Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Direct evidence of projectile weapon use at ~90kya
14 views
Skip to first unread message
RichTravsky
May 23, 2013, 11:31:50 PM5/23/13
to
Projectile as in, spears...
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/when-did-humans-begin-hurling-sp.html
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.
...
Archaeologist Corey O'Driscoll of South East Archaeology in
Canberra became interested in the traces left by hurled spears
after reading studies of the wounds that medieval weapons
inflicted on humans. ... O'Driscoll decided to build on these
studies for his undergraduate honors thesis.
...
He found "quite a difference between the butchering marks and
projectile impact marks," he says. His study revealed six types of
distinctive projectile impact wounds, from drag marks to fracture
marks and punctures. O'Driscoll also noted that most projectile
impact marks were located on vertebrae or rib bones and that 17%
percent of the marks overall�and 50% of the punctures�held
microscopic bits of embedded stone from the flint points, due to
the high velocity of impact. By contrast, none of the butchering
marks contained such stone fragments, another key distinction.
These findings prompted O'Driscoll and the University of Queensland's
Jessica Thompson to take a new look at three bone specimens from
large unidentified mammals�a rib and two vertebrae�from Pinnacle
Point Cave in South Africa. Thompson had earlier detected embedded
stone fragments in marks on these bones. Using O'Driscoll's
diagnostic criteria, the pair identified projectile impact marks on
all three bones. Two dated to between 91,000 and 98,000 years
ago�making them the oldest direct evidence of the use of projectile
weapons, according to a paper presented at the Society for American
Archaeology meeting in Honolulu in April. (O'Driscoll's thesis will
be published by the Australian Archaeological Association in June.)
A third bone dated even earlier, between 153,000 and 174,000 years
ago.
...
http://www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA/Meetings/2013%20Abstracts/M-P.pdf
ABSTRACTS OF THE 78TH ANNUAL MEETING
Scroll down to page 315 (or search on the characters "driscoll")
ODriscoll, Corey (University of Queensland) and Jessica Thompson
(University of Queensland) [263]
Zooarchaeological Evidence for Projectile
Technology in the African Middle Stone Age
The ability of Homo sapiens to kill prey at a distance is arguably
one of the catalysts for our current ecological dominance. Despite
the importance of projectile technology in human hunting strategies,
there is no consensus on its origins. Many researchers have
suggested it lies in the African Middle Stone Age (MSA) or
Middle Paleolithic. However, evidence from the MSA is dependent
on analysis of the stone points themselves. There is a growing
body of research focusing on zooarchaeological projectile impact
marks in European assemblages; however, comparable investigations
are currently lacking for the MSA. The criteria for identifying
projectile impact marks on bone are not standardized,
and no large experimental studies exist that examine marks left by
MSA points. Therefore, a clear analytical framework must be
created through experimental samples. Using replica MSA
prepared core points and Howiesons Poort segments � present
during the southern African MSA � this paper defines the various
forms of marks on bone caused by stone artifacts commonly
considered to have been used as projectiles at this time. When
applied to the archaeological record, these results suggest that
the earliest direct evidence for hunting practices in southern
African MSA deposits dates to ~90 ka.
JTEM
May 24, 2013, 8:22:19 AM5/24/13
to
RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> He found "quite a difference between the butchering marks and
> projectile impact marks," he says. His study revealed six types of
> distinctive projectile impact wounds, from drag marks to fracture
> marks and punctures. O'Driscoll also noted that most projectile
> impact marks were located on vertebrae or rib bones and that 17%
> percent of the marks overall—and 50% of the punctures—held
> microscopic bits of embedded stone from the flint points, due to
> the high velocity of impact. By contrast, none of the butchering
> marks contained such stone fragments, another key distinction.
I realize that this isn't a detailed piece, but it leaves
> ...
> He found "quite a difference between the butchering marks and
> projectile impact marks," he says. His study revealed six types of
> distinctive projectile impact wounds, from drag marks to fracture
> marks and punctures. O'Driscoll also noted that most projectile
> impact marks were located on vertebrae or rib bones and that 17%
> percent of the marks overall—and 50% of the punctures—held
> microscopic bits of embedded stone from the flint points, due to
> the high velocity of impact. By contrast, none of the butchering
> marks contained such stone fragments, another key distinction.
us with the impression that anything not identified as a
butchering mark has to be a projectile mark, which we all
know is wrong.
How could/did they distinguish between a spear that was
thrown and one that was thrusted or even positioned on
the ground for impaling?
...I suppose the impaling might be easy enough to
guess at, as the locations & angles of the wounds would
be quite limited.
As is, the story seems like a waste of time, reporting
the very least interesting detail only: Someone's
conclusion.
Why not just present the evidence and allow us to reach
a conclusion?
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Yusuf B Gursey
May 26, 2013, 3:24:49 AM5/26/13
to
Matt Giwer
May 28, 2013, 2:41:07 AM5/28/13
to
...
>> Why not just present the evidence and allow us to reach
>> a conclusion?
> otherwise there would be a breach of copyright of the original work.
If you post it then the copyright holder sends you a letter demanding
you never do that again and you do not do it again. That is the way the
law reads in every individual case. Which is why everyone ignores it.
--
Hodie Kalendis Maiis MMXIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
Wed, May 01, 2013 5:47:27 PM
>> Why not just present the evidence and allow us to reach
>> a conclusion?
> otherwise there would be a breach of copyright of the original work.
you never do that again and you do not do it again. That is the way the
law reads in every individual case. Which is why everyone ignores it.
--
Hodie Kalendis Maiis MMXIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
Wed, May 01, 2013 5:47:27 PM
Matt Giwer
May 28, 2013, 2:52:42 AM5/28/13
to
On 5/24/2013 8:22 AM, JTEM wrote:
> RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> He found "quite a difference between the butchering marks and
>> projectile impact marks," he says. His study revealed six types of
>> distinctive projectile impact wounds, from drag marks to fracture
>> marks and punctures. O'Driscoll also noted that most projectile
>> impact marks were located on vertebrae or rib bones and that 17%
>> percent of the marks overall�and 50% of the punctures�held
> RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> He found "quite a difference between the butchering marks and
>> projectile impact marks," he says. His study revealed six types of
>> distinctive projectile impact wounds, from drag marks to fracture
>> marks and punctures. O'Driscoll also noted that most projectile
>> impact marks were located on vertebrae or rib bones and that 17%
>> microscopic bits of embedded stone from the flint points, due to
>> the high velocity of impact. By contrast, none of the butchering
>> marks contained such stone fragments, another key distinction.
>
> I realize that this isn't a detailed piece, but it leaves
> us with the impression that anything not identified as a
> butchering mark has to be a projectile mark, which we all
> know is wrong.
>
> How could/did they distinguish between a spear that was
> thrown and one that was thrusted or even positioned on
> the ground for impaling?
>
> ...I suppose the impaling might be easy enough to
> guess at, as the locations & angles of the wounds would
> be quite limited.
>
> As is, the story seems like a waste of time, reporting
> the very least interesting detail only: Someone's
> conclusion.
>
> Why not just present the evidence and allow us to reach
> a conclusion?
I have not seen the article. The mention of the spine would be a
>> the high velocity of impact. By contrast, none of the butchering
>> marks contained such stone fragments, another key distinction.
>
> I realize that this isn't a detailed piece, but it leaves
> us with the impression that anything not identified as a
> butchering mark has to be a projectile mark, which we all
> know is wrong.
>
> How could/did they distinguish between a spear that was
> thrown and one that was thrusted or even positioned on
> the ground for impaling?
>
> ...I suppose the impaling might be easy enough to
> guess at, as the locations & angles of the wounds would
> be quite limited.
>
> As is, the story seems like a waste of time, reporting
> the very least interesting detail only: Someone's
> conclusion.
>
> Why not just present the evidence and allow us to reach
> a conclusion?
difference to me. The top of an animal, the spine, it hard to get at by
thrusting and much more likely with throwing. And certainly a spine hit
is much more desirable than a bleed out side hit to stop the animal.
Frankly the entire discussion sort of baffles me. When did human start
to throw things? One sort of imagines sticks and stones were thrown
shortly after they were found more effective than feces in bringing down
prey. One imagines that was quite early as chimps do the feces thing.
When people started throwing sticks with stones on one end as opposed
to sticks and stones separately seems like a no brainer.
JTEM
May 28, 2013, 7:45:54 PM5/28/13
to
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
> I have not seen the article. The mention of the spine would be a
> difference to me. The top of an animal, the spine, it hard to get at by
> thrusting and much more likely with throwing. And certainly a spine hit
> is much more desirable than a bleed out side hit to stop the animal.
One problem here:
> I have not seen the article. The mention of the spine would be a
> difference to me. The top of an animal, the spine, it hard to get at by
> thrusting and much more likely with throwing. And certainly a spine hit
> is much more desirable than a bleed out side hit to stop the animal.
This is exactly how (thrusting) spear hunters do
it today. A favorite technique is to sit in a tree
(chosen for it's position on a game trail) and wait
for your prey to wander on by. Using this method
modern hunters are easily able to spear dangerous
animals such as bears.
...in the past I even found videos on youtube
of modern hunters doing exactly this.
So, no, spear wounds on the back are by no means
an indication of thrown weapons. in fact, any
consistency in the location would suggest thrusting
and not throwing, as thrusting lends itself to
precise aiming while throwing does not.
> Frankly the entire discussion sort of baffles me. When did human start
> to throw things? One sort of imagines sticks and stones were thrown
> shortly after they were found more effective than feces in bringing down
> prey. One imagines that was quite early as chimps do the feces thing.
Yes, the only way humans couldn't have been throwing
things from the very beginning is if, say, chimps are
descended from humans... in which case they inherited
their throwing behavior from us and not the other way
around.
..if that is not the case, throwing is certainly
pre human, pre "Homo." But...
But this is a technology question, not a behavioral
one. Throwing a rock or a stick is light years away
from crafting a spear for throwing. Conventional
dating never even placed throwing spears on the scene
until about 100 thousand years ago, while spears are
known to go back much further.
Throwing spear != Spear
> When people started throwing sticks with stones on one end as opposed
> to sticks and stones separately seems like a no brainer.
If it was a no brainer than chimps would build
throwing spears.
A throwing spear requires a level of sophistication,
cognitive abilities which at present no other species
on earth apart from modern man posses. They had to
envision something that didn't exist in the real world,
reason out the design -- trial & error -- all without
any of the knowledge you posses as a "Modern" human.
Up until recently, most paleoanthropologists would
argue that these abilities did not exist in eractus,
Neanderthal, habilis (etc), and only arose in "Moderns"
approximately 100 thousand years ago.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
JTEM
May 28, 2013, 8:18:52 PM5/28/13
to
#1. The "Evidence" itself doesn't exit.
They appear to be identifying ANYTHING
they can rule out as a cut mark as a
wound left by a thrown spear, pretending
that it's an either/or proposition.
#2. There are alternatives that make a
lot more sense.
Everybody seems to believe that thrusting
spears came before throwing spears, and
there's absolutely no reason to rule out
thrusting spears.
A common technique amongst modern (thrusting)
spear hunters is to lie in wait up in a tree
above a game trail/watering hole/etc and
thrust down into the game. Even deadly prey
such as bear can be easily killed by such
means.
For years I argued against thrusting spears
as useful for anything other than as a weapon
of war, even docile animals such as Deer are
known to kill people (about 100 annually), and
can be quite dangerous is corned and stabbed
to death at close range. It wasn't until I
was introduced to actual modern spear hunters,
their techniques and even the fact that some
of their preferred blades closely match stone
aged relics that I changed my mind.
Nothing we see in this "Evidence" for so-called
projectile weapons excludes thrusting spears. In
fact, thrusting spears are a better explanation,
and certainly more logical.
#3. the earliest throwing spears that we know
of didn't use stone points.
The oldest physical remains -- direct evidence --
of throwing spears is found in Germany, where
actually examples of the spears are found. They
don't have stone tips.
A "Throwing spear" is quite different from a
spear. A "Throwing spear" needs to properly
balanced -- weighted -- and this is a great
deal easier with a sharpened wooden point than
with an added stone blade. With a stone blade,
you'd have to fashion of properly weighted
wooden shaft and then hope that the variability
with in stone blade -- never mind whatever you
used to fasten it -- doesn't mess everything up.
Some 400 thousand years ago our ancestors left
perfectly preserved examples of balanced-for-throwing
spears, none of which had stone blades. Now the
stone blades do offer a slight advantage, so why
would more modern, more highly evolved people drop
such an innovation?
#4. Zero support for the cognitive skills necessary.
Heidelberg man appears to have been fashioning
throwing spears at least 400 thousand years ago,
but spears aren't the only thing that Heidelberg
man left us. He also left us the first evidence
for symbolic thought, higher cognitive functions.
chimps can't and don't fashion throwing spears.
They lack the cognitive abilities. They can't
envision something that never existed before, work
out how to make it... trial & error... figure out
why it doesn't work the way they want it to...
adapt... change... experiment...
The absolute earliest evidence for such cognitive
skills comes with Heidelberg man, who also leave
us with the oldest examples of throwing spears. this
is not a coincidence as the latter is fully dependent
on the former. No higher cognitive skills and there's
no throwing spears.
The so-called "Evidence" presented here has no
corresponding evidence of symbolic thinking. What
we'd be looking for is first of all prepared burials,
with jewelry, art (etc) being strong indicators as
well.
Absent such evidence, and with better explanations
available, we're most likely looking at thrusting
weapons.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
They appear to be identifying ANYTHING
they can rule out as a cut mark as a
wound left by a thrown spear, pretending
that it's an either/or proposition.
#2. There are alternatives that make a
lot more sense.
Everybody seems to believe that thrusting
spears came before throwing spears, and
there's absolutely no reason to rule out
thrusting spears.
A common technique amongst modern (thrusting)
spear hunters is to lie in wait up in a tree
above a game trail/watering hole/etc and
thrust down into the game. Even deadly prey
such as bear can be easily killed by such
means.
For years I argued against thrusting spears
as useful for anything other than as a weapon
of war, even docile animals such as Deer are
known to kill people (about 100 annually), and
can be quite dangerous is corned and stabbed
to death at close range. It wasn't until I
was introduced to actual modern spear hunters,
their techniques and even the fact that some
of their preferred blades closely match stone
aged relics that I changed my mind.
Nothing we see in this "Evidence" for so-called
projectile weapons excludes thrusting spears. In
fact, thrusting spears are a better explanation,
and certainly more logical.
#3. the earliest throwing spears that we know
of didn't use stone points.
The oldest physical remains -- direct evidence --
of throwing spears is found in Germany, where
actually examples of the spears are found. They
don't have stone tips.
A "Throwing spear" is quite different from a
spear. A "Throwing spear" needs to properly
balanced -- weighted -- and this is a great
deal easier with a sharpened wooden point than
with an added stone blade. With a stone blade,
you'd have to fashion of properly weighted
wooden shaft and then hope that the variability
with in stone blade -- never mind whatever you
used to fasten it -- doesn't mess everything up.
Some 400 thousand years ago our ancestors left
perfectly preserved examples of balanced-for-throwing
spears, none of which had stone blades. Now the
stone blades do offer a slight advantage, so why
would more modern, more highly evolved people drop
such an innovation?
#4. Zero support for the cognitive skills necessary.
Heidelberg man appears to have been fashioning
throwing spears at least 400 thousand years ago,
but spears aren't the only thing that Heidelberg
man left us. He also left us the first evidence
for symbolic thought, higher cognitive functions.
chimps can't and don't fashion throwing spears.
They lack the cognitive abilities. They can't
envision something that never existed before, work
out how to make it... trial & error... figure out
why it doesn't work the way they want it to...
adapt... change... experiment...
The absolute earliest evidence for such cognitive
skills comes with Heidelberg man, who also leave
us with the oldest examples of throwing spears. this
is not a coincidence as the latter is fully dependent
on the former. No higher cognitive skills and there's
no throwing spears.
The so-called "Evidence" presented here has no
corresponding evidence of symbolic thinking. What
we'd be looking for is first of all prepared burials,
with jewelry, art (etc) being strong indicators as
well.
Absent such evidence, and with better explanations
available, we're most likely looking at thrusting
weapons.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Matt Giwer
May 29, 2013, 12:29:48 AM5/29/13
to
On 5/28/2013 7:45 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I have not seen the article. The mention of the spine would be a
>> difference to me. The top of an animal, the spine, it hard to get at by
>> thrusting and much more likely with throwing. And certainly a spine hit
>> is much more desirable than a bleed out side hit to stop the animal.
>
> One problem here:
>
> This is exactly how (thrusting) spear hunters do
> it today. A favorite technique is to sit in a tree
> (chosen for it's position on a game trail) and wait
> for your prey to wander on by. Using this method
> modern hunters are easily able to spear dangerous
> animals such as bears.
If you thrust from a tree you fall from the tree.
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I have not seen the article. The mention of the spine would be a
>> difference to me. The top of an animal, the spine, it hard to get at by
>> thrusting and much more likely with throwing. And certainly a spine hit
>> is much more desirable than a bleed out side hit to stop the animal.
>
> One problem here:
>
> This is exactly how (thrusting) spear hunters do
> it today. A favorite technique is to sit in a tree
> (chosen for it's position on a game trail) and wait
> for your prey to wander on by. Using this method
> modern hunters are easily able to spear dangerous
> animals such as bears.
JTEM
May 29, 2013, 3:58:44 AM5/29/13
to
No. As I explained, in the past I had
even found (and posted) youtube videos
of hunters demonstrating this technique.
...though most modern spear hunters do
throw their spears.
Again, there is absolutely no theory involved
here. People today actually practice modern
spear hunting, and have no problems
killing dangerous game like bears from above.
I personally believe that this is what lead to
the extinction of the Cave Bear.
How they do it is track an animal. If you can
track down it's lair you're golden. All you
have to do is find a suitable perch (in a tree)
along it's route, and wait. If you've got some
yummy bait you could draw it a ways off of any
trail...
As i stated previously, some of the preferred
spear points (pardon the pun) "Bear" a strong
resemblance to stone age points... though of
course the modern hunters are using metal tips,
while in the stone age they would have used, well,
they would have used stone.
...no surprise there.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
even found (and posted) youtube videos
of hunters demonstrating this technique.
...though most modern spear hunters do
throw their spears.
Again, there is absolutely no theory involved
here. People today actually practice modern
spear hunting, and have no problems
killing dangerous game like bears from above.
I personally believe that this is what lead to
the extinction of the Cave Bear.
How they do it is track an animal. If you can
track down it's lair you're golden. All you
have to do is find a suitable perch (in a tree)
along it's route, and wait. If you've got some
yummy bait you could draw it a ways off of any
trail...
As i stated previously, some of the preferred
spear points (pardon the pun) "Bear" a strong
resemblance to stone age points... though of
course the modern hunters are using metal tips,
while in the stone age they would have used, well,
they would have used stone.
...no surprise there.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
VtSkier
May 29, 2013, 2:55:59 PM5/29/13
to
like our Great Plains? Difficult habitat to find trees to attack from
that are on game trails? Dunno, just asking.
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com
>
Matt Giwer
May 29, 2013, 9:45:52 PM5/29/13
to
demonstration answers a question about WHEN a thing was first done. Of
course cavemen shaved and Norelco TV ads prove it.
JTEM
May 30, 2013, 2:50:35 AM5/30/13
to
VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> Aren't cave bears and short-faced bears critters of open country, much
> like our Great Plains? Difficult habitat to find trees to attack from
> that are on game trails? Dunno, just asking.
: The cave bear inhabited low mountainous areas,
> Aren't cave bears and short-faced bears critters of open country, much
> like our Great Plains? Difficult habitat to find trees to attack from
> that are on game trails? Dunno, just asking.
: especially in regions rich in limestone caves.
: They seem to have avoided open plains,
: preferring forested or forest-edged terrains.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_bear#Behaviour
Every now and then I have to quote Wiki, just to
watch Giwer piss himself and claim that the obvious
cite (the [1]) doesn't exist...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
JTEM
May 30, 2013, 2:54:08 AM5/30/13
to
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
> What is the point when dealing with a person who thinks a modern
> demonstration answers a question about WHEN a thing was first done. Of
> course cavemen shaved and Norelco TV ads prove it.
This makes absolutely no sense.
> What is the point when dealing with a person who thinks a modern
> demonstration answers a question about WHEN a thing was first done. Of
> course cavemen shaved and Norelco TV ads prove it.
Everybody -- including you -- agrees that thrusting
spears had to predate throwing spears, and all I did
was establish beyond the sliver of a doubt that
thrusting spears are capable of producing any wounds
that may have been found... assuming these are even
wounds.
So if we all agree that thrusting spears came first,
and it's clear that thrusting spears can producing the
type of wounds you described, we can't very well claim
that such wounds are evidence of throwing spears...
This is pretty basic stuff here, Giwer. Do keep up.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
VtSkier
May 30, 2013, 6:48:45 AM5/30/13
to
Now lets move on to short faced bears, who, coincidentally went extinct
about 11,600 years ago in the Americas. Plains habitat, ran down prey,
etc. open country.
JTEM
May 31, 2013, 12:37:42 AM5/31/13
to
VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> Now lets move on to short faced bears, who, coincidentally went extinct
> about 11,600 years ago in the Americas. Plains habitat, ran down prey,
> etc. open country.
Pardon the pun, but that's a different animal
> Now lets move on to short faced bears, who, coincidentally went extinct
> about 11,600 years ago in the Americas. Plains habitat, ran down prey,
> etc. open country.
entirely! for one thing it's too recent. It
dates well after the oldest solid evidence for
arrows. So there's no question regarding the
availability of projectile technology at that
time.
Secondly, they vanished right about the time of
the end of the last glacial period. Climate change,
shifting environmental conditions... habitat...
If they had gone extinct without humans we still
wouldn't be wondering, as any change to the
environment is a likely catalyst for extinction.
If you insist on me guessing though: Mammoths.
My guess -- and it's only a guess -- is that their
fate was tied to Mammoths.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
0 new messages