According to the current Savannah theory of human evolution, man became upright at the time of taking to the open plains to hunt. But isn't there a paradox in that to be protected from predators man would have needed the spear, but to develop the spear, man would have already been walking upright?
Agreed, but the profuse sweating mechanism of humans would have alerted predators for miles around. The very high water consumption would make the securing of water holes a necessity. Man would have to have been an apex predator by this time surely?
"Modern chimpanzees use tools, and recent research indicates that chimpanzee stone tool use dates to at least 4300 years ago.[16] A recent study revealed the use of such advanced tools as spears, which Common Chimpanzees in Senegal sharpen with their teeth, being used to spear Senegal Bushbabies out of small holes in trees" - i don't know whether chimps are bipedals or not though, they're kind of half way.
That's not how the Savannah story goes. And the savannah hypothesis, in its many variations, is not the only one around. Chimps are definitely not bipedal.
A pointed stick isn't going to fend of a pride of lions though, is it? Can you explain further or give some links. It's a new subject for me, I admit.
I saw a nature documentary of South America which showed a group of spider monkeys fending of the attempted assault of a jaguar. The troup lived near a rock cliff face within the jungle. When the alarm call is given to represent the jaguar, the monkeys instantly retreat to higher ground, but pick up and through rocks and stones as soon as they can. The constant bombardment is enough to disuade the jaguar from trying any further. I think that this was the first method employed by our early ancestors. If the semi-aquatic ape theory where early humans lived in and around a river estuary is envisaged, then a plentiful supply of rounded pebbles would make excellent ammunition. This is my best guess as to solving the paradox.
Would every group of monkeys evolve the same ways? Think that would depend on the primary need of each particular group, and their strengths and weaknesses.
The main thing to keep in mind is that evolutionary change is step by step - people did not go from chimp-like forest ape (the presumed initial state, in the "trees -> savannah" story) in one generation, or in one thousand generations. So they didn't just swing out of trees and go hunting lions across the veldt. The weren't necessarily sweating when they picked up the spear tech, hunting when they learned to walk, walking when they first ventured into the early grasslands whatever they were like, etc. (And that's presuming the trees -> grass story, which I personally have never thought added up. My guess is you'd get a baboon or a sort of grassland gorilla or something like, not a human) Bipedal long distance hunting of big game across the African savannah with stone age weaponry is only possible at the end of a long, multi-step evolutionary process. A chimp cannot begin to do it, spears or no spears. Probably none of the major features involved appeared simultaneously or in less than many hundreds of generations and culling events. Or if the sophisticated, separate-headed spear is the fascinating object, maybe consider the possibility that they were first developed to hunt what they are used to hunt by most people whom we have seen hunt with them in recorded history - fish. Btw: the first dry land technology based pack hunting by humans is as likely to have involved fire and nets as hunting spears, and the carry bag technology in general seems to be as old as any we have (right there with the shaped stone hand cutter, as far as we know) - so perhaps it would aid one's imagination if such innovations are brought into the picture as the early and influential factors they seem to have been.
What about a sub-group which existed in the Congo river estuary, which threw stones as a defence mechanism? Do you think that this is a likely scenario for our ancestors or not? If not, why not? I know that.. This is my exact point indeed. I propose that initially the semi-aquatic ape threw stones to ward off enemies and later used spears, which it also used for hunting in the waters. The making of nets would seem very advanced in my opinion. I know the technique that you mean, I saw it on TV and it is still in use today within the Congo basin.
This is a quote from Wiki Bipedalism: If it was before the development of stone tools, then what was the method of protection in the savannah hypothesis? Throwing stones seems likely for later humans who devloped around coastal regions perhaps. btw Neanderthals didn't have a throwing capability, maybe they used branches as clubs? I imagine that early bipedal humans used there numbers and club wielding intimidation to secure kills made by other predators. The heads and bones could be cracked open easily using their tools, revealing brains and marrow that others couldn't get to so easily.
CSS there are in fact several survival strategies employed throughout the aminal kingdom that do not require spears - the fact that animals which have never evolved too use or tool making abilities still live on the savannah to this very day is testament to this. For example: what about the "being able to run away" strategy? neither spears nor bepedalism required What about the "hanging around in a large angry vengeful mob" strategy? No bipedalism or spear required what about the "accurately hurled rock" strategy? no bipedalism or spear required - in fact not even any tool making abilities required whatsoever and there's countless more strategies that do not require spears - in fact so far, there's only one animal lineage that has used them. you're thinking along VERY narrow and anthropocentric lines CSS......"needed" a spear?........bollocks!
As someone else pointed out, many species of animals have evolved or invented ways of protecting themselves. Moving in packs or herds is a good start. American farmers have begun adding llamas to their flocks because half a dozen of them can stomp a wolf to death and they'll hold off a bear, a boar or a cougar long enough for the killer dogs to arrive and finish the job. All of the existing species of apes, with the single exception of the orangutan, are pack-social; we've been pack-social since we split off from the chimpanzee-bonobo clade. "Bipedal" means to operate at highest efficiency and effectiveness on two legs, and chimps don't satisfy that definition. Homo sapiens has many unique modifications to the lower body that both make bipedalism possible and make it impossible for us to function on all fours. The most recognizable is the gluteus maximus, the enormous muscle that forms the familiar hemisphere on either side of our butt. It's been rerouted from the way it attaches in other apes. It provides the strength to stand with our knees locked, and also provides the power to run bipedally--and rather quickly for quite long distances. But possibly the most interesting adaptation serves two purposes. Our enormous brains give us disproportionally large heads. Even though humans are born at a less advanced state of mental development than most mammals in order to let our brains and heads continue growing after birth, nonetheless a newborn's head is so big that our females' birth canal has to be extremely wide. This means that our hips are very wide. This might not be a big problem for a quadruped, but it is for an animal that only walks on two legs and therefore is going to be balanced on one much of the time--and then must transfer that weight to the other one with incredible grace, so inertia does not topple it over sideways. The muscles in our thighs and hips are absolute marvels of engineering and there's nothing like them anywhere else in the animal kingdom. Humans can kick much harder than any other animal of similar mass, and this was probably a handy defense strategy for our ancestors before they invented tools. Hmm, I should probably make an exception for the ratites. Ostriches can kick like an elephant, so I imagine a smaller ratite closer to our mass (are emus about our size?) can probably match us for leg strength. But that just reinforces my point since all birds are bipedal. The reason ratites are so strong compared to other birds is that their bodies are much denser so they have more muscle mass. Other birds have hollow bones and similar adaptations to permit flight. You don't have to be fully bipedal to use tools. Parrots are sort of tripedal with their prehensile beaks to help climb, and their zygodactyl feet provide a good approximation of an opposable thumb, so they're quite dextrous at figuring out how to unscrew nuts and bolts and things like that. Non-psittacine birds like crows have figured out how to use primitive tools in the wild.
No more so than a stone-headed spear. No one incapable of making a net could fasten the head on, even - let alone fashion the shaft and head in the first place. Those things are fairly sophisticated. A couple of research programs in American universities have looked into what's involved in making even the simplest of the stone tools associated with the traces of early hominids - the best of the grad students taking an interest have succeeded in producing reasonable facsimiles of the early crude ones, but the really fine work (like the Folsom points from North American bison hunters) is not within their skill range after only a couple of years of practice.
Our tree dwelling ancestors and cousins were quite small and would have not been adapted to running at speed along the group for any great length of time. The use of tree branches as clubs would seem the likely solution to protecting their young from jackals, hyenas and lions etc. This would have encouraged bipedalism by allowing the apeman to wield his weapon more effectively. I believe that it was only our direct ancestors which later acquired a throwing ability, most likely developed in a coastal environment where they also evolved profuse sweating as a cooling mechanism. It has been proven that neanderthals didn't have the physiology to throw anything; stones or spears.
