Archaeologica.org

but there is no evidence in support,

We don't have a full thrusting spear, either, for that matter. We have the point....and assume the rest because a piece of wood does not last as long as a rock.

With the wound on the shoulder... why could it not be inflicted after the animal was brought down? They had no weapon that could bring down a large animal in its tracks. The final kill had to be a bit messy.

Agree about the elk. In fact, I'm not so sure that it would be the elk that was doing the running. It might have been doing the chasing!

We don't have a full thrusting spear, either, for that matter. We have the point....and assume the rest because a piece of wood does not last as long as a rock.

I think you are missing my point Min. The programmes were stating this. My whole argument , including that about language, is that they are stating these ideas as facts!
To the best of my knowledge, hopefully some one here may know better, we have no HSN spears to support either argument, yet the programmes state that the HSN ran down Elk in forest cover and that they stabbed Mammoths from close quarters, offering the broken bones of HSN as 'proof'.
I don't think you'd get a conviction on this sort of evidence.

With the wound on the shoulder... why could it not be inflicted after the animal was brought down?

The animal survived the injury for at least some time after being wounded, and short of jumping in the air I can think of no way an HSN could have stabbed a mature Mammoth at that point, and even if he could why would he waste his effort on a spot not apparently likely to produce a fatal injury, short of waiting for it to keel over from blood poisoning that is?

Roy.

I think you are missing my point Min. The programmes were stating this. My whole argument , including that about language, is that they are stating these ideas as facts!

Yeah, I got that. I'm just speculating and pointing out the obvious.

The animal survived the injury for at least some time after being wounded

Animal could still have fallen...could have rolled on a hunter and gotten away, too. There's just no way to tell. Lots of animals are walking around with wounds inflicted by predators. Not every attack results in a kill.

Again, they seem to have decided how they wanted to present this evidence.

why would he waste his effort on a spot not apparently likely to produce a fatal injury,

I'd imagine it was a rather confused melee. Sometimes people miss their targets.

I'd imagine it was a rather confused melee. Sometimes people miss their targets.

Which is one of my points Min, it would much easier to miss with a cast spear than a lunged one, so why do they insist that the evidence supports their view that HSN couldn't throw a spear?
I couldn't see any evidence for that at all, which is why I was hoping that someone else had seen the programme and how they viewed the 'evidence'.
What do you think about the point I made about the 'language' gene?
I cannot see how they use the existence of it in HSN as proof that we inherited it from HSN.
Fifty years ago HSN was a blundering, mumbling idiot and HSS was God's creation, all on the slenderest evidence, now I think that the viewpoint is swinging the other way with HSN the Einsteins of the day and HSS some kind of syphilitic idiot!

Roy.

Which is one of my points Min, it would much easier to miss with a cast spear than a lunged one, so why do they insist that the evidence supports their view that HSN couldn't throw a spear?

Agreed but you know, on occasion I have gone to stab a piece of steak with a fork and missed and the steak wasn't even moving.

Shit happens.

They had already determined that HSN couldn't throw a spear and they simply set out to prove that theory.

They had already determined that HSN couldn't throw a spear and they simply set out to prove that theory.

That's the way it looked to me Min.
Take this language gene, HSN had it therefore we inherited it from them!
Their reasoning went as follows...
HSS hunted on the open plains of Africa and threw spears thus did not need language???
HSN hunted in woodland which meant they had to get close to prey to stab it therefore language was essential.
Against that the logic must run thus...
HSS met HSN off the plains of Africa and if HSN were hunting in woods HSS with no language would, according this idea not be able to hunt.
HSN hunted the big animal on the steppe, open plains like Africa, therefore no need for language.
The two arguments seem to be mutually destructive of each other.
Also there is no evidence in any of their arguments that language may have been inherited from a common ancestor, as I think is possible as the sea journeys undertaken years before would suggest that some for of language existed way before HSN came on the scene.

Roy.

There's a play in American Football called a "Hail Mary Pass" in which the team that is losing throws the ball deep downfield and prays that someone will catch it.

When I heard the voice gene theory I thought of the Hail Mary.

P.S. In a forest, spoken commands would be vital. In the open, they could largely be replaced with silent hand signals. So what? Homo Erectus had been hunting a million years earlier and in a range which included all sorts of terrain. I doubt that an argument could be made that the HE living in the open died out because they didn't have language.

The whole position seems mildly amusing to me. To be so certain on the basis of such equivocal evidence is simply illogical.

The whole position seems mildly amusing to me. To be so certain on the basis of such equivocal evidence is simply illogical.

Has anyone here ever been in a truly “wild” forest?
Most of us, when we think of a woods or forest, think of where we may have hiked or walked.
Most likely a park or preserve. A maintained place.
I remember on a canoe trip along the US/Canada border you could always tell which side of the border you were on by how far back into the woods you could walk.
The Canadians did no maintenance and you could not walk 5 feet into the woods.
It was waist deep with fallen branches, etc.
There are many a “Deer Trail Road” in the eastern US.
The reason is that they follow the old deer tracks though the woods.
Following them was the only way to get through the woods.
An ambush along one would be very logical.
And thrusting would work better in the close confines.

An ambush along one would be very logical.
And thrusting would work better in the close confines.

Don't forget nets. It's a quick way to bring down a large animal.

As KB says, virgin forest is near impenetrable, as I commented earlier, why these experts who advise programme producers know so little is astonishing.
Nets Cog are the lazy man's hunting tool, and very effective. Whether HSN had them or not I don't know. but they certainly could have built brushwood barriers across known animal trails, another point totally ignored by experts who know so much that they have no need to ask others, or so they seem to believe.
They certainly are,'t shy of making themselves look stupid!

Roy.

Mammoths' diet was primarily grasses though. You're not going to get sufficient grass growing in that kind of forest. It's true that even in Africa's savannahs there are game trails and that is not heavily forested at all so ambush hunting makes sense if you can find a good hunting spot.

That does not answer Digit's original question though because someone crouching down along side that trail would be thrusting upward into the belly rather than standing up and stabbing in the shoulder.

Seriously, if I were trying to take down something the size of a mammoth I would be looking for a killing thrust with my first effort...because a second stab is problematical.

because a second stab is problematical.

and bloody risky as well!
But if we can reason this sort of thing out why can't the 'experts?'

Roy.

But if we can reason this sort of thing out why can't the 'experts?'

Because you're dealing here with the genus H. myopicus exspurticus?

Digit wrote:

because a second stab is problematical.

and bloody risky as well!
But if we can reason this sort of thing out why can't the 'experts?'

Roy.

I have to go look for something for you, Dig. It was an e-mail I got a few days back about some guy who decided to rope a deer. I hope I still have it.