Throwing in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic: inferences from an analysis of humeral retroversion
Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Jill A. Rhodesa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author and Steven E. Churchillb

aDepartment of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010, USA

bDepartment of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA

Received 17 May 2006;
accepted 14 August 2008.
Available online 11 November 2008.

Abstract

When in evolutionary history did long-range projectile weapons become an important component of hunting toolkits? The archeological evidence for the development of projectile weaponry is complex and generally indirect, and has led to different conclusions about the origin and spread of this technology. Lithic evidence from the Middle Stone Age (MSA) has led some researchers to suggest that true long- range projectile weaponry developed in Africa perhaps as early as 80,000 years ago, and was part of the subsistence toolkit carried by modern humans who expanded out of Africa after 50,000 years ago. Alternatively, temporal patterns in the morphology of pointed lithics has led others to posit an independent, convergent origin of projectile weaponry in Africa, the Near East, and Europe during the interval between 50,000–40,000 years ago. By either scenario, projectile weapons would not have been a component of the hunting arsenal of Neandertals, but may have been in use by European early modern humans and thus, projectile technology may have entered into the competitive dynamics that existed between these two groups. The origins of projectile weapons can be addressed, in part, through analyses of the skeletal remains of the prehistoric humans who made and used them. Habitual behavior patterns—including those related to the production and use of technology—can be imprinted on the skeleton through both genetic and epigenetic pathways. Recent studies in the field of sports medicine indicate that individuals who engage in habitual throwing have increased humeral retroversion angles in their throwing arms and a greater degree of bilateral asymmetry in retroversion angles than do non-throwers. This contribution investigates humeral torsion through analysis of the retroversion angle in samples of Eurasian Neandertals, European early modern humans of the middle and late Upper Paleolithic, and comparative samples of recent humans. This analysis was conducted under the assumption that if throwing-based projectile weaponry was used by early modern Europeans but not Neandertals, Upper Paleolithic samples should be similar to recent human groups engaged in habitual throwing in the degree of humeral retroversion in the dominant limb and in bilateral asymmetry in this feature. Neandertals on the other hand, would not be expected to show marked asymmetry in humeral retroversion. Consistent with other studies, Neandertals exhibit increased retroversion angles (decreased humeral torsion or a more posteriorly oriented humeral head) relative to most modern human samples, although this appears more likely related to body form and overall activity levels than to habitual throwing. Although Neandertals with bilaterally preserved humeri sufficient for measurement are rare (consisting of only two males and one female), levels of bilateral asymmetry in humeral retroversion are low, suggesting a lack of regular throwing. While patterning across fossil and comparative samples in levels of humeral retroversion was not clear cut, males of both the middle and late Upper Paleolithic demonstrate a high level of bilateral asymmetry, comparable to or in excess of that seen in samples of throwing athletes. This may indicate habitual use of throwing-based projectile weaponry by middle Upper Paleolithic times. Small sample sizes and relatively great variance in the fossil samples makes these results, however, suggestive rather than conclusive.

Keywords: Paleoanthropology; Projectile weapons; Neandertals; Functional morphology
Article Outline

'vilnoori' date='Oct 7 2009, 04:50 PM' post='562124']

Although Neandertals with bilaterally preserved humeri sufficient for measurement are rare (consisting of only two males and
one female), levels of bilateral asymmetry in humeral retroversion are low, suggesting a lack of regular throwing. While patterning
across fossil and comparative samples in levels of humeral retroversion was not clear cut, males of both the middle and late
Upper Paleolithic demonstrate a high level of bilateral asymmetry, comparable to or in excess of that seen in samples of throwing
athletes. This may indicate habitual use of throwing-based projectile weaponry by middle Upper Paleolithic times.
Small sample sizes and relatively great variance in the fossil samples makes these results, however, suggestive
rather than conclusive.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...8b18796413124ed

Ecofacts such as evidence of changing populations and extinction events in other species can be cited of evidence of modern
humanity's impact on the environment. If we consider that 33 of North America's total of 55 large mammalian genera became
extinct shortly after the arrival of modern humans to that continent 100,000 years ago...........

http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/uprevolution.php

A good point is made here, in that only three skeletons from Neanderthals prior to Upper Paleolithic timew are preserved
enough to determine if they were spear throwers. To determine this fact, hundreds of skeletons would need to be measured.

Anyone who wants to believe that Neanderthals enjoyed a successful 320,000 history using a single weapon and a single hunting technique, be my guest. Seeing how chimps use at least two distinct methods for hunting vertebrates (neither of which leaves evidence of such behavior behind), however, I will persist in my opinion that Neanderthals were probably capable of multiple hunting behaviors as well.

You seem to be obsessed about throwing weapons being the only means other than thrusting weapons . . .

Only to those not paying close enough attention. See post #86.

Even though you admit right there (post 86) that you have no proof whatsoever for your claim, you insist and furthermore ask those that are on the side of proven scientific fact to come up with proof when is the other way around, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof so if you want to make a claim that refutes all current scientifically gathered data I suggest you bring the proof to your claims.

Kurt Kleiner: But other evidence seemed to support the idea that spear throwing evolved much earlier. Analysis of the arm bones of Neanderthals, who lived between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago, and early humans living at the same time show that both were much stronger in one arm than the other; the difference is as great as that seen in professional tennis players today. That suggests they threw spears, rather than using both arms to thrust them.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3085...-revealed.html#

'PunkMaister' :You seem to be obsessed about throwing weapons being the only means other than thrusting weapons for hunting but that is not the case they could have herd their prey into cliffs and then finish them off with their thrusting spears! See right there you can combine 2 methods that do not require the use of something for which there is no shred of evidence whatsoever which is your alleged Neanderthal throwing weapons.

If you want to dispute the claims of Kurt Kleiner, then document your claims by other well known archaeologist.

Experimental Evidence Concerning Spear Use in Neandertals and Early Modern Humans



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Daniel Schmitt^{a, f1}, Steven E. Churchill^a and William L. Hylander<sup>b

a</sup> Department of Biological Anthropology & Anatomy, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, U.S.A.

<a name="a2">^b Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy and Primate Center, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, U.S.A.


Received 24 August 2001; accepted 22 January 2002. Available online 7 November 2002.
<h3 class="h3">Abstract</h3>Can a bimanual activity such as thrusting a spear during hunting produce bilateral asymmetries in the strength of the upper limbs? This question is important to arguments about the predatory capabilities of Neandertals and early modern humans. To address this question, we determined the magnitude and direction of reaction forces on the upper limbs during thrusting spear use. We collected lateral video records of eight adults thrusting an instrumented aluminum rod into a padded target. This “spear” was instrumented with two sets of four strain gauges placed at two positions along the shaft to register the force along the shaft and the distribution of those forces relative to the two limbs. From the gauge output and video we were able to calculate loads experienced by the trailing limb (holding the proximal spear) and the leading limb (holding the distal spear) as well as approximate bending moments along the trailing limb. The trailing limb provides a significantly greater portion of the force during spear impact and when the spear is held forcefully on the target. The loads on this limb at spear impact are twice body weight and the bending moments on the trailing humerus are large and appear to occur primarily in the parasagittal plane. These data, in combination with fossil humeral cross-sectional data and the lack of evidence for throwing spears among Eurasian Neandertals, suggest that previously documented humeral strength asymmetries in Eurasian Neandertals and early Upper Paleolithic Modern human males can be plausibly linked to spear thrusting.

I have no disagreement with this notion of cliff driving but show they did not use throwing spears by quoting an expert and the URL.

Even though you admit right there (post 86) that you have no proof whatsoever for your claim, you insist and furthermore ask those that are on the side of proven scientific fact to come up with proof when is the other way around, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof so if you want to make a claim that refutes all current scientifically gathered data I suggest you bring the proof to your claims.

Also, while they had weapons, whether they had implements which were used as projectile weapons is controversial. They had spears, made of long wooden shafts with spearheads firmly attached, but they are thought by some to have been thrusting spears.[63] Still, a Levallois point embedded in a vertebra shows an angle of impact suggesting that it entered by a "parabolic trajectory" suggesting that it was the tip of a projectile.[64] Moreover, a number of 400,000 year old wooden projectile spears were found at Schöningen in northern Germany. These are thought to have been made by the Neanderthal's ancestors, Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis. Generally, projectile weapons are more commonly associated with H. sapiens. The lack of projectile weaponry is an indication of different sustenance methods, rather than inferior technology or abilities. The situation is identical to that of native New Zealand Māori — modern Homo sapiens, who also rarely threw objects, but used spears and clubs instead.[65]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Tools

Thank-you for posting your sources, the Discovery Channel and Churchill versed Kleiner.

Did you read post 100 since there was no response? Debating claims is useless if posted material is not read. One more try. Here is another expert's claim for the throwing spear theory............theory and not fact yet.



There is no point in continuing the debate since posted material lacks responses and many more Neanderthal digs need to be done before proof can be made. So far 3 Neanderthals have had their bones tested and I repeat 100s need to be tested.
We don't have the facts and only theories that should be based on common sense. Throwing spears requires hours of practice on targets which might cause bone differences as seen with tennis players. Thrusting is rudementary requiring little practice.

Neanderthals as expressed by Saskeptic survived on earth for at least 100,000 years so they must have been rather skilled hunters who used a variety of methods that included thrust spears and throwing spears depending on the animal sought after.

Did you read post 105? "33 mammals out of 55 became extinct Ecofacts such as evidence of changing populations and extinction events in other species can be cited of evidence of modern humanity's impact on the environment. If we consider that 33 of North America's total of 55 large mammalian genera became extinct shortly after the arrival of modern humans to that continent 100,000 years ago..........." http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/uprevolution.php


Hunting methods may have varied from region to region since modern Homo sapiens throw spears and others like the Maori tribesmen used clubs and thrust spears. Again Neanderthals were probably skilled hunters who used a variety of methods that included thrust spears and throwing spears depending on the animal sought after. There is no point in continuing the debate since posted material lacks responses and many more Neanderthal digs need to be done before proof can be made.

Granted but I will tell you that I still doubt the claim they were cannibalistic and went around raping Homo Sapiens females.

Granted but I will tell you that I still doubt the claim they were cannibalistic and went around raping Homo Sapiens females.

The 'raping' would be almost impossible to prove, but cannibalism can be indicated by butchering scrapes, cuts, incisions etc.. on the bones.

They ate each other.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older.../199900026.html

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20...sm_at_moula.htm

Each other yes but think about it, this people lived in really and I mean really small groups of no more than 6 or 8 individuals tops, it was probably done only in truly desperate times and probably they ate the young and the elderly, it is know that they killed and ate infants in dire times. The point is that this is not something they did except out of desperation in dire times otherwise they would have made themselves extinct real quick.

The 78 Neanderthal bones at Moula Guercy come from at least six individuals: two adults, two 15 or 16 year-olds, and two six or seven year-olds. All the skulls and limb bones were broken apart; only the hand and foot bones remained intact. Cuts across the foot, ankle, and elbow joints show that in at least one individual each, the Achilles tendon, toe-flexor tendons, and the tendon of the biceps muscle were cut. In two of the younger individuals, the temporalis muscle (used to clench the jaw) was cut from the skull. Other cuts show that the thigh muscles were removed, and in at least one case the tongue was cut out.

There is no associated reason for the cannibalism that is apparent in the digs. The tribe we lived with in Africa claimed past cannibalistic behaviour as a deterrent to tribal warfare and the associated slave trade abductions. They sharpened their teeth to show this. Basically it was a message to their enemies, "Don't mess with us or we'll eat you." I remember one old fellow telling me that the tastiest bits were the buttocks and the hands.

" I remember one old fellow telling me that the tastiest bits were the buttocks and the hands.

I also believe certain tribes thought they would get some power from teh person they were eating.

Ever heard of 'long pig'? There's a reason for the pig reference.


Pretty much SOP for cannibalizing enemies.

Still the problem with this in regards to Neanderthals is that groups lived very far apart from each other and very, very rarely ever made contact with each other. So it goes back to dire situations rather than war amongst themselves.

"groups lived very far apart from each other and very, very rarely ever made contact with each other."


Have they recovered enough settlement remains to accurately determine this? It's my understanding that hominid remains/fossils, in general, are rare and infrequently found especially across broad geographic areas because the requirements to preserve were not there or they haven't been uncovered via natural weathering.

The DNA studies (Mithocondrial DNA etc.) so far show the populations were most likely very isolated from each other.

It's not just this posting, but in many of yours you seem to read in a lot of speculation and conjecture into Neanderthal behavior. It's almost as if you defend them. Just an observation.

The DNA studies (Mithocondrial DNA etc.) so far show the populations were most likely very isolated from each other.

Lets say we have tribe A dig, then dig B is found 2000 miles away. Now the two tribes have very different DNA. Let's speculate there were many other tribes inbetween than have not been found. Would the DNA gradually change as they went from dig to dig? I suppose, each tribe would intermarry and the DNA might be consisten through out.

How large were each tribal unit? Small tibes would need to live close together to keep from dying out.

The Digs so far reveal groups no larger than 8 individuals tops...

I just don't see how they could definitively say there were only eight that ever were a part of that group?

Regarding the posts that make mention of bears being a source of sustenance and the relative danger associated with such an endeavor - I think the practices of the Western Canadian First Nations people might hold a clue.