Re: errors of Lieberman & Bramble Re: Stonethrowing theory

From: Mark Feldman (mfeldman1_at_charter.net)
Date: 11/27/04 

Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:22:13 -0600

First, Homo habilis probably evolved along with "robust australopithicines"
as offspring from australopethicus aferensis a little over two million years
ago in response to the coolong and drying of Africa. H. erectus surfaces a
scant 200,000 yrs later as H. habilis dissapears. It is easy to find
sources and read about this.

I am not suggesting that H. h. killed squirrels with stones. It would be
very reasonable, however, to suppose that they, through group culture,
created a substinence of catching up with and cornering wounded animals and
stoning them, like how prisoniers were killed in biblical times
(evolutionary psychologists could have a field day with that one). It is
too much of a coincidence, with hand axes behaving the way they do, to not
at least consider that they were thrown frequently. If a clade of H. h.
hunted with stones, they could have easily become the ancestors of H.
erectus. The meat would allow them larger bodies and the group hunting would
create egalitarian impulses. Suddenly, H. h disappears and H. e is present.
I am suggesting that it is not unreasonable to surmise that throwing stones
was part of their repertoire as they evolved.

Most of us involved with kids and athletics know that boys think that 'girls
can't throw'. There is a huge difference. Think that a professional
baseball player can hit a target a couple of inches wide or less 90 feet
away at 95 miles an hour (as in 'hitting the corner of the plate'). My son
could do that at 80 miles an hour and never made it past high school
baseball, so there is a huge population of men that can do similar.
Probably most can hit a target of a foot at 50 feet throwing 60 mph. As
coach of his team when he was five, I'd say 75% of the boys picked up
throwing immediately with excellent form. In my daughter's team a couple of
years older, it was a painful process that took all year, and still most
never really got it. As far as the hunting with a stone, I got that from a
friend of mine years ago. We worked together as farm laborers in the
summer. While I went to school in the fall, he camped out in Wyoming. He
assured me that if desperate, he would just kill small animals with stones
to live. Most stone age societies don't have to resort to this on a daily
basis, but there is no reason to believe that most men couldn't teach
themselves how to do that.

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.0411261251.462726d9@posting.google.com...
> "Mark Feldman" <mfeldman1@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:<c5ypd.126$YS3.90@fe04.lga>...
>> An interesting finding years ago was that reconstructed Acheulean hand
>> axes,
>> when thrown, land point down 90% of the time.
>
> Interesting. I didn't know this.
>
>> Considering the sexual
>> differences in how we throw objects, there can't be any doubt that adult
>> males are wired for throwing objects, and it is certainly much easier to
>> kill a bird or squirrel with a stone that chasing it.
>
> I agree it's a weapon. I disagree that it would have
> gotten much use as a hunting implement. IMO, what they
> achieved with these weapons was protection of communally
> claimed territory (against food competitor species,
> against other tribes/communities, and even against
> predators themselves) which was part of their strategy
> to survive the implications of the dry season in this
> monsoon climate. In all cases the hominid entities
> producing this behavior were collective entities,
> communities, tribes, etc.
>
>
>> While H. habilis was
>> primarily vegetarian, oldawan technology was unchanged from H. habilis to
>> early H. erectus, and hand axes don't appear for several hundred thousand
>> years after hunting started. So either H. erectus didn't use stone
>> throwing
>> for the first few hundred thousand years, or, more likely, they threw
>> small
>> stones much earlier, maybe all along.
>
> Yes. H. erectus threw smaller stones (so did Apith)
> but they had nothing (or very little) to do with hunting.
>
>> Meanwhile, however, when H. erectus
>> appears, there is a huge migration of grazing animals into Africa, just
>> when
>> hunting became a way of life.
>
> Possibly. (But this can't explain how the behavior
> of rock-throwing, stick-wielding originated.)
>
>> The scenario could involve group hunting,
>> using projectiles on young, wounded or aged ungulates.
>
> Yes. Especially during the try season when these
> migrating animals might be desperate to find sources
> of water, which might often be found only on territory
> that our ancestors occupied. But it's important to
> understand that the behavior originally emerged for
> reasons that have nothing to do with hunting and
> instead have to do with a communal strategy to maintain
> territorial resources so that the community as a whole
> can survive the depths of the dry season.
>
>> At the same time
>> they could have resorted to smaller animals if necessary to supplement
>> lean
>> times. If you postulate that erectus migrated over long distances very
>> early in pursuit of meat, then running and throwing could have evolved
>> simultaneously.
>
> I don't think this is likely. H. erectus did not
> venture far into treeless habitat.
>
>> Following grazing animals over long distances would have
>> required at least jogging, and many of the physical characteristics
>> Lieberman and Bramble list are more specific for ambulating - like the
>> springlike tendons, arched foot fascia, and broad joint surfaces.
>
> As I see it these would have evolved as they became
> more and more accustomed to remaining on the ground,
> even when attached by predators.
>
>> You could
>> argue that Neanderthals had a smaller territory to cover than moderns,
>> and
>> did not run. But they may have de-evolved from running by living in an
>> ice
>> ace environment. Even H. habilis travelled many miles for raw materials
>> for
>> their stones. BTW, other primates have stereoscopic vision. Other
>> anatomic
>> functions 'archimedes' lists could relate to carrying materials over long
>> distances.
>
> Archi's hypothesis lacks details of why it first
> appeared at the time and place it did appear and why
> this behavior--stone throwing--did not first appear
> later or earlier than he designates. Most importantly
> (and most plainly missing from his thinking) is the
> fact that any hypothesis he offers has to dovetail into
> providing us a better understanding of the selective
> origins of other hominid/human traits and behaviors,
> not just stonethrowing (which, at best, involves a
> relatively small subset of the traits and behaviors
> that are peculiar to hominids/humans).
>
> In my hypothesis the stonethrowing behavior originally
> has nothing at all to do with hunting or defending
> against predators, as it does in Archi's hypothesis.
> (The supposition that our chimpanzee-like LCA ancestor
> would suddenly start hunting with weapons is ridiculous.)
> In my hypothesis the earliest Apiths, residing in
> isolated patches of forest in a habitat dictated by an
> annual dry season, began employing weapons so that they
> could achieve communnal maintainance of finite resources
> at their community so that they could survive the dry
> season (and it's implications).
>
> Jim

Relevant Pages

  • Re: errors of Lieberman & Bramble Re: Stonethrowing theory
    ... Homo habilis probably evolved along with "robust australopithicines" ... H. erectus surfaces a ... killed squirrels with stones. ... The meat would allow them larger bodies and the group hunting would ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: errors of Lieberman & Bramble Re: Stonethrowing theory
    ... gotten much use as a hunting implement. ... So either H. erectus didn't use stone throwing ... H. erectus threw smaller stones ... territorial resources so that the community as a whole ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: errors of Lieberman & Bramble Re: Stonethrowing theory
    ... gotten much use as a hunting implement. ... So either H. erectus didn't use stone throwing ... H. erectus threw smaller stones ... territorial resources so that the community as a whole ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: errors of Lieberman & Bramble Re: Stonethrowing theory
    ... > very reasonable, however, to suppose that they, through group culture, ... > hunted with stones, they could have easily become the ancestors of H. ... The meat would allow them larger bodies and the group hunting would ... >> territorial resources so that the community as a whole ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: errors of Lieberman & Bramble Re: Stonethrowing theory
    ... > very reasonable, however, to suppose that they, through group culture, ... > hunted with stones, they could have easily become the ancestors of H. ... The meat would allow them larger bodies and the group hunting would ... >> territorial resources so that the community as a whole ...
    (sci.anthropology)