How would cultures adapt to having to deal with large predatory dinosaurs being a part of their ecosystem? Specifically, cultures that are less technologically i.e. without metal.
closed as too broad by sphennings, Mindwin, Josh King, Frostfyre, Azuaron Jul 13 '17 at 13:31
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Take a look at the wikipedia on Lion Hunting, with reference to the tribes people who undertake solo lion hunts with a single spear. A google search on 'lion vs velociraptor'(!) suggests that Lions are more powerful than these intelligent pack hunters.
Also, it seems that Mammoth hunting was commonplace in the stone age. Mammoths are roughly t-rex size.
Conclusion? Stone age man could take down any predator that the dinosaur age had to offer. The really big herbivores may have been harder, simply because of the difficulty of killing something that big (although we hunted whales to near-extinction with pretty basic technology). But their young and eggs would have been easy pickings. Remember that stone age man is not some grunting savage; these are intelligent, planning people who train in the use of their tools and weapons from a very young age.
No doubt some people would have been killed by dinosaurs, but it would have mostly been the other way around. And that's with stone age technology. Once you bring hunting bows and iron tools into the picture it becomes even more one sided.
Human hunted nearly the vast number of megafauna to extinction, why would dinosaurs be any different, dinosaurs will fear fire just as much as anything else does and fire was our primary weapon. The few predators we did not kill of we drastically reduced the range of, smart trumps nearly any other adaption. Of course thats assume human were actually able to evolve on a savannah with dinosaurs on it. Big predators tend to only survive by avoiding humans either intentionally or accidentally.
Well, considering that Homo evolved in an environment full of predators like lions, wolves and sabertooth tigers, I would say that dinosaurs and men is not a big no no.
First, let's consider that for big bad fellas like T rex and the like, a single human would be just like an olive in a Martini: not enough to grant a sufficient energy intake, as we are not fat enough. They could try to attack a group of humans, but a group is always stronger than a single individual (usually the hunting strategy is to isolate a member of a pack). Definitely not worth the effort, unless the only alternative is starvation or an opportunity meal (like a wounded/elder individual).
Having seen that humans are not worth a systematic effort for the big hunters, let's give a look at the smaller ones. They would be more of a concern, as a single human would be a valuable meal and also could not massively rely on hiding in places where size matter for access. In such a case the ability to control fire and to act as a group would prove useful, again. Not a clear superiority, but enough to make humans and small hunting dinosaurs avoid each other as much as possible.
To summarize, developing in a world with dinosaurs would strengthen the group culture and the social binding.
Some of these dinosaurs are social, so I would definitely try to tame them. Instead of hunting dogs, one might get hunting velociraptors. The herbivorous ones could become awesome beasts of burden. I would make a big lance out of a hard tree, tie it to my brontosaurus and charge against my enemies or prey.
Or I could use my tame dinosaur to make sling three traps or dig holes for the T-Rexes.
As others pointed out, small dinosaurs can be dealt with spears, the way Maasai hunters deal with lions. The main problem in this world is that humans would have too much meat to eat, so we'd all end up tall like the basketball players.
These answers are seriously delusional in my opinion. There's a very good reason the only mammals around at the time of the dinosaurs were small shrewlike things that were only able to survive by hiding in holes.
Yes obviously modern humans would easily wipe out dinosaurs with the type of firepower we have today, but if you're talking about humans being able to co-exist with dinosaurs in the stone-age equivalent, there is absolutely no chance. We would have just been a tasty hors d'oeuvres to a hungry T-Rex. Doesn't matter if you have spears or arrows against a beast as big and savage as that, he's gonna get you. Thinking we could cope because we managed against lions with spears and fire is just crazy. Lion= 190kg, TRex = 8 tons. So that's something 42 times bigger, still think humans have a chance?
Assuming your world has a climate similar to earth's, I would think the humans would congregate in areas avoided by dinosaurs, such as the colder regions in the poles. Additionally, they would avoid permanent, large communities because they would be unable to defend them. Even well-fortified castles, I would think, wouldn't work because large predators would just wait outside for a snack. I doubt your humans would actually hunt dinosaurs because killing one would then force them to defend the carcass against more dinosaurs. I would think they would be scavengers who also hunted smaller animals. To survive, your humans would have to copulate like mad, in the way rabbits do, to overcome the tremendous losses they would suffer. Finally, I would think their culture would stress the value of protecting the group and focus less on individual worth. One last thought, it might be that they would be so busy fighting for survival that they would not have the time or the energy to develop a complicated culture.