Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would Grok have been able to kill large animals before building tools?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Would Grok have been able to kill large animals before building tools?

    It's always bugged me a bit. Fowl and fish, and other small animals I could see early humans catching and eating, but the larger ones, like the ancestor to a cow, how would he manage to take one down?

  • #2
    Just quickly off the top of my head....Pits, Traps, group effort, stampede them off a cliff or into a dead end.
    Every time I hear the dirty word 'exercise', I wash my mouth out with chocolate.

    http://primaldog.blogspot.co.uk/

    Comment


    • #3
      Mammoth hunters - Google Search

      Comment


      • #4
        There have been tools around longer than we've been a species. We've had the knowledge to make weapons out of wood and stone since Home habilis, but Homo erectus was probably the first big-game hunter in our genus. But Dino's right - there are plenty of ways to kill a large animal even with minimal weapons.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DinoHunter View Post
          Just quickly off the top of my head....Pits, Traps, group effort, stampede them off a cliff or into a dead end.
          ...Setting fires, stealing the kill from other predators.

          Also don't forget that before the time we were homo sapiens we were already smart enough to use sticks, rocks, poison, traps, reeds and god knows whatever else and we already cooked our food.
          Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

          Comment


          • #6
            There are lots of documented kill sites where big animals were stampeded off cliffs.

            Comment


            • #7
              I saw a 7 year old take down a deer with an atlatl. So, yes.

              Comment


              • #8
                There have been people smart enough to be rocket scientists for tens of thousands of years leading up to the neolithic. Does that answer your question?
                The Champagne of Beards

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah, there's no real reason to assume lower IQs in ~20,000BC paleolithic era. Perhaps they even had higher IQs before the dawn of agriculture. Regardless, even if the avg IQ was only 90, you would still have 1 in 100 kids born with 120 IQ and occassionally 140-150. These would be the village "scientists" and wise men. They would be able to figure out a whole heck of a lot; killing a dumb animal would be only a minor achievement. Humans hunt with their brains.

                  It's believed we hunted the Glyptodon to extinction...basically a heavily armored turtle-thing the size of a VW Beetle.
                  Glyptodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There is also good evidence for the "persistence hunting" technique. Because we can sweat, we can stay cool, but large creatures that rely on panting can't. If we keep after them, running them down, they eventually fall over from heat stroke. Then all you need is a pointed stick to move in for the kill, or bash it over the head with a rock.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X