Calling all paleontologists/zoologists :I have a question

[Potoooooooo]

A discussion came up at a forum I frequent about the prehistoric short-face bears of the Americas.Some claimed that they actively hunted humans and that they was the most dangerous foe the first Americans faced.It was also stated that

"They likely were the genesis of Native American legends of "stone giants"--that is, big hairy creatures with huge arms that crush and eat you."

How likely is that? I am sure in a one on one fight they could easily kill a human, but would they have been able to take on a well armed band of human hunters & win.Would they have habitually made a practice of doing so? As big as they were, their hides were not weapon proof.The European explorers encountered a New World that was filled with humans,not short-faced bears.And as for inspiring human legends, I know tales of giants are a universal myth, even in areas that never had any bears.

 

[lpetrich]

A discussion came up at a forum I frequent about the prehistoric short-face bears of the Americas.Some claimed that they actively hunted humans and that they was the most dangerous foe the first Americans faced.It was also stated that

"They likely were the genesis of Native American legends of "stone giants"--that is, big hairy creatures with huge arms that crush and eat you."

How likely is that? I am sure in a one on one fight they could easily kill a human, but would they have been able to take on a well armed band of human hunters & win.Would they have habitually made a practice of doing so? As big as they were, their hides were not weapon proof.The European explorers encountered a New World that was filled with humans,not short-faced bears.And as for inspiring human legends, I know tales of giants are a universal myth, even in areas that never had any bears.

I find that doubtful at best. It seems to me that it's the bear that would lose. It's one bear up against several human hunters, and these hunters would likely be armed with spears. I found a discussion online of hunting larger animals with Paleolithic technology: elephants and mammoths. Several hunters with spears can kill an elephant. I think that if an elephant will lose, a bear will also lose.

Short-faced bears were only somewhat larger than the largest present-day bears. Mass: ~900 kg. Height on hind legs: 2.4 - 3.0 m (large ones: 3.5 m). Shoulder height: 1.5 - 1.8 m. Polar bears, the largest present-day bears, have (male) 350 - 700 kg, length 2.4 - 3.0 m (female) 150 - 250 kg, length 1.8 - 2.4 m.

 

[skepticalbip]

How likely is that? I am sure in a one on one fight they could easily kill a human, but would they have been able to take on a well armed band of human hunters & win.Would they have habitually made a practice of doing so? As big as they were, their hides were not weapon proof.The European explorers encountered a New World that was filled with humans,not short-faced bears.And as for inspiring human legends, I know tales of giants are a universal myth, even in areas that never had any bears.

Even though a hunting party of several armed people could possibly hold their own against a short faced bear, I doubt that the early Amerinds always moved about in an alert well armed mass. The short faced bear could have been smart enough to avoid such groups. However someone who moves away from the camp and into the bushes to take a shit or a small group gathering berries or digging roots or someone collecting water at the stream could easily fall prey. I would allow for the possibility that a band of early Amerinds who lost a couple of their group under such incidents could weave stories about the big hairy creature.

 

[Politesse]

A discussion came up at a forum I frequent about the prehistoric short-face bears of the Americas.Some claimed that they actively hunted humans and that they was the most dangerous foe the first Americans faced.It was also stated that

"They likely were the genesis of Native American legends of "stone giants"--that is, big hairy creatures with huge arms that crush and eat you."

How likely is that? I am sure in a one on one fight they could easily kill a human, but would they have been able to take on a well armed band of human hunters & win.Would they have habitually made a practice of doing so? As big as they were, their hides were not weapon proof.The European explorers encountered a New World that was filled with humans,not short-faced bears.And as for inspiring human legends, I know tales of giants are a universal myth, even in areas that never had any bears.

It seems to me that several claims are getting a bit conflated here. Could a short-faced bear pose a real danger to a human hunting party? Absolutely. A determined grizzly bear or polar bear can cause trouble for a hunter even now, even with a gun. People are wounded by them all the time, and back in the day they were even more lethal by all report. And short-face bears were, by their remains, quite a foe indeed.

On the other hand, is this the source of particular "Native American legends"? This is completely unprovable and unfalsifiable, as is often if not always the case with these sorts of "well actually" reductions of myth and legend. Could tales of ancestral giants be recollections of an ancient ecosystem? Sure, it could. 14,000 years are a long span of time, but not so long that I can't imagine a fragment or two of received memory to survive it, especially with the modern mnemonics of still-living similar beasts to nudge it along. But you don't actually need a cave bear to explain a myth about a giant, such things being common in the myths of nearly every culture on the planet. It is no more fun to face down a dire wolf or a hippopotamus, after all.

 

[steve_bank]

That is the long and short of it. When I went into back country in North Idaho I always carried a sidearm, mostly for two legged critters. Someone I knew told me all's a pistol will do is piss off a grizzly. Plenty of black bears and a small possibility of a grizzly where I was.

Moma black bears are ferocious and will die protecting cubs if you startle them.

A grizzly surrounded by a few dozen experienced hunters with long sharp spears would be hard for the bear to escape. Mountain lions would be more formidable, IMO. They are fast, quiet, and stealthy with a long leap.

 

[Bronzeage]

Big predators are a threat to any animal in its environment. That's what predators do. This is true for weasels and bears. Part of any predators nature or instinct is the ability to judge the effort required to take down a prey animal, and decide if it's worth the reward, and more importantly, the risk if injury to themselves.

Predators tend to stay away from humans, especially in groups, because even though we may be tasty, there is a great risk. Bears will attack humans when the bear thinks the conditions are right, but it would be a rare thing.

Even so, the humans will understand the danger and respect the power of the bear. This means there will be lots of stories about bears, because it's human nature. Today, we don't worry about bears, but we make up stories about Jason and Hannibal Lector, and a host of other predators.

I don't see why Native Americans would conflate a bear and a giant made of stone. There are enough bear stories, as it is. It's completely within the realm of human imagination to make up a story about a murderous stone giant without having an actual stone giant as an inspiration.

 

[Peez]

A discussion came up at a forum I frequent about the prehistoric short-face bears of the Americas.Some claimed that they actively hunted humans and that they was the most dangerous foe the first Americans faced.It was also stated that

"They likely were the genesis of Native American legends of "stone giants"--that is, big hairy creatures with huge arms that crush and eat you."

How likely is that? I am sure in a one on one fight they could easily kill a human, but would they have been able to take on a well armed band of human hunters & win.Would they have habitually made a practice of doing so? As big as they were, their hides were not weapon proof.The European explorers encountered a New World that was filled with humans,not short-faced bears.And as for inspiring human legends, I know tales of giants are a universal myth, even in areas that never had any bears.

Plenty of good responses, this is less a question for paleontologists/zoologists than it is for anthropologists.

Peez

 

[Politesse]

A discussion came up at a forum I frequent about the prehistoric short-face bears of the Americas.Some claimed that they actively hunted humans and that they was the most dangerous foe the first Americans faced.It was also stated that

"They likely were the genesis of Native American legends of "stone giants"--that is, big hairy creatures with huge arms that crush and eat you."

How likely is that? I am sure in a one on one fight they could easily kill a human, but would they have been able to take on a well armed band of human hunters & win.Would they have habitually made a practice of doing so? As big as they were, their hides were not weapon proof.The European explorers encountered a New World that was filled with humans,not short-faced bears.And as for inspiring human legends, I know tales of giants are a universal myth, even in areas that never had any bears.

Plenty of good responses, this is less a question for paleontologists/zoologists than it is for anthropologists.

Peez

It is a question on which we would be expected to work together, I think! Faunal experts are rare in archaeological circles, so there is much collaboration with our paleontological colleagues on earlier sites and their interpretation.

As a plus, they always bring beer. Smuggled in their beards, if necessary.

 

[steve_bank]

I'm thinking of the movie with Ringo Starr about humans running g around with dinosaurs....

 

[J842P]

Guys, a bear, especially a bear like the short-faced bear, would have posed a serious threat to bands of armed humans. A bear is no joke. They are fast and strong and deadly. Even if you could take one out as a group, you'd likely lose at least a few people.

Here's a bear taking a shotgun blast like a champ:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj7Z5oMWuIU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[steve_bank]

Is the question that bears and bear like critters were a threat to anvient humans? That should be obvious.

Were ancient human hunters able to deal with large predators? Bones littered around ancient dwellings and fire pits would say yes. I would not think this a question at this point.

 

[Peez]

Guys, a bear, especially a bear like the short-faced bear, would have posed a serious threat to bands of armed humans. A bear is no joke. They are fast and strong and deadly. Even if you could take one out as a group, you'd likely lose at least a few people.

Here's a bear taking a shotgun blast like a champ:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj7Z5oMWuIU[/YOUTUBE]

Pretty dramatic video (of a rather unwise choice of action on the part of the human), but I would be curious about what type of ammunition was used.

Peez

 

[steve_bank]

With a shotgun a lot depends on the load and the choke or the spread for buck shot.

Bears are muscular and have a lot of fat. A shotgun may not do much damage. I knew a geologist who did survey work in Alaska. He said when a grizzly had been foraging it could look like a backhoe. Overturned rocks. Shallow ditches.

Ditto with .38 or 9mm rounds.

A rifle and perhaps a well placed .44 magnum or .50 caliber hand gun round may do the trick. People hunt grizzly bears.

I searched on grizzly bear bow hunting. Multiple hits.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/hunting/2016/10/bowhunting-grizzlies-are-you-task

So you’ve got quite a few deer under your belt, and you’re confident with a bow in your hands. But when we’re talking about an animal with a nose better than a whitetail’s, that’s born with a bad attitude, and that can eat you, things change a bit.

Your archery setup needs to be good, but to take on a bear, you need to be mentally prepared.

USE THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT:

Grizzly and brown bears carry a status that, in a lot of ways, is completely mythical. They are just as mortal as any other animal. In Alaska, a bow with a peak draw weight of at least 50 pounds and arrows that weigh at least 300 grains are required