Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AnaphoricReference t1_j9oj44t wrote

Although stone (or bone) arrowheads are considered positive proof of archery, and we can't make any inferences from the absence of evidence, you don't actually need a hard point for bowhunting. To kill a rabbit or a bird just the impact of a blunt wooden arrow will suffice, and making those is a lot less work.

So these arrowheads are evidence of relatively big game or humans as archery targets IMO.

214

AquaVada t1_j9okf78 wrote

Hunter gatherer tribes in Oceania and south America who only lately were introduced to farming or consuming globalized goods hunt with pointy wooden arrows which are not only capable of killing small game but big animals too like capibaras, kangaroos etc ...

101

AnaphoricReference t1_j9opffi wrote

Thanks for the addition! I didn't dare to guess about those. I know the blunt ones are liked for their reusabilty, while the sharpened ones are more likely to break when you miss the target. But they obviously have the advantage of having some ability to pierce fur.

43

wegqg t1_j9phc7y wrote

With a sharpened wooden arrowhead one can harden it in the ashes of a fire relatively easily.

Similarly, if / when it does blunt or splinter you can re-sharpen it relatively quickly.

The advantage of flint heads imo is more in terms of the amount of internal contusion and resultant blood loss happening a lot more quickly vs a wooden head that penetrates but also seals the wound.

30

wildskipper t1_j9qzl2e wrote

Hunters coming from tropical rainforest environments would also have access to types of wood far harder than the more common hard woods. I could only speculate that some of this might have been suitable for making some impressively sharp arrows/spears.

10

Cleistheknees t1_j9r3b6v wrote

Large game is far more amenable to persistence predation, and non-fatal injuries are a vital part of that hunting style. It’s almost impossible to drop a large ungulate with a single shot, even with the most advanced compound bows available today, with carbon fiber shafts and titanium heads and all kinds of TactiCool gizmos.

8

snail360 t1_j9r6qtb wrote

actually I could easily one shot any large ungulate

12

Cleistheknees t1_j9raapp wrote

I don’t think your mom would appreciate you talking about her like that

12

A_Fat_Pokemon t1_j9rdhgi wrote

One-shot 100 ungulates to unlock a new camo for the bow

6

snail360 t1_j9seq9a wrote

1000th kill congratulations you have unlocked Peter Griffin Ungulate

2

rittenalready t1_j9ry6mo wrote

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-animals-like-moose-elk-deer-fall-and-die-immediately-when-hit-by-even-an-arrow-whereas-lions-bears-and-dogs-dont-and-can-be-alive-for-days-and-miles

Double lung shots drop them- 200 yards- moose elk and deer. Deer can be dropped almost immediately if you are in a stand and at an angle hit double lung heart shot. No tracking. Easiest tracking I’ve ever done is my father shot a deer as it bent down for some reason at a weird angle it put its head right in front of where it’s lungs would be-arrow pinned the head to the chest and it fell over backwards

4

rittenalready t1_j9ry8qa wrote

200 yards is about as far as they run the shot is usually 30 yards

3

huntt252 t1_j9rznd1 wrote

Not trying to argue but large ungulates are very easy to kill with a single shot from an arrow. Regardless of primitive or advanced archery gear. If something sharp passes through the lungs or heart of a large ungulate like elk or moose, then they tend to die rapidly. The vasculature is so condensed in this region that cutting it causes massive blood loss and rapid death. It wouldn’t happen with a wood tipped arrow. But with freshly flaked stone it absolutely would.

2

Cleistheknees t1_j9s1g9t wrote

Anyone is welcome to argue whatever point they’d like.

In this context, large ungulates = hippopotamus, bison, elephants, rhinoceros, large boars, etc, because the actual animals in this discussion are generally extinct Pleistocene megafauna, not white tailed deer, which I agree are not difficult at all to drop in one shot for an experience or lucky hunter. The ambiguity here is probably because “large ungulate” means something different to me as an evolutionary biologist than it does to hunters. I hunt, but I wouldn’t really call myself “a hunter”, if that makes sense.

> If something sharp passes through the lungs or heart of a large ungulate like elk or moose, then they tend to die rapidly.

Rapidly seems kinda relative. I’ve double lung punched a prairie elk and had to go over two kilometers to get it.

6

eMPereb t1_j9s6g72 wrote

Hmmm… But the “point” is the “point?”

0

AquaVada t1_j9w1ima wrote

They are injured or bled to death, I don't imagine a zebra walking away with a 1foot stick inside it's bowels, humans have evolved to hunt down their injured prays over long distances while inflicting multiple shots from safe distances. You spend your precious arrows but get rewarded afterwards.

1

Cleistheknees t1_j9wety8 wrote

> They are injured or bled to death, I don’t imagine a zebra walking away with a 1foot stick inside it’s bowels,

You would be amazed at what a wild animal is capable of in the most dire circumstances. I have personally shot a prairie elk through both lungs and had to track it about 2km before finding it. There’s all kinds of footage from various sources like wildlife documentaries and whatnot of animals with dramatic and mortal injuries pushing on for hours.

> humans have evolved to hunt down their injured prays over long distances while inflicting multiple shots from safe distances. You spend your precious arrows but get rewarded afterwards.

This is called persistence hunting theory, and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it’s really just a theory at this point. There is virtually no material evidence of it being a consistent selection pressure across human evolutionary history. It was presented as fact in a book called Born to Run in 2009, and unfortunately got picked up by the lay public as if it was a settled question.

We do indeed have material evidence of consistent butchery going back ~2 million years, which much farther into our genus than sapiens, but putting a narrative of persistence hunting onto that is still a speculative leap. It could just as easily be opportunism, ambushes, scavenging, some mix of all three, etc.

3

Yrolg1 t1_jab011j wrote

> This is called persistence hunting theory, and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it’s really just a theory at this point. There is virtually no material evidence of it being a consistent selection pressure across human evolutionary history.

There are numerous cursorial and thermoregulatory adaptions which make more sense within the context of persistence hunting, however. That being said, these made their appearance about a million years before h. sapiens was a glint in erectus's eye or definitive projectile weapons.

1

Cleistheknees t1_jabjzb8 wrote

That is unfortunately what we call a “just so” story, a common logical error when looking at traits and suggesting adaptive histories for them based on some trait interactions at a given point in time.

As for the timeline, bipedality is far older than one million years before sapiens, and in fact arrives around three million years before the earliest erectus. Australopiths are decidedly bipedal by 5mya, there’s a strong case for pushing this another million years back. Erectus dates back to just barely 2mya.

So, we’ll say bipedality arrives at around 5mya, the earliest stone tools at 3.2, the persistent presence of stone tools at 2.7, the diaspora of toolmakers out of Africa at 2.2, persistent butchery at 1.9, which are mostly small animals not really suited to persistence predation. Megafauna butchery arrives at around 1.5, a full 3.5+ million years after bipedalism.

Hair loss is a hazier picture because we still have basically all of the mammalian genetics for fur, and the adaptations seem to be substantially in hundreds of regulatory elements, which are harder to date as precisely. That said, the error bars don’t really extend back much further than 900kya, which is 1.1 mya after megafauna butchery becomes commonplace. What we’d need to see is hair loss happening during the transition from persistent butchery of small animals and into larger ungulates, etc, not over a million years after.

Remember, this is all a position again the actual hypothesis coined “Endurance Running/Persistence Hunting Hypothesis”, not the occurrence of persistence hunting in human evolutionary history overall, which is incontrovertible. The hypothesis frames persistence hunting as the adaptive roadmap for bipedalism and hairlessness, and given the timeline of these elements it’s basically unsupportable.

1

Yrolg1 t1_jack5ch wrote

> As for the timeline, bipedality is far older than one million years before sapiens, and in fact arrives around three million years before the earliest erectus. Australopiths are decidedly bipedal by 5mya, there’s a strong case for pushing this another million years back. Erectus dates back to just barely 2mya.

There are different kinds of bipedalism. Australopithecus was not an obligate biped. Early homo were unable to run even if they were obligate bipeds. Erectus was the first hominin that demonstrated modern capabilities. This is what I meant by cursorial adaptions, i.e. adaptations for running, which are not derived traits from earlier primates and novel to Erectus onwards. Nuchal ligaments, Long bone length, gait, narrowing of the hip, extension of the achilles tendon and arched foot, broader heel and short toes. I'm unsure of any others off the top of my head. These traits would have appeared around 1.8mya, but erectus was a highly variable chronospecies so I said "over a million years ago" because I wasn't positive if they appeared all at once. If they were present in African erectus or Asian erectus, etc.

> Hair loss is a hazier picture because we still have basically all of the mammalian genetics for fur, and the adaptations seem to be substantially in hundreds of regulatory elements,

I wasn't actually counting hair loss as a thermoregulatory adaptation, because it definitely is more of a recent feature. Hair vs body lice and all. There are other adaptations which may have, or were, present. These include evaporative cooling, larger body size and its corresponding metabolic benefits and greater surface area (to prevent hyperthermia). The changes in gait and obligate bipedalism mentioned above also conferred metabolic/energy conservation benefits. Bipedalism itself can be considered such an adaptation, but it clearly didn't evolved in response to selective pressure for hunting, and that's the rub with much of this. It very well might be that we just evolved a kit that could be repurposed for a hunting style - and we're misunderstanding the cause and effect.

> Remember, this is all a position again the actual hypothesis coined “Endurance Running/Persistence Hunting Hypothesis”, not the occurrence of persistence hunting in human evolutionary history overall, which is incontrovertible. The hypothesis frames persistence hunting as the adaptive roadmap for bipedalism and hairlessness, and given the timeline of these elements it’s basically unsupportable.

This is a fair point. There is of course the question of when it appears, and I'd argue that there is support for its appearance well before sapiens.

> which is incontrovertible.

I disagree about how emphatic this is. I think there's ample support for its occurrence, of course, and I do believe it, but the primary source for it in modern humans comes from a single author (I don't recall his name, but it might be Liebenberg) writing about the San, who are very much a removed population operating outside their indigenous cultural norms. Moreover, there are several criticisms of his work the greatest that out of the dozen or two dozen observed persistence hunts, the majority of them were induced by the researcher and not spontaneous. So there's weak evidence that it was a preferred strategy, although from my own reading it's actually very successful compared to traditional hunting in that the great majority of hunts are successful and on average the caloric efficiency does well exceed a traditional hunt when factoring in success rate. Maybe they're just picky.

Maybe projectile weapons are just much safer and preferred. One of the postulates of the hypothesis is that persistence hunting was a response to the general inability of a hominin to take down non-exhausted megafauna through other means. Even with handaxes and spears, it would be very difficult, unless you're (literally) a Neanderthal. Perhaps the adoption of projectile weapons (the oldest don't predate sapiens, I believe 90kya) is what ultimately ended the reliance, if any, on habitual persistence hunting. Could Erectus even throw a spear? I seem to recall hearing something about their wrist being unable to rotate.

1

Cleistheknees t1_jad9ny7 wrote

> There are different kinds of bipedalism.

Sure, but limb development is highly canalized even in quadrupeds. You have to look at this scenario from the paradigm of the selection pressure which started our lineage on the trajectory towards bipedalism, and it very clearly extends far back beyond the earliest signal of even the Australopiths. A change in a trait like major skeletal morphology takes an extremely long time to fix.

> Early homo were unable to run even if they were obligate bipeds.

I’m going to push back on this. It’s too confident a claim for the physical evidence base, which is scarce. Unless some major work was released and I haven’t heard about it, which I feel is unlikely because I attend most seminars from the major anthropogenic institutions like CARTA and Leakey.

> Nuchal ligaments, Long bone length, gait, narrowing of the hip, extension of the achilles tendon and arched foot, broader heel and short toes. I’m unsure of any others off the top of my head. These traits would have appeared around 1.8mya

All of these have a pretty clear developmental trajectories extending far back beyond erectus. Australopith tibias are notably elongated.

> It very well might be that we just evolved a kit that could be repurposed for a hunting style - and we’re misunderstanding the cause and effect.

This is basically “just so” stories in a nutshell.

1

Cleistheknees t1_jadx5yb wrote

> I disagree about how emphatic this is. I think there’s ample support for its occurrence, of course, and I do believe it, but the primary source for it in modern humans comes from a single author (I don’t recall his name, but it might be Liebenberg) writing about the San, who are very much a removed population operating outside their indigenous cultural norms.

Louis Liebenberg did the most detailed ethnography, but he’s certainly not the only source. As a grad student I personally interviewed people in East Tanzania who hunt local ungulates in a way we categorize as persistence hunting, but absent the endurance running aspect, which is something Liebenberg discusses as a limitation. Like, they jog of course, but it’s more of a 4-5 hour jog-track-jog-track etc.

You’re probably thinking of Pickering and Bunn’s critical response to him a couple years after that first paper, and while I don’t want to speak for other people, I would confidently say most people agree their retort stepped way over the bounds of what is reasonable. Louis was never making causal claims that endurance running and PH were the bundles of selection pressure that causally produced the capabilities related to endurance running, because this is a circular and nonsensical “just so”, and certainly not a mistake a staff associate at Harvard would make. His work is really more about tracking than endurance running, and it was before the wave of very clarifying research came out in the 2010’s which illuminated much of the transitionary period between Australopiths and early Homo, a lot of which was morphological, a lot out of Olduvai, etc.

Very important to delineate the version of persistence hunting in the capital-H hypothesis, with the actual anthropological definition, which in colloquial language would basically just be extended tracking at a pace the animal cannot maintain for a number of hours. Running a marathon chasing after a gazelle is a fantasy introduced by McDougall.

1

blahblahrasputan t1_j9rej2p wrote

Australian Aboriginals didn't use a bow and arrow though. Or is that not what you meant?

1

Tomon2 t1_j9sde6t wrote

Funny you mention kangaroos, it's likely that only the tree kangaroos of PNG have been hunted with bows.

Indigenous Australians never developed bow hunting technology - instead using spears and Woomera (spear throwers), along with boomerangs to hunt large game like Australian kangaroos.

1

AquaVada t1_j9w0sq8 wrote

Yeah, I imagined the Atlatl in the same category as arrows, are they ?

1

jordantask t1_j9qt4do wrote

There’s also evidence that the tips of spears were wooden and hardened by blackening them in a fire. I see no reason why they would not be doing the same thing for arrows.

2

DisciplineFancy4290 t1_j9pntqt wrote

I thought this was sort of common knowledge? The bow and arrow along with the Atlatl gave us a major range advantage to our cousin species. It was these new tools that gave the 70k - 50k expansion an edge over the previous ones.

28

LoreChano t1_j9rnnh7 wrote

The most amazing thing is how did they even come up with bows and arrows in the first place. An atlatl is kind of obvious, maybe, it's just an extension of your arm, someone might have realized it eventually. But a bow? That's much harder and much less obvious. Humanity took millennia to invent much more obvious things such as the wheel or monjolos.

Using wood's elastic proprieties is not obvious at all. Choosing the right kind and shape is essential. Bows also have no "prototype stage", a bow either works perfectly or it is useless. Someone 50k years ago came up with completely useful bows capable or hunting at least small animals. This person must've been a genius.

6

ButtNutly t1_j9ru4be wrote

>Using wood's elastic proprieties is not obvious at all.

Anyone who's been in a forest on a windy day would disagree.

>Bows also have no "prototype stage", a bow either works perfectly or it is useless.

Nonsense.

14

LoreChano t1_j9t9tpa wrote

What you say makes no sense. Green, alive wood is completely different and it's not logical at all to escalate that into a bow.

I'm into archery and have tried making a bow myself, using metal tools. It was incredibly hard and didn't result in something that could be used to hunt real game. Imagine doing that with stone tools and no previous knowledge.

And no, bows have no prototype stage. Unless the bow was something else and someone realized that it could be used to launch projectiles, which personally is my favorite theory.

−2

stovenn t1_j9s1p5w wrote

> Using wood's elastic proprieties is not obvious at all

There is a kind of snare (spring snare) which bends a still-alive sapling with a rope joining to a noose and trigger on the ground which can catch mammals images

This is simpler than a bow and could have been on the inventive pathway towards a bow and arrow.

9

LoreChano t1_j9ta6tk wrote

I personally think that bows began as something just like that, something else, maybe another tool used for a completely different purpose,or a musical instrument (there are instruments similar to bows in some places in Africa) and someone realized that they could use if for launching arrows.

2

stovenn t1_j9v04tk wrote

That's an interesting idea.

I'd be very interested to know when the earliest stringed musical instruments appeared.

(And before that the earliest use of "string" or "rope" in some form).

3

Maskeno t1_j9s1s2v wrote

I walked past a small twig hanging off a tree today, tried to push it out of my way, and it fwapped me on the lip. It's not even the first time in my life I've done that, so I'm obviously not a genius to observe it.

From there maybe I'd make it a toy if I were a bored cave man. Maybe I'd tie some rope my cave dad taught me how to make on one end and flick it around. It's really not so much of a stretch that upon observing some boucy wood and rope that you could use that rope to propel something else. Maybe a rock. Wait. Spears work pretty well on those animals we like. What if I made a small spear and flung that with it?

Of course, it's easy to say it's easy 50k years later, but still. The logic isn't too hard to believe.

5

CharonsLittleHelper t1_j9sfcu1 wrote

To be pedantic - it wasn't the wheel which had to be invented. That IS obvious. It's the axel which was the big invention. Civilizations without the axel still used log rollers etc. to move big heavy things.

4

Mizral t1_j9upmrv wrote

Don't forget the simple sling. You can kill nearly any small to medium sized animal with a bit of woven cloth and a rock.

1

GSilky t1_j9qoyga wrote

I'm sure they are correct, but how do you even realize that tiny triangle rock is even an arrowhead?

10

[deleted] t1_j9qxq8s wrote

[removed]

8

Cxlow91 t1_j9rkyqm wrote

Whatever the sapiens do in the bedroom is their business

9

Shirokurou t1_j9s21r8 wrote

Homo sapiens may have brought [everything] to [every continent].

2

Christian_Logan t1_j9tbnv4 wrote

The Homo species had invented and crafted archery, used to hunt forest animals to gain food and energy. Archery were also used during the pre-historic conflicts and wars.

I thought that first human use of archery may have existed around millions of years ago, especially the early stone age and the last ice age.

0

Khtie t1_j9rqzgb wrote

How the heck have people been around for 50000 yrs but only started advancing technology in the last 100??? Wild

−5

ToasterSmokes t1_j9rrit2 wrote

Humans haven’t just started advancing technologically in the past 100 years. Technological advancement goes back thousands of years - it just started exponentially advancing in the past 100 or so.

10

MongoBongoTown t1_j9sbsk6 wrote

It's crazy looking at this with military tech.

A Roman Army from 250 BCE could very possibly defeat a Celtic Army from 1000 years in the future.

But...an Army from 1960 would be absolutely decimated by a modern military.

3

Jewrisprudent t1_j9sg2t1 wrote

In a way it’s always exponentially advancing, it’s just when you’re in the middle of exponential growth nearly all of the absolute growth has occurred recently.

1

Maskeno t1_j9s2m0k wrote

Define advanced? A cannon is pretty damn advanced compared to a trebuchet compared to a spear. We definitely experienced massive booms, and technology seems to advance on a ramp that makes it go faster and faster, but that just means 50k years from now they might laugh and say we were so primitive.

2

2spicy4dapepper t1_j9qlfge wrote

I mean they didn’t just find a bow and arrow on the ground one day. Of course someone brought it there

−6

-Vayra- t1_j9r3ai2 wrote

The question is more when. Did it come with the first migrations out of Africa? Or did it come in later migrations? Or was the concept independently developed n Europe? Or somewhere else (Eurasian steppes would be a good bet) and brought from there to Europe instead of from Africa?

3

Blue-Purity t1_j9qxfae wrote

Cmon guys it’s 2023. They’re LGBTQ sapiens.

−17