Started By
Message
Investigation of Cave Art Masterpieces Reveals They Weren't Made by Humans
Posted on 2/27/18 at 6:37 pm
Posted on 2/27/18 at 6:37 pm
LINK
There are so many profound discoveries in this golden age of technology that great discoveries in other fields are being minimized. Just two days ago scientists let the world know that the oldest cave art in Europe, in Spain, is the work of Neanderthals and precedes that of the first humans by tens of thousands of years.
This astounding find indicates that Neanderthals were using symbolic thinking at about the same time that modern humans began using art. It elevates that species of hominin to the same level of evolution as modern humans and helps explain, IMO, why the two species interbred. They apparently shared much more than a physical resemplance and brain size.
It can be implied that at least two other species existing at the same time, the Denisovans and an unknown Southeast Asia/Polynesia species, were probably as advanced as H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens.
So, there were at least four intelligent species of hominin walking the earth at the same time. Maybe more if H. floresiensis and H. erectus prove to have been symbolic thinkers as well.
It's a thrilling time to be interested in paleoanthropology.
The scalariform (ladder shape) composed of red horizontal and vertical lines dates back to more than 64,000 years.
Hand stencils in the Maltravieso Cave, dating back to at least 66,000 years ago
There are so many profound discoveries in this golden age of technology that great discoveries in other fields are being minimized. Just two days ago scientists let the world know that the oldest cave art in Europe, in Spain, is the work of Neanderthals and precedes that of the first humans by tens of thousands of years.
This astounding find indicates that Neanderthals were using symbolic thinking at about the same time that modern humans began using art. It elevates that species of hominin to the same level of evolution as modern humans and helps explain, IMO, why the two species interbred. They apparently shared much more than a physical resemplance and brain size.
It can be implied that at least two other species existing at the same time, the Denisovans and an unknown Southeast Asia/Polynesia species, were probably as advanced as H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens.
So, there were at least four intelligent species of hominin walking the earth at the same time. Maybe more if H. floresiensis and H. erectus prove to have been symbolic thinkers as well.
It's a thrilling time to be interested in paleoanthropology.
quote:
...art is a visual proxy for an internal mental state. Specifically, a human internal mental state. The human ability to represent thoughts and events that aren’t actually present is an expression of symbolic thinking, which scientists long believed originated with the first Homo sapiens who created cave art and was never adopted by any other species.
quote:
...an international team of scientists, discover[ed] that cave paintings in three sites across Spain are collectively between 64,000 and 66,000 years old, [and] report[ed] that there’s no way those cave paintings could have been made by early Homo sapiens. At that time, there was only one species of hominin living in Spain that could have made this art — not humans, who arrived 40,000 years ago, but the Neanderthals.
The scalariform (ladder shape) composed of red horizontal and vertical lines dates back to more than 64,000 years.
Hand stencils in the Maltravieso Cave, dating back to at least 66,000 years ago
4
Posted on 2/27/18 at 9:09 pm to Kentucker
Sounds cool, if true
But
I'd like to know how they know this
Sounds like a bunch of conjecture and assumptions
But
quote:
64,000 and 66,000 years old, [and] report[ed] that there’s no way those cave paintings could have been made by early Homo sapiens.
I'd like to know how they know this
Sounds like a bunch of conjecture and assumptions
This post was edited on 2/27/18 at 9:10 pm
Posted on 2/27/18 at 9:16 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:.
Sounds like a bunch of conjecture and assumptions
Seriously? The dating techniques used in paleontology are tried and true. In the article there's a good description of the method used to date the cave paintings.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 10:19 pm to Kentucker
I minored in anthropology in the 90's, and it's sad yet exciting to think everything I studied and learned as fact is now obsolete fiction.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 11:12 pm to hawgfaninc
If you believe there weren’t intelligent, advanced civilizations around way before recorded history.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 11:20 pm to deeprig9
quote:
minored in anthropology in the 90's, and it's sad yet exciting to think everything I studied and learned as fact is now obsolete fiction.
First thing my archeology professor told us was that most of what we will learn will soon be obsolete.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 11:46 pm to Kentucker
So dinosaurs drew them? That's dope af man
Posted on 2/28/18 at 6:08 am to hawgfaninc
quote:
I'd like to know how they know this
Posted on 2/28/18 at 12:08 pm to deeprig9
quote:
I minored in anthropology in the 90's, and it's sad yet exciting to think everything I studied and learned as fact is now obsolete fiction.
That's a bit harsh. Scientific knowledge grows. It's changing faster now than at any time in history, as illustrated by your example.
Discoveries continue to erode the notion that humans are super special beings for whom the Universe was constructed. The discovery that there was another species as creatively intelligent as modern humans blasts away our claim to a unique evolution of mind. Rather, it points to symbolic thought being a common and expected step in the evolution of intelligence as an adaptive tool for survival.
This post was edited on 2/28/18 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 2/28/18 at 12:36 pm to wareaglepete
quote:
If you believe there weren’t intelligent, advanced civilizations around way before recorded history.
Intelligent? Yes.
Advanced? No.
Civilized? Estimates are that there were 11 or so species of hominids living at the same time at one point during our evolution. The branches of our commoon evolutionary tree include some disparate beings. Some of them were peaceful plant eating creatures and others were predatory omnivores.
Civilization, in the meaning of being adapted to the environment and content in one location, probably came easily to the plant eaters. H. naledi, the most recent hominid discovery in South Africa, may have been a peaceful, rather intelligent and "civilized" being at an evolutionary midpoint between the beginning of the Homo branch and us, for example. Evidence that they buried their dead is significant at the sites where their remains have been discovered.
We're descended from the predators. Civilization doesn't seem to come quickly to an intelligent species that must constantly engage in violent battles over resources, with other species and between groups of its own kind.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 9:34 am to Kentucker
quote:
We're descended from the predators. Civilization doesn't seem to come quickly to an intelligent species that must constantly engage in violent battles over resources, with other species and between groups of its own kind.
That and a hunter-gatherer culture is not conducive to forming large communities and advanced societies. Its only after humans began practicing large scale agriculture that civilizations began to rise.
Oddly enough, though we are enjoying the benefits of tens of thousands of years of civilization now, some paleontologists have declared that the development of agriculture at the time was a disaster for humanity. Hunter-gatherers lived longer, were in better health, and had more free time. Truth be told studies of the few existing stone age level tribes left lends credence to that as they spend an absurdly low amount of time working and tend to be quite well feed.
As an example Homo Erectus, a species that evidence suggests strongly was a hunter gatherer culture had brains (towards the end of their impressive two million year long run) not much smaller then modern humans and averaged being about 5'10", which is pretty damn impressive even by our standards.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 2:35 pm to Arksulli
quote:
That and a hunter-gatherer culture is not conducive to forming large communities and advanced societies. Its only after humans began practicing large scale agriculture that civilizations began to rise.
Agriculture produced a population explosion of human growth, too. Growing plenty of food and banking it for winter and hard times made for a much less risky life style than hunting unpredictable prey and risking death in the process.
quote:
Oddly enough, though we are enjoying the benefits of tens of thousands of years of civilization now, some paleontologists have declared that the development of agriculture at the time was a disaster for humanity. Hunter-gatherers lived longer, were in better health, and had more free time. Truth be told studies of the few existing stone age level tribes left lends credence to that as they spend an absurdly low amount of time working and tend to be quite well feed.
From a modern human health perspective, I think that assessment is spot on. Agriculture and farming have produced too much food in many areas of the human population. Add a technology-induced sedentery life style and we see the deleterious effects. Obesity is becoming common in wealthier societies.
New diseases, such as Type II diabetes are cropping up as a result. We evolved to store fat for hard times. No hard times are coming but our bodies keep adding fat.
quote:
As an example Homo Erectus, a species that evidence suggests strongly was a hunter gatherer culture had brains (towards the end of their impressive two million year long run) not much smaller then modern humans and averaged being about 5'10", which is pretty damn impressive even by our standards.
H. erectus is an intriguing species because of how wide spread it became and for how long it persisted. You just have to think that there were more advanced descendants of this hominid. I think it may account for the mystery species that gave southeast Asians and Polynesians 4-8% of their genes.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 9:39 pm to Kentucker
quote:
H. erectus is an intriguing species because of how wide spread it became and for how long it persisted. You just have to think that there were more advanced descendants of this hominid. I think it may account for the mystery species that gave southeast Asians and Polynesians 4-8% of their genes.
A two million year run is amazing. I am inclined to agree with you because we see a large amount of change within the Erectus bone structure from place to place and within different time periods. We aren't sure if they are directly in our ancestral line but it would not surprise me if an offshoot contributed genetically to in a particular area such as SE Asia and Polynesia.
Its an exciting time to be a genetic paleontologist.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 2:28 am to Kentucker
The first picture looks like bad teeth and the second like bad leftovers
Posted on 3/2/18 at 10:46 am to deeprig9
quote:
I minored in anthropology in the 90's, and it's sad yet exciting to think everything I studied and learned as fact is now obsolete fiction.
Doesn't this also indicate that sometimes we hastily say something is a fact when it really isn't.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 11:18 am to hawgfaninc
quote:
I'd like to know how they know this
Sounds like a bunch of conjecture and assumptions
you should probably research carbon dating, how its done, what assumptions they make and why its accurate.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 5:57 pm to ngadawg250
quote:
Doesn't this also indicate that sometimes we hastily say something is a fact when it really isn't.
The word fact indicates an absolute. There are, of course, no absolutes in science. Rather, there are knowledge bases that are continually modified and built upon.
Posted on 3/3/18 at 7:17 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
I'd like to know how they know this
Sounds like a bunch of conjecture and assumptions
you should probably research carbon dating, how its done, what assumptions they make and why its accurate.
This 100%.
''The reliability of the results can be improved by lengthening the testing time. For example, if counting beta decays for 250 minutes is enough to give an error of ± 80 years, with 68% confidence, then doubling the counting time to 500 minutes will allow a sample with only half as much 14C to be measured with the same error term of 80 years.
Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14C to be measurable. Older dates have been obtained by using special sample preparation techniques, large samples, and very long measurement times. These techniques can allow measurement of dates up to 60,000 and in some cases up to 75,000 years before the present.''
The religious doubters on Radiocarbon Dating: Naw, man, gonna need to see some more evidence.
Also the religious doubters on Historicity of a certain person: Some dude who wasn't alive when a certain Messiah was alive wrote about him -- SLAM DUNK.
Posted on 3/4/18 at 1:30 am to Kentucker
quote:
It can be implied that at least two other species existing at the same time, the Denisovans and an unknown Southeast Asia/Polynesia species, were probably as advanced as H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens.
What is this one? Are you referring to Homo Floresiensis?
Also, there was at least one other species in Africa mating with homo sapiens. Their DNA is still detectable in three tribes in Cameroon and Tanzania.
Posted on 3/4/18 at 11:04 am to Evolved Simian
quote:
What is this one? Are you referring to Homo Floresiensis?
Possibly, but we don't know enough about H. floresiensis to make a judgment yet. At present, H. floresiensis is classified as a H. erectus variant. I don't think its genome has been mapped yet so it's not known if any of its genes made it into modern humans.
Certainly, the genes of an archaic hominin are included in today's SE Asia and Polynesia populations, but not in other humans. Some paleoanthropologists think the mystery hominin is a species of H. erectus that evolved to sentience in SE Asia and then was subsumed by an invasive H. sapiens species, just as were the Neanderthals and the Denisovans.
quote:
Also, there was at least one other species in Africa mating with homo sapiens. Their DNA is still detectable in three tribes in Cameroon and Tanzania.
Yes, Africans with sub-Saharan ancestors have a percentage of their genes that are different from the rest of humanity. It may be that the species you mentioned is the newly discovered H. naledi, an intelligent hominin that buried their dead in underground chambers. Sub-Saharan Africans are also the only people on earth who don't have genes from Neanderthals.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News