I know it's macabre, but I think about human migratory routines and when different groups clashed back when life was so primitive and brutish, they're must've been those tendencies to rape and sexually conquer the opposition.
Surely that is reflected in the genetic ledger of time. What a crazy insight. Genetics is such an interesting field. It's bonkers there's just strings of data that we can read the past through.
It’s full of “and then tribe X invaded and the land of Y, took their women and enslaved their men”. Back and forth for centuries. This behavior was cyclical, inevitable, and universal, until violence was monopolized and institutionalized.
We’ve come a long way, I guess. Still have work to do.
From what I understand, the most common view is that in hunter-gatherer times there was much less inter-group violence than there was after the advent of agriculture, simply because there was much less of a notion of territory and any need to defend it before agriculture was a thing.
Do you mean the Bible?
"Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,...? Deut. 20:16..
I was thinking actually quite a bit earlier than a lot of the Hebrew historical times, like species that were more apelike.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/colored-pigmen...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_findings_for_hominid_...
There was inevitably conflict, but I'm skeptical of the "tendencies to rape and sexually conquer the opposition" framing. AFAIK there isn't much evidence for large amounts of inter-group violence. A paper like https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.23751 lays out a contra case that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence--but I think it is a reason to be cautious about what we project back on those populations.
I think at some point in the far past though there might have been a wider gap, genetically, between the two forces meeting. I haven't had time to read the whole article in detail, just skimmed it.
Anyhow, thanks. You're right, there's definitely been plenty of mandatory diversification before.
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/23975/what-was-t...
Why couldn't they have been meaningful relationships?
2. John does not rape.
3. Therefore, John is not a mammal.
2. John does not rape
3. ∴ John is not the raping member of a Species of Mammals
Pardon any misuse of symbols, it's been a while.
Even seeming straight forward metrics like "can they produce viable offspring" isn't so black and white, since between 'yes' and 'no' exists a continuum of 'maybe's. In very rare cases even horses and donkeys can have fertile offspring, e.g. mules that aren't mules (the typical infertility of mules has lead to the occasional use of the term to describe any infertile hybrid.)