Talk:Schöningen spears

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

There is a lot more info on the german article page de:Schöninger Speere --triwbe (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this article's content seems to still have German sentence structure. Perhaps it was machine-translated? Kortoso (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of this article was added in this edit which appears to be a machine translated copy paste from an edit on the German Wikipedia article, both by a Single-purpose account Fezschöningen. Probably should have some review on both sites.

Throwing spears?

It's not clear how anyone can be certain that these are throwing spears versus thrusting spears. If the original discovers discuss this, perhaps it can be translated and shared here?

Questions about dating

These are dated by biostratigraphy which is hazarous since the accompanying game animals were extant much later. http://www.thesubversivearchaeologist.com/2012/10/shedding-new-light-on-schoningen-spears.html

Kortoso (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From that link: "So, while it's possible that the spears are as old as the Schöningen crowd say they are, it's also possible that they are a lot later--as late as 37,400 BP. With no way to gain a more accurate date for these deposits, why should we privilege the older estimate?"

Plus, they are sticks, that's all that we know. Everything else about these is speculation. Kortoso (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens. Besides the questions regarding dating method (radiocarbon dating or biostratigraphy?), doubt persists as to their usability as throwing spears:

http://dansimcha.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/initial-schoningen-spear-theory-questioned/ Kortoso (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Schoeningen or Schöningen? Kortoso (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon dating

I am not sure if the wording about carbon dating is accurate or pertinent to the discussion. At one point this was one of the sources used: http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/carbon14.html, which is a religious page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.162.128.134 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted comments about C14 dating. The first ref says that the spears were C14 dated, the others correctly that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate over 50,000 years, so it cannot date spears 400,000 years old. The paragraph below covers dating and sounds right, although I cannot check the refs as they are in German. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

70 m Claim Unsupported?

This Wikipedia entry was called out, specifically, in an article in The Atlantic earlier today.[1] The article questions the claim in the WP entry that "During tests, athletes could throw replicas up to 70 m (229.66 ft)." The Atlantic article states: "A Wikipedia entry that cites his study and claims that “athletes could throw replicas up to 70 meters” is almost certainly wrong." I lack the German language skills to check against the study and/or the pedagogical background to assess whether the study's own claim is unsupported. However, I am hoping someone with more skill in either area can examine the issue. Magic1million (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, the staff of the The Atlantic also lack the German language skills to check the study, so have chosen to shoot the messenger instead. 21st-century American journalism at its finest! The distance claim might be correct but is probably not very relevant since the makers were hunters rather than competitive athletes, and the much shorter distance at which they could hope to hit an animal is the important point. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to access the full article, only the abstract. However, I have removed this claim as not of great importance and controversial in interpretation. For hunting accuracy and inertia are more important than distance. The critical information is the shape, which would be unnecessary work for a thrusting spear. The fact that something is said does not mean it needs to be included in the article, which should summarize the most significant and generally agreed facts. Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally there is an article on the subject today in The Conversation at [2] which argues that the common view that Neanderthal spears were only accurate up to 10 meters is wrong as javelin throwers can hit targets with replica spears at 20 meters - some way off 70! Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is a coincidence, but this research (using spears based on these ones) is certainly more relevant than the maximum distance achievable without any concern for accuracy. The story was in The Times today, & no doubt other papers. Notice there seems to be grumbling in the undergrowth as to whether these spears are really as old as the Germans say - that puts them pre-Neanderthal. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even a few metres is better than being next to the animal. Distance is only relevant for armies with massed javelin throws, where being able to throw further than the enemy gives a survival advantage. Chemical Engineer (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the 1999 article "Die Recken von Schöningen – 400 000 Jahre Jagd mit dem Speer" on one of those spears referenced in the German Wikipedia. It reports multiple experimental results. Matthias Rau threw replicas; apparently he was not a professional athlete then, though he got 10th place in the German 1999 national spear-throwing competition. He achieved a distance of 66 m on the first attempt. With a wild boar replica target, at a distance of 20 m, on 10 out of 10 attempts he managed what would have been lethal hits on a real animal. There are some other results, both from throwing experiments and other investigations on the spear. The article states that the spear makes a practical hunting weapon at a distance of 30 m SPTH (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

"a grant from the German Research Foundation (DFG) with funding of around €480,000" is discussed at https://sciencex.com/wire-news/361708446/schninger-spearsmankinds-earliest-wooden-weapons.html . Kdammers (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Reference for Controversy

In Controversy section: “Sediment analysis shows that the red colour previously thought to be a result of hearths and burning are actually iron compounds forming as the lake levels dropped in recent times.”.

Claim should have a reference. LandonBee (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another photo?

Hi, there's also this photo File:Schöningen Speer VI © P. Pfarr NLD.jpg, which I think would be great if incorporated into the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]