundly stupid. Judging who to care for based solely on productivity or ability to direct others would also be profoundly stupid....this strategy sounds like middle-management.

[dead]

> Most animals take care of their wounded peers

Not really, no. Herd animals will regularly intentionally abandon wounded or elderly peers during an attack.

Sometimes they will even intentionally knock down slow members to make an easy meal for predators, ensuring their own survival:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ_7GtE529M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqyMw7udKtI

Social care is largely a mammalian trait, but only ever extends to in-group members. And if the pack or herd member is sensed to be the weakest link, it is quite frequent that the pack or herd will abandon them or intentionally sacrifice them.

Humans are unique in that they go through extraordinary lengths to rehabilitate members, sometimes investing years or decades or even caring for humans that could literally not survive on their own or without advanced technology.

>Cruelty and contempt for the weak is a specifically human trait, and not only that, but a very recent one too.

just as there are countless examples of animals helping other animals, there are countless examples of animals abandoning weak young and leaving behind the elderly and infirm. if anything humans are far far more likely to be compassionate towards the physically weak, as physical strength is far far less valuable in human society than in nearly any animal society

> Cruelty and contempt for the weak is a specifically human trait

Is this true? I think there are many counter examples. eg birds tossing out offspring from their nest.

If you think human cruelty has emerged only very recently, you desperately need to study up on human history.

I remember reading about tribes in Indonesia who when someone got too old/slow, they'd kill them. They were living on the edge of existence, and either everyone was on form, or the group didn't survive. In that context, it was presented as a caring act for the group. A bit different context to the original thread, but an example of why a group may do what outwardly seems a little surprising.

There is the idea sometimes stated that because child mortality was so high in the past parents had kids but avoided loving them - because odds were against the child living past 5 and if you love your kids you then have heartbreak when they die.

Historians disagree with that idea (at least for most cultures?). However I've heard it more than once. This just gives more data to the idea that humans loved each other enough to take care of injured.

> Most animals take care of their wounded peers

The "most" part is not true. Some animals take care of wounded peers. Specifically social animals do. Ants, elephants, monkeys, whales are good examples of social animals and they do take care of their wounded peers.

Many animals are solitary. There is nobody to take care of a wounded polar bear, guppy, owl or c. elegans in the wild.

We can't even say that most animals are social. Perhaps by biomass, but definitely not by diversity.

> often enough to be on countless documentaries

That says more about what we humans find interesting and worthy of documenting.

> not driven by interest or strategy. Compassion is innate.

Something can be both innate and strategical. Having the innate drive to help wounded conspecifics can increase the surival of the whole species.

> Cruelty and contempt for the weak is a specifically human trait

Absolutely not. What does that even mean? When a lion takes over a pride they are documented to kill the cubs sired by the prior male. Is that "cruelty and contempt for the weak"? We would sure label as such if they were human males killing a dad and moving in with mom killing her babes. Should I find more examples of "cruelty and contempt for the weak" in the animal kingdom? There are tons. Cruelty and contempt for the weak is not a uniquely human trait.

> But why wouldn't they??

This is fundamentally the wrong question to ask.

> "Most animals take care of their wounded peers"

Citation needed. Here is a paper suggesting that the assistance of injured peers is rarely observed across taxa [1]. From an evolutionary standpoint, this doesn't pass the smell test due to costs to the helper, cheating/freerider problems, low probability of re-encountering the helper/helped (i.e. many species don't repeatedly meet the same animal of their species), and of course, the risk of the injured animal attracing predators.

> "Cruelty and contempt for the weak is a specifically human trait, and not only that, but a very recent one too."

History would suggest otherwise. All of documented human history is lousy with horrific cruelties like genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, war, etc.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5731505

Agreed. There is a background cultural assumption in the Western world that the "state of nature" [1] is one of constant suffering. What I know of anthropology suggests this is bullshit, and the truth is that there have been a huge variety of social structures in our prehistory. "The Dawn of Everything" goes into this.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature

The trait of caring and providing for other injured or vulnerable members of the group is widespread in the animal kingdom, there is even a name for it, allocare. Since social groups usually form based on family kinship, it can be explained on selfish gene dynamics.

So the argument was always gradual, not that social care is unique to civilization, but that it happens to an extent (such as the very long recovery period and food resources required to heal a femur) that we can arbitrarily call "civilization".

On the other hand, you could stretch that Scotsman in the opposite direction: do we really provide enough care to other people to the point we are different from animals and can claim ourselves truly civilized?

Yeah, well, in that case ants are civilized (they probably are).

Different environment, isn't it?

I'd imagine that it those Patagonians had to strictly choose to either feed their healthy people or their injured, the choice would have been easy, as not feeding the healthy would make them become non-useful themselves.

Pretty sure what went down in Late Holocene Patagonia isn’t common sense.

Some people like to think that we were brutal or cruel in the ancient past and would have left people to die. (Generally I think the implication is that we should do this again?)

Many things were common sense,... until they weren't.

On the other hand, it's common sense now, who knew how it was back then? ...except for the researchers researching this... and now us, reading the article.

It's one thing to declare it to be "common sense," and quite another to actually know it to be true from physical evidence.

Is it ? These hunter gatherers would probably be shocked at how we treat old people in hospitals and retirement houses, despite all our modern "common sense"

Yep and yet the scientific community doesn't just follow "common sense", it tends to base off its findings on evidence.

Now this topic is not just "obvious" it's also factual.