You’d beat a Neanderthal in a race
IF YOU think you’re no good at running, bear this in mind: you could still outrun a Neanderthal. In fact, their inferior running ability may have been why they went extinct and our ancestors did not. Appropriately enough, it all came down to their Achilles tendon.
There have long been claims that Neanderthals were weaker runners than modern humansMovie Camera, says David Raichlen of the University of Arizona in Tucson, but until now, there was no convincing evidence.
In runners, the tendon acts as an energy store, stretching like a spring as the foot lands then bouncing back to help lift it again. Raichlen reasoned that the more energy is stored within the tendon, the more efficient the runner.
You know, I kind of like this hypothesis, not necessarily for the running angle but from the habitat and subsistence strategy perspective. One might argue that H.s.s. still had a hand in making them go extinct if their presence did not allow for Neanders to utilize their more undesired territories outside of refugia when their preferred habitat became scarce.
The sources speak explicitly or implicitly about distance running. I don’t see anything about the, say, fifty-yard sprint.
Running down an animal in Africa’s sunny clime until they collapse of heat exhaustion is one thing. Whether that would work in a sub-Arctic October is another question. So the hypothetical connection doesn’t seem all that strong. It is said that men can run down horses, if the men are in good shape, which we could probably agree was the case with Paleolithic h. sap.
So what happened when h. nean ventured onto the steppe or tundra where h. sap ruled? Were the animals too fast for him or were the taller, better-looking guys going to kill him?
If h. nean is confined to the forest refugia, then sap’s speed isn’t relevant. If he gets out onto the tundra, then the animal’s speed counts, unless it’s a matter of running like hell from sap.
I don’t see that sap’s speed is relevant except to say that as the tundra/steppe expanded, there was less habitat favoring h. neand.and more favoring sap, which meant the two shifted dominance without necessarily encountering one another.
Next: Is there anything in sap that is a disadvantage in a forest environment, or is it just that there’s more to eat in the open and it would be the smart thing to do to leave the forest?
Lastly, is there any work done on relative population density? AFAIK, forests have less food suitable for humans than does the open. In fact, except for squirrels and that which eats squirrels, and the occasional browser–who could probably eat better in the open himself–there’s not much worthwhile going on in a forest if you’re not Paul Bunyan.
Comment by Richard Aubrey — February 7, 2011 @ 3:09 pm