Evidence for Persistence Hunting in early Homo

Continuing the discussion from Are human beings still evolving in response to any recognizable factors?:

This was getting moderately off-topic, but it’s something that interests me deeply. (My apologies for getting long-winded; I’m trying hard to only cover the main points!) Keeping in mind all evidence will be more circumstantial than not, intriguingly, this article, which purports to be evidence against ancient persistence hunting, may actually be anything but. In my opinion, the data set does not support the authors’ conclusions nearly as well as they want it to.

First, for anyone who wasn’t following the other thread and hasn’t heard the idea before, endurance running is something humans are surprisingly good at, compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. It’s not just our stubbornness and insanity that keeps tens of thousands of us finishing marathons year after year: many quadrupeds will physically overheat before we will. There’s a reason the Iditarod is run in the cold.

Many quadrupeds have to breath in unison with their stride at top speeds (galloping). This is efficient (they don’t have to spend extra energy expanding and contracting the lungs) but has an important limit: the animals can’t pant to cool themselves until they drop to a trot or walk. And panting is most animals’ primary method of dumping heat; animals that sweat a lot, like us and horses, are rare.

A fit human can chase a bigger, faster animal to heat exhaustion over several hours or days, and this is recorded in various hunter-gatherer cultures: rarely, but in far-flung locations. This is persistence hunting, and a growing number of scientists think it is not mere coincidence that we can physically do this: that we evolved specifically for it, in a time before arrowheads or other evidence of sophisticated weaponry. And yet somehow we were getting a lot more meat in our diets, enough to grow our brains bigger and our bodies taller.

Pickering and Bunn, 2010 (linked above) set out to test and disprove this by surveying the ages of the bovid bones associated with ancient human sites. They hypothesize that if they were run down, they should look like the age profiles of what we might see from modern cursorial predators, i.e. mostly young and old so they are easier to catch. They explain that ambush predators have effectively random age profiles, i.e. whatever animal walks into it first.

The results are interesting: instead of either option, large bovids are dominated by prime animals, biased away from young ones. Small bovids are mostly old, but the sample size of these is smaller. There are several species in the large bovid category, but waterbuck are represented the most, and some remains may be of late-stage fetuses because they have no tooth wear.

This raises an intriguing possibility in relation to the small prime adult waterbuck individuals (MNI= 7 adults, of which three are smaller, early prime females and four are larger, late prime males) from FLK Zinj: the targeted prey of hominin ambush hunting was likely pregnant or recently pregnant
female and somewhat older, perhaps non-territorial male waterbucks.
Even though E(ndurance )R(unning)-P(ersistence )H(unting) was argued to be most productive for hominins when used against large, size group 3 prey, we reiterate that the old-male-dominated pattern in A. recki mortality at FLK Zinj does not contradict the prediction of the ER-PH hypothesis for small bovids. We question, however, the relative merits and adaptive value of targeting small, old gazelles in their preferred bush–woodland habitat by jogging with eyes fixed to the ground in a most challenging tracking exercise…

Because (some of) the data does not match the authors’ expectations for persistence hunting, they conclude that hominins were likely ambush hunters who waited in trees with wooden spears for prime large bovids to come along and leapt upon them as a group.

Wait, what? You may well ask. (I did.) Why would you only jump out of a tree onto a pregnant female or an older male? Wouldn’t those be the most dangerous? Why, if hominins spent half a million years or more doing this as our primary hunting strategy, would we have lost so much of our hair and fast-twitch muscle fibers and tree-climbing adaptations? And why are there so few younger animals in the data set? Ambush predators take whatever animal wanders into the ambush first.

Is there any other explanation? I think the huge factor being overlooked is that in the persistence hunting model, animals are not being run to muscle fatigue, they are being run to heat exhaustion. The data on modern carnivore prey distribution is broken down by species, and it is interesting to note that the sprinting cheetah has the highest proportion of younger animals. What if hominin hunting is as far removed from the wild dog/hyena distributions as those are from the cheetah’s?

A focus on heavily pregnant females and mature males (with heavy horns) all of a sudden makes sense if we consider the energy needed to drive the animal to overheating. Why run a smaller juvenile down when you could have more meat for the same or more time and energy? And the real kicker occurs when you go onto Wikipedia to wonder why waterbuck might have been the favorite target of these ancient hunters:

The waterbuck cannot tolerate dehydration in hot weather, and thus inhabits areas close to sources of water. Predominantly a grazer, the waterbuck is mostly found on grassland.

Sounds like the ideal persistence hunting opportunity to me. Anyone want to tell me if I’m barking up the wrong tree?

1 Like

Persistence pays off is old saying. I made two attempts to snake out drain via two differrent drain holes— in concrete floor at work. Got nothing of signiricance. Then tried another 3rd drain hole much further along the system of drainage, and got nothing there.

So went back and snake the same drain hole for third time and got huge wad of stuff. Filled with water and it bubble and could see water rising in the other nearby drain hole then all of sudden whoosh!, it all flushed away. YAY!

Persistence pays off. Sometimes we need to take break and step back to settle the mind, or try another avenue/pathway to get more information.

Persistence pays off.

1 Like

It reminds me of what zookeepers say about orangutans: it’s not that they’re smarter than chimps or gorillas, but they’re far more successful at escaping cages because they’ll doggedly keep poking at a spot until it gives.

Yeah so a program of man studing badgers in Africa he kept them in area enclosed by adoble-like clay-like walls and time after time they outsmarted him and figured new ways to escape.

They were persistent. They were determined to get out.

Food, sex and maybe freedom are strong genetic desires. Maybe it was desire for sex{ to mate } and not freedom that made the badgers so persistent.

Persistence pays off.

My impression it that what makes humans so successful is the ability to adapt to new situations. Thus, they may well have been persistence hunters in hot climates, where perhaps they could push animals away from water sources and run them down.
And in other environments, they may have used other tactics. Just saw a program where there was evidence that hunters separated part of a herd of ancient bison, and ran them into a ravine, where they were trapped and sitting ducks for the rest of the group lying in wait with spears at hand. Thus, they combined ambush and trapping with a form of persistence hunting in separating and herding. https://www.pbs.org/video/time-team-america-bones-badger-hole/


That was a super interesting episode to watch! The atlatl was an intermediate between full-sized spears and bow and arrow technology, but it’s so cool that they can tell just by the points that they must have been using them.

I do think that the success of ancient H. sapiens was very likely due to our ability to utilize a wide variety of food sources, including coastal foraging. It’s like we swung back in the direction of being true omnivores. (Neanderthals were eating primarily meat, and not just any meat but specifically big game.)

It’s interesting to think that human adaptability itself may have come from the cognitive demands of tracking an animal over long distances, while also figuring out where it was likely to go next and what the best way to keep after it would be, plus coordinating all of this with other hunters. We see other social carnivores like orcas and wolves engaging in a variety of hunting methods depending on terrain and other factors. Maybe the best thing about developing bigger brains was that we could use them to figure out ever smarter ways of hunting and gathering food resources.

“Tracker” by Gary Paulsen is a short fiction book about persistence hunting a deer through light snowfall; although it’s not a real account, it’s based on real stories of an actual hunting technique (the author knows his stuff). And Dmitry Lykov also chased down large game in very cold Russian temperatures. it’s really interesting that even though it’s way more common/effective in hot climates, that’s not the only circumstance it works in.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.