I don’t believe this. Horses are champion endurance/speed runners, and are much more efficient at shedding heat than any human. Yet they are fully covered with fur. I don’t believe the theory that we “hunted by running down prey.” Anyone who has ever tried to catch a recalcitrant horse in a pasture realizes it’s ridiculous. The animal barely has to put forth any effort to keep ahead of the human. It puts on a burst of speed, then rests, eats, and drinks while the human struggles onwards. That’s why we invented traps, followed by distance weapons.
What makes you think horses were the only prey available to archaic humans? And, of course, there is the fact that it is still practiced to some extent today.
I know they were a popular prey based on findings of equine bones at many archaic human sites. I just don’t believe the theory. It doesn’t make sense in a calorie-in/calorie-out way. Most of the people who put it forth seem to have met very few animals. You can’t catch them by chasing them and if you did catch them you’d expend more energy than you’d obtain from catching them. Even dogs, that are far faster and have more endurance than humans, will quickly give up a chase when they realize the odds of getting more calories vs. expending them are low.
We have brains and thumbs for a reason-because physically we are rather pathetic in comparison to most animals. But we are good at traps and weapons.
Doesn’t explain why we don’t have fur.
um yeah, it’s a wikipedia link, not exactly reliable. I suspect any hunting efforts where someone runs an animal down on foot is a very rare case and may be some kind of ritual and/or a very desperate person, not a routine way to get calories. It also talks about teams of people running down and trapping animals. Guess how we catch our horses who don’t want to come in? We get several people to chase it into a corner and trap it, or we get a few dogs out to help trap it. Wolves and dogs hunt in teams so they can trap their prey, not run them to death.
Ask any survivalist-the keys to surviving are to not get exhausted and to eat more calories than you expend.
If running down prey was such a good strategy why did we invent so many traps and weapons?
More reliable than the opinion of an anonymous poster on a message board, especially when you can check the cites given (this one, for example)
Weapons are not inconsistent with endurance hunting, since the prey animal needs to be killed once it has been chased down.
And what a silly argument to make, since humans constantly abandon less efficient methods of survival for more efficient ones all the time.
How many of those were hunted, free horses, and how many domesticated ones?
I think you may be confusing “chasing” with “tracking”. Sure, simply running after an animal that’s faster than you are is not a very productive strategy in the short term. But continuing to follow the hunted animal until you eventually exhaust it is a whole different strategy.
You do realize that even after a prey animal has been successfully caught up with, you need to have something to kill it with, right? (ETA: as John Mace noted.)
As for traps, there’s nothing about the use of traps that makes endurance hunting less plausible or less effective. On the contrary, it’s a classic “belt-and-suspenders” arrangement for maximizing prey yield: while you’re off actively hunting one animal, other animals can be “passively hunted” using pre-constructed traps that only need occasional checking instead of constant surveillance.
Slight nitpick. Dogs do not have more endurance than humans. Take a dog on a 5 mile hike (or even a two mile one). Long before you get to the end, the dog will be dragging behind. I had one dog that would just go on strike; that is, he would just lie down and not go any more. I’d have to wait 5 or 10 minutes before starting again or else he would just lie there while I went on.
I’m pretty sure this guy has the right idea. Evolution adapts us overtime to our environment as useful traits are bred in and detrimental traits are bred out. People changed simply due to where they migrated in the world.
your dog has something wrong with him, go see a vet; perhaps hip dysplasia? A fit hunting dog typically runs 20+ miles in a morning of hunting. We put GPS units on our SAR dogs and they’d often cover 50 miles or more in a day of searching (while we walked 10 miles). The dogs in the Iditarod run over 125 miles a day for 8 days straight while pulling a sled with a person standing on it.
My dogs go for 5-mile runs over rough terrain most mornings and while I’m done at the end they act like nothing happened.
Back to the hairlessness: all other large, hairless mammals (pigs, elephants, rhinos) do not sweat. I don’t know what rhinos do to cool off, but pigs and elephants like to wallow in water and mud to cool off.
A lot of other mammals sweat, often profusely (see the horse for an example) and they are all covered with fur.
Chimpanzees are covered with fur and are not very good at sweating Sweating responses in the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) - ScienceDirect.
I don’t know what this tells us.
back to this ludicrous theory. Pronghorns, a small antelope, can run 20 miles at 30 mph. Most people jog at around 6 mph. So let’s say we have a small party (4 men) out to chase down the pronghorn. It takes off and in 1 hour is 20 miles away. It takes our hunters 3 hours to catch up, during which the pronghorn had 2 hours to rest, eat, and cool down. The pronghorn takes off again. If we repeat this cycle 4 times, it will be 12 hours later. The pronghorn has rested, eaten, and cooled off for 8 hours during this time while the humans have not. It seems very unlikely the pronghorn is going to keel over after only one day of chasing during which time it rested a lot. So let’s say they keep chasing it for 4 days + nights straight and it finally keels over. One man running for 4 days + nights straight will burn off 120,000 kcal; times four guys, they just expended 48,000 kcal. Unfortunately, a single pronghorn only has about 40 pounds of meat, or only 20,400 kcal.
Pronghorns occur only in N. America. H. sapiens did not evolve in the Americas. We evolved in Africa. You need to give it up, unless you have some cites that cursorial hunting is impossible for humans.
Sorry, you’re dead wrong about this. This has recently been put to an experimental test, and a team of ultra-marathoners was able to get within 25 feet of a male pronghorn after a chase of only about 2 1/2 hours. If they had had spears they could easily have killed it. With practice I’m sure they would get better at it.
Your error is in imagining cursorial hunters engage in direct pursuit. Instead they are typically pack hunters that spread out so that one pack member after the other engages with the animal.
Persistence hunting is unequivocally possible for humans and has been documented anthropologically. It has been practiced by various human groups, including until recent times by the San (Bushmen) of the Kalahari. They have been observed successfully hunting kudu by this method.
And even if humans don’t endurance-hunt pronghorns, that doesn’t mean that we don’t endurance-hunt any prey. Yeah, a pronghorn is really hard to run down. How about a wildebeest? Or a deer? Or a water buffalo? As long as there’s even one animal that we can outrun, it’s a viable technique.
Yes, the example I posted is almost a worst-case scenario: An exceptionally fast prey animal and a team of pursuers who were not experienced hunters. Given practice and a less fleet footed prey the technique would have been easier. As long as you can run down an occasional warthog it may be worthwhile.
And you generally don’t pick out a healthy adult as your target, either. So quoting statistics about what a healthy adult animal can do is not particularly relevant.
Besides the objections raised by other posters, I think you may have an unrealistic expectation of the energy requirements of prey animals.
Herbivores such as antelopes need to spend around 50-60% of their time feeding in order to support their caloric requirements even in ordinary circumstances. (Pronghorns in particular have extremely low fat reserves to support them through periods of underconsumption.) If they’re engaging in prolonged strenuous running for 1 out of every 4 hours, that’s not going to be enough to maintain their strength. Especially when you consider that like other ruminants, they need two separate chewing periods for the same food to extract its nutrients effectively: once when they consume it and once when they “ruminate” or chew cud.
Remember also that hunted antelopes can be exhausted by thirst, depending on the availability of water sources in their path (unlike human hunters who can both carry water supplies and deliberately plan hunting strategies for water access). Also, their light bone structure means that they are more likely to break a leg, after which of course it’s all over.
Finally, note that calling a well-documented and rationally explained phenomenon a “ludicrous theory” does not tend to inspire confidence in one’s arguments.
As an example of a hunted animal running - ever seen a horse after a strenuous run? A few minutes of running and jumping, and the thing is covered with sweat and “pees like a racehorse”. Most prey animals are 'designed" (evolved) for a fast but brief run, because most hunters, unlike humans, have the same limitation. As pointed out above, humans can run prey down by persistence; we are outrun the first mile, but can harry enough to exhaust such animals … and prevent them from finding the food and water to recharge their batteries. No horse or pronghorn can do 20mph for an hour.
The current “just so story” about bipedal evolution says:
-us animals came down from the trees to scavenge food on the open plains as the savannahs around the forest spread.
Bipedalism allowed them to find food and then run back to the forest on two feet, holding food with their arms.
They eventually learned to scavenge protein from carcasses left by large predators
They learned to use weapons/tools (big rocks, pointy sticks) to drive off lesser scavengers.
They eventually learned to use these weapons to make their own kills.
Bipedalism is better suited to endurance running - this aided them in killing larger animals by running them down.
Meat (protein) and fat is a better source of nutrition; our brains use a significant portion of the daily caloric intake, so getting a diet higher in meat helps sustain a larger brain.
We started as scavengers, then started using fire; as a result, we use cooking to simulate the breakdown of meat originally found from rotting; thus, humans have never really adapted to eating raw meat, cooking is just a quick means to turn our fresh kills to the same consistency as sunbaked carcasses. (plus its sterilizing bonus)
Our big brains allowed us to learn to make better tools - bow and arrow obviates the need to chase an animal down to exhaustion and smarts enable us to hunt stealthily or set traps and corrals. Hunting by exhaustion is less necessary.
Whats interesting to me is that in European populations there is a very strong correlation* of light hair and eyes with pale skin. This is also to an extent true in the Near East and West Asia. In Central and South Asia on the other hand, that is not really true. It’s very common to see phenotypes which are extremely pale but with jet black hair and nearly black eyes. Its also common to see swarthy with brown and even light brown hair and blue or green eyes.
Always wondered why, is it due to interbreeding or different genes being responsible in those population.
*The British Isles also have the pale skin/dark hair eyes.