Scientific article: Human hand evolved to use as punching weapon

[punisher73]

Interesting article on the belief that the human hand developed/evolved for both manual dexterity and as a weapon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20790294

 

[Sukerkin]

Interesting piece indeed - it is always good to see avenues of investigation being followed that look at elements of our nature and how it shapes us physically and behaviourally.

 

[harlan]

If the hand evolved to punch, it would have evolved differently. I think a couple of uniformed punches would show that to be true.

 

[jasonbrinn]

Maybe they should study the butt to see if it has been shaped by the foot (some people need a lot more shaping) - lol. Seriously though, great article and thanks for posting.

Jason Brinn

 

[punisher73]

If the hand evolved to punch, it would have evolved differently. I think a couple of uniformed punches would show that to be true.

How do you think it would have evolved to allow it to be used as both a weapon and still maintain it's manual dexterity?

 

[cdunn]

It's a complex set of action, but I have a suspicion that the causality chain they propose is not valid. I don't think their data well supports the conclusion, though it's interesting.

Of the four known genera of surviving Hominidae, three share the locomotive mode of knuckle walking and arboreal climbing, which leads to the preservation of a strong, butressed knuckle structure, while still permitting enough gracile structure for manipulation, with results very nearly identical to the human hand. While avatistic humans with errors to the right segments of the brain to prevent upright walking are known to prefer palm locomotion, the basic adaptations for knuckle walking existed in our ancestors, and we can expect that our hand has adapted over the eons for superior manual dexterity, with perhaps punching as a friction break on the complete alteration of the hand for finer dexterity, especially given the ease of the boxer's fracture.

 

[Makalakumu]

Do any other members of the primate family strike with the closed fist contacting with the knuckles? I think a chimp throws hammer fists, but that's not the same as punching...

 

[Cayuga Karate]

Though I haven't read the study yet, I am unconvinced that such a sweeping generalization can be made when another is quite possible if not probable.

The main aspect of human existence that separate us from our forebears is our use of complex tools. While some animals use some basic tools, only humans use tools to make tools, and are so utterly dependent on them. We use them in all manners of existance.

A recent issue of science news reports on the finding of half-million year old stones that have markings consistent with having been lashed to the end of sticks, and used repeatedly to be thrust into the sides of animals.

This came from an era of homo erectus, who had brains smaller, and bodies bigger than we have now. They hunted small and big game alike. It seems likely that the hunting of larger game required multiple spear wielding pre-homo sapien men, working in unison, thrusting primitive stone-ended spears into the sides of the large beasts.

The position of the hand in many spear strikes is quite similar to that of a fist. The hand needs to squeeze tight on the pole for maximum force in thrusting. That squeezing aligns the bones in the hand in a quite similar pattern to that of a fist.

Since the review of the article makes no mention of human's use of this basic tool of humankind over hundreds of thousands of years, it seems quite possible they might have simply overlooked the similarities in hand position between swinging/thrusting a spear and thrusting a closed fist.

I find it far more likely that the basic tool used to bring down prey needed for food, and bring down threatening humans from neighboring maurading tribes, would be far more likely to have generated the kind of hand development in the human hand, than the thrusting of closed hands at other humans.

Why fight with fists, when one can fight with sharpened objects, especially those at the ends of poles?

I believe the use of spears likely has much to do with human one-sidedness. In addition to thrusting spears, they also were thrown. Humans have uncanny accuracy in throwing once properly trained. We see that in all manner of sports. My favorite is the video of Drew Brees QB of the New Orleans Saints, who competes with olympic arches at 20 meters.

The archers can only hit the bulls eye 50% of the time. Drew Brees hits it 20 out of 20 with an American football.

I would say that human evolution has made us uniquely able to throw projectiles accurately, and uniquely able to thrust spears into the bodies of prey.

 

[elder999]

Since the review of the article makes no mention of human's use of this basic tool of humankind over hundreds of thousands of years, it seems quite possible they might have simply overlooked the similarities in hand position between swinging/thrusting a spear and thrusting a closed fist.

I find it far more likely that the basic tool used to bring down prey needed for food, and bring down threatening humans from neighboring maurading tribes, would be far more likely to have generated the kind of hand development in the human hand, than the thrusting of closed hands at other humans.

I'm with you there: man's hands were made for clubs.

I believe the use of spears likely has much to do with human one-sidedness. In addition to thrusting spears, they also were thrown. Humans have uncanny accuracy in throwing once properly trained. We see that in all manner of sports. My favorite is the video of Drew Brees QB of the New Orleans Saints, who competes with olympic arches at 20 meters.

The archers can only hit the bulls eye 50% of the time. Drew Brees hits it 20 out of 20 with an American football.

I would say that human evolution has made us uniquely able to throw projectiles accurately, and uniquely able to thrust spears into the bodies of prey.

But you kinda lost me there: the spear's only about 350,000 years old.

 

[oftheherd1]

It's a complex set of action, but I have a suspicion that the causality chain they propose is not valid. I don't think their data well supports the conclusion, though it's interesting.

Of the four known genera of surviving Hominidae, three share the locomotive mode of knuckle walking and arboreal climbing, which leads to the preservation of a strong, butressed knuckle structure, while still permitting enough gracile structure for manipulation, with results very nearly identical to the human hand. While avatistic humans with errors to the right segments of the brain to prevent upright walking are known to prefer palm locomotion, the basic adaptations for knuckle walking existed in our ancestors, and we can expect that our hand has adapted over the eons for superior manual dexterity, with perhaps punching as a friction break on the complete alteration of the hand for finer dexterity, especially given the ease of the boxer's fracture.

Makes sense to me. But of course I am not a physical anthropologist.

 

[Cayuga Karate]

Elder999 wrote:

But you kinda lost me there: the spear's only about 350,000 years old.

Here's the text:

Scientists working in South Africa have unearthed the oldest-known spear tips, apparently made by a common ancestor of people and Neandertals around 500,000 years ago.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...s_of_hunting_weapon_uncovered_in_South_Africa

 

[cdunn]

Do any other members of the primate family strike with the closed fist contacting with the knuckles? I think a chimp throws hammer fists, but that's not the same as punching...

The other apes can't make fists quite the same way we can - and coming around to a linear or hook type punch for effectiveness takes a lot more than just the wrist or foot.

Knuckle walking is not on the innermost knuckle, the way that you punch. Make a spear hand, then fold your second knucles 90 degrees in. Tense the wrist in the same way you would brace for a punch. That is a knuckle-walker's "front foot." Notice how the load is borne along the proximal phalanx, into the metacarpals that make up the palm, and from the metacarpals into the wrist structure, Which, in turn, is a remnant of our heritage as lobe finned fish. This link chain needs to be built up against the walking condition specific to the environment and habit - That is, it must be able to handle the continual load-and-unload it will be subjected to - but for the case of the other great apes, the same hand must also sustain brachiation and hand-over-hand crawling on branches, and is adapted accordingly; indeed, the wrist and finger structure of the gorillas, who spend less time off the ground shows signs of being selected for different features from that of the chimpanzee, who spends more time in the trees.

This is fine and dandy, but then the ancestors of humans did something really different. They stood up straight, and the ones who ate more and were more likely to have kids were the ones who were best at manipulating tools, requiring a more dextrous and manipulable hand, a spine, hips and back musculature that's better for standing up right than the other apes, and a foot that's meant for solely walking, rather than brachiating. So, the hand fines out and the musculature changes, but it doesn't really change more than is neccesary to the new purpose. It doesn't need to support our weight anymore, just our tools.

So now, we have two seperate 'standing' postures, and four seperate hand configurations among the great apes, the human's upright posture and tool-using hands being the most diverged from the other apes. Because of these seperate standing and moving postures, fighting at any level will be very different for a human than it is for an ape; our bodies now project their weight in an entirely new fashion. Our basic forwards step is a very specialized way of falling down and pushing up, the other apes cannot do this. A linear, or even hook punch, doesn't make any sense in combat, because they cannot get their weight into it. Try it for yourself; get on all fours and punch straigh out. Thus, instead, they use the old James Kirk overhead special when they strike because that's how they hit harder - they can rise up easily - which humans cannot do, as we are already there - and hammer down on something for maximum force.

My expectation, then, is that the human punch is a secondary adaptation of several other human traits - it combines the hand, and wrist structure of our knuckle walking ancestors with our current upright posture with the shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle structure of our upright, tool-using ancestors, and in doing so may provide a limitation against a more gracile structure, rather than being a structure novelly adapted for the strike.

I'm with you there: man's hands were made for clubs.

But you kinda lost me there: the spear's only about 350,000 years old.

A lot of the general tool use adaptations of the shoulder and wrist go into throwing - it's a behaviour that once again, adds up many other little things, but it's very different from a stored energy missile weapon.

 

[elder999]

Elder999 wrote:



Here's the text:





http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...s_of_hunting_weapon_uncovered_in_South_Africa

Not my field, but a month is hardly enough time for peer review, which I'm confident will be against this hypothesis, and will dispute that these objects are spear-points at all.

View attachment $121115141542.jpg

 

[harlan]

Not so sure, but will read with interest if it comes out.

Not my field, but a month is hardly enough time for peer review, which I'm confident will be against this hypothesis, and will dispute that these objects are spear-points at all.

View attachment 17490

 

[Cayuga Karate]

Elder999 wrote:

Not my field, but a month is hardly enough time for peer review, which I'm confident will be against this hypothesis, and will dispute that these objects are spear-points at all.

I am not quite sure what you mean by the phrase "hardly enough time for peer review."

Science Magazine is the highly respected peer-reviewed journal of the AAAS, with an estimated readership of a million people.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal)

The findings that Science News reported on were in the Nov. 16 issue of Science Magazine. It was received for publication on July 18, and accepted for publication on October 4.

If you want to take issue with the findings of the research, you can always contact the scientists that conducted the research. Jayne Wilkins in the principle researcher (http://utoronto.academia.edu/JayneWilkins)

And there is already sniping at the authors of the article on potential causes of the development of the human hand.

The hand’s proportions are such that clenching the fingers creates an effective bludgeon, a pair of researchers observes. Perhaps, they propose online December 19 in the Journal of Experimental Biology, evolution played a role in making the hand such a punishing weapon.

But other scientists are skeptical. “There’s no compelling evidence that the hand evolved in this way,” says Mary Marzke, a physical anthropologist at Arizona State University in Tempe. It’s more likely that the ability to throw a good punch was just a lucky (or unlucky) consequence of evolving nimble hands suited to making and using tools.

This reinforces my point made above. The use of the spear as a tool, was vital in the feeding (and quite likely fighting) habits of our ancestors half a million years ago, and quite possible far earlier. The ability to effectively grasp that tool, as well as other similar tools (digging sticks, hand axes for cutting wood and other materials) were far more likely to drive evolutionary adaptation than the ability to better punch another human. Once our ancestors some half million-to-million years ago or more, recognized the effectiveness of striking with sharpened stones, or stones attached to sticks, they would have been far more likely to strike each other with these, when necessary, than resort to fighting with fists.

Today, we have laws against concealed weapons. Switch blades are illegal in many states. And killing someone has serious legal consequences.

A half a million years ago, humans did not have these institutional and societal barriers against fighting with deadly objects, and would have been far more likely to utilize these tools when needed.

We only have to look at modern mankind's use of modern weaponry in warfighting to understand that our forebears probably brought the best weapons available to a conflict. Now in a society of laws, we are far more constrained in our behaviors. So today, we fight with our fists. That doesn't necessarily translate into empty hand fighting driving the evolutionary adaption of our hands.

 

[elder999]

Elder999 wrote:



I am not quite sure what you mean by the phrase "hardly enough time for peer review."

Science Magazine is the highly respected peer-reviewed journal of the AAAS, with an estimated readership of a million people.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal)

The findings that Science News reported on were in the Nov. 16 issue of Science Magazine. It was received for publication on July 18, and accepted for publication on October 4.

If you want to take issue with the findings of the research, you can always contact the scientists that conducted the research. Jayne Wilkins in the principle researcher (http://utoronto.academia.edu/JayneWilkins)

I'm more than a little familiar with the magazine-what I was referring to when I spoke of "peer review," were, of course, dissenting opinions and hypotheses, which are forthcoming from others in that field-I hardly need to take issue with the researchers conclusions, when their peers will do so, just as they have for the even more ridiculous notion that the human hand evolved for punching...:lfao:

This reinforces my point made above. The use of the spear as a tool, was vital in the feeding (and quite likely fighting) habits of our ancestors half a million years ago, and quite possible far earlier. The ability to effectively grasp that tool, as well as other similar tools (digging sticks, hand axes for cutting wood and other materials) were far more likely to drive evolutionary adaptation than the ability to better punch another human. Once our ancestors some half million-to-million years ago or more, recognized the effectiveness of striking with sharpened stones, or stones attached to sticks, they would have been far more likely to strike each other with these, when necessary, than resort to fighting with fists.

I'm in agreement with you, except, of course, that a half-million years ago, our ancestors likely used simple clubs and stones-not stones attached to sticks-and, perhaps, sharpened sticks.

 

[arnisador]

Interesting stuff! I'm hardly convinced yet but the hypothesis surely has merit. Have humans been punching each other long enough to see it in evolution? They couldn't have been punching sabre-toothed tigers (though I've heard some TKDers say their art was developed 5000 years ago for such purposes).

 

[geezer]

I'm going with with the hand-club connection as the most likely. The evolutionary feedback loop between manual dexterity and cognitive evolution has long been posited. And when it comes to dominance and survival between competing bands of primates, effectively manipulating hand held tools, or more specifically weapons, would have been an important survival factor. Also, as previously noted, striking with a club can involve using a punching motion as well as swinging motions. And, in either case, the hand is positioned like a clenched fist.

I've enclosed a clip of my escrima group sparring with another school to illustrate the point: :uhyeah:

 

[Touch Of Death]

Interesting stuff! I'm hardly convinced yet but the hypothesis surely has merit. Have humans been punching each other long enough to see it in evolution? They couldn't have been punching sabre-toothed tigers (though I've heard some TKDers say their art was developed 5000 years ago for such purposes).

Dragons even...