Narrowing Down When Humans Began Hurling Spears 208
sciencehabit writes "Archaeologists have long debated when early humans began hurling stone-tipped spears and darts at large prey. By throwing a spear, instead of thrusting it, humans could hunt buffalo and other dangerous game from a safe distance, with less risk of a goring or mauling. But direct evidence of this hunting technique in early sites has been lacking. A new study of impact marks on the bones of ancient prey shows that such sophisticated killing techniques go back at least 90,000 years ago in Africa and offers a new method of determining how prehistoric hunters made their kills."
Just Look For... (Score:4, Funny)
...rocks with rules scratched into them regarding Spear Control.
Re:Just Look For... (Score:5, Funny)
But the National Spear Association lobbied against controls. Even cave babies were allowed to own spears.
Re:Just Look For... (Score:5, Funny)
That's because they wanted people to keep their spear disassembled when not in use. So when a Sabertoothed Tiger came into your cave, you would have had to ask it to wait while you tied the pointy rock to the end. And before you start, short pointy sticks are only good against other cavemen.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
never taken seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember...treat a spear like it's ALWAYS sharp.
Brains are a funny thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet if we could travel back in time and watch these creatures innovate we would have far more respect for their ingenuity in their time.
I'll bet they came up with solutions we wouldn't think of that were lost to time.
Re:Brains are a funny thing (Score:5, Informative)
The Romain Empire used concrete extensively, even hydraulic cement (cures under water).
After the Empire fell, they went back to building with rocks.
Re:Brains are a funny thing (Score:5, Funny)
The Romain Empire used concrete extensively, even hydraulic cement (cures under water).
After the Empire fell, they went back to building with rocks.
Lettuce hear more of this Romaine empire ...
Re: (Score:2)
Nice.
I'd like some Italian dressing with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Not Caesar? Surely you jest.
Re: (Score:3)
Ide March very far to get Caesar.
Re:Brains are a funny thing (Score:5, Interesting)
The Incas created structures that are nigh-earthquakeproof, using nothing but rocks (no mortar, cement, or other binding agents). Their cutting and grinding was so precise that when the joints were assembled, a blade of grass could not be inserted at any point.
Never underestimate the power of rocks.
Re: (Score:2)
"Never underestimate the power of rocks."
Shameless pro-troll propaganda, Detritus.
Re: (Score:2)
That is nonsense.
First of all: nothing is earthquake proof.
Second: as you dont know how they did their "binding agents" I wont enlight you, google for your own. Your claim they did not use any is plain wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, I'm assuming you're talking about adobe and mud? Yeah, they used that, but for buildings that were not important. Just because they could do high-quality work doesn't mean they made everything high-quality. Source [wikipedia.org], Source2 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
earthquake resistant then. They way they formed the top of each stone and the bottom formed a type of 'copy' so the rocks would stay in place instead of slide around on the stone below. Obviously this would wear on the stones to some degree and a really powerful earthquake would overcome the cope, but as time has shown, they put enough cope on the stones to handle the earthquakes in the region for a good long time.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand you probably don't know anything about what the Incas actually used for binding agent in their adobe, and which the Peruvians use to this day. It's called 'paja', a high-altitude bunch grass that is amazingly strong. When green attempting to pull up a handful of it will slice your hand open as though it were fishing line.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone knows that the Aliens built those.
Re: (Score:3)
In retrospect, how many of us can still actually throw a spear to a level where it can hit anything? :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brains are a funny thing (Score:4, Insightful)
A pike is 20 feet long (6 meters for you SI types), and not something that can be thrown effectively by anyone shorter than about 15 feet (4.5 meters).
Even knowing it can be done, actually getting a spear to fly point first is a non-trivial accomplishment.
Doing it for the first time ever? It may not be rocket science, but it's pretty damn close.
In other words, just because an idea is old to YOU doesn't mean it was easy for that first guy who ever had it...
Re: (Score:3)
A pike is not a spear.
A spear is either a short "lance" ment for fighting "as with a lance" or a throwing weapon, more commonly named javeline in english. (Lance originally ment throwing weapon, too. Later it became used for the long pole arm weapon used by riding forces aka "knights", but this is still not a pike)
A pike is a weapon used in formations where big groups fight each other and especially against cavalry attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd speculate that humans used pikes as soon as they found 'em and threw 'em if it suited the situation.. it's not exactly rocket science.
My thoughts as well, FTA "By throwing a spear, instead of thrusting it,"
I would think after the prey moved out of thrusting range to toss or throw would be the next step (impulse).
Re: (Score:3)
it's not exactly rocket science.
Well actually there are some elements of rocket science in spear throwing. It's just that the method of propelling them has changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm going all MythBusters and mounting the spear on a JATO rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
copper hardened thru another element , can't recall what it was maybe nitrite
That might have been an alloy of copper with arsenic. Also, I wonder how much time it took them to build those structures. Given enough people and time, you can do anything. If you're interested in how many new houses you can build for new families with the smallest number of construction workers, chances are that working granite for dry masonry with diorite is not exactly the preferred technique.
Re: (Score:2)
copper hardened thru another element , can't recall what it was maybe nitrite
That might have been an alloy of copper with arsenic. Also, I wonder how much time it took them to build those structures. Given enough people and time, you can do anything. If you're interested in how many new houses you can build for new families with the smallest number of construction workers, chances are that working granite for dry masonry with diorite is not exactly the preferred technique.
AFAIK, they found arsenic on the body of the mummy of the Similaun, because it was used in the process to build copper tools. he had a small copper hatchet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The Romain Empire
So that's why it's called caesar salad
What did the Romans ever do for us? (Score:2)
Damascus steel was lost for centuries (Score:5, Informative)
It is said it could cleanly cut through a falling silk scarf.
I thought at first that the manufacturing process was lost because it was kept a trade secret. However, this paper [tms.org] finds that the superior properties of the steel come from impurities that were present in the original iron mine. When iron from a different mine used used, the steelsmiths were unable to reproduce the original's properties. Within a generation, production was entirely abandoned.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah, but did it shine like Valyrian steel?
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they are one and the same thing. George R. R. Martin's descriptions of Valyrian steel in the books are very much like real-life Damascus steel, featuring the same distinctive rippled patterns that Damascus steel is famous for.
Re:Damascus steel was lost for centuries (Score:5, Insightful)
The history of ironworking in general is a total mess: Not only were the best techniques(at any given time and place) some combination of trade secrets and National Security Stuff, leading to dubious recordkeeping, iron and most iron alloys corrode enthusiastically, often leaving archeologists to stare at an intriguing-looking rust stain and puzzle from there.
Then(as in the case of Damascus steel, as you mention) the properties of iron(actually a pretty lousy material, pure) change quite dramatically with the addition of relatively small amounts of various alloying agents, frequently ones that weren't even identified as distinct substances(much less 'identified' as 'elements') until centuries later, in addition to being sensitive to heating/cooling parameters and any other treatments affecting crystal structure.
There were improvements over time, of course; but until fairly recently, with modern metallurgy and chemistry, even a good-faith effort by the original craftsman to share his technique would likely leave us with considerable puzzling left to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, you get the steel as sharp as it can get. The worst that can happen is it takes longer to get blunt.
Re: (Score:3)
Steel has its limits. If the edge is too thin to handle the forces it gets subjected to, it buckles, chips, and curls instead of simply blunting. If the edge hits a shield or your enemy's armor, it is automatically ruined. It would take a highly-skilled smith to fix that kind of damage and even then the blade wouldn't be as good as it was before because of metal fatigue. This is why you never go edge-to-edge with a sword!
Super-sharp edges are for precision work. If you're using a hack-and-slash weapon, yo
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using a hack-and-slash weapon, you want a thick bevel because it will still tear through your enemy with minimal damage to itself if you put enough force behind it.
I think it was Honest Abe who said, "if I had six hours to cut down a tree, I'd spend four hours sharpening the axe".
You make your edge as sharp as you can because if you don't your enemy who has a sharper edge will kill you first. A lot about hand to hand combat with edged weapons has been lost to time, but one thing that hasn't is that you aren't trying to protect your sword, you're trying to protect your life.
Serrated edges never gained popularity because they get caught on or in what they are trying to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I meant to say bleed out internally instead.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just me saying it, Honest Abe too: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/give_me_six_hours_to_chop_down_a_tree_and_i_will/221234.html [thinkexist.com]
Believe it or not, it's the truth. Having not purchased a large selection of axes recently I can't speak to how sharp they are on average, but the last one I bought was very sharp indeed. I sharpened it up further before using it. A blunt axe is an accident waiting to happen.
A mace is a decent weapon against armour. But there are entire fighting styles based around slashing
Re: (Score:3)
For falling you want a sharp axe as you want to cut through the fibers. For splitting you want a dull axe as you're wedging the fibers apart and a sharp axe will get stuck much easier then a dull axe. By dull I mean the edge rounded, not square.
The last Arvika I bought. I was really pissed off that someone had given it a razor edge, much worse for splitting, which is what I purchased it for. If I wanted to use it for throwing, cutting down hardwoods or building a log home then it would have been up to me to
Re: (Score:2)
And in combat are you cutting through fibers or splitting them? I've split large logs with a small knife by using wedges cut off the sides which were about as far from sharp as the edge of a spoon; we aren't talking about that here.
Re: (Score:2)
skill is an extreme advantage. go to a local SCA event. Though they use blunt stick weapons, they can demonstrate that the first effective* strike drastically reduces the opponents ability to strike back.
The sharp edge matters for sure, but skill outweighs it by an order of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
"Adding a serrated edge would probably be even more effective against soft targets because it tears out chunks and causes more trauma"
not really the case, the serration causes a lot of surface damage but doesn't drive deep because it gets bound on fleshy parts, a smooth, moderate bevel with good weight will go deeper and cause a quicker death (typically). Keep in mind that an opponent might only have enough blood pressure to handle a single half-strength swing after a major arterial cut where a serrated te
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not important how easy it is to get sharp, all that matters is you get it as sharp as it will go and use it. If you have to spend two hours sharpening a sword that is good for ten whacks in battle, that's better than a sword you spend half an hour sharpening that stays sharp for three whacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe there were some reports of warriors not only sharpening but straightening their weapons mid-battle, but yes on principle you don't want to have to break out the whetstone as the second wave of berserkers descends on you.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this? History Channel's Deadliest Warrior episode?
Re: (Score:2)
Try Shun steel knives. Not too expensive on sale (relatively speaking, a good knife is not cheap, $100 isn't too much for a superior chef's knife), they will draw first blood I guarantee. They are knives that deserve and get a high level of respect lest you bleed everywhere (both have caused me to ruin dinner by bleeding on ingredients). The ones I have are full tang,100% metal.
They stay sharp far longer than any knives I've ever owned. I sharpen them myself with a 4 stage sharpener, razor sharp for at
Re: (Score:2)
I think biologically they were little different from ourselves, so they were less 'creatures' than 'people'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet if we could travel back in time and watch these creatures innovate we would have far more respect for their ingenuity in their time.
Travel back in time?!? Feh, it wasn't that long ago. I remember it well.
At least, September 1993 [wikipedia.org] was when I started hurling sharp objects....
Re:Brains are a funny thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect it would be more accurate to say that innovation was extremely inconsistent pre-history. I haven't any doubt that many, many things were invented dozens or hundreds of times, only to be lost when the guy died, or his son decided not to carry on the tradition, or some disaster fell that made them abandon specialization. Once you start writing stuff down, in a way that can be shared with others and understood generations later, you don't have everyone starting from scratch every time something goes wrong any more. You start to build the hill that becomes the mound that becomes the mountain that is our present knowledge of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
The invention of music [youtube.com] is particularly interesting. Truly fascinating stuff.
I haven't looked at the link yet, but I can predict what it is...
Nininininininini... A clip from History of the World.
Now to do a soothe for you.
Nininininininini... You are going to travel...
Nininininininini... You, sir, are going to Rome!
Re:Brains are a funny thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly that has a lot less to do with religion than people being dicks to each other. Your math hating mullah for example was just a dick protecting his own power from the perceived threat of tech wrenching it from him. Short sighted and stupid? Yes. The fault of religion? No.
The problem was that information used to be exceedingly difficult to pass on. If something didn't have immediate practical use it was discarded. The steam toys of the Greeks were chucked when their leisurely (relatively speaking) lifestyle couldn't be sustained anymore. Ever since the invention of the printing press though you have an explosion in cheap mass-producible information. This has only gotten cheaper in the digital computing world of the information age. Now we only have to discover something once and it's locked down forever. How many cavemen had to discover spears independently before it became widespread? Fire? Bronze? Ironworking? The archway? Heck, even calculus was discovered twice and that was fairly recently!
Nowadays a researcher in Russia can publish his work and everyone in that field can know about it in seconds. Processes and discoveries are passed on in exacting detail. We should never again have to endure another dark ages with our current information sharing abilities.
Re: (Score:2)
I pretty much agree.
But (there's always a but) it seems to me we might, just possibly, get much the same effect from information overload - 500 worthwhile papers per year in your specialty may be something you can keep up with. But wh
Re: (Score:2)
A bigger problem is when you have to find 500 worthwhile papers through the 499,500 crap papers in your chosen field.
And also, (Score:4, Funny)
Archaeologists also found evidence that the main damage was on creatures skulls , which led them to the conclusion: Aimbot!!!
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly. Look for the cave paintings of the mammoth with a spear in the head and a "BOOM! Headshot!" comment etched.
Keep an eye out for all the "Noob! You stole my kill!" comments below it as well.
Mis-read the point of "Narrowing" (Score:2)
Interesting angle, but it would be hard to prove from fossil records. Maybe though, it's why we have an engrained preference for the skinny! Our progeny will be a poorer target!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't have an engrained preference for the skinny. The "preference for the skinny" is actually only an extremely recent cultural phenomenon.
Re:Mis-read the point of "Narrowing" (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe though, it's why we have an engrained preference for the skinny!
I doubt you mean skinny like the sacks of antlers they call super models, on the other end there are cultures that think people who have a body shape like a beach ball are ideal. There have been several studies I have seen that in general indicate that a more curvy body shape for women is preferred by men. There is something to be said about having some fat and still looking healthy that was probably selected for in prehistoric times since that would be a good indication that you could provide for your self and were of good health.
OP was trying to make a joke (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Thagomizer (Score:3)
I am reminded of the Thagomizer [mentalfloss.com].
As dangerous as hunting large prey was, I imagine it did not take long to go from attaching a sharp rock to the end of a long stick, to throwing the long stick. When facing "the Thagomizer" the mental leap probably occurred in about a minute :-)
Re:The Thagomizer (Score:4, Informative)
Throwing a spear takes some practice to be at all effective with it, especially at any sort of range when facing something that could either escape and make you starve, or kill you so you'd never have to worry about starving again. It's not like a rock where you can get reasonable aim with a few practice throws, especially a spear large enough to take down big game using a stone or flint tip.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and there's also the fact that once you throw the spear, you're unarmed if you miss and the thing charges.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all animals would charge, especially after being wounded. Not going to say that I would test my theory on a moose or a buffallo. But you can spear a dear (tehee) with some reliability and watch them run as they bleed out if you hit something good.
Re: (Score:2)
Note the "if you miss" part.
Hint: if you miss, the animal won't be wounded.
Note that even a "non-lethal" wound can be enough to bring the animal down...eventually. And I imagine a group of hunters chasing mammoth are going to have a bit more patience than your average person today. Ooh, butterfly!
Re: (Score:2)
Most animals that wouldn't charge *at* you would run the hell away *from* you. Unless you can get it surrounded, which is harder than it looks when you're talking small groups of hunter-gathers taking on animals that could trample them, you need to get in the first few strikes quickly. Even in the modern era of high powered rifles, plenty of deer still escape hunters in spite of being wounded to the point of dying in minutes... it can be hard to track an animal over certain terrain.
Re: (Score:2)
There are also some not-immediately-obvious additional technologies [wikipedia.org] which make spears substantially more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I would think just throwing a pointed stick is a pretty ineffective strategy. But using another stick to give yourself a little leverage, along with bone tips instead of stone, makes it a pretty deadly weapon.
The atlatl, of course, is in a class by itself. That's an awesome piece of engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I would think just throwing a pointed stick is a pretty ineffective strategy. But using another stick to give yourself a little leverage, along with bone tips instead of stone, makes it a pretty deadly weapon.
The atlatl, of course, is in a class by itself. That's an awesome piece of engineering.
The 'just throwing a pointed stick' might actually work; but require group endurance-hunting strategies(which are arguably a flavor of technology, albeit applied political science, rather than material science or engineering). At low speed, a pointy stick is unlikely to be very swiftly lethal; but(especially if it lodges in the wound) it will slow you down and cause continued bleeding and local tissue tearing.
Hunters who are equipped to work together to keep on the track of game as it slowly weakens would p
Re: (Score:2)
It's all a matter of speed vs weight. Spears are big and heavy, but slow and cumbersome. However, you only need one spear to do a relatively massive amount of damage. Arrows have a lot less mass, but a bow allows you to propel them at great speeds from a greater range. But to be lethal to a large animal, it's going to take a lot more arrows than spears, giving spears a BIG advantage if you have the element of surprise and can get the first strike in before things start moving fast. Flechettes, like you ment
For My Generation (Score:2)
I believe it was about third grade
Any EULAs/royalties/licensing spears? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think man ever hunted spears. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think man ever hunted spears. (Score:5, Funny)
Leave Britney ALONE!!!!
If they can figure out when (Score:2)
Any real evidence for the flip side? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any evidence that there was any delay at all?
Seems to me once you have the intelligence to make and use a spear, it ill only be days at most before you're gonna try throwing it, at least partly because throwing whatever you have in your hand is what you would automatically do if you've got some pissed-off large animal (such as one thats just been prodded with a pointy stick) chasing you.
Re: (Score:3)
What you're describing is the guys who didn't pass along their genes to the next generation.
Throwing a spear leaves you unarmed. Throwing it at something charging you leaves you CLOSER to the thing charging you, and unarmed.
Not
Re: (Score:3)
Basic rule for discussing the Stone Age (Score:5, Interesting)
Early humans were not significantly stupider than us modern humans. They were pretty creative in how they solved their problems, and it was their quick thinking that got humanity to the point where we had enough free time to figure out later innovations like bronze, plaster, and agriculture.
A great example of this: They figured out the basic concept of cooking. Apes don't do that, and it allowed humans to eat things that other animals couldn't eat, and meant that humans were far less likely to get sick from what they ate. And while it seems like an obvious thing now, it wasn't at all obvious 125,000 years ago: You first had to get the idea of controlling and later building fires, then the idea of trying to use that fire to make plants you couldn't eat into plants you could eat (perhaps combining them with water), and the idea of heating meat over the fire, and observing that if you cooked your food before eating it you were less likely to get sick.
Throwing spears Homo sapiens sapiens (Score:2)
In a related note it was there is an recorded instance of Boreopithecus redmondonis that hurled chairs.
Great! (Score:2)
Now I can upgrade the Man v. Neanderthal first-person stabber that I've been working on to a first-person thrower.
Narrowing down the invention of the club (Score:2)
I remember reading somewhere that some anthropologists narrowed down the inventions of the club when skulls starting thickening :)
When the 1st liberal mentioned Mastodon rights. (Score:2)
That's when the first spear was used.
First spears were thrown in frustration. (Score:2)
They tried to kill it, but then the beast got passed them. One of the hunter, Grok, we will call him, got pissed, god mad, didn't understand why life was so fucked up, and threw his spear at the beast. He scores a hit! Does it bring the best down? Who knows, but what we do know is the viral nature of human beans, and suddenly, everyone was getting frustrated and throwing shit around.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that anthropology deals much with fossils anyways. I don't know how long it takes for remains to fossilize, but I'd be willing to bet that it takes more than the few hundred millenia associated with ancient human studies. Anthropology deals more with actual bones than fossils, though even then, wood is probably usually one of the first casualties of time.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break this to you but people had very distinct eating habits based on where they lived and what season it was.
Most hunter gatherer's ate whatever they could easily collect. That goes for the ones that still exist today. It boiled down to what was least amount of effort.
Most of that time that was nuts, berries, roots, just about anything that a people could recognize as not gonna kill you off.
In colder regions though, people needed lots of fat to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they were not vegetarians. We have all sorts of archaeological evidence showing early man ate animals. The fact that most other primates don't is irrelevant.
Yeah chimps TOTALLY don't eat meat, no meat at all. Thats indisputable.
Oh wait... http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html [usc.edu]
Neither do orangutan.
Oh wait... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21364-vegetarian-orangutans-eat-worlds-cutest-animal.html [newscientist.com]
And surely not gorillas.
Oh wait... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100305-first-proof-gorillas-eat-monkeys-mammals-feces-dna/ [nationalgeographic.com]
And of course gibbons don't eat meat. Being omnivores.
Re: (Score:2)