Real ancient mysteries (not Atlantis) that we need to discuss!

[Abramelin]

5 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

What is "not so"? 

Your suggestion that, because of lower sea levels, they could walk instead and didn't have to sail at all.

[Thanos5150]

33 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Your suggestion that, because of lower sea levels, they could walk instead and didn't have to sail at all.

So a clickbait internet article tells you a "new study claims" something to be true and therefore this is now "true"? Kind of ironic. What is weird though is another link to this story was HERE which got the conversation started in the first place. I respond posting the original paper HERE  and you post another internet article of it as if this were something new...? 

A paper making claims does not otherwise supersede all of the rest of the archeology ever found of Erectus that does not suggest in anyway he was capable of building boats and sailing. If this is true there is a nearly insurmountable gap in our understanding of archaic humans. If you can build boats and sail you would have to have have language which would enable you to have writing, clothing, and tools other than the same crude stone hand axe for over a million years. The logic is no different than saying this hammer is millions of years old because it is stuck in a rock:

Obviously there is another explanation. 

There has to be a geological/climatological reason. And you suggest I am wrong because of this paper which we have already been talking about yet you offer another explanation as to why this would not be true in support of the very comments you are saying are "not so"...? Ok. 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Thanos5150

[Abramelin]

22 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

So a clickbait internet article tells you a "new study claims" something to be true and therefore this is now "true"? Kind of ironic. What is weird though is another link to this story was HERE which got the conversation started in the first place. I respond posting the original paper HERE  and you post another internet article of it as if this were something new...? 

A paper making claims does not otherwise supersede all of the rest of the archeology ever found of Erectus that does not suggest in anyway he was capable of building boats and sailing. If this is true there is a nearly insurmountable gap in our understanding of archaic humans. If you can build boats and sail you would have to have have language which would enable you to have writing, clothing, and tools other than the same crude stone hand axe for over a million years. The logic is no different than saying this hammer is millions of years old because it is stuck in a rock:

Obviously there is another explanation. 

There has to be a geological/climatological reason. And you suggest I am wrong because of this paper which we have already been talking about yet you offer another explanation as to why this would not be true in support of the very comments you are saying are "not so"...? Ok. 

Man, I posted a link to a site that explains perfectly why there is more to consider than only sea level rise.

That is certainly true in the Mediterranean Sea area which is geologically very active.

And what you think is illogical to assume certain things about Homo erectus and archaic humans in general is just that: your opinion.

My opinion is that we may not know 10% of what these archaic humans were capable of.

And a btw.: much of what is yet to be discovered will be found in submerged coastal areas.

[Abramelin]

@Thanos5150

I wonder how you would have responded in this thread:

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/363039-monkeys-–-not-humans-–-made-ancient-sets-of-stone-tools-in-brazil-study-finds/

What I suggested a year or so ago is now a possible scientific explantion for finding very ancient stone tools in South America.

Reading how you usually respond, you'd probably have found my idea 'illogical' or whatever.

[Kane999]

On 1/7/2023 at 12:33 PM, Abramelin said:

An interesting paper:

Pleistocene Water Crossings and Adaptive Flexibility Within the Homo Genus - Dylan Gaffney, 2021

Thanks for posting the original paper. Perhaps, I am slower than others, but I am still reading it and absorbing the information. Like everyone else, I have opinions, but I like to have them buttressed with the most recent information that I can find. The paper is indeed interesting as its scope is worldwide encompassing the Americas, Philippines and Flores Island etc., as well as the Mediterranean. It cites a wealth of other papers as well that I have not read. Dogma in any field has always been my bugaboo so it always fascinates me when a paradigm begins to shift.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Kane999
clarity

[Kane999]

I do want to add that I 100% agree with you that we do not know what archaic humans were capable of for many activities are simply not going to be preserved in the archaeological record. For the issue at hand, the odds of finding a 500,000-year-old boat preserved in any kind of condition probably reaches zero. This fact does not preclude us from inferring their existence from other valid evidence.

[Abramelin]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

If you can build boats and sail you would have to have have language

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/429354-trending-science-neanderthals-could-hear-and-communicate-like-humans-say-scientists

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2021-03-02/ty-article/neanderthals-could-speak-new-study-claims-to-prove/0000017f-db0a-dee4-a9ff-ff7b3fb20000

These humans probably had.

[Abramelin]

And now a little brain fart of my own.

When we look at the skull of Homo erectus, neanderthalensis, heidelbergensis  and so on, we tend to imagine them with ape-like characteristics. You know, large eyebrows, sloping forehead, prognating mouth, and a massive lower jaw.

But what many seem to forget is, that a large part of skull anatomy is shaped by our diet. These large eyebrows and massive jaws are adaptations to a diet of raw meat, and using the jaws as a kind of tool (like chewing on hide to make it supple).

For that strong and massive muscles are needed, and therefore bone ridges and stronger and thicker bone are needed to attach the tendons which in their turn are attached to these muscles.

Our direct ancestors probably discovered cooked or fried meat tasted better than raw meat, started to prefer that kind of prepared meat, and the shape of their skulls adapted to this new diet.

We didn't simply become more intelligent and lost those huge eyebrows, low foreheads, and jaws, we just changed diet.

And some of the oldest cave paintings in Europe (60,000 bp) are now attributed to Neanderthals.

Btw., the Neanderthal's brain volume was also larger than those of an avarage modern human. But it almost seems scientists are kind of desparate to explain that 'anomaly' away.

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Abramelin

[Oniomancer]

16 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

From HERE:

What the discoverers or click bait mill never mention when offering these claims of vastly more ancient and/or different species mariners is that sea levels were at least 400ft lower than today which the rise towards modern levels didn't start happening until around 20,000 yrs ago. It wasn't until c. 8,000yrs ago that we have the levels seen today. At the time they date these artifacts the Aegean, and Medditeranean in general, was radically different than today:

Compare to today:

No seafaring required. They walked. And if at any point they did have to traverse water it was limited and line of sight.    

An interesting site to go back in time with ancient seal levels: Flood Map.

_____________________________________________________________________  

The problem with the notion of "archaic hominid seafaring" is that it requires an inherent level of intelligence and cognitive abilities that are otherwise completely absent in any species other than ourselves and at best Neanderthal (and maybe Denisovan though that's another story). The Acheulean tool industry attributed to Erectus, as primitive as it is, is that despite this "breakthrough" in technology remained unchanged for over a million years since its invention and towards the end of Erectus actually devolved back to Oldowan. But they could make water craft and "sail" across potentially miles of open sea not to mention survive for generations? Makes no sense. 

 

If that's a site marked on Crete, that kind of works against your argument because you still got a water barrier. Likewise I don't know what the dates are for the Malay Archipelago and Australasia but you've got multiple deep-water channels delineating various biological regions of penetration. The Lombok strait is about 12 miles at it's narrowest point which is a bit of a swim even a prehistoric Mark Spitz. Komodo and Flores are both on the wrong side of the Wallace line of which it is part.

[Piney]

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

So a clickbait internet article tells you a "new study claims" something to be true and therefore this is now "true"? Kind of ironic. What is weird though is another link to this story was HERE which got the conversation started in the first place. I respond posting the original paper HERE  and you post another internet article of it as if this were something new...? 

A paper making claims does not otherwise supersede all of the rest of the archeology ever found of Erectus that does not suggest in anyway he was capable of building boats and sailing. If this is true there is a nearly insurmountable gap in our understanding of archaic humans. If you can build boats and sail you would have to have have language which would enable you to have writing, clothing, and tools other than the same crude stone hand axe for over a million years. The logic is no different than saying this hammer is millions of years old because it is stuck in a rock:

Obviously there is another explanation. 

There has to be a geological/climatological reason. And you suggest I am wrong because of this paper which we have already been talking about yet you offer another explanation as to why this would not be true in support of the very comments you are saying are "not so"...? Ok. 

A iron ore bed in a wet area can be a foot thick in eight years as long as it's being fed by a mineral rich water source.

[Abramelin]

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

And now a little brain fart of my own.

When we look at the skull of Homo erectus, neanderthalensis, heidelbergensis  and so on, we tend to imagine them with ape-like characteristics. You know, large eyebrows, sloping forehead, prognating mouth, and a massive lower jaw.

But what many seem to forget is, that a large part of skull anatomy is shaped by our diet. These large eyebrows and massive jaws are adaptations to a diet of raw meat, and using the jaws as a kind of tool (like chewing on hide to make it supple).

For that strong and massive muscles are needed, and therefore bone ridges and stronger and thicker bone are needed to attach the tendons which in their turn are attached to these muscles.

Our direct ancestors probably discovered cooked or fried meat tasted better than raw meat, started to prefer that kind of prepared meat, and the shape of their skulls adapted to this new diet.

We didn't simply become more intelligent and lost those huge eyebrows, low foreheads, and jaws, we just changed diet.

And some of the oldest cave paintings in Europe (60,000 bp) are now attributed to Neanderthals.

Btw., the Neanderthal's brain volume was also larger than those of an avarage modern human. But it almost seems scientists are kind of desparate to explain that 'anomaly' away.

 

Just this:

The oldest spear was found in Germany; it was 500,000 years old.

Nothing much, some would say. But now you try to make one, one able to kill a mammoth.

And there's more: a stone spearhead attached to a wooden spear, attached by birch tar and rope, and found in the North Sea.

Attributed to some inventive Neanderthal.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Abramelin

[jmccr8]

12 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Just this:

The oldest spear was found in Germany; it was 500,000 years old.

Nothing much, some would say. But now you try to make one, one able to kill a mammoth.

And there's more: a stone spearhead attached to a wooden spear, attached by birch tar and rope, and found in the North Sea.

Attributed to some inventive Neanderthal.

Hi Rob

Several years ago I started a thread about the compound used and it was not made of the sap and was a heat process so that meant they needed to know what type of wood to use to create the right temp for cooking the compound as well as how to add and mix components used. This would indicate that there needed to be a form of communication other than pointing and grunting.

[Abramelin]

6 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Rob

Several years ago I started a thread about the compound used and it was not made of the sap and was a heat process so that meant they needed to know what type of wood to use to create the right temp for cooking the compound as well as how to add and mix components used. This would indicate that there needed to be a form of communication other than pointing and grunting.

Thanks, Jay.

And that's exactly what I try to convey: these Neanderthals were no grunting idiots.

Their appearence was caused by their diet, not because they were stupid primitives.

They may have looked kind of bulky to our direct ancestors, but not ugly enough to have sex with.

We Europeans all have 4% of our DNA from those ugly ancestors.

[jmccr8]

12 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Thanks, Jay.

And that's exactly what I try to convey: these Neanderthals were no grunting idiots.

Their appearence was caused by their diet, not because they were stupid primitives.

They may have looked kind of bulky to our direct ancestors, but not ugly enough to have sex with.

We Europeans all have 4% of our DNA from those ugly ancestors.

Hi Rob

Yes diet did change and it has been put forward that eating fish or clams helped in that change, we also know that archaic humans would burn areas where tubers were known to grow so that the tubers had less competition for soil nutrients and be more prolific.

[Thanos5150]

8 hours ago, Abramelin said:

And what you think is illogical to assume certain things about Homo erectus and archaic humans in general is just that: your opinion.

This is not an "opinion":

"The problem with the notion of "archaic hominid seafaring" is that it requires an inherent level of intelligence and cognitive abilities that are otherwise completely absent in any species other than ourselves and at best Neanderthal (and maybe Denisovan though that's another story). The Acheulean tool industry attributed to Erectus, as primitive as it is, is that despite this "breakthrough" in technology remained unchanged for over a million years since its invention and towards the end of Erectus actually devolved back to Oldowan." 

Quote

My opinion is that we may not know 10% of what these archaic humans were capable of.

"10%" you say? Now that is an "opinion". Neanderthal there is some mileage left in the tank but Erectus, not too much. I think that you are missing the significance of the totality of what has been found, namely the Acheulean tool industry. If this is the best they could do, which everything points that it is, then there is not much more to find.  

Quote

And a btw.: much of what is yet to be discovered will be found in submerged coastal areas.

This is not reality, not just for archaic humans but this whole lost civilization bit as well. A map of Erectus sites:

All of these sites, many not by the coast not to mention even less so prior to 25,000BP when ocean levels were 400ft lower, nothing is found to support these claims yet always only the "good stuff" is still waiting to be found underwater? Always convenient. 

[Thanos5150]

6 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

If that's a site marked on Crete, that kind of works against your argument because you still got a water barrier. Likewise I don't know what the dates are for the Malay Archipelago and Australasia but you've got multiple deep-water channels delineating various biological regions of penetration. The Lombok strait is about 12 miles at it's narrowest point which is a bit of a swim even a prehistoric Mark Spitz. Komodo and Flores are both on the wrong side of the Wallace line of which it is part.

It does not. This site dates to c.130,000BP and is attributed to Neanderthal who also in some cases still used Acheulean like tools until around this time (based on these later finds). These maps also shows a much shorter travel distance to Crete across open water. The cognitive differences between Homo erectus and Neanderthal are quite significant which I have not discounted the latter, just the notion of Erectus. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

5 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Just this:

The oldest spear was found in Germany; it was 500,000 years old.

No. These are the Schöningen spears which were originally dated to between 380,000-400,000 BP but have since been recalibrated to 300,000-337,000BP. 

Quote

 

And there's more: a stone spearhead attached to a wooden spear, attached by birch tar and rope, and found in the North Sea.

Attributed to some inventive Neanderthal.

 

Do you have a source for this? The oldest traces of birch tar on Neanderthal tools is dated to 50,000BP. 

[Thanos5150]

35 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

It does not. This site dates to c.130,000BP and is attributed to Neanderthal who also in some cases still used Acheulean like tools until around this time (based on these later finds). These maps also shows a much shorter travel distance to Crete across open water. The cognitive differences between Homo erectus and Neanderthal are quite significant which I have not discounted the latter, just the notion of Erectus. 

One thing that needs to be understood when considering who may have done what seafaring when as well is that none of these sites are identified anthropologically, but rather by age and tool assemblage. So, for example this Crete site is dated to 130,000BP. No Erectus or Heidelbergensis at this time supposedly therefore they are attributed to Neanderthal meaning they are not directly related to any species anthropologically but rather by date and tool assemblage. The problem with the latter is that these assemblages span multiple species so who really did what is not empirically known and again we are back to time. 

And this whole business about seafaring as early as 450,000BP, and what ever attribution one want to give to Erectus, has nothing to do with any actual find but rather the upper possibility provided by the geology:

Quote

The study shows that the Central Aegean Island Chain was insular from the surrounding landmasses over the last 450 ka and contests previously available Aegean Sea palaeo-geography. This, in association with the spatiotemporal patterning of Lower and Middle Paleolithic assemblages in the margin of the Mediterranean Sea, implies that pre-sapiens, as early as 450 ka BP: (a) were sea-crossing the Aegean Sea; (b) were encouraged by the favorable land/seascape configuration to attempt sea-crossings and (c) spread to the Circum-Mediterranean basin sourcing from the Levant, following two converging routes, the one via the Aegean Sea and/or the Bosporus land-bridge and the other via the Gibraltar straits. Furthermore, the above presented findings provide substantial evidence that the archaic hominins had developed sea-crossing behaviours as early as 450 ka BP.  

So there is nothing to say they actually made the journey as early as this time but that this is the earliest they could have. 

[Thanos5150]

9 hours ago, Abramelin said:

[snip]

....

Quote

And some of the oldest cave paintings in Europe (60,000 bp) are now attributed to Neanderthals.

You sure about that? In response to these claims, a paper by 44 authors: Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art

Quote

 

(a) As many studies have shown, U-Th results are sensitive to lixiviation of part of the uranium, leading to an over-estimation of age. This possibility should be evaluated by all available means (hydrogeology, mineralogy) prior to

sampling. 

(b) Awareness of this important source of error imposes a protocol by which the U-Th values obtained, in order to be credible, must be cross-checked with other independent methods, and whenever possible with the results obtained

on the same sample by other laboratories. In addition, to be sure that no uranium loss occurred, the stratigraphic order of the subsamples should be established by a sufficiently refined procedure (i.e., microstratigraphy of layers <500mm).

(c) Under no circumstances should minimum ages as old as 65e70 ka be accepted for works of parietal art on the sole basis of U-Th dates on overlying calcite. Such dates are in contradiction with abundant archaeological data, now rigorously dated by 14 C. 

(d) Archaeological context and reasoning need to be part of the process. A close reading of archaeological panels being dated should give pause to claims, such as that for La Pasiega, where two opposing sides of the same geometric form are

accepted as giving minimum ages 60,000 years apart, in the absence of a geological explanation for this anomaly. 

(e) In each case, geomorphological and paleoclimatic studies must accompany such U-Th based claims of great antiquity in order to account for the possible hiatus of calcite growth and the apparent discrepancy in the ages of closely located

concretions. 

Given the causes of error now demonstrated by numerous studies, and awaiting new results obtained by other methods, the claimed dates in the vicinity of 65 ka for prehistoric paintings in the Iberian caves, and consequently their attribution to Neanderthals, should be treated with extreme caution. Known sources of error can and often do result in dramatic overestimation of U-Th ages, making it both premature and scientifically unjustifiable to undertake a profound revision of the history of humanity and the evolution of symbolic graphic expressions based solely on such dates.

The paleoanthropological stakes are high. Art is intimately dependent on the sociocultural context in which it is produced. So far, we have no proof that Neanderthal society needed a long lasting means of communication to consolidate its values and beliefs. A high degree of chronological certainty is required if that view is to be falsified. In short, there is still no convincing archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. 

 

Pick another one of these "Neanderthal art" claims which are just as dubious. 

Quote

Btw., the Neanderthal's brain volume was also larger than those of an avarage modern human.

So was Cro-Magnon's with roughly the same average cranial capacity as Neanderthal, just different morphology. 

Quote

But it almost seems scientists are kind of desparate to explain that 'anomaly' away.  

Are they "desperate" and is it an "anomaly"? Can you give a link to support any of these claims? Average modern human cranial capacity is 1250-1450cc (females/males), steadily decreasing over time, with a range of 1,000-1,900cc. Average for Neanderthal was 1300-1600cc (females/males) with an upper range the same as modern humans, around 1900cc.  The difference between Homo habilis and Homo erectus is far far greater. Neanderthal, while on average shorter than modern humans, was skeletally considerably more robust, as was Cro-Magnon, which correlates directly with cranial capacity across all hominids.  

Edited January 9, 2023 by Thanos5150

[Oniomancer]

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

These maps also shows a much shorter travel distance to Crete across open water.

I did say if.

The scale indicates somewhere around 30 km give or take, so just shy of 19 miles.

[Abramelin]

5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Do you have a source for this? The oldest traces of birch tar on Neanderthal tools is dated to 50,000BP. 

https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2019/10/neanderthal-glue-from-the-north-sea

I may have confused the rope part with another find.

[Abramelin]

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

You sure about that? In response to these claims, a paper by 44 authors: Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266788

[Abramelin]

6 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

No. These are the Schöningen spears which were originally dated to between 380,000-400,000 BP but have since been recalibrated to 300,000-337,000BP. 

Ok, so I was a 100,000 years off.

So?

[Abramelin]

6 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

This is not reality, not just for archaic humans but this whole lost civilization bit as well. A map of Erectus sites:

All of these sites, many not by the coast not to mention even less so prior to 25,000BP when ocean levels were 400ft lower, nothing is found to support these claims yet always only the "good stuff" is still waiting to be found underwater? Always convenient. 

Who suggested some "lost civilization"? Not me.

---

Yeah, the "good stuff" will be found in submerged coastal areas. You know why? Because, if these ancient boys and girls did travel by sea, they probably stayed as close to the coast as possible. And that's where they would have left their boats or rafts. Because of sea level rise anything concerning those rafts/boats - and tools they may have used - will most probably be found by divers.

 

[Abramelin]

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Average modern human cranial capacity is 1250-1450cc (females/males), steadily decreasing over time, with a range of 1,000-1,900cc. Average for Neanderthal was 1300-1600cc (females/males)

Thank you.