Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
darkknight

Early humans hunted, not hunters!

15 posts in this topic

Early humans hunted, not hunters.

Hunting as the 9-to-5 job of early humans, striding off from the ole' cave to clobber a mastadon for dinner, is a popular notion for explaining how people survived in prehistory. But some anthropologists are suggesting that being hunted, rather than hunting, was the daily fare of humanity's ancestors. And they argue that trying not to be eaten played a significant role in human evolution.

At a presentation here at the American Anthropological Association's annual meeting, anthropologist Donna Hart of the University of Missouri in St. Louis argued that fossil evidence and the experience today of monkeys and apes, the closest relatives to humans, "supports a 'Man, the Hunted' theory of evolution." About 174 predators prey on these primates today all over the world, even the chimps (which face leopords and lions) and gorillas (hunted by leopords) that are most closely related to humans.

full article- link

source- www.usatoday.com

Edited by darkknight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been the thought for quite a while in anthropological circles, actually. If you think about it, it really makes sense. Early humans didn't have sharp fangs or claws to defend themselves, which would make for a pretty appetizing dinner to predators. Skulls of early hominids have been found that have puncture marks that line up exactly with the jaws and teeth of leopards. If I was a leopard, etc. and saw a slow, pink, bag of meat traipsing across the savannah, I wouldn't hesitate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time OUR ancestors were probably frolicking in the surf, avoiding sharks, and eating fish... JMO

Aquatic ape hypothesis

Skulls with teeth marks are not conclusive, we don’t know if the ‘predator’ killed the ‘ape’ or scavenged the remains... JMO

Comparing humans evolution to apes is wrong, apes haven’t developed weapon use (clubs or spears) or fire... JMO

solid evidence of human use of fire in Eurasia as early as 790,000 years ago. Once "domesticated," fire enabled protection from predators and provided warmth and light as well as enabling the exploitation of a new range of foods.

Earliest evidence of use of fire

The first known traces of weapons are from the stone age with flint knives, handaxes and heads for large darts. There is no evidence for handaxes being thrown, but very good evidence for them having been used to butcher animals.

Instead, darts seem to have been a powerful projectile weapon: anthropologists have thrown reconstructed darts through several inches of oak using atlatls. The broad, leaf-shaped heads penetrate deeply, and easily cut arteries.

Some weapons are probably much older than the dart, although little early evidence for them exists. These include the sling and the spear.

Lack of early evidence is understandable, as slings are prone to decay, and it would be difficult to prove that a particular stone has been used as ammunition. Similarly, there is less incentive to put a stone point onto a spear than a dart. A weighted spear point is a liability rather than an asset, and the greater momentum imparted by stabbing makes sharpness less critical than toughness, so that points of bone, antler, or even fire-hardened wood can make more effective spear points.

Some of the earliest evidence for arrows are from ca. 20,000 BC in the Levant (the so-called 'Geometric Kebaran' period), made with several very small sharp pieces of stone embedded in an arrowshaft.

Here again, far earlier examples may have been subject to decay: for instance, some cultures make weighted arrow points by cutting a hollow reed diagonally and filling the end segment with clay.

Weapon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I didn't exist back then. Your life was put on jeopardy everyday! Then you couldn't go to sleep safely, because you don't know what would come up in the cave & attack you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glad I didn't exist back then. Your life was put on jeopardy everyday!
I agree with you but if you stop and think about it.....Even today your life is always in jeopardy somehow in someway. Think about it the next time you get into a car or even walk out your front door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early humans hunted, not hunters.

Hunting as the 9-to-5 job of early humans, striding off from the ole' cave to clobber a mastadon for dinner, is a popular notion for explaining how people survived in prehistory. But some anthropologists are suggesting that being hunted, rather than hunting, was the daily fare of humanity's ancestors. And they argue that trying not to be eaten played a significant role in human evolution.

At a presentation here at the American Anthropological Association's annual meeting, anthropologist Donna Hart of the University of Missouri in St. Louis argued that fossil evidence and the experience today of monkeys and apes, the closest relatives to humans, "supports a 'Man, the Hunted' theory of evolution." About 174 predators prey on these primates today all over the world, even the chimps (which face leopords and lions) and gorillas (hunted by leopords) that are most closely related to humans.

full article- link

source- www.usatoday.com

Which ape/human are we talking about? Afarensis, africanus, rudolfensis, habilis, boisei, hedelbergensis, erectus, neanderthals...(I kind of shortened the names down for the sake of flooding this post...). If your talking about the earlier species, we were always hunted, by things like lions, crocodiles, leopards, things like that. Later on, Eragster hunted commonly in 'packs' hunting things like wildebeests, smaller mammals, snakes, so on.

So, the more we developed, the more meat we ate as with the more 'hunting' we did.

Edited by TheThirdAngel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you but if you stop and think about it.....Even today your life is always in jeopardy somehow in someway. Think about it the next time you get into a car or even walk out your front door.

I agree but it nearly isn't as dangerous as it was probably back then. I mean you step out of your cave only to run for your life from a leopard or whatever was running after you.Usually you can step out of your house & something can happen to you. But it's very rarely that it might happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time OUR ancestors were probably frolicking in the surf, avoiding sharks, and eating fish... JMO

Aquatic ape hypothesis

Skulls with teeth marks are not conclusive, we don’t know if the ‘predator’ killed the ‘ape’ or scavenged the remains... JMO

Comparing humans evolution to apes is wrong, apes haven’t developed weapon use (clubs or spears) or fire... JMO

The teeth punctures I referred to, if I remember correctly, showed that they occurred perimortem (at or close to death). A leopard would have to be extremely lucky to happen upon a fresh 'ape' carcass in the time it would have taken for the puncture marks to appear as they did. It could have happened, but not very likely.

I know of the aquatic ape hypothesis. I do not put very much weight behind it, personally. Here's why:

Nakedness - Yes, humans are the only "naked" ape. And yes, aquatic mammals are, for the most part, hairless. I would conclude that has been selected for to deal with drag issues in the water. I have also seen PLENTY of humans that could be mistaken for a chimp or gorilla in terms of body hair. Variation is a wonderful thing :D.

Breathing - Yes, human infants hold their breaths and are able to swim (needing assistance to surface), but so are other mammals. Human babies retain this trait longer than other mammals, but will eventually lose it as well without further training. If humans really did evolve in an aquatic environment, I would wager we wouldn't need to be re-taught how to swim.

Fat - Couldn't the reason human infants are fatter compared to apes is because they don't have a covering of hair over their bodies to keep them warm (unless they have hypertrichosis). As their activity increases, the amount of fat decreases.

While apes don't use 'weapons,' they do use tools such as sticks and rocks for obtaining food and testing the depth of water. It wasn't very long ago that researchers thought that humans were the only 'apes' that used tools. The difference between a 'tool' and a 'weapon' is only in the matter in which they are used. So far, we have not witnessed any ape populations actively using weapons, but it very well could change the more we study them.

This is just my two cents worth. Differences in opinion are a great driving force behind new discoveries!

Edited by mnwolfman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The teeth punctures I referred to, if I remember correctly, showed that they occurred perimortem (at or close to death). A leopard would have to be extremely lucky to happen upon a fresh 'ape' carcass in the time it would have taken for the puncture marks to appear as they did. It could have happened, but not very likely.

I know of the aquatic ape hypothesis. I do not put very much weight behind it, personally. Here's why:

Nakedness - Yes, humans are the only "naked" ape. And yes, aquatic mammals are, for the most part, hairless. I would conclude that has been selected for to deal with drag issues in the water. I have also seen PLENTY of humans that could be mistaken for a chimp or gorilla in terms of body hair. Variation is a wonderful thing :D.

Breathing - Yes, human infants hold their breaths and are able to swim (needing assistance to surface), but so are other mammals. Human babies retain this trait longer than other mammals, but will eventually lose it as well without further training. If humans really did evolve in an aquatic environment, I would wager we wouldn't need to be re-taught how to swim.

Fat - Couldn't the reason human infants are fatter compared to apes is because they don't have a covering of hair over their bodies to keep them warm (unless they have hypertrichosis). As their activity increases, the amount of fat decreases.

While apes don't use 'weapons,' they do use tools such as sticks and rocks for obtaining food and testing the depth of water. It wasn't very long ago that researchers thought that humans were the only 'apes' that used tools. The difference between a 'tool' and a 'weapon' is only in the matter in which they are used. So far, we have not witnessed any ape populations actively using weapons, but it very well could change the more we study them.

This is just my two cents worth. Differences in opinion are a great driving force behind new discoveries!

But certain Southeast Asian tribes and North American Indians ( but not South American NdNs) had shovel incisors which are more efficent for dealing with scales. Also ALL people of asian ancestory have a subcutaneous layer of oily yellow fat which is more protective in water. So certain species of Homo erectus might have been coastal dwellers who lived mainly on fish. On another note. shovel incisors are only present in Asian Homo erectus (evolutionary dead end?) but not in Homo Halibus.

Lapi'che

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been the thought for quite a while in anthropological circles, actually. If you think about it, it really makes sense. Early humans didn't have sharp fangs or claws to defend themselves, which would make for a pretty appetizing dinner to predators. Skulls of early hominids have been found that have puncture marks that line up exactly with the jaws and teeth of leopards. If I was a leopard, etc. and saw a slow, pink, bag of meat traipsing across the savannah, I wouldn't hesitate.

The purpose of Hominids evolving an upright posture was to run. The savannah lacking trees to climb up in they had to run VERY fast and very far. I don't think they were too slow.

Lapi'che

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of Hominids evolving an upright posture was to run. The savannah lacking trees to climb up in they had to run VERY fast and very far. I don't think they were too slow.

Lapi'che

Run... carry things... They had to go farther and farther from the "clan" (lack of a better word) to get good. Hunted or gathered. It was *alot* easier to carry the food then bring everyone on the hunt so they could eat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early humans hunted, not hunters.

Hunting as the 9-to-5 job of early humans, striding off from the ole' cave to clobber a mastadon for dinner, is a popular notion for explaining how people survived in prehistory. But some anthropologists are suggesting that being hunted, rather than hunting, was the daily fare of humanity's ancestors. And they argue that trying not to be eaten played a significant role in human evolution.

At a presentation here at the American Anthropological Association's annual meeting, anthropologist Donna Hart of the University of Missouri in St. Louis argued that fossil evidence and the experience today of monkeys and apes, the closest relatives to humans, "supports a 'Man, the Hunted' theory of evolution." About 174 predators prey on these primates today all over the world, even the chimps (which face leopords and lions) and gorillas (hunted by leopords) that are most closely related to humans.

full article- link

source- www.usatoday.com

I think this is rather obviuos! Early humans were gatherer (do say it like that?) and bacame hunters afterwards, but still big predators remained a threat since the hace claws and teehts and more musclepower.

I just gotta say that the whole idea about we coming from the sea (if i got it right) is... erhm... how do I say this nicely? Not-so-thought-out :P There's not a single evidence for that, and we do share quite much of our DNA with apes... And you can't argue with that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is rather obviuos! Early humans were gatherer (do say it like that?) and bacame hunters afterwards, but still big predators remained a threat since the hace claws and teehts and more musclepower.

I just gotta say that the whole idea about we coming from the sea (if i got it right) is... erhm... how do I say this nicely? Not-so-thought-out :P There's not a single evidence for that, and we do share quite much of our DNA with apes... And you can't argue with that :)

What that theory stated was that certain apes began to fish and lost their hair and gained more body fat because of it. It never said that thr apes evolved in the water.

Lapi'che

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. Imagine living in a world where giant hyenas and saberooth cats are running around loose, and you haven't even fogured out how to make fire, or how to use a club.

You're just an appetizer with feet. There'll be a lot more FLIGHT than FIGHT in you daily routine.

Not to mention a lot fo hiding, and dlinking aorund on tippy-toes.

Edited by BigDaddy_GFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that humans have been preditor and prey at different times in our developement. At one point in our history we were certainly prey, when we were little more than mice. For the moment we are the top preditor. Let some offworlders land thier star ship in your back yard and the whole species might become t.v. dinners again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.