There are some accounts of still existing tribes in southern Africa doing this. As the article also suggests, the sprints, as far as I can tell, are intermittent. The hunters occasionally slow down when they need to pay attention to the tracks, and they run when they are certain of the path, not necessarily to catch up with the animal but to keep pushing it when it has taken shelter resting. This process is repeated until the game is just too exhausted to move and becomes an easy prey. They're not running marathons.
Early humans must've been like some sorta unstoppable killing machine, never going particularly fast but never stopping either. Just relentlessly following their target until it was too exhausted to go on and just laid down to die.
*Not a anthropologist/archeologist/oldshitologist.
Once the early humans have half-decent spears, they become extremely-high-risk prey. Because a single deep puncture wound is very likely to kill even the largest predator.
Here's an old (14yo!) BBC Earth documentary about it:
> Human beings are a particular type of mammal. In this compelling clip, we see a tribesman runner pursue his prey through the most harsh conditions in a gruelling eight hour chase.
8 hours of something more akin to trail running than marathon, interspersed with game tracking. I wouldn't describe the running parts as "sprinting" though.
Yes, I had that one in mind, though I'm always a bit skeptic about the cinematics of BBC productions. Sprint or not, the point I should have made clearer is precisely that walking is compatible with the endurance method. Personally I don't believe we evolved to run much. Pretty much anyone even in our sedentary society can walk very long distances; the body seems much more strongly adapted to that type of locomotion.
Towards the end of the article there’s a better overall view. This study shows persistence hunting was a widespread technique but used very infrequently:
Cara Wall-Scheffler, a biological anthropologist at Seattle Pacific University, applauded the new paper for adding a wealth of new examples. But she notes the study’s own findings confirm that persistence hunting was rare and that other methods were more common in the historical record. She doubts the technique was a powerful force in human evolution. “Selection acting every single day, everywhere, is more powerful, and persistence running is definitely not an everyday occurrence,” she says. “This paper actually doubles down with how unusual [it] is.”
In the ethnographic book The Old Way the author states persistence hunting was used at one time of year when the ground was softer to hunt one type of animal that over heated more easily.
There also seems to be a somewhat self evident natural+sexual selection here. Imagine you're going after some sort of prey, and fail to catch it immediately. The guys capable of continuing to pursue it, and ultimately succeeding where another might fail, are simply going to have be much more likely to live and procreate. They're also going to be the ones coming back with all sorts of game likely raising prestige, increasing odds of procreating, and so on.
I remember learning about this in grad school 20 years ago (so this isn't exactly a new theory), what I remember is that the modern human "package" has a lot of interlocking parts.
There's the sight advantage from the upright posture, along with the ability to use our hands since we aren't running with them (for spears, gourds of water, etc.), a brain powerful enough to engage in 2nd-order thinking ("the gazelle will want to catch back up with his herd", etc.), less sun exposure so better heat endurance, an efficient jogging gait (humans have beaten horses at marathons[1]), and probably most importantly social organization and comms that allow coordinated pack hunting (this may even get to why small irises and white sclera in our eyes were selected for).
Which is why our evolved ability to fashion and use weapons is such an advantage. Though if you start out on open terrain outside of sprinting range no other primate can catch you. Which is why we left the trees.
SUPER offended you put “a brain capable of second order thinking” in the middle of the list. And your brain is probably offended, too! I more see humans as gangly hairless apes who walk weird but managed to evolve inference, not finely tuned machines — but to each their own!
Now I don't have any references to back this up but my personal experience has been that walking on 2 feet is a more common trait then 2nd order thinking amongst humans.
Which reminds me of a anecdote from a park ranger I was chatting with once. Apparently the challenge with designing a bear proof garbage can is the overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest humans.
At least bears have "hands", I seem to remember crows pose a similar challenge, defeating garbage can locks that could be straight out of a Myst puzzle.
Positive that a non-negligible portion of the human population would be hopelessly challenged by such contraptions.
One thing I learned in the Mojave is that both crows and coyotes will learn the range of your rifle and stay just outside of it and wait for you to fall asleep. If you have a blind they will also count how many of you go into and and come out of it, and not approach the rations depot until the blind has zero people in it.
> Which reminds me of a anecdote from a park ranger I was chatting with once. Apparently the challenge with designing a bear proof garbage can is the overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest humans.
If HN had a Quote of the Day feature, I would definitely nominate this.
(Yes, I realize there's a large motivation difference between a hungry bear which can smell the food in the garbage can, and a human whose alternative is "meh, just drop my trash next to the stupid trick garbage can".)
Just for clarity/your reference, this is a very popular and very hilarious quote that is seemingly sourced from a 2020 tweet (?), and likely adapted by every ranger in the country that guards bear proof trash cans. While looking this up I also found a 2018 study about black bears being some of the smartest non-primate mammals, which makes the quote that much more believable!
Eh, I would say anyone who’s not capable of second order thinking isn’t meaningfully human. I guess it gets fuzzy with babies and the extremely disabled, but that’s life
I remember reading that humans can catch up with a lot of animals by simply walking (and tracking them), because we're extremely efficient and capable of losing heat easily through sweat
I meant the presumption there always has been a (male) sex associated with hunting thousands of years ago. This sex based role attribution would be necessary for sexual selection.
However, there is quite a bit of archeological evidence which suggests gender role inequality first started with human settlement and agriculture practice. The presumption of sexual divide in these activities in hunter gather societies may be anachronistic.
We're currently in a local max on topics related to identity politics, so I'd take any such publications with extreme skepticism. For instance your first article casually makes the rather extreme claim that women were more suited for endurance activity, by citing physiological differences, critically - which still exist, like wider hips and vastly higher estrogen levels. They then claim such things would enable women to run further and faster than men. This is contradicted by marathon (and all other forms of running) records since they've ever been kept. Furthermore I'd observe that they have gotten closer in modern times largely due to a greater ability to find women with genetic abnormalities bringing them closer to being genetically male that, in some cases (such as Caster Semenya) has even required sex testing to ensure they "really" were female.
There are also countless other issues that make all of this highly improbable. For instance people often frame these things like you just run towards an animal, it runs away, eventually passes out, you bop it, and you win - like a video game. In reality animals fight back. And, to this very day, animals like elk manage to kill hunters, using modern weapons and knowledge, with some degree of regularity. And elk are child's play relative to things like the mammoths and other animals our distant ancestors were hunting - with primitive weapons! This makes other issues like raw strength critically important - if that arrow or spear isn't going extremely deep - it could well be the last thing you ever do. Heck, even for much smaller game like boars - they've killed enough famous people (almost invariably during hunts) that Wiki has an entire category dedicated to it. [1] And then there are the countless societal factors.
Getting injured and even killed on hunts would not have been especially irregular. Yet in society men are vastly more replaceable than women. A single man can father tens of children in a year, yet a woman can only give birth to one. Lactating women are absolutely critical for the health of young children and are completely irreplaceable in that role. Similarly, in the past infant mortality rates were extremely high. We compensated for this by having large numbers of children. So women being regularly pregnant or breastfeeding is very much a reality. And going on a hunt in this scenario is obviously completely out of the question. And there's so much more one could write about the inanity and nonsensicalness of all of this, but this post is already far longer than intended - just to scratch the basics of it all!
No, you. And I'm not saying it's fake. I'm appealing to an overwhelming amount of falsifiable evidence. You are appealing to random articles in pop media which are hyperbolizing fringe studies that are aiming to create sensationalist generalizations based on scant evidence that is exceptional (as in being the exception) relative to the vastly overwhelming amount of what is available.
This is then taken to the next level to make broad statements like wide hips and estrogen would make somebody a physically superior runner in both terms of speed and endurance while ignoring the fact that females still have wider hips and higher estrogen than males, yet clearly are not superior runners in any way, shape, or fashion. Such arguments can only be made in the complete and utter absence of skepticism.
It's akin to phrenology, astrology (which was indeed a science at one time), and every other pop-sci phase that society has gone through only to look back a half century later wondering 'wtf were they even thinking?' The evidence at large just does not support the stated claims in any way, shape, or fashion, and relies exclusively on trying to turn the exception into the rule, to satisfy whatever's trending at this time or that.
Kinda sucks they do not mention the McDoughall's book with the same title, which, although far from scientific work, definitely fueled the debate.
My own experience is that, indeed, running, especially barefoot (really barefoot, not in overpriced minimalist shoes), among the trees and meadows in the countryside feels... well, natural. For people without much physical activity it can be demanding at the beginning, but after few days it should become a pleasure of some kind. I do not do that to reduce weight, for I am far from overweight, and I do not do that to participate in any sport events, for I do not care about them. It just feels good, to run and be out there in nature.
So yeah, my anecdotal evidence really ensures me that there is some truth in the statement that humans are somewhat "born to run". We do not need to hunt in this way anymore, as bows and other ranged weapons changed the rules, yet evolutionary baggage is hard to left behind.
I have always been fascinated by bare foot running. I think in a city I have less interest because all it takes is one tiny shard of glass to get a nasty infection but how do you handle stuff like pebbles etc?
Usually put a grimace on my face in a short moment of pain ;d.
I try to take a route that doesn't have plants with thorns or lot of stones and pebbles. In my area that is not difficult. When it is not possible, or I have some wound on my foot, I wear very thin, flat sandals (could be called "minimalist", but cost like 1/3 of the price of sandals really marketed as such). And I need to look out for vipers, but so far they tend to escape when I approach, and, to be honest, normal running shoes wouldn't help me if I would step on them.
In the city I would definitely be more cautious. When I lived in a town, there was a forest around 20 km away, and I preferred to take a car ride there instead of running though streets. Took more time and planning, and maybe I couldn't run as often as I would like to, but it was much better experience.
As for wounds, at least here in the countryside, so far I didn't catch anything serious. Few splinters or thorns. Nothing that would require seeing a doctor. Definitely it is wise to begin slowly, run much shorter distances, maybe even slower than you are able to. In time your feet become stronger and more resistant. You also notice that you become more aware of the ground and what lies there. This makes it easier to spot and avoid things that could be unpleasant.
Depends on the city. I run barefoot in Singapore and the places I go are all very well-maintained, smooth surfaces without much to cause trouble. You just look where you are running to avoid stepping on anything nasty. But I wouldn’t think about doing that in, say, Hanoi or Penang. Somewhere like Bangkok would be okay if you stuck to the big parks, but not if you were running along the streets.
It's unclear to me what you're implying, but kills would always need to be returned to the group. For large animals, they would have done some degree of butchering and then returned the meat as manpower allowed. For instance elk, one of the examples they mentioned, can yield 300+ pounds of premium meat. Since our ancestors were probably eating/drinking parts we might discard, you can even substantially bump that figure up. That's going to feed an entire group of people for quite a long time.
For directions there's a million tricks to orientate yourself in the wild that they would certainly have been aware of. For a relevant one in contemporary times, the claim that moss only grows on the e.g. north side of trees is mostly true. A more accurate description would be that moss likes to avoid the sun and so tends grows to grow on the side of trees least exposed to the sun, which in the northern hemisphere tends to be the north side. It's going to vary by location/environment/etc but they would have known these things (and countless others) and so the environment itself would have been a living compass.
Apparently there's one tribe that doesn't even have a term for left/right/etc but instead uses solely cardinal directions. No idea if this is another bbc style claim or actually true, but it's at least completely viable.
There are countless means of preserving meat such that it can last months or even years - smoking, salting, freezing (naturally), the million ways of fermenting things - such as through burying, and so on endlessly.
They could chase it in circles. Prey typically escapes pretty predictably (away from you), so you can chase from side to force some direction. Also if you have group, you can use everyone in group in loose circle.
Group can walk to the site. Butchering and preserving something like horse, buffalo or elephant with stone tools, is hard work, and takes a lot of work from everyone. Hunting is just a first step!
It was not like today, when "rest of the groups" sits at home all day, and expects everything on silver platter!
> Others remain skeptical that occasional behaviors by traditional societies offer a reliable guide to what human ancestors might have done millions of years ago.
I think the biology wins here. We're bipedal, lack tails (use arms instead!), sweat easily (without fur), and can outlast any land creature on earth at distance [0].
Evolution seems to point to endurance hunting as a stepping stone, even if our more recent ancestors we're smarter than that[1].
A previous discussion on HN regarding whether Humans are really the best distance runners in the world [1]. TL;DR we're pretty good, but probably beaten by some animals, including Kangaroos and Sled Dogs.
I run ultramarathons and whether true or not, we sometimes joke about this. We'd say that the typical Springbok would fall down from exhaustion after 30 km and that's why we runners hit that metaphorical wall after 31 km; we evolved because we needed to outrun the gazelle by only a bit. From there on, it's a tough grind to complete the race.
Very tongue-in-cheek, but too good of a story not to tell.
Couldn’t the evolution have occurred as: begin to stand which helps spot threats, gather, fish, etc -> run to avoid predators (efficiency of two legs begins to have large gains here) -> get good enough to have surplus time, safety, resources to create new tech like spears -> run to hunt everything
The world already has quite enough evolutionary "just so" stories. Our ancestors lived in trees, which presumably is safe from most predators, and standing upright isn't much of an advantage. Gathering would have been off the ground (no advantage to standing) or from bushes / trees (where climbing is better than standing).
Most African predators (such as the many big cats, but also some crocodiles) easily outrun humans, we are in no way evolved to outrun them. They will sneak up and then do a short sprint. Remember we're not running a marathon against them - we're playing tag and when they tag you, you lose. We're almost certainly not evolved to run to avoid predators.
Why did endurance cycling evolve? Oh, right, like endurance running, it didn't. I'm a human and I can't run far - unless I decided to train myself in that and then I can. Just as I could train myself to break dance. Did break dancing evolve? The book that created this 'theory' about running is nothing but running 'propaganda'. A meme pushed into the world by exercise addicted people who wanted a post-hoc 'naturalization' for their lifestyle.
Endurance cycling requires pretty advanced equipment. To run you just need your legs.
Much less training is needed to go from basement dweller to someone that can run, let's say, 5 km under 30 mins, than it is required to do even basic breakdance moves.
So the suggested symmetry crumbles down, as there is none.
Indeed, that humans hunted through long distance pursuits has been known for a while.
The research paper on which the article is based on is about gathering evidence to support that endurance hunting was/is an efficient way to hunt.
Title: "Ethnography and ethnohistory support the efficiency of hunting through endurance running in humans"
Abstract:
Humans have two features rare in mammals: our locomotor muscles are dominated by fatigue-resistant fibres and we effectively dissipate through sweating the metabolic heat generated through prolonged, elevated activity. A promising evolutionary explanation of these features is the endurance pursuit (EP) hypothesis, which argues that both traits evolved to facilitate running down game by persistence. However, this hypothesis has faced two challenges: running is energetically costly and accounts of EPs among late twentieth century foragers are rare. While both observations appear to suggest that EPs would be ineffective, we use foraging theory to demonstrate that EPs can be quite efficient. We likewise analyse an ethnohistoric and ethnographic database of nearly 400 EP cases representing 272 globally distributed locations. We provide estimates for return rates of EPs and argue that these are comparable to other pre-modern hunting methods in specified contexts. EP hunting as a method of food procurement would have probably been available and attractive to Plio/Pleistocene hominins.
