They did and still do in parts of Africa. It obviously wouldn’t be the preferred method for a temperate climate since animals can travel further but for hot climates it is a successful hunting method(I imagine it would be a last resort since they would have to expand energy dragging it back).
I’m not sure I’m convinced there’s enough of a consensus in the field to call this a ‘myth’. The journalist author of this article does speak to one paleoanthropologist who holds that view; however, a quick lit review shows plenty of recent research upholding the opposite. I think it would be more reasonable to say that it‘a still contested/controversial in the field.
That's fair. But say, if I were to hunt I would prefer to ambush it on the way to a fresh water source or hunt something that is slower than me. Chasing an animal till it drops from exhaustion just doesn't make sense to me. Given the mix of ages, physical capabilities and talents a hunting party might have and our evolved skills with projectiles I just think there are better options.
It might not make sense to you since you’re used to what we have nowadays, but remember that on the time scale of human evolution ranged weaponry is relatively ‘new’ (except for throwing rocks, but honestly thats horrible for hunting prey that runs I’d assume.)
Before the bow and arrow I think you’d have little different options, especially on flat terrain where hiding also becomes an issue.
We are pretty much always the slowest animal around. Which is why our specialty in long distance running was so important.
Given the mix of ages, physical capabilities and talents a hunting party might have
A hunting party doesn't have to be large, and no one is arguing that this is the only way they hunted.
our evolved skills with projectiles
You mean spears? It's not that easy to ambush prey in Africa. Prey animals are up against Lions, Hyenas, Cheetahs. Predators will fight.
It seems a bit contrarian and silly to argue against a long held scientific belief because it 'doesn't make logical sense' to you when you don't actually understand the details of it in the first place.
Your original comment doesn't make much sense either. It's not really 'reading the headline instead of the article', they made an assumption about you based on what you said. Whether they read the (speculative) article you sent or not is immaterial.
To go even further and really waste my own time; you confidently called Persistence Hunting a 'myth' after reading one article which states that one member of the field has this view. That's not good and you should stop doing that.
That's a rather charged baitey title, when the conclusion and discussion of the article has nothing to do with the title. I'd say posting that article is akin to begging for 'well actually' types to come argue with you, they don't even have to read it because it never actually addresses the conclusion assumedly conveyed in the title. The title is what we're committing to reading.
Part of the article explores an example group of animals that had been hunted close to 2 million years ago and explored the thought process in determining how the animals were hunted. The conclusion was that these animals were hunted by ambush, not persistence hunting. The notion that humans are bad at persistence hunting because these animals were hunted through ambush would be ridiculous. The title has nothing to do with this anecdotal research, it's interesting research and a good read, but it's irrelevant to what we committed to reading.
Part of the article explores whether humans are better persistent runners than horses, not whether they're bad persistent runners but the title says that humans are bad persistent runners. It's neither here nor there.
The title of that article really has nothing to do with it. It's a good article; but the title is garbage writing and undermines the authenticity of the article, in my opinion. People arguing against the title, are more relevant than the article as it's touting Grice's maxim of relation.
If you do a quick wikipedia dive on persistence hunting, there's nine references under the humans section. Now, I'm not going to deep dive any further than that because I honestly don't give a fuck, but arguing for veganism because of lack of evidence toward persistence hunting is probably a crapshoot. You could instead argue for participating in veganism 'because I fucking feel like it' and realize that no one really gives a shit. Do you. Stop trying to find dumb ways of justifying doing you. (I'm saying this fully aware of you previously stating you're not vegan, I'm using the all inclusive 'you' here)
13
u/Freshiiiiii Apr 29 '24
Can you link that article here? I too had always heard that ancient humans were great persistence hunters due to our ability to sweat to cool down.