Archaeologica.org

The fascinating thing about a wolf hunt is the fact that they chase their prey down in relays, with fresh wolves picking up the chase from prepositioned points in the flight path. A study showed that wolves raised in captivity did not know how to do this. So, it's learned behavior.

Now if the prey refuses to be herded down the proper flight path, they will get away and the pack gives up.

I knew sombody would bring that up Min. The Wolf of course has one big advantage over man, he's lot faster so Wolves can run their prey down, and frankly, I don't see Wolves taking on animals as large as Mastodons.

Digit. Thanks for bringing that up. There is one area where HN and HS were totally different. As outlined before on this forum, HN was not able to efficiently run due to their anatomy. However, HS could run quite well.

As War Arrow can attest, every pre-Columbian tribe had a group of runners. Very often, they would run down their prey over very long distances. In the U.S. Southwest, after the introduction of the horse, members of the Pah-Ute tribe would run down horses for food (they rarerly rode them). Generally, the jaunt would take about 20 miles or so. The horse would drop from exhaustion and the runner would pull out his knife.

Messages were conveyed quickly over long distances in the Inca Empire by runners, but they had the advantage of coca leaves. So WA, what did the Aztecs use? It couldn't be Psilocybin -- they'd just sit down and trip out on the scenery!

So I understand Beag, but as I pointed out, the size difference between a Caribou and the Wolf is nothing like between a man and a Mammoth.
Most of the animals that a man could tackle on his own, whilst waiting for the rest of the crew to catch up, are in fact too fast for him to catch, and anything that he can catch is too large for him to tackle.
Man as a hunter, as opposed to a trapper, has always had to work as a team, and the minute you work as a group the prey has got to be large enough for all to benefit.
Therefore man must hunt large animals.

Man as a hunter, as opposed to a trapper, has always had to work as a team, and the minute you work as a group the prey has got to be large enough for all to benefit.

Also, if you work as a smart group, it gets easier to catch the entire herd and feast for weeks. That's what Buffalo jumps were all about. After the day's work is done I can just hear all of the burping and farting from overindulgence at the bottom of the pit -- somewhat like a modern-day fraternity barbeque.

I'll take your word for the last part Cog.

There is one area where HN and HS were totally different. As outlined before on this forum, HN was not able to efficiently run due to their anatomy. However, HS could run quite well.

This is pretty much true on a flat savannah like plain. The gracile form of people in Africa would win a race there in most cases.

In a more rugged landscape, like hilly and even mountainous Europe, the femoral curvature of the Neanderthal was advantageous. He would be able to run up and down and sideways much faster than the gracile human.

We don't have any modern sports on that kind of surface, but ice hockey is a good example.

but ice hockey is a good example.

Huh?

Right on Min.

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrations ... e20080215/

A 40,000-year-old tooth has provided scientists with the first direct evidence that Neanderthals moved from place to place during their lifetimes. In a collaborative project involving researchers from the Germany, the United Kingdom, and Greece, Professor Michael Richards of the Max Planck institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany and Durham University, UK, and his team used laser technology to collect microscopic particles of enamel from the tooth. By analysing strontium isotope ratios in the enamel - strontium is a naturally occurring metal ingested into the body through food and water - the scientists were able to uncover geological information showing where the Neanderthal had been living when the tooth was formed (Journal of Archaeological Science, February 11th, 2008).

Another article on Neanderthal mobility. Nearly the same as the previous article.

It's just mind-boggling that some allegedly intelligent modern human would scream that HNS are HUNTER/GATHERERS and then concoct a scenario where they DIDN'T move around.

I mean how does that work? Did they suddenly appear in Europe? If they didn't they had to move in from somewhere.

Sheesh!

You're being logical again Min! You need to watch that.

Yeah.....I know.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 210756.htm

ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2006) — The disappearance of Neanderthals is frequently attributed to competition from modern humans, whose greater intelligence has been widely supposed to make them more efficient as hunters. However, a new study forthcoming in the February issue of Current Anthropology argues that the hunting practices of Neanderthals and early modern humans were largely indistinguishable, a conclusion leading to a different explanation, also based on archaeological data, to explain the disappearance of the Neanderthals. This study has important implications for debates surrounding behavioral evolution and the practices that eventually allowed modern humans like ourselves to displace other closely-related species.

This article reports on a study that should be out this month. Hopefully I'll find it.

If they do ever find a definitive answer Beag a lot of people are going to be out of work, and I'll have one less thing to argue about!

whose greater intelligence has been widely supposed to make them more efficient as hunters.

Yet HNS managed to survive for a couple of hundred thousand years. If they were so stupid one would think that they would have starved to death long before HSS showed up.

Or am I being logical again?