The possibilities for jokes are legion: three
economists 'investigated' the possibility (after walking into a
bar?) that 'by exploit[ing] the competitive edge gained from
specialization and free trade ... humans increased their activities
in culture and technology, while simultaneously out-competing
Neanderthals on their joint hunting grounds', causing the
extinction of Neanderthals:
Did Use of Free
Trade Cause Neanderthal Extinction?.
Archaeological evidence exists to suggest traveling
bands of early humans interacted with each other and that
inter-group trading emerged, says Shogren. Early humans, the
Aurignations and the Gravettians, imported many raw materials over
long ranges and their innovations were widely dispersed. Such
exchanges of goods and ideas helped early humans to develop
\u201csupergroup social mechanisms.\u201d The long-range
interchange among different groups kept both cultures going and
generated new cultural explosions, [University of Wyoming economist
Jason] Shogren says.
Anthropologists have noted how judicious redistribution of excess
resources provides a distinct advantage to "efficient hunters" as
measured by factors such as increased survivorship, social
prestige, or reproductive opportunities, the researchers say.
"One of the striking features of the archaeological record is that
Neanderthal technology was nearly stationary for many thousands of
years whereas technology of early humans experienced many
innovations," Shogren says.
He says the evidence does not support the concept of division of
labor and trade among Neanderthals. While Neanderthals probably
cooperated with one another to some extent, the evidence does not
support the view that specialization arose from any formal division
of labor or that inter- or intra-group trade existed, he says.
These practices seem to require all the things that Neanderthals
lacked: a more complicated social organization, a degree of
innovative behavior, forward planning and the exchange of
information, ideas and raw materials.
"Basic economic forces of scarcity and relative costs and benefits
have played integral roles in shaping societies throughout recorded
human history," Shogren says. "No reason exists today to discount
either the presence or potential impact of economics in the
pre-historic dawning of humanity."
This post's title is a play on the title of chapter five of
Emma
Rothschild's Economic
Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet, and the Enlightenment,
reviewed in numerous places, including the
February 2003 issue
of the Foundation for Economic Education's The Freeman
(link is to a pdf).