Trying for twelve years to chase down and catch an antelope by foot [audio]
thisamericanlife.org
thisamericanlife.org
Of course it's unethical to test that theory but it's surely the first thing you'd think of doing if you actually wanted to catch an animal. Of course it would be devilishly difficult to hit an individual antelope with a missile weapon, but slinging 100 rocks at a herd over time is much less energy than chasing on foot.
Even with rocks you can hunt smart, throwing rocks and chasing to box them into gullys even they find hard to jump clear of before a pack of kids close in.
For general interest:
Is this the best spear fisherman in the world? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gmCX7R-W4c
Temperature of the area also plays a large part, perhaps the writer was doing this in a cooler area giving the animal an advantage.
I have not listened to the Audio, but most factors are not usually considered when people talk about any kind of persistence hunting.
I have hunted pigs, kangaroos and wild dogs and reindeer this way, without guns sometimes with dogs.
I am unable to do this in my older age, it's a younger man's game, it's good to see that people are still trying.
You're on a site called Hacker News.
Get 3 more old dudes, develop a whistling protocol, and box that reindeer in!
1. They start by learning how to track animals so well that they can identify an individual from among a herd's tracks. (in other words, crazy, crazy good)
2. Long before the hunt, they bury water in ostrich eggs under strategic trees
3. They then throw a rock at some antelope which then flee in panic.
4. Track the juciest individual (this is key - you have to chase the same animal for days on end)
5. Repeat rock throwing, individual tracking, and strategic water drinking until the animal's muscles stop working. Then you get it with an arrow.
Perhaps I’m wrong about the arrow in step 5 and they really don’t have arrows in the first place, killing the animal with a knife.
Or perhaps they can’t get close enough with their arrows on day 1. Some of these antelope are really large and aggressive - you wouldn’t want to wound one.
That seems much better?
If you like this episode, you should check out the episode dedicated to Scott Carrier stories: "The Friendly Man."
The story about the antelope, featured in This American Life, follows Scott Carrier and his brother's attempt to prove a theory that humans evolved to be endurance runners, capable of outrunning animals like pronghorn antelope over long distances. Scott's brother, a biology student, hypothesizes that early humans could have run down big game without weapons by relying on their endurance rather than speed.
In the 1980s, they go to Wyoming to test this theory by attempting to chase down antelope in the desert. The idea is to exhaust the antelope by making them run in the heat for a long period. Despite their efforts, the antelope consistently outmaneuver and outrun them, blending into herds and splitting into different directions, making it impossible to follow just one.
Scott reflects on the challenges of the endeavor, the limitations of modern life, and the connection to a primitive way of living. Despite failing to catch an antelope, the story highlights the persistence of the human spirit and the desire to understand our ancient origins.
Humans have the best long-distance endurance of any land animal in the world, at least in hot dry environments; it's why we have so little hair and so many sweat glands, among other things. There are still African savanna tribes that successfully practice endurance hunting.
But I'd venture to guess that "Scott Carrier is incapable of running down an antelope" does not imply "humans are incapable of endurance hunting, full stop."
It involves a lot of skills that need to be honed (tracking, long distance jogging, planning, coordination without tech, herding, not getting injured by other wildlife in the process, etc) and it requires strategic planning ahead of time.
It's not to say that it's impossible, just that it's a skill that takes over a decade (part time) to do in a way that you have a decent chance of succeeding at. If however this was all you did day in and day out and you had someone experienced guiding you through the process each day, it'd probably take half the time and you'd be successful at the end.
Edit: Of course I appreciate someone putting the idea to the test!
This comment discusses what some of those people do differently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41241490
1. It's plausible that some humans somewhere might have used it, however 2. It's unlikely any group of humans used this for a meaningful amount of their caloric intake
The point of my previous comment was that I find it interesting that it seems to have taken an oversized mindshare in people's beliefs around the evolution of humans. I'm interested in why that might be. I suspect because it has a slightly unexpected twist that while we're not fantastic at running, we are (allegedly) good at long-distance running.
Whatever the evolutionary reasons for it, I don't think we can reasonably dispute that humans are pretty good at long-distance running.
Humans have always hunted using the Stalk, Ambush, Injure and Track (with luck involved) process.
See The Persistent Myth of Persistence Hunting - https://undark.org/2019/10/03/persistent-myth-persistence-hu...
Wikipedia's Endurance running hypothesis entry points to criticisms under the "Academic Discourse" section - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis
This paper quotes at least 9 documented Kalahari hunts: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...
Another: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260135266_Persisten...
Here's an Aussie using the technique on feral goats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp6aqcJH7Uw
Regarding any "evidence" we have to be careful that it is scientifically valid i.e. done in presence of a impartial observer taking into account a) the terrain b) any support for food/water c) whether it is the norm in the group or not d) whether it was staged etc.
Thus saying "They have hunted like this for countless generations" is myth and not evidence. The "9 documented Kalahari hunts" were "9 reports" based on which the authors wrote the paper and are not a large enough dataset. If true, It almost seems like it was done on demand and not that it is the norm amongst them. It also requires a flat savannah type terrain like the Kalahari. All "video evidence" are suspect unless proven otherwise.
Read the articles i had linked to earlier and then these links/papers (linked to from the above articles)
1) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472... by Bunn & Pickering -
However, our understanding of the paleoenvironment, paleoecology, and archaeology of early Homo sites, reviewed here, makes us dubious about their further suggestion that ER might have been employed regularly and successfully in service of that foraging pursuit. We are reluctant to assign to early Homo...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis#A... -
Small changes in joint morphology may indicate neutral evolutionary processes rather than selection ... Most of those proposed traits have not been tested for their effect on walking and running efficiency ... Relative lower-limb length has a slightly larger effect on the economy of walking than running. The heel-down foot posture makes walking economical but does not benefit running ... hindlimb proposed traits were already present in Australopithecus or early Homo. Those hindlimb characteristics most likely evolved to improve walking efficiency with improved running as a by-product ... The data suggests that the large size of the gluteus maximus reflects multiple roles during rapid and powerful movements rather than a specific adaptation to submaximal endurance running.
3) One early famous film The Hunters (1958) which depicted the "persistence hunt" of a giraffe was later admitted to be a fake. From https://afan.ottenheimer.com/articles/myth_of_persistent_hun...
What did he admit to?
That the film was shot over years with different San, with different giraffes, that the poisoned arrow was shot from a moving jeep, the San were riding in the filmmaker's jeep chasing the giraffe, and that the San returned to base camp each night because "without the reassurance of the supplies in his Jeep, the Ju/’hoansi might not have been prepared to pursue the giraffe for as long as five days since they could have died of thirst out in the middle of the Kalahari." Some have also suspected that the giraffe was taking so long to die that it was shot with a gun to get that final dramatic collapse on film. But, by the time these issues were admitted ... the film had ingrained itself into the mindset of the public having "learned" that early humans' evolution of endurance helped them to become top of the food chain.
Later it was found that MANY infotainment nature films did similar things because they were more interested in captivating the audience than telling an honest story.
Also from the above link;
To Summarize: The persistent hunting theory would need to have the following evidence to support the theory.
1. The fossil records should show humans' tool damage on prey fossils before animal damage on those same fossils.
2. A review of other hunted animals that supports this "sweat vs panting" theory.
3. An analysis of human energy expenditure vs prey animal energy expenditure that shows humans are better in long distance running/endurance.
4. An scientific experiment showing a human successfully doing a persistent hunt to chase down an animal like this to exhaustion with nothing but stone-age tools.
Unfortunately for the persistent hunting theory and Lieberman's paper:
1. None of this evidence was presented in these papers.
2. Subsequent studies have shown that each one of these claims fails.
For each of the above points the author provides links and details (under "The Evidence" section) which you can checkout.