300,000-year-old throwing stick documents the evolution of hunting

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Really, these kinds of questions are too detailed to answer from relics alone. I don't think you can really know what kind of (cognitive) behavior was behind them. You can say there was skill, but does that make humans less animalistic in the sense we think of animals, i.e. as being less conscious/intentional in their actions? Idk.

That's why history researchers use the various auxiliary sciences of history.

In addition to the so-called Schöninger spears made of spruce and pine wood as well as a lance, this throwing wood found in 2016 is one of the ol
dest known fully preserved hunting weapons in the world.

These finds and the subsequent analyses change the image of the Ice Age man. Until now, it was assumed that homo heidelbergensis lived mostly from hand to mouth, while neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) could only use their weapons within a limited radius: for example, by delivering a deadly blow to their prey or throwing their spear at a short distance.

More general information about the excavations in Schöningen:
Schöningen yielded an unmanageable number of finds from the Early Palaeolithic to the Iron Age. Among them are numerous relics, some of which include the Rössener, Aunjetitzer and spherical amphora culture15 - and furthermore also a Group of shards, which, according to comparable finds from Saxony-Anhalt, are called "Schöninger group" have been classified..An extensive settlement is also of great importance
the Linear Pottery Culture including numerous house layouts and a fortification at the site Esbeck.
The most interesting are the Old Palaeolithic excavation horizons with their numerous animal bones and unique wooden tools.

There were previously only two records of hunting weapons from this period worldwide - the yew wood lance tip from Clacton-on-Sea (Essex, UK) and the yew lance of Lehringen (Lower Saxony) - the Schöninger spears are now not only older, but moreover they are all too vivid example of hunting in the Palaeolithic Age. Their existence proves that the homo
erectus/heidelbergensis was already at that time able to produce perfectly crafted hunting weapons, equivalent to modern competition spears, and to use them in a coordinated and visibly successful hunting. Also that people are so specialized only hunted a certain species of animal, is not attested by other sites of the age and represents thus a new insight.

My second personal favourite is an 88 cm long, carefully debarked and delimbed piece of spruce wood, which, due to its clearly charred end, could have been used as a "roasting spit" or - less poetic - just for stoking a fire.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

In addition to the so-called Schöninger spears made of spruce and pine wood as well as a lance, this throwing wood found in 2016 is one of the ol
dest known fully preserved hunting weapons in the world.

These finds and the subsequent analyses change the image of the Ice Age man. Until now, it was assumed that homo heidelbergensis lived mostly from hand to mouth, while neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) could only use their weapons within a limited radius: for example, by delivering a deadly blow to their prey or throwing their spear at a short distance.

Isn't it possible that most did hunt that way, only some special artist/priest-types crafted idealized version of regular weapons to gain worship of their peers and maybe try to sell the high-quality weapons to people who would barter in hopes of fulfilling their imagined potential, much the way that people today buy expensive, high-quality tools in hopes that doing so will improve their performance?

Quote:

More general information about the excavations in Schöningen:
Schöningen yielded an unmanageable number of finds from the Early Palaeolithic to the Iron Age. Among them are numerous relics, some of which include the Rössener, Aunjetitzer and spherical amphora culture15 - and furthermore also a Group of shards, which, according to comparable finds from Saxony-Anhalt, are called "Schöninger group" have been classified..An extensive settlement is also of great importance
the Linear Pottery Culture including numerous house layouts and a fortification at the site Esbeck.
The most interesting are the Old Palaeolithic excavation horizons with their numerous animal bones and unique wooden tools.

It's amazing that so many relics have been discovered from so long ago. It used to amaze me that so many relics from just the Roman empire survived to be discovered, then I couldn't believe that there are early American artifacts from many thousands of years ago, but now you're telling me that there is an abundance of relics that are 100s of thousands of years old and I am quite surprised.

Quote:

There were previously only two records of hunting weapons from this period worldwide - the yew wood lance tip from Clacton-on-Sea (Essex, UK) and the yew lance of Lehringen (Lower Saxony) - the Schöninger spears are now not only older, but moreover they are all too vivid example of hunting in the Palaeolithic Age. Their existence proves that the homo
erectus/heidelbergensis was already at that time able to produce perfectly crafted hunting weapons, equivalent to modern competition spears, and to use them in a coordinated and visibly successful hunting. Also that people are so specialized only hunted a certain species of animal, is not attested by other sites of the age and represents thus a new insight.

I wouldn't expect everyone to be hunting with such idealized weapons. More likely I would expect certain people to spend a lot of time and effort seeking out really good, straight sticks and honing them into weapons, but I think most people would just settle for whatever works, i.e. because if you're hungry and you know the stick is probably going to break anyway, why would you put so much effort into crafting such a fine example only to have it break during use?

Quote:

My second personal favourite is an 88 cm long, carefully debarked and delimbed piece of spruce wood, which, due to its clearly charred end, could have been used as a "roasting spit" or - less poetic - just for stoking a fire.

You can do that with pretty much any good branch, if you can find one in an area where everyone has the same idea as you do, that is.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Citation and rhetorical posturing are too often used as a substitute for clear explanation of reasoning in academic literature, wouldn't you agree?

You call it "posturing" , Those involved in the field use it as a shortcut to communication. Youve demonstrated quite nicely that you seem to have little understanding of the nature of such scientific literature.

Read, It wont kill you!

2 Replies

@farmerman,

livinglava wrote:

It's amazing that so many relics have been discovered from so long ago. It used to amaze me that so many relics from just the Roman empire survived to be discovered, then I couldn't believe that there are early American artifacts from many thousands of years ago, but now you're telling me that there is an abundance of relics that are 100s of thousands of years old and I am quite surprised.

farmerman wrote:

Read, It wont kill you!

What farmerman said.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Really, these kinds of questions are too detailed to answer from relics alone.

As important as artifacts are, an equal degree of importance is investigating their context. Where were they found? what was the stratigraphy, how about the pollen and shelter. . True, finding artifacts is a relatively important occurence, but they play an even more important part in sleuthing out what the entire life and lifestyle the owners of the artifacts followed.

That why grave robbers and cave hunters can totally ruin a site excavation-investigation. Theyre "pot hunters" not seekers of knowledge about the inhabitants

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Citation and rhetorical posturing are too often used as a substitute for clear explanation of reasoning in academic literature, wouldn't you agree?
You call it "posturing" , Those involved in the field use it as a shortcut to communication. Youve demonstrated quite nicely that you seem to have little understanding of the nature of such scientific literature.

Read, It wont kill you!

I've read a lot, and there was a time when I was so enamored by academic literature that I dismissed what other people told me about posturing, but in time I opened my mind and tested their theory and, indeed, I found (and still find) a lot of posturing and other fluff that fills pages and thus books and journals, but doesn't really add anything to what I'm interested in about their work.

The bottom line is that citation and various other rhetorical techniques can have a double function. On the one hand, you have to tell where you got information but on the other hand, people use citations as a way of giving each other professional credit, which also helps people with promotions and tenure, grant funding, etc.

So not everyone is totally focused on scientific research for its own sake, but instead they are playing a professional status game, praising others and trying to get praised in return; forging alliances and securing professional positions against others who will lose their jobs in the course of budgetary ebbs and flows.

And when you really look at it, there is worship going on that satisfies the religious part of people's minds/hearts/egos. I mean look at how academicians wince at the name of Jesus but become elated at hearing someone whose work they life cited as a leading researcher in a field, or better yet a 'pioneer' in uncharted territory. People don't just want to do science, they want to be recognized and worshiped for it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Really, these kinds of questions are too detailed to answer from relics alone.
As important as artifacts are, an equal degree of importance is investigating their context. Where were they found? what was the stratigraphy, how about the pollen and shelter. . True, finding artifacts is a relatively important occurence, but they play an even more important part in sleuthing out what the entire life and lifestyle the owners of the artifacts followed.

That why grave robbers and cave hunters can totally ruin a site excavation-investigation. Theyre "pot hunters" not seekers of knowledge about the inhabitants

I agree with you that careful excavation is better than careless excavation, but you also have to have a sense of what can and can't be answered from artifacts and whatever material context you can uncover around them.

The only way you can really know what you can't know is by coming up with as many different hypotheses/theories as you can about how people lived with the artifacts you find.

As I mentioned before, finding a few very well crafted spears doesn't mean that everyone hunted with such high-quality tools. They could simply be special examples made by someone to prove their craftsman ship and impress others, or to sell/trade to people who had a superstitious belief that a perfect weapon would make them more successful in hunting.

The more alternative hypotheses you generate, the more you realize that you can't really know how exactly people used the artifacts that you find. You might be able to deduce a lot, but you should also be able to deduce a lot about what you can't prove one way or the other.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

but you also have to have a sense of what can and can't be answered from artifacts and whatever material context you can uncover around them

Thats why ecavations are carefully planned and reviewed by thos with experience. We cant rally say anything about what can or cant be answered until we try.

Quote:

really know how exactly people used the artifacts that you find. You might be able to deduce a lot, but you should also be able to deduce a lot about what you can't prove one way or the other.

Thats the job of religions. They are used to making stuff up out of cloth and then asking people to believe it.
cience should always be based upon "Multiple Hypotheses"
And then these hypotheses (based upon what youve got in hand and what you alrady may unerstand), are tested and experimented .Remember Piltdown man ?? It took science over 30 years (and some new technology) to conclusively understand that it was a total hoax, (something that had been suspected for several decades already).
So if we dont know at that exact moment of discovery, at least weve got lots of ideas for what we WOULD need to find to prove the point or falsify the "pet"hypothesis. Even negative results move science ahead.

A Edison said after being asked whether he felt bad about taking over 100 times to find a filament that worked in his lightbulb. What he did say was "'Actually we did find 99 ways that DONT work."

1 Reply

@livinglava,

can you sort of share some of the hypotheses that you did test to change your mind ?
You seem kinda negative on basic learned skills. Oftentimes, while youre busy testing whther a wheel dos actually rotate about an axis, cience has moved waay ahead into newer realms .

Quote:

So not everyone is totally focused on scientific research for its own sake, but instead they are playing a professional status game, praising others and trying to get praised in return; forging alliances and securing professional positions against others who will lose their jobs in the course of budgetary ebbs and flows.

And youve been a scientist how long???

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
but you also have to have a sense of what can and can't be answered from artifacts and whatever material context you can uncover around them
Thats why ecavations are carefully planned and reviewed by thos with experience. We cant rally say anything about what can or cant be answered until we try.

You just always have to say something about who's worthy of scientific thought and who's not. Why don't you try just discussing science instead of talking about who is 'experienced,' and 'careful planning,' etc.?
You're not elucidating any science when you talk like that.

Quote:

Quote:
really know how exactly people used the artifacts that you find. You might be able to deduce a lot, but you should also be able to deduce a lot about what you can't prove one way or the other.
Thats the job of religions. They are used to making stuff up out of cloth and then asking people to believe it.
cience should always be based upon "Multiple Hypotheses"
And then these hypotheses (based upon what youve got in hand and what you alrady may unerstand), are tested and experimented .Remember Piltdown man ?? It took science over 30 years (and some new technology) to conclusively understand that it was a total hoax, (something that had been suspected for several decades already).
So if we dont know at that exact moment of discovery, at least weve got lots of ideas for what we WOULD need to find to prove the point or falsify the "pet"hypothesis. Even negative results move science ahead.

You worship science and scientists as your religion, so you can hardly understand what you are talking about regarding 'religion,' when you're totally oblivious to your own while pumping up your own religious ego by ridiculing others.

I can't explain science to you because you only think of it in terms of existing discourse, not in terms of what goes into creating discourse at the theoretical level. Nothing happens in science that wasn't initiated by theorizing. You can be as careful and rigorous as you want but if you have no theory to work with, you're just playing with test tubes and a blindfold.

Quote:

A Edison said after being asked whether he felt bad about taking over 100 times to find a filament that worked in his lightbulb. What he did say was "'Actually we did find 99 ways that DONT work."

And that involved generating and testing a lot of hypotheses.

With human science it's more complex because you can't just test your hypothesis about why some people made some spears a certain way 300,000 years ago. You can generate theories and hypotheses and cite data to support or question them, but there are no conclusive tests. People who claim they have falsified a theory/hypothesis about how tools were or weren't used 300,000 years ago aren't considering enough about what they can't see from that time without going back in a time machine.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

can you sort of share some of the hypotheses that you did test to change your mind ?
You seem kinda negative on basic learned skills. Oftentimes, while youre busy testing whther a wheel dos actually rotate about an axis, cience has moved waay ahead into newer realms .

Quote:
So not everyone is totally focused on scientific research for its own sake, but instead they are playing a professional status game, praising others and trying to get praised in return; forging alliances and securing professional positions against others who will lose their jobs in the course of budgetary ebbs and flows.

And youve been a scientist how long???

Look at you, Mr. Scientist, playing a status game and proving my point!

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

playing a status game and proving my point!

Turning your own condition around and focusing on others eh?
Might I repeat below what you actually wrote?

Quote:

instead they are playing a professional status game, praising others and trying to get praised in return; forging alliances and securing professional positions against others who will lose their jobs in the course of budgetary ebbs and flows

Thats about as weak ass, ill thought out argument as Ive ever listened to. Its quite obvious as soon as you get on you bicycle of conflicting statements that you have absolutely NO knowledge of what the hell you are even talking about.Does that stop you?

I know that what all scientists have in common is to participate in somthing greater than them and wanting to contribute. If one starts believing all that BS you have jammed in your teeny brain, I guarantee yours would be a less personally rewarding life.

A baseball player first plays because he loves the game.

I think your arguments have gone full circle as a set of convictions that are apparently the center of your life, and as someone in the field, I can say they are dead wrong.
Your word salads are a neverending grasp to sound like some deep thinker or else your trying out for something worthwhile to say ,but all I get from you is just another farrago of wacky conflicting conclusions.

You should just keep picking these fights with yourself, youre really good at it.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

All that person ever does is criticize or attempt to diminish others opinions. I can't imagine how miserable it must be to be constantly searching for ideas or people to scoff at. That's my idea of a horrible existence.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

...oh, you were talking about Lava. When I first read it, I thought it was about Trump.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

walter, What would you reccommend as a good general resource text about the archeology and paleoanthropology in Europe??

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I have no idea, since a) my university times are long ago and b) I'm just interest in the more local and regional archaeology*.

But, this exhibition gave an excellent overview about archaeology in Germany.

The wikipedia report is only in German, but gives some links, too.

In English, however, is an open pdf-review by AJA online: A German “Leistungsschau”: An Exhibition in Search of a European Image of History

* Unfortunately only in German (but with photos) is a free download of how it works here in Westphalia: Archaeological monuments in Westphalia - identify, record and preserve

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
playing a status game and proving my point!
Turning your own condition around and focusing on others eh?
Might I repeat below what you actually wrote?

Can you first admit that what you wrote plays with the status of 'scientist' instead of just discussing what I said?

Quote:

And youve been a scientist how long???

When you have so little to say that you have to resort to accusing me of not being a scientist, that just shows how intellectually bankrupt you are in responding to my post.

Quote:

instead they are playing a professional status game, praising others and trying to get praised in return; forging alliances and securing professional positions against others who will lose their jobs in the course of budgetary ebbs and flows

Thats about as weak ass, ill thought out argument as Ive ever listened to. Its quite obvious as soon as you get on you bicycle of conflicting statements that you have absolutely NO knowledge of what the hell you are even talking about.Does that stop you?[/quote]
You don't think people lose their jobs/careers in academia when budgetary tides retract and leave them high and dry? You don't think that people spend their careers trying to position themselves in a way that will protect their job at that moment, while someone else gets fired because they didn't have enough publications or citations?

Do you really think everyone in academia only publishes because they are doing interesting science that they want to share publicly? Many are just coming up with anything that will pass as interesting science for the sake of building/keeping their job/career. Ever heard the expression, "publish or perish?"

Quote:

I know that what all scientists have in common is to participate in somthing greater than them and wanting to contribute. If one starts believing all that BS you have jammed in your teeny brain, I guarantee yours would be a less personally rewarding life.

You don't know that. You tell yourself that because you don't want to see the dark side of academia, the ego-driven side. You don't want to acknowledge that there are people who want to participate and contribute to something greater than themselves but they can't because jobs/funding is limited and certain people position themselves and their work in ways to insist on a certain salary, and the unions protect them while others lose jobs, positions, and end up having to go look for a job elsewhere and deal with their student loans doing jobs they don't really want.

Quote:

A baseball player first plays because he loves the game.

And some people love the game but they work at a restaurant owned by a famous baseball player serving baseball fans and cleaning up after them because not everyone gets a job playing baseball just because they want it.

Taking this analogy further in regards to science, what you do is discourage people from playing amateur baseball in their free time by telling them that they should just watch professionals play and not think that when they are throwing a ball or hitting it with a bat that doing so constitutes some form of baseball because real baseball players go to spring training and join professional teams, have managers, etc.

In short, you are online participating in amateur science discussions by ridiculing and goading people about not being scientists in order to spout off your own ego as someone who worked in academia.

Quote:

I think your arguments have gone full circle as a set of convictions that are apparently the center of your life, and as someone in the field, I can say they are dead wrong.
Your word salads are a neverending grasp to sound like some deep thinker or else your trying out for something worthwhile to say ,but all I get from you is just another farrago of wacky conflicting conclusions.

You should just keep picking these fights with yourself, youre really good at it.

You are the one who likes to pick fights and probably just seethes with pleasure when you get a response. I just wonder if you're drinking or sober when you post your aggression. Belligerence is pretty common among alcoholics, probably because they've had to repress their aggression in professional settings and/or in their family life, so they drink to escape repression and then they take out their aggression wherever they can. It looks like you've made amateur science discussion your punching bag.

3 Replies

@livinglava,

I've started this thread with links to sources.
I have never before heard such a nonsense about history in general and archaeology in special than posted here by you.

livinglava wrote:

I just wonder if you're drinking or sober when you post your aggression. Belligerence is pretty common among alcoholics, probably because they've had to repress their aggression in professional settings and/or in their family life, so they drink to escape repression and then they take out their aggression wherever they can. It looks like you've made amateur science discussion your punching bag.

Although this seems to be posted as an insult to farmerman, I'll answer that I am an alcoholic.

Could you verify "amateur science discussion", please. Obviously academic degrees and working in those fields don't qualify in your humble opinion.

4 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

I have never before heard such nonsense...

It would seem that livinglava is expanding their horizons in an ongoing show of idiocy.

I'm still uncertain if it's true ignorance or an act.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I've started this thread with links to sources.
I have never before heard such a nonsense about history in general and archaeology in special than posted here by you.

I say things that ignore various ego-sensitivities, because I think such things deserve discussing. It shouldn't step on anyone's toes to read what I write, yet I notice a lot of misinterpretation implicit in overreactions to things I post, i.e. because people feel offended and don't want to actually put what offends them on the table, probably because they are too sensitive to do so.

This forum is full of a lot of ridicule and insults. I do not usually start the ridicule, but neither do I wish to tolerate it without saying anything back. People should be discussing, not fighting and/or picking fights.

Quote:

Although this seems to be posted as an insult to farmerman, I'll answer that I am an alcoholic.

Congratulations on being able to admit it, though by doing so you are opening yourself of to have that information used against you by people who only look at personal information as ammunition to use against others.

My comment about alcoholism was directed toward Farmerman because of his mean-spirited attack posts. He picks fights. He can't post any kind of discussion about science or anything else without peppering it with some spit-in-your-face regarding the difference between 'real scientists' and amateurs. If he is truly a veteran academic professional, as he claims, he is that much lower for treating amateurs with disrespect.

Quote:

Could you verify "amateur science discussion", please. Obviously academic degrees and working in those fields don't qualify in your humble opinion.

Are you getting paid to discuss anything here? I'm not. If we were, it would be professional. When you do things not for pay, it is amateur, i.e. for love only.

Quote:

am·a·teur
1.
a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid rather than a professional basis.

Origin
late 18th century: from French, from Italian amatore, from Latin amator ‘lover’, from amare ‘to love’.

1 Reply

300,000-year-old throwing stick documents the evolution of hunting

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know