Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa 60,000 years ago?

[Magus]

"New" model by Paul Mellars.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1

Also: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_modern_h-
uman_model_2006

[Dar Habel]

Magus wrote:
> "New" model by Paul Mellars.
>
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1

Full paper available (1.3 MB) in pdf download, at:
http://btfiles.skpg.org.uk/Mellars2006.pdf

Dar

> Also: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_modern-
> _human_model_2006

[Chapstick]

"Magus" <mcagliani@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150299595.304372.69730@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "New" model by Paul Mellars.
>
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1
>
> Also: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_modern-
> _human_model_2006
>

thanks for posting.... items such as this indicate to me that
eventually we will find more evidence that hss was
"agricultural" and fully "modern" at the beginning of our
species. Perhaps there was no agricultural revolution 10,000
BC... rather, that was just a population boom.

(Mellars mentions that more and recent artifacts are coming to
light in Africa.)

--chap

[Prd]

In sci.anthropology.paleo message
news:1150299595.304372.69730@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com by
"Magus" <mcagliani@gmail.com> . . . :

> "New" model by Paul Mellars.
>
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1
>
> Also: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_modern-
> _human_model _2006

Humans dispersed in africa over 120 kya. They reached SE asia
by 116kya, PNG by 80 kya, SE australia by 55 kya. even the
genetic arguments place humans in the anadamans at 65 kya. New
models with bad starting premises are worth what?

Nothing.

[Pete]

on 14 Jun 2006 09:24:54 -0700, Dar Habel
<Dar_83001@yahoo.com> sez:

` Magus wrote: ` > "New" model by Paul Mellars. ` > ` >
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1

` Full paper available (1.3 MB) in pdf download, at: `
http://btfiles.skpg.org.uk/Mellars2006.pdf

` Dar

` > Also: ` > http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_-
modern_human_model_2006

Despite the title, the author acknowledges that AMH appear to
have been found outside africa 110kya, but he suggests this
was a temporary situation. Yet, he fails to note that
135k-105kya was interglacial, and was followed by a glacial
epoch, therefore most of the time between 110kya and the major
emigration he proposes at 65kya, evidence of extra-african
habitation would have been mostly on land currently submerged,
so his major thesis has fairly slim evidencial support, of the
"absense of evidence" variety. When you add in that the
subsequent interglacial had its highest sea level around the
time that he cites for the next evidence of asian AMH remains,
the picture of upland human occupation simply ebbing and
flowing with sea level is just underlined. (Yes there was a
brief high water period ~85kya, but it may be that asian AMH
habitations simply have not yet been found from this period -
one might predict that this would be a likely horizon for such
finds to be turned up.)

--
==========================================================================

vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.

[Rmacfarl]

"Dar Habel" <Dar_83001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150302294.118329.104110@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Magus wrote:
>> "New" model by Paul Mellars.
>>
>> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1
>
> Full paper available (1.3 MB) in pdf download, at:
> http://btfiles.skpg.org.uk/Mellars2006.pdf
>
> Dar
>
>> Also: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_moder-
>> n_human_model_2006
>

Audio of not very convincing interview with Mellars from
Australian radio this morning:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/stories/s1663471.htm

Ross Macfarlane

[Rmacfarl]

"rmacfarl" <rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:44912387_2@news.chariot.net.au...
>
> "Dar Habel" <Dar_83001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:115-
> 0302294.118329.104110@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Magus wrote:
>>> "New" model by Paul Mellars.
>>>
>>> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1
>>
>> Full paper available (1.3 MB) in pdf download, at:
>> http://btfiles.skpg.org.uk/Mellars2006.pdf
>>
>> Dar
>>
>>> Also: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_mode-
>>> rn_human_model_2006
>>
>
> Audio of not very convincing interview with Mellars from
> Australian radio this morning:
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/stories/s1663471.htm
>
> Ross Macfarlane

Actually try this link:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/

... then click on 6:20-7:00am

Thursday 15 June 2006 Listen Real Media 6:20–7:00am |
7:30–8:00am | 8:05–8:30am Listen Windows Media 6:20–7:00am |
7:30–8:00am | 8:05–8:30am Latest stories and audio from AM
7:00–7:30am

6:20 Homo sapiens hit the road ...

[Magus]

In the news I red that too (like this: http://news.independen-
t.co.uk/world/science_technology/article878458.ece )

Mellars said it? or it's an invention of journalists?

pete wrote:
>
> "There has been much debate as to what gave homo sapiens the
> travel bug. Paul Mellars believes it was the discovery of
> 'bows and arrows' which in turn lead to new hunting
> grounds."
>
> There were no bows and arrows for the first settlers of the
> Western hemisphere.
>
> --
> pete

[richardpar]

prd wrote:
> In sci.anthropology.paleo message
> news:1150299595.304372.69730@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com by
> "Magus" <mcagliani@gmail.com> . . . :
>
> > "New" model by Paul Mellars.
> >
> > http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1
> >
> > Also: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_mode-
> > rn_human_model _2006
>
> Humans dispersed in africa over 120 kya. They reached SE
> asia by 116kya, PNG by 80 kya, SE australia by 55 kya. even
> the genetic arguments place humans in the anadamans at 65
> kya. New models with bad starting premises are worth what?
>
> Nothing.

Perhaps Dar Habel could help with the following questions
leading from all this:

- When is first evidence (or secondary evidence leading to it)
of use of bows and arrows? Spears seem to have been used
from up to 500kya

- When is there the first evidence of projectile weapons of
any kind (even purposely chosen or shaped stones?)

- What evidence has been found of throwing spears pre 80kya in
Africa? Or anywhere else?

- Are the dates given by prd generally agreed? And prd, can
you give any more references - ie dated finds etc?

- And, for general discussion (or whatever it's called on this
forum): Why would invention of bows and arrows (and other
'cultural' items) have led to a population explosion when
the first move towards projectile killing (spears, perhaps)
happened 400 thousand years earlier, and didn't seem to have
had the same effect? (perhaps it did, and we don't know it)

For the benefit of others in this thread, these are not
rhetorical questions put up as any sort of challenge. (Well,
maybe the last one was).

regards

Richard

[Dar Habel]

richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> prd wrote:
> > In sci.anthropology.paleo message
> > news:1150299595.304372.69730@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> > by "Magus" <mcagliani@gmail.com> . . . :
> >
> > > "New" model by Paul Mellars.
> > >
> > > http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1
> > >
> > > Also: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_mo-
> > > dern_human_model _2006
> >
> > Humans dispersed in africa over 120 kya. They reached SE
> > asia by 116kya, PNG by 80 kya, SE australia by 55 kya.
> > even the genetic arguments place humans in the anadamans
> > at 65 kya. New models with bad starting premises are
> > worth what?
> >
> > Nothing.
>
>
> Perhaps Dar Habel could help with the following questions
> leading from all this:
>
> - When is first evidence (or secondary evidence leading to
> it) of use of bows and arrows? Spears seem to have been
> used from up to 500kya

The earliest atlatl shaft was recovered from a French
Solutrean context about 19,000 rcyrBP; the earliest evidence
for bows and arrows is only about 11,000 rcyrBP. Obviously way
too late for Mellars' scenario. However, the argument is that
because the earliest spear-throwing atlatl shafts might have
been made from perishable materials (wood), they did not
survive taphonomically. As a consequence, the argument for
earlier use of atlatls and bows and arrows is generally based
on projectile point (stone point) size. An example below:
**********************
Modern Humans Made Their Point

By ANN GIBBONS -- Science, 22 April 2005,
308: 491

Long before guns gave European explorers a decisive advantage
over indigenous peoples, our ancestors had their own
technological innovation that allowed them to dominate the
Stone Age competition: the projectile point, launched from
bows or spear throwers. Paleolithic hunters shooting spears or
arrows tipped with these small stone points could stay at a
safe distance while hunting a wide assortment of prey-or other
humans, says archaeologist John Shea of Stony Brook University
in New York. Projectile launchers might even be the key to
modern humans' triumph when they entered the Neandertal
territory of Europe about 40,000 years ago, Shea proposed in
his talk. Neandertals lacked projectiles until it was too
late, and they could heft their heavier spears only as far as
they could throw them. "Projectile points were such an
important invention, like gunpowder, that it would have given
the bearers a huge advantage," says archaeologist Alison
Brooks of George Washington University in Washington, D.C. In
two separate studies, Shea and Brooks showed that modern
humans were using lightweight points associated with
projectile launchers by 40,000 years ago. Shea and Brooks both
think these new weapons were invented first in Africa,
although they disagree about the timing. They agree that
modern humans had a technological advantage when they left
Africa and spread around the globe. "These lightweight points
show up more than 50,000 years ago in Africa," says Stan
Ambrose of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, who
heard Shea's talk. "They may have helped modern humans get out
of Africa." The challenge in pinpointing when projectiles were
invented is that few of the launchers themselves survive,
because they were made of materials that disintegrate over
time. The oldest known bow is only 11,000 years old, and the
oldest known spear thrower is about 18,000 years old, but
archaeologists suspect that the technology is much older. So
they try to distinguish projectile points from those used on
the tips of hand-thrown spears. One criterion is size:
Projectile points must be small and light to soar fast enough
to kill. "You wouldn't go up to a Cape buffalo with those tiny
points on a thrusting spear," says Brooks. Shea and Brooks
each surveyed points from around the world, setting an upper
limit on the size and weight of points considered projectiles.
Shea set an upper limit on cross sections at the tip, whereas
Brooks set a limit on weight. Shea found that projectile
points were widespread by 40,000 years ago; earlier points
didn't meet his criteria. He proposed that the points were
developed for warfare and may have hastened the extinction of
Neandertals. Brooks found that points from 50,000 to 90,000
years ago in three regions of Africa met her criteria. She
noted that there was a "grammar and an order" to assembling
these tools-one that required extensive social networks in
order to exchange technology and specialized materials. She
thinks that projectiles made modern humans more efficient
hunters who could shoot small game and live in varied terrain.
"They didn't have to kill [Neandertals]," says Brooks. "They
just had to outcompete them."
*******************************
>
> - When is there the first evidence of projectile weapons of
> any kind (even purposely chosen or shaped stones?)

Some archaeologists claim that the defining criteria for the
African Middle Stone Age is stone points. These begin showing
up in assemblages as old as 300,000 years ago or, rarely,
older. Convincing stone points that probably were hafted are
more common beginning with the leaf-shaped bifacial Stillbay
points which, at Blombos and other South African sites are
dated to levels preceding the Howiesons Poort,
i.e., 80,000-90,000 BP or so.

> - What evidence has been found of throwing spears pre 80kya
> in Africa? Or anywhere else?

Also found at Blombos with the Stillbay (stone) points are
some bone points that look like convincing projectile points,
probably hafted to a throwing spear. It's primarily the
Blombos evidence from 90-60 ka (including the "abstract art"
scratches on ocher, maybe even the evidence for marine food
resources - you'll like that!!!) Mellars seems to be using for
early emergenced of the "technological revolution".

> - Are the dates given by prd generally agreed? And prd, can
> you give any more references - ie dated finds etc?

Obviously, Mellars isn't accepting the 116ka for Liujiang
China, but others do accept that Liujiang is somewhere around
100 ka. As a minimum it is ~ 68 ka. Reference:

Journal of Human Evolution. Volume 43, Issue 6 , December
2002, Pages 817-829. U-Series dating of Liujiang hominid site
in Guangxi, Southern China.

Guanjun Shen, Wei Wang, Qian Wang, Jianxin Zhao, Kenneth
Collerson, Chunlin Zhou and Phillip V. Tobias

http://tinyurl.com/q3s35

I've read this and its fairly convincing, and pdr, Mikey
Brass, and I discussed the ervidence extensively on Mikey's
Paleoanthro Yahoo group in December of 2002. Although Peter
Brown's website claims Liujiang is only about 30-35 ka or
so, I found the Shen et al. paper had enough evidence
documented to believe the fossil is at least 68 ka, and
probably in the range of 100 ka. Phil likes 116 ka,
but.....You'd have to ask Phil where he gets 80 ka for
Papua-New Guinea, but I think the 65ka for Andamans is a
genetics-derived estimate. As for Australia, ask Phil, but
more accepted are dates in the 45-50 ka range.

> - And, for general discussion (or whatever it's called on
> this forum):

It's called "flame-throwing" on this forum :-)

> Why would invention of bows and arrows (and other 'cultural'
> items) have led to a population explosion when the first
> move towards projectile killing (spears, perhaps) happened
> 400 thousand years earlier, and didn't seem to have had the
> same effect? (perhaps it did, and we don't know it)

The big difference in Mellars' scenario is not that
projectile killing made the difference, but that projectile
killing 'from a distance' (with atlatl and bow and arrow
tech) allowed a competitive edge and population expansion by
those using the new tech.

Dar
> For the benefit of others in this thread, these are not
> rhetorical questions put up as any sort of challenge. (Well,
> maybe the last one was).
>
> regards
>
> Richard

[Paul Crowl]

"Dar Habel" <Dar_83001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150302294.118329.104110@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Magus wrote:
>> "New" model by Paul Mellars.
>>
>> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1
>
> Full paper available (1.3 MB) in pdf download, at:
> http://btfiles.skpg.org.uk/Mellars2006.pdf
>
> Dar
>
>> Also: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_moder-
>> n_human_model_2006

Thanks for the links.

It is the usual PA half-witted drivel, but the most
interesting aspect of the paper is what it does not say.

Firstly, there is no discussion of the most extraordinary
feature of the fossil record over the timescale discussed --
its extreme paucity. Secondly, there is no mention whatever of
the change in eustatic sea- levels during that time.

I've recently been pointing out to the standard PA dunderhead
types around here that, while the 'fact' of rising and
falling sea-levels has been known for some 50 years or so, it
has not been absorbed into the 'science'. This paper is as
good an illustration of the truth of that statement as we are
likely to see.

While Mellars does refer to 'coastal routes' during human
expansion, he seems to think that there would be no permanent
settlements along those routes.

As ever, PA people seem to come from another planet and be
unaware that they are attempt to describe a living species
which would have occupied much the same habitat over its
recent existence.

Paul.

[Pete]

rmacfarl wrote:

> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/
>
> ... then click on 6:20-7:00am
>
> Thursday 15 June 2006 Listen Real Media 6:20–7:00am |
> 7:30–8:00am | 8:05–8:30am Listen Windows Media 6:20–7:00am |
> 7:30–8:00am | 8:05–8:30am Latest stories and audio from AM
> 7:00–7:30am
>
> 6:20 Homo sapiens hit the road

"There has been much debate as to what gave homo sapiens the
travel bug. Paul Mellars believes it was the discovery of
'bows and arrows' which in turn lead to new hunting grounds."

There were no bows and arrows for the first settlers of the
Western hemisphere.

--
pete

[Rmacfarl]

Magus wrote:
> In the news I red that too (like this: http://news.independ-
> ent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article878458.ece )
>
> Mellars said it? or it's an invention of journalists?
>
>
> pete wrote:
> >
> > "There has been much debate as to what gave homo sapiens
> > the travel bug. Paul Mellars believes it was the discovery
> > of 'bows and arrows' which in turn lead to new hunting
> > grounds."
> >
> > There were no bows and arrows for the first settlers of
> > the Western hemisphere.

Yes, Mellars said it. He discussed it in the radio interview I
posted the link to...

Ross Macfarlane

[Day Brown]

I forget the name, but we've all seen the little spears stuck
in the back of a bull in the ring for the toredore to kill.

Its a clue to an ancient tradition. Whether the small points
were launched by atlotl or bow, sooner or later they would
have been 'contaminated' with streptococcus or similar
bacteria. Then, all men had to do was get a point in a
beast... and have the dogs track the smell of the blood, and
then bay when the beast was at bay, with a raging infection,
and just about dead already.

At this point, the hunting team that had a few burly
Neanderthals to haul tons of megafauna meat back to the camp
would have survived better than those that lacked either the
projectile points or the HNS draft animals.

[Pete]

rmacfarl wrote:
>
> Magus wrote:
> > In the news I red that too (like this: http://news.indepe-
> > ndent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article878458.ece )
> >
> > Mellars said it? or it's an invention of journalists?
> >
> >
> > pete wrote:
> > >
> > > "There has been much debate as to what gave homo sapiens
> > > the travel bug. Paul Mellars believes it was the
> > > discovery of 'bows and arrows' which in turn lead to new
> > > hunting grounds."
> > >
> > > There were no bows and arrows for the first settlers of
> > > the Western hemisphere.
>
> Yes, Mellars said it. He discussed it in the radio interview
> I posted the link to...

I wonder what gave Homo erectus The Travel Bug?

--
pete

[Jois]

"pete" <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4492B1D2.340A@mindspring.com...
> rmacfarl wrote:
> >
> > Magus wrote:
> > > In the news I red that too (like this:
> > >
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/articl-
e878458.ece
> > > )
> > >
> > > Mellars said it? or it's an invention of journalists?
> > >
> > >
> > > pete wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "There has been much debate as to what gave homo
> > > > sapiens the travel bug. Paul Mellars believes it was
> > > > the discovery of 'bows and arrows' which in turn lead
> > > > to new hunting grounds."
> > > >
> > > > There were no bows and arrows for the first settlers
> > > > of the Western hemisphere.
> >
> > Yes, Mellars said it. He discussed it in the radio
> > interview I posted the link to...
>
> I wonder what gave Homo erectus The Travel Bug?
>
> --
> pete

The want of bows and arrows? :)

Our modern children seem to have a burst of rebellion and
energy at about 11 years of age, another spike at about 14,
probably do another spike in teens (an age group I worked with
enough to "guess" for sure, maybe 16 to 22?) that doesn't
return to "normal" for a while. I've read something like this
about wild animals raised in captivity - they are like kids
until they reach puberty and become "unreasonable", wild, and
un-house-pet-like, find themselves donated to science or
something.

Why wouldn't Homo erectus and ancient Hss and other mammals
have these same kinds of bursts of rebellion and energy? Make
it reasonable for them to move away from the basic family unit
and take a few buddies of like age with them? Maybe the fossil
record would only show that the younger than expected ages of
those who chose to travel away from home.

Hum, should I sign this Mario or Jois?

Jois

[Pete]

Jois wrote:
>
> "pete" <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:4492B1D2.340A@mindspring.com...
> > rmacfarl wrote:
> > >
> > > Magus wrote:
> > > > In the news I red that too (like this:
> > > >
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/arti-
> cle878458.ece
> > > > )
> > > >
> > > > Mellars said it? or it's an invention of journalists?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > pete wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "There has been much debate as to what gave homo
> > > > > sapiens the travel bug. Paul Mellars believes it was
> > > > > the discovery of 'bows and arrows' which in turn
> > > > > lead to new hunting grounds."
> > > > >
> > > > > There were no bows and arrows for the first settlers
> > > > > of the Western hemisphere.
> > >
> > > Yes, Mellars said it. He discussed it in the radio
> > > interview I posted the link to...
> >
> > I wonder what gave Homo erectus The Travel Bug?

> The want of bows and arrows? :)
>
> Our modern children seem to have a burst of rebellion and
> energy at about 11 years of age, another spike at about 14,
> probably do another spike in teens (an age group I worked
> with enough to "guess" for sure, maybe 16 to 22?) that
> doesn't return to "normal" for a while. I've read something
> like this about wild animals raised in captivity
> - they are like kids until they reach puberty and become
> "unreasonable", wild, and un-house-pet-like, find
> themselves donated to science or something.
>
> Why wouldn't Homo erectus and ancient Hss and other
> mammals have these same kinds of bursts of rebellion and
> energy? Make it reasonable for them to move away from the
> basic family unit and take a few buddies of like age with
> them? Maybe the fossil record would only show that the
> younger than expected ages of those who chose to travel
> away from home.
>
> Hum, should I sign this Mario or Jois?

I think the deal is that people have been leaving Africa as
long as there have been people in Africa, and that at some
time, about 60000 years ago according to the subject line of
this thread, they started surviving to a substantial degree.

The day that an animal escapes the zoo, isn't the day that it
decides to do it, it's the day that it can.

There is no Travel Bug.

--
pete

[richardpar]

Dar - many thanks for an informed, informing, useful and very
quick response to my questions - it may well beat the record
for a sensible answer to some (sensible ?) questions, on this
forum at least:

Dar Habel wrote:
> richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> > prd wrote:
> > > In sci.anthropology.paleo message news:1150299595.30437-
> > > 2.69730@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com by "Magus"
> > > <mcagliani@gmail.com> . . . :
> > >
> > > > "New" model by Paul Mellars.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1
> > > >
> > > > Also: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_-
> > > > modern_human_model _2006
> > >
> > > Humans dispersed in africa over 120 kya. They reached SE
> > > asia by 116kya, PNG by 80 kya, SE australia by 55 kya.
> > > even the genetic arguments place humans in the anadamans
> > > at 65 kya. New models with bad starting premises are
> > > worth what?
> > >
> > > Nothing.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps Dar Habel could help with the following questions
> > leading from all this:
> >
> > - When is first evidence (or secondary evidence leading to
> > it) of use of bows and arrows? Spears seem to have been
> > used from up to 500kya
>
> The earliest atlatl shaft was recovered from a French
> Solutrean context about 19,000 rcyrBP; the earliest
> evidence for bows and arrows is only about 11,000 rcyrBP.
> Obviously way too late for Mellars' scenario. However, the
> argument is that because the earliest spear-throwing atlatl
> shafts might have been made from perishable materials
> (wood), they did not survive taphonomically. As a
> consequence, the argument for earlier use of atlatls and
> bows and arrows is generally based on projectile point
> (stone point) size. An example below:
> **********************
> Modern Humans Made Their Point
>
> By ANN GIBBONS -- Science, 22 April 2005,
> 308: 491
>
> Long before guns gave European explorers a decisive
> advantage over indigenous peoples, our ancestors had their
> own technological innovation that allowed them to dominate
> the Stone Age competition: the projectile point, launched
> from bows or spear throwers. Paleolithic hunters shooting
> spears or arrows tipped with these small stone points could
> stay at a safe distance while hunting a wide assortment of
> prey-or other humans, says archaeologist John Shea of Stony
> Brook University in New York. Projectile launchers might
> even be the key to modern humans' triumph when they entered
> the Neandertal territory of Europe about 40,000 years ago,
> Shea proposed in his talk. Neandertals lacked projectiles
> until it was too late, and they could heft their heavier
> spears only as far as they could throw them. "Projectile
> points were such an important invention, like gunpowder,
> that it would have given the bearers a huge advantage," says
> archaeologist Alison Brooks of George Washington University
> in Washington, D.C. In two separate studies, Shea and Brooks
> showed that modern humans were using lightweight points
> associated with projectile launchers by 40,000 years ago.
> Shea and Brooks both think these new weapons were invented
> first in Africa, although they disagree about the timing.
> They agree that modern humans had a technological advantage
> when they left Africa and spread around the globe. "These
> lightweight points show up more than 50,000 years ago in
> Africa," says Stan Ambrose of the University of Illinois,
> Urbana-Champaign, who heard Shea's talk. "They may have
> helped modern humans get out of Africa." The challenge in
> pinpointing when projectiles were invented is that few of
> the launchers themselves survive, because they were made of
> materials that disintegrate over time. The oldest known bow
> is only 11,000 years old, and the oldest known spear thrower
> is about 18,000 years old, but archaeologists suspect that
> the technology is much older. So they try to distinguish
> projectile points from those used on the tips of hand-thrown
> spears. One criterion is size: Projectile points must be
> small and light to soar fast enough to kill. "You wouldn't
> go up to a Cape buffalo with those tiny points on a
> thrusting spear," says Brooks. Shea and Brooks each surveyed
> points from around the world, setting an upper limit on the
> size and weight of points considered projectiles. Shea set
> an upper limit on cross sections at the tip, whereas Brooks
> set a limit on weight. Shea found that projectile points
> were widespread by 40,000 years ago; earlier points didn't
> meet his criteria. He proposed that the points were
> developed for warfare and may have hastened the extinction
> of Neandertals. Brooks found that points from 50,000 to
> 90,000 years ago in three regions of Africa met her
> criteria.

John Shea is a flint-knapper and stone tool specialist. He
certainly knows his stuff, but Alison Brooks may be a more
(multi-disciplined?) academic (although she's done her bit
in the field). You can hardly expect Shea to venture very
far from his specialist expertise into speculating that
Early Humans used anything but rock flakes to do what they
wanted done.

Alison Brooks found (with John Yellen) sophisticated carved
bone harpoons on the Ishango river, dated to about 90kya. They
were smart designs (with a lot of passed-down cultural
knowledge), but preceded the earliest Blombos tools by about
20,000 years

She noted that
> there was a "grammar and an order" to assembling these
> tools-one that required extensive social networks in order
> to exchange technology and specialized materials. She thinks
> that projectiles made modern humans more efficient hunters
> who could shoot small game and live in varied terrain. "They
> didn't have to kill [Neandertals]," says Brooks. "They just
> had to outcompete them."
> *******************************
> >
> > - When is there the first evidence of projectile weapons
> > of any kind (even purposely chosen or shaped stones?)
>
> Some archaeologists claim that the defining criteria for
> the African Middle Stone Age is stone points. These begin
> showing up in assemblages as old as 300,000 years ago or,
> rarely, older. Convincing stone points that probably were
> hafted are more common beginning with the leaf-shaped
> bifacial Stillbay points which, at Blombos and other
> South African sites are dated to levels preceding the
> Howiesons Poort,
> i.e., 80,000-90,000 BP or so.
>
> > - What evidence has been found of throwing spears pre
> > 80kya in Africa? Or anywhere else?
>
> Also found at Blombos with the Stillbay (stone) points are
> some bone points that look like convincing projectile
> points, probably hafted to a throwing spear. It's primarily
> the Blombos evidence from 90-60 ka (including the "abstract
> art" scratches on ocher,

maybe even the
>evidence for marine food resources - you'll like that!!!)

I do like that.

At Blombos, the catching of quite large, non-scavengeable fish
preceded the bone points, ochre, etc, by about 70,000 years.
Not much has been made of this, and in the Blombos publicity,
the LSA 'particularly rich shell midden' was totally omitted
from the archaeologists' fauna list in favour of more
'acceptable' finds, like the few eland bones, etc.

See:
http://www.svf.uib.no/sfu/blombos/Artefact_Review1.html and

http://www.coconutstudio.com/Shell%20Middens.htm#Blombos%20Ca-
ve

Mellars seems
> to be using for early emergenced of the "technological
> revolution".
>
> > - Are the dates given by prd generally agreed? And prd,
> > can you give any more references - ie dated finds etc?
>
> Obviously, Mellars isn't accepting the 116ka for Liujiang
> China, but others do accept that Liujiang is somewhere
> around 100 ka. As a minimum it is ~ 68 ka. Reference:
>
> Journal of Human Evolution. Volume 43, Issue 6 , December
> 2002, Pages 817-829. U-Series dating of Liujiang hominid
> site in Guangxi, Southern China.
>
> Guanjun Shen, Wei Wang, Qian Wang, Jianxin Zhao, Kenneth
> Collerson, Chunlin Zhou and Phillip V. Tobias
>
> http://tinyurl.com/q3s35
>
> I've read this and its fairly convincing, and pdr, Mikey
> Brass, and I discussed the ervidence extensively on Mikey's
> Paleoanthro Yahoo group in December of 2002. Although Peter
> Brown's website claims Liujiang is only about 30-35 ka or
> so, I found the Shen et al. paper had enough evidence
> documented to believe the fossil is at least 68 ka, and
> probably in the range of 100 ka. Phil likes 116 ka,
> but.....You'd have to ask Phil where he gets 80 ka for
> Papua-New Guinea, but I think the 65ka for Andamans is a
> genetics-derived estimate. As for Australia, ask Phil, but
> more accepted are dates in the 45-50 ka range.
>
> > - And, for general discussion (or whatever it's called on
> > this forum):
>
> It's called "flame-throwing" on this forum :-)
>
> > Why would invention of bows and arrows (and other
> > 'cultural' items) have led to a population explosion when
> > the first move towards projectile killing (spears,
> > perhaps) happened 400 thousand years earlier, and didn't
> > seem to have had the same effect? (perhaps it did, and we
> > don't know it)
>
>

The big difference in Mellars' scenario is not that
projectile killing
> made the difference, but that projectile killing 'from a
> distance' (with atlatl and bow and arrow tech) allowed a
> competitive edge and population expansion by those using the
> new tech.

Such progress (detaching the effect on the prey from the
visible immediate use of the weapon) would need intelligent
'connection' of two or more separated actions (perhaps better
put as having "grammar and an order" to assembling them), and
must have involved a major change of brain wiring, but perhaps
not as late as Mellars or Klein propose.

Other forms of 'killing from a distance' could have developed,
step by step, much earlier, including:

1 - Poisoning the environment - dropping poisonous fruit into
water - very easy to discover as it happens naturally anyway -
works for fish but not land animals. Poison doesn't work in
air, as Germans found when they tried gassing Brits in 1916
(or vice versa - information still - 90 yrs later -
'Classified') - and then it wasn't in the least limited,
selective, or effective.

2 - Poisoning animal flesh directly (see Day Brown 15 June
2006 - a bit later in the thread) needs a more tortuous
thought process to connect plant poison and dead animal, so it
probably developed much later. But early humans (if they had
just half the machismo of the average Spanish torero) could
easily have planted poison darts (banderillas) by hand into
anything they wanted to kill, however big, angry and
threatening it might have been.

See all this stuff on:
http://www.coconutstudio.com/Eco-Friendly%20Poisons.htm

Sorry to keep on puffing my own website, but if there are a
(great deal) more hits, some credulous businessman might
advertise on it, and I need the money. Earning it, as I'm
not a remittance man or a pensioner, is not easy on a
Pacific island.

3 - Harpoons - attaching a loose and loseable poisoned point
on a spear, dart or arrow would let you just prick the game,
then wait until it dies. Such a point need only be a wood
splinter jammed into a bamboo shaft or split stick.

Later, attach a string between point and shaft, and let that
help tangle the prey in bushes. Whipping one end of the string
to the shaft, and the other to the projectile point (wood,
stone or bone) needs no great knowledge of knot-making, but
maybe some sticky plant gum to help keep them together.

Still, a long way, intellectually, from throwing a rock
or thrusting a spear and seeing it immediately knock down
an animal.

Note: The spearmen in Spanish bullfights (the picadors) have
to use horses to get them near their prey, and absorb
the damage. It's only recently that the horses have been
'armoured' to spare animal lover sensibilities.

Harpoons work very well for marine animals, including fish and
mammals (ask Moby Dick). They were later adapted for use on
land, and are useful in bush or forest - Aeta tribesmen in the
Philippines' mountains still use toggled harpoon arrows for
boar and other small game.

4 - Passive hunting - primitive fish weirs - just blocking a
tidal pool with a few coconut fronds - would also require an
early, but quite easy intellectual jump, from trapping fish
immediately to waiting until the tide changed, and the fish
caught themselves. Not far from that to the forest
net-hunting still practised by Ituri pygmies, and land animal
traps of all kinds.

All of these hunting methods are much more obvious first
steps when used in limited amounts of water, not in large
open areas on land.

Alison Brooks's early-dated harpoons at Ishango were used for
fish, of course.

None of them would leave much trace. You wouldn't need to
strike flakes from rocks if there's plenty of easily usable
plant material (and plant poison) about. That's maybe why we
find most stone tools inland on the African savannah, Arabia,
uplands, Europe, etc, etc.

You don't find any (or not many of them) east of the Movius
line (roughly between Burma and India) or in the Indian Ocean
coastal forest belt. No need to faff about, using time and
effort to strike Acheulian blades off stone cores if there's
plenty of other, easier forest tool material to hand.

But since permanent stone bits are about the only things
archaeologists might find, (and earlier humans re-used for
generations, if not millennia) you can hardly blame them for
latching onto stone tools and analysing them (and not much
else, because there isn't any) to the nth degree.

regards

Richard

[richardpar]

Day Brown wrote:
> I forget the name, but we've all seen the little spears
> stuck in the back of a bull in the ring for the toredore
> to kill.
>
> Its a clue to an ancient tradition. Whether the small points
> were launched by atlotl or bow, sooner or later they would
> have been 'contaminated' with streptococcus or similar
> bacteria. Then, all men had to do was get a point in a
> beast... and have the dogs track the smell of the blood, and
> then bay when the beast was at bay, with a raging infection,
> and just about dead already.
>
> At this point, the hunting team that had a few burly
> Neanderthals to haul tons of megafauna meat back to the camp
> would have survived better than those that lacked either the
> projectile points

or the HNS draft
> animals.

Great idea, but very Politically Incorrect - just delete the
H, add a few letters between N and S, and you've got the
unmentionable name for the most recent burly draft humans.

Poison might have done it, but streptococcus wouldn't.
Otherwise, we'd all have died from teenage pimples.

[Deowll]

<richardparker01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150390238.725005.262300@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> prd wrote:
>> In sci.anthropology.paleo message
>> news:1150299595.304372.69730@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com by
>> "Magus" <mcagliani@gmail.com> . . . :
>>
>> > "New" model by Paul Mellars.
>> >
>> > http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0510792103v1
>> >
>> > Also: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/06/14#mellars_mod-
>> > ern_human_model _2006
>>
>> Humans dispersed in africa over 120 kya. They reached SE
>> asia by 116kya, PNG by 80 kya, SE australia by 55 kya. even
>> the genetic arguments place humans in the anadamans at 65
>> kya. New models with bad starting premises are worth what?
>>
>> Nothing.
>
>
> Perhaps Dar Habel could help with the following questions
> leading from all this:
>
> - When is first evidence (or secondary evidence leading to
> it) of use of bows and arrows? Spears seem to have been
> used from up to 500kya
>
> - When is there the first evidence of projectile weapons of
> any kind (even purposely chosen or shaped stones?)
>
> - What evidence has been found of throwing spears pre 80kya
> in Africa? Or anywhere else?
>
> - Are the dates given by prd generally agreed? And prd, can
> you give any more references - ie dated finds etc?
>
> - And, for general discussion (or whatever it's called on
> this forum): Why would invention of bows and arrows (and
> other 'cultural' items) have led to a population explosion
> when the first move towards projectile killing (spears,
> perhaps) happened 400 thousand years earlier, and didn't
> seem to have had the same effect? (perhaps it did, and we
> don't know it)
>
> For the benefit of others in this thread, these are not
> rhetorical questions put up as any sort of challenge. (Well,
> maybe the last one was).
>
> regards
>
> Richard
>

So for as I can tell the Asian population that left africa
first and the various waves that followed have all left a few
traces in human genes. Some populations may still have gone
extinct. That being the case I don't even go anywhere near the
bottle neck idea.

[Day Brown]

richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> Day Brown wrote:
>
>>I forget the name, but we've all seen the little spears
>>stuck in the back of a bull in the ring for the toredore
>>to kill.
>>
>>Its a clue to an ancient tradition. Whether the small points
>>were launched by atlotl or bow, sooner or later they would
>>have been 'contaminated' with streptococcus or similar
>>bacteria. Then, all men had to do was get a point in a
>>beast... and have the dogs track the smell of the blood, and
>>then bay when the beast was at bay, with a raging infection,
>>and just about dead already.
>>
>>At this point, the hunting team that had a few burly
>>Neanderthals to haul tons of megafauna meat back to the camp
>>would have survived better than those that lacked either the
>>projectile points
>
>
> or the HNS draft animals.
>
>
> Great idea, but very Politically Incorrect - just delete the
> H, add a few letters between N and S, and you've got the
> unmentionable name for the most recent burly draft humans.
>
> Poison might have done it, but streptococcus wouldn't.
> Otherwise, we'd all have died from teenage pimples.
>
"The Forest People" Wallace's anthro classic, describes an
Mbuti pygmi finding the trail of an elephant in the jungle,
and when he caught up with it, stabbed it in a back thigh with
his little 3foot spear. Then he quickly climbed a tree to get
out of the way of a very pissed elephant.

But, eventually, the elephant wore out, and went on his way,
with the spear still in him. The pygmi just kept on tracking
him. Five days later, the elephant keeled over from
septicemia. He went back to his village, and they moved the
whole village there to eat the elephant.

It occurs to me, that it would have been ritual for all the
hunters to take a turn sticking the elephant, and thereby
unknowingly inoculating their own weapons with strep, or
whatever the bacteria was.

Inevitably, some Neanderthal would have stuck a spear in a
megafauna that already was slowed down with some infection,
and thereby have the same kind of thing happen. Only on the
tundra, when dogs were added to the mix, it wouldda got gonzo
easier to track a wounded beast.

But yes, the whole idea of HNS and HSS cooperating, and what's
worse, trying to inbreed, draws lotsa flack. I've had fun
shooting it down.

[Rmacfarl]

pete wrote: ...
> > > I wonder what gave Homo erectus The Travel Bug?
>
...

Hunger!

A learned ability to access new sources of food leads to
increased survival of individuals within a population, which
then leads to increasing population, until a) the newly
accessed resource is exhausted beyond the point where it
becomes limiting to growth of the population, or b) another
new food source is found, or c) a portion of the population
moves off to access food sources in a different location.

Behold: human history in a sentence...

Ross Macfarlane

P.S. Note to neo-cons: c) is no longer an option.

Ref.: Malthus, T. ibid.

[richardpar]

rmacfarl wrote:
> pete wrote: ...
> > > > I wonder what gave Homo erectus The Travel Bug?
> >
> ...
>
> Hunger!
>
> A learned ability to access new sources of food leads to
> increased survival of individuals within a population, which
> then leads to increasing population, until a) the newly
> accessed resource is exhausted beyond the point where it
> becomes limiting to growth of the population, or b) another
> new food source is found, or c) a portion of the population
> moves off to access food sources in a different location.
>
> Behold: human history in a sentence...
>
> Ross Macfarlane
>
> P.S. Note to neo-cons: c) is no longer an option.
>
> Ref.: Malthus, T. ibid.

Ross, your last note suggests you feel somewhat the same about
neo-cons as I do, but I feel a bit more, because I was
'impacted' by them directly and personally a decade ago, when
the same little gang advised Binyamin Net and Yahoo and made
him prime minister of Israel.

That's politics and nothing to do with this forum.

As for your message:

" A learned ability to access new sources of food leads to
increased survival of individuals within a population, which
then leads to increasing population'
- pure Lamarckianism - good for you, but a bit passe now.

a) the newly accessed resource is exhausted beyond the point
where it becomes limiting to growth of the population

b) another new food source is found

c) a portion of the population moves off to access food
sources in a different location.

This is a fine summary of the fix that early humans, if they
found themselves in a zone of dry grass, fast-moving
antelopes, a lot of nasty big predators, precious little
drinking water, and a vegetable diet buried 4ft deep, might
think about,

They headed off to the coast.

Don't you do the same on a hot, dry, Saturday afternoon?

regards

Richard