There are some examples [0], although admittedly they are isolated cases.
Dmitriy Lykov(1940-1981) of the Lykov family living an isolated life in Siberia developed a method of persistence hunting, despite or perhaps because of, the absence of any sort of hunting culture in his tiny, isolated group.
Those are just two very recent examples off the top of my head of people persistence hunting for survival. Maybe you're out of your depth on this subject.
“despite or perhaps because of, sucks” - https://idlewords.com/2003/04/despite_or_perhaps_because_of_...
Additionally, while it is true that hominids were making tools by the time they developed to subsist on meat, it is important to remember that the development of technology is a gradual process. It is possible that early hominids were using simple tools like rocks to scavenge for meat before developing more sophisticated weapons like spears and knives.
As for the argument that hominids wouldn't waste energy running if they had access to primitive weaponry, it is important to remember that hunting strategies are often shaped by a variety of factors, including the behavior of the prey species and the environment in which the hunt takes place. In some cases, chasing prey over long distances may have been the most effective strategy available to our ancestors.
Finally, while it is true that the low pH of our stomach acid suggests that our ancestors were not relying on rotten meat as a primary food source, it is important to remember that scavenging for meat was likely an important part of their diet. It is also possible that the ability to run long distances gave our ancestors an advantage in scavenging for meat, as they could cover greater distances in search of carrion.
In conclusion, while the persistence running hypothesis may not be the only explanation for how early hominids acquired meat, it is a compelling hypothesis based on a range of biological and anthropological evidence. It is important to consider multiple hypotheses when trying to understand the behavior of our ancestors, and to remain open to new evidence and alternative interpretations.
Whether it's GPT or a human, this is wrong:
> Finally, while it is true that the low pH of our stomach acid suggests that our ancestors were not relying on rotten meat as a primary food source, it is important to remember that scavenging for meat was likely an important part of their diet. It is also possible that the ability to run long distances gave our ancestors an advantage in scavenging for meat, as they could cover greater distances in search of carrion.
The point I was making was that our ancestors were relying on scavenged, and probably spoiled meat.
"But when it comes to long distances, humans can outrun almost any animal. Because we cool by sweating rather than panting, we can stay cool at speeds and distances that would overheat other animals. On a hot day, the two scientists wrote, a human could even outrun a horse in a 26.2-mile marathon."
what other animals? I used the dog example because it fits perfectly here: they don't sweat yet it's impossible to catch up to them if they are running away. Even if they overheat they don't just drop dead, they slow down to a human's walking pace.
And what about running animals that do sweat like horses? makes no sense. What makes more sense is to approach from multiple fronts and spear/arrow it down. Plus, all remaining hunter-gatherers hunt with the help of dogs. Sure, you do have to run, a lot. But the endurance side is the least important.
I've gone running with plenty of different dogs in temperatures of above 30 degrees over the years. Smaller or stockier dogs (like a staffy) fade very fast. Within a couple of kms. Working breeds (retrievers/poodles/kelpies/collies) will leave you in their dust but this is why the endurance hunting hypothesis relies on efficient tracking while running. If they're running on the lead, especially when it's a bit hotter, they seem to lose it after about 10kms. On a cooler day these same dogs would leave me dead.
Again I'm not saying it's "literally" impossible. Just not feasible. Actually, chasing an animal worth hunting to exhaustion sounds more like a feat of strength someone would do as a rite of passage. Something you could do once in a lifetime, rather than a reliable source of food.
As far as I'm aware, every land animal on Earth. (In hot weather. It's very different in the cold. Might also be different if it's very humid enough, so sweating doesn't work.)
> I used the dog example because it fits perfectly here: they don't sweat yet it's impossible to catch up to them if they are running away. Even if they overheat they don't just drop dead, they slow down to a human's walking pace.
For an hour or two, sure. Now try doing that for twelve solid hours, on a hot day in the open. The dog will collapse from heatstroke long before a fit, practiced human has to bow out.
I used to believe in the endurance hunting thing until I realized playing with my dog it didn't make sense. They DO get tired, but they take a 1 minute break and it's like they are back square 0.
For the record, I'm in shape and with a pretty light frame (181cm/70kg) and go for 10km/1 hour jogs regularly.
Try to play with your dog for an hour at high intensity. If your dog belongs to a large or very large breed it'll get tired much more quickly than you - assuming you're in somewhat good shape.
I'm not advocating in favor of endurance hunting, I'm only stating that we can out-endure some large-ish animals.
[1] https://www.irunfar.com/aleksandr-sorokin-smashes-24-hour-wo...
Still, this is an exception to the rule - overall humans outperform almost all animals when it comes to endurance running.
I think you're misunderstanding how endurance hunting works. There is no land-dweller on Earth that can outpace a fit, prepared human in a hot, dry environment indefinitely. Not even a horse; Google it. We're slow in the sprint, but we're monsters of endurance.
(By "fit" I mean "makes a living this way," not "jogs and hits the gym regularly.")
I have no idea whether that's an adaptation to endurance hunting or just to normal ambush hunting over long distances in the hot and humid African wet season, but it's pretty undeniable that dogs don't have more long-distance endurance than a fit man on a hot day.
This is the main point why I don't believe in the endurance running hypothesis. Humans are lazy. Why would the opt to run for days over just waiting at the local watering hole for prey?
I don't think you realize how easy it is if you know how to track and jog for 2-3 hours for antelope, even less for cats. All you need is a club. 'Running' isn't necessary.
The tribe thought it was absolutely hilarious that he would get up early and just go run for fun.
Many watering hole types of animals also don’t just fall right over after being struck, particularly with a “rudimentary” weapon. Even if you get a decent shot off, you will still most likely be chasing it for quite a while. Not to mention the dangers of what’s hanging around, looking to take what you (hopefully) managed to score.
The odds were not in our favor!
Have you ever fought a dog, a deer or a boar? Fighting means wounds, possibly fatal ones. Spear or no spear, you're going to die in one of those fights. Running on the other hand is pretty safe and not that tiring, especially if you've been doing it for years and your weight is close to 50-60kg. Ability to sweat more should be even more advantegous in a warm climate. I sometimes run in 30°C for an hour / an hour and a half. It's hard, but you get used to it. I imagine most animals would just drop by that time.
Not to mention, the first weapons would have been far more basic and require closer range than a bow and arrow or a throwing spear. So, to your point, early humans would have had to have taken advantage of the sickly or exhausted in order to avoid injury. With exhaustion occurring as a byproduct of the hunt, it would have been an “accidental” discovery.
I believe the Khoi in the Kalahari still hunt this way. I also thought that's one of the reasons we might have lost our hair and the way we perspire?
If anything, the persistence running hypothesis in some way discredits the idea that hominids relied on rotten meat. If they could catch fresh prey, why eat spoiled meat? Yet our stomach acid has a very low pH, more acidic than even that of cats.
What's more likely, in my opinion, is hominids began to supplement their diet by eating the leftover kills of larger predators as well as any rotting carcasses they may have encountered, and then developed hunting strategies around when they began developing tools. Even having sharp knives made of stone or volcanic glass would have been an obvious advantage in food procurement, and it wouldn't have taken millions of years to figure out that slashing an animal's throat in the right place would take it down quickly. No need for persistence running at all if a group can corner a mammoth or buffalo or lead it to a dead end.