Remains of the oldest known stone-tipped throwing spears, described in a new paper, are so ancient that they actually predate the earliest known fossils for our species by 85,000 years.

There are a couple possible implications, and both are mind-blowing. The first is that our species could be much older than previously thought, which would forever change the existing human family tree.

The second, and more likely at this point, is that a predecessor species to ours was extremely crafty and clever, making sophisticated tools long before Homo sapiens emerged.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/stone-tipped-spears-pre-date-existence-of-humans-131113.htm#mkcpgn=emnws1

Kingy said:

Remains of the oldest known stone-tipped throwing spears, described in a new paper, are so ancient that they actually predate the earliest known fossils for our species by 85,000 years.

There are a couple possible implications, and both are mind-blowing. The first is that our species could be much older than previously thought, which would forever change the existing human family tree.

The second, and more likely at this point, is that a predecessor species to ours was extremely crafty and clever, making sophisticated tools long before Homo sapiens emerged.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/stone-tipped-spears-pre-date-existence-of-humans-131113.htm#mkcpgn=emnws1

“The third, which is also possible, is that our dating methodology is flawed.”

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Kingy said:

Remains of the oldest known stone-tipped throwing spears, described in a new paper, are so ancient that they actually predate the earliest known fossils for our species by 85,000 years.

There are a couple possible implications, and both are mind-blowing. The first is that our species could be much older than previously thought, which would forever change the existing human family tree.

The second, and more likely at this point, is that a predecessor species to ours was extremely crafty and clever, making sophisticated tools long before Homo sapiens emerged.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/stone-tipped-spears-pre-date-existence-of-humans-131113.htm#mkcpgn=emnws1

“The third, which is also possible, is that our dating methodology is flawed.”

Could be likely. Last time I sought companionship I was imprisoned and tortured…….

>There are a couple possible implications, and both are mind-blowing. The first is that our species could be much older than previously thought, which would forever change the existing human family tree”

I generally say 150 000 years for modern humans but read in NS years back it may be much earlier than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_human
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans

They are talking about 280000 years ago, so assuming their dating is right, the answer will be “pre-modern Humans”

>the answer will be “pre-modern Humans”

Thing is I don’t believe the emergence time and distribution is known with great certainty. Plus there’s overlap too.

It could be that dates arrived at more reflect fading and sparsity of evidence.

Not surprising, given that other stone tools have been in use for very much longer than that. And doubtless wooden ones too, but they’re much less likely to survive in the archaeological record.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Kingy said:

Remains of the oldest known stone-tipped throwing spears, described in a new paper, are so ancient that they actually predate the earliest known fossils for our species by 85,000 years.

There are a couple possible implications, and both are mind-blowing. The first is that our species could be much older than previously thought, which would forever change the existing human family tree.

The second, and more likely at this point, is that a predecessor species to ours was extremely crafty and clever, making sophisticated tools long before Homo sapiens emerged.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/stone-tipped-spears-pre-date-existence-of-humans-131113.htm#mkcpgn=emnws1

“The third, which is also possible, is that our dating methodology is flawed.”

Could be likely. Last time I sought companionship I was imprisoned and tortured…….

Marriage?

4) Their premise is wrong and what they are looking at aren’t throwing spears.

5) Blame The Doctor.

OCDC said:

5) Blame The Doctor.

That was my line of thinking.

Might have been the Discworld wizards.

buffy said:

Might have been the Discworld wizards.

In retaliation to dwarf bread missiles.

Nah, in the Science of Discworld books the wizards interfere in our history.

buffy said:

Nah, in the Science of Discworld books the wizards interfere in our history.

By throwing spears?

I’m trying to remember…..they may have done that. I recall them setting up a blackboard with some cavemen and trying to teach them something….

buffy said:

I’m trying to remember…..they may have done that. I recall them setting up a blackboard with some cavemen and trying to teach them something….

Apes throw sticks. Maybe they were the first primates to throw spears/pointy sticks.
I think some insects throw spears also.

… in conclusion, who exactly is our mystery spear chucker and why won’t he make a statement regarding who built the dinosaurs? Where did he get enough beer to commission the pyramids is also an important question but only because the editors fridge is hard to stock……

Another possibility, the spear head was made by a Neanderthal and indeed was made for throwing in order to capture small game. Aborigines used several spear types depending what they were hunting.

There is little doubt that Neanderthals generally hunted big game in frozen regions and moved north or south depending on the climate of the day. Consequently animals like mammoth, bear and other large mammals were the main diet and necessary to hunt if you were to survive, which I might add they did successfully for a longer period than Homo sapiens have been around.

To kill such large animals with small weapons is not very efficient, when compared with a more solid spear that could be repeatedly thrust into the animal. But how would they manage to get so close without being killed? I suggest they did not until the animal was largely immobilised and would think snares, pit traps, etc, would have been used.

A method which I doubt they would have overlooked, would be to cover narrow ravines with branches and when it snowed, it would disguise the ravine. When a herd of mammoths, deer, etc, ventured near, it would not be difficult to frighten the animals into the trap. Speculation I know, but very likely to work.

I would think a Neanderthal’s existence would have been either feast or famine, as game would have been scarce and difficult to capture. Therefore the group size would need to be limited to enough hunters to do the job, but not too many as to become a burden when game was limited.

>I would think a Neanderthal’s existence would have been either feast or famine, as game would have been scarce and difficult to capture.

Game was often plentiful in Neanderthal areas but the evidence shows they made use of fewer food species than modern humans. They also ranged less far afield, suggesting they were highly territorial.

Bubblecar said:

>I would think a Neanderthal’s existence would have been either feast or famine, as game would have been scarce and difficult to capture.

Game was often plentiful in Neanderthal areas but the evidence shows they made use of fewer food species than modern humans. They also ranged less far afield, suggesting they were highly territorial.

I doubt if you can find any reference about game being more plentiful in cold, frosty and snow covered regions. They would have had a more limited diet because of the limited number of game species where they lived. They probably also did not venture far because they would know the food items in their territory, when and where to find them.

I would imagine the large animals they caught would have lasted them for some time, as they would likely freeze, which would be another reason for them living where they did. Their land could have also have been culturally and spiritually important to them, as it was to the Australian Aboriginal and as such there would have been little or no intrusion from other peoples. I would also think that related neighbouring groups would have been invited to the feast when a large animal was caught, again not unlike Aborigines do when food is seasonally abundant. These meetings would have been important for cultural, social and pairing purposes.

kii said:

OCDC said:

5) Blame The Doctor.

That was my line of thinking.

OK I’ll play your silly game, Doctor Who?

bob(from black rock) said:

kii said:

OCDC said:

5) Blame The Doctor.

That was my line of thinking.

OK I’ll play your silly game, Doctor Who?

I love it when they say that.

Definitely the Discworld wizards…p257, The Science of Discworld II (The Globe). Chapter 23, Paragon of Animals.

Isn’t it serendipitous that I got to that bit last night after reading about retinal detachment treatments.

:)

Chimpanzees have been known to use handheld spears (without stone tips).

> 280000 years ago.

The earliest anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) appeared around 195,000 years ago
Denisovans were around as recently as 40,000 years ago.
Floriensis was around from at least 100,000 to 12,000 years ago.
Neanderthal man was around from 350,000 to 30,000 years ago.
Rhodesiensis was around from at least 300,000 to 120,000 years ago.
Erectus was around from 1.8 million to 200,000 years ago.

Stone tools
The paleolithic, the old stone age, goes as far back as 3.4 million years ago, and continued until 12,000 years ago.
The species who made the earliest stone tools remains unknown. Fragments of Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus and Homo, possibly Homo habilis, have been found in sites near the age of the oldest tools.
Oldowan stone tools date from 2.6 million to 500,000 years ago, and are mostly (but probably not always) associated with Homo habilis.
Acheulean stone tools date from 1.7 million to 450,000 years ago, associated species include H. erectus, Homo rhodesiensis and H. heidelbergensis.
The middle paleolithic, Mousterian, spanned from 300,000 to 30,000 years ago and is generally associated with Neanderthal man.
Châtelperronian is also part of the middle paleolithic, but only lasted from 35,000 to 29,000 years ago.