How old is man?

slowburner

I was trying to get an idea of current thought on the earliest evidence for modern man when I came across this
http://successbydesignltd.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-old-is-mankind.html

:eek:

mugbags

hmmmm.....

Wibbs

I'd love to see any links for his "claims". The rock painting one as an example. Rock art is notoriously difficult to date, dating 2 million year old rock art? I've never heard of the glow in the dark rock art either. Funny how he doesn't give any location. Now around 2 million years ago there were hominids, but just barely. We're talking Homo Erectus and early ones at that.

Did they have a symbolic sense? I personally believe they did, or at least more than they're given credit for. They certainly seemed to have a sense of symmetry later on. The everyday humble handaxe was a tool of rough enough manufacture, but every so often they would make one that was very precisely and symmetrically designed. Far beyond what would be useful as a tool. These rare examples show no wear which you would expect and see in the average examples. EG



They may have been a votive object whose meaning is lost to us now. I suppose if it's a mainstay of your toolkit and means of survival, it makes some sense to elevate it to something symbolically important.

On the votive front... In northern Spain(Atapuerca) researchers have been excavating a site where over 30 individuals belonging to Homo heidelbergensis(late erectus/early Neanderthal) appear to have been deliberately deposited in the bottom of a cave when they died. They appear to have been given a ritual defleshing before they were left in the cave. Among all these bones only one stone tool was found. A hand axe made of a distinctive red quartzite and of highly skilled manufacture(quartzite can be a bitch to knap). They dubbed it Excalibur, as you do.



Other possible (rare)examples of very early symbolism might be the West tofts handaxe

Where it does look very like the maker very carefully knapped around the fossil to frame it and keep it very central.

Indeed in my own small collection of lithics(mostly Neandertal) I've a couple of interesting ones along these lines.

So "art" of a kind, whether born of symmetry, curiousity or spiritual practice seemed to have some evidence behind it goin back way before we thought or expect, cave art? Eh nope. There isn't a paleoarchaeologist on the planet that wouldn't sell his or her granny into bondage to discover something like that.

The shoe print in coal is just a so called geofact. Something geological and random that looks like something recognisable. Up there with Mexicans finding the face of Jesus in burnt toast.

TBH to me that link just reads like the same old conspiracy/creationist/uninformed guff you read all over the web.

cue

I've no idea how old man is but I came across this interesting discussion about early art on TED.

http://www.ted.com/conversations/4346/is_the_urge_to_create_art_a_un.html#.TiXATnJnxFc.twitter

Wibbs

Sorry, actual question? Going on current research, fully anatomically modern human shows up around 170-200,000 years ago. They have some primitive features, like more widely spaced eyes, more robust with bigger teeth, but otherwise look like us. You could dress them in jeans and a tee shirt and they'd blend right in walking down the street. Unlike say Neandertals who I reckon contrary to current fashions in representation, would freak people right out if they saw one up close in the same tee and jeans.

Modern cultural humans? That's a harder one to pin down. I suspect if one of the 200k ones was cloned and raised in a modern society, he or she would probably fit in for the most part, but may come across as a little "odd". But if you brought one forward in a time machine would probably come across as very odd. I suspect a Neandertal regardless of how they were raised would be different. In the same way that no matter how you raised a wolf cub, it would appear like a domestic dog until puberty and then the wolf would come out. Homo erectus way more so. Fully culturally modern folks would be closer to 60,000 years ago by current evidence.

I'd reckon that cultural modernity is a sliding scale, with no convenient line that says Modern Culture starts here!. In that Ted link from cue the researcher makes the point that Neandertals didn't have art, but recent Spanish research shows them using different pigments and making jewelry long before modern humans reached Europe. It's possible we copied them not the other way around as would be the current theory. They had some symbolism it seems. Something that seems to lie very deep down in the core of us.

slowburner

I WWII two ships where bombed because the pilot though they looked
like cruisers being built. The reality was that these ships had been
brought up from the deep and were being renovated. The date of these
ships 'wooden' predated any known ancient explorer. Not much at first
glance however on these ships where bronze 'TAPS and pipes' to deliver
water, all the mod cons one would find on a 20th century cruise liner,
the capacity was for over 200 passengers, each with a double cabin and
crew quarters.

Forgot his medication, methinks

That's interesting what you say Wibbs, about the sliding scale of modern culture and I suppose it all depend on what one means by the term.

Any chance that you might post a pic or two of your lithics - I'm just plain nosy and it would save me a trip up to Dublin

Wibbs

OK here's a couple.

First on pure symmetry for the sake of it, a small(6cm) French Neandertal two sided scraper in quartzite. Circa 90,000 years old.

Though it's not a great pic, it's very symmetrical. The base material is a hard one to work to get to that symmetry and doubly so at that small size and they didn't have to as far as it's use as a tool goes.

The second is again a French Neandertal scraper, likely a little later in date. Where an inclusion in the flint does seem to be selected for and kept in the centre.

Conjecture I grant you, but in the hand so to speak the inclusion is brighter and really stands out.

Finally a Neandertal biface/handaxe circa 100,000 though could be earlier. Has the typical neandertal shape, with the flat base. The base is the interesting part.

There is a natural circular hollow in the flint about 2 cms deep, which has been knapped around and pretty specifically so. The material varies across the base and is denser on one side, so it would have been far easier to avoid it altogether if they just wanted an everyday tool. Why select it? That's harder to figure. It might be the hollow where a fossil once was attached to the flint. You do find fossils and rounded pebbles in flint. It might be just a hollow and that was interest enough. It may be a hollow that was selected to put something into. Where they would use pine pitch to secure it. There is a thin ring of black tar like "stuff". If I could get that analysed and it was pitch, then it would seriously add to that idea. It may have been selected as a hollow to haft a wooden handle into, though the latter doesn't really work for me IMH. It's too shallow for that I reckon. Either way Im confident it was purposely selected for, just the purpose itself is up for grabs.

EDIT the attaching of images seems to be a bit askew so here are the direct links in order of above.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/

slowburner

Such treasure! To physically relate to a Neanderthal piece of handiwork must be some experience.
There is a chance that I might be able to get that pitch like substance analysed. PM me if you would like me to investigate the possibility, I know someone who might be able to organise it.
Here's my meagre collection - a possible artefact from Wadi-el-rum c.9,000 bc. Although it looks to my untrained eye as if it is an offcut.
And the butt of a post, cut with a stone axe from a bog in Longford. The post was part of the structure of a wattle road (not sure of the proper term, but you probably know what I mean). The lump of wood is probably hazel and was given to me as a wet sponge! I was told that it would rot away but I dried it out over about 5 years. It gives me a shiver to think it is possible that one of my ancestors hewed that log with stone tools. From memory, I think it was dated to about 9,000 BP.

The links with the Boards http seem to be dead:(

Wibbs

Tried fixing the links(crosses fingers)

:eek: Loove the wood. The colour is gorgeous(there are lurkers from the wood craft forum thinking :hmmm I could make a lovely turned bowl outa that" ). Fair play drying it out so well. Wood, even newly green wood is a right bugger to dry out without it going all to hell. To do it with nine thousand year old wood? Major kudos I've no patience I'd probably have just soaked it in (acetone)PVA and hoped for the best. Hell common or garden diluted wood glue at a push.:) It looks so much better your way.

Your Wadi-el-rum find looks like a lithic to my untrained eye anyway. Meso/Neolithic blade type. I really doubt it's natural.

Here's one Irish lithic I found while I was fossil hunting as a kid, as you do.

Found it (and I could walk you to the exact spot today) 5 inches down from surface, and 8 inches above the limestone bedrock in Easkey Co Sligo? Where the river runs into the sea. I even kept a little drawing for every fossil location and included that in one. Yep weird kid. :D It's flint, not local and about 3 inches long, still sharp. Mad/sad that I was I stuck it in my fishing jacket and used it as a "knife" for cutting fishing line for years. Big into fly fishing at the time. I figured the guy/gal made it to be useful and thousands of years later it still was. I retired it after a few years though Still sharp.

As for my Neandertal stuff. Here's some of the other examples I have;

All levallois points/blades. All but one French. The black one I got recently. Stunning skill and retouching involved. The grey top left one is one of the biggest levallois flakes I've seen so far. Serious skill to spring one of them from a core. There are some losses near the tip along the bottom edge but the skill of the maker is pretty amazing. As a close mate of mine said when he saw it. "now that looks like a prehistoric tool".

The one on the bottom left is an example of where they sprung a point off, then sprung another below it. You can see the shape outlined of the previous. The two on the right are real beauties. Textbook levallois technique. The one on the top right you can actually see the striking point on the platform as if it was done last week. The one on the bottom right looked like a spear point at first, but along the top edge the guy ground off the edge to make a place where you could fit a finger. It fits in the hand beautifully. I've had a go at the levallois technique and it's hard. Damn hard. I'd starve in a week or be left play with the slow kids back in the cave mouth Pressure flaking the way modern man did it, while very skillful is easier to get something going. Ive other tools, flakes, debitage and Levallois cores.

Ever since I was a kid I was fascinated by Neandertals. Couldn't get enough of our heavy browed cousins. Turns out I've something like 3% Neandertal DNA. It seems I was rooting for my people.

On the analysis front I would defo be interested S. It could just be some crap picked up over the millenia, but if it's not, if it can be identified as tar/pitch then it gets real interesting.

Its amazing what you can find in rock shops, auctions and on the ground

Hope the links work

slowburner

I have a friend who might be able to get the tarry stuff analysed - she might have to slip it under the radar, I think. I'll be seeing her on the 13th so I'll mention it to her then.
I'm curious as to what made you look at that particular spot near Easkey. You must have had some sort of an inkling to dig there?
Funny you should mention the woodworkers - I'm a woodturner myself.
If you ever come across a piece of wood you need to preserve and you haven't got the patience, there is a treatment called PEG, I think it is polyethelene glycol. Don't know a whole lot about it though.

Wibbs

slowburner wrote: »

I have a friend who might be able to get the tarry stuff analysed - she might have to slip it under the radar, I think. I'll be seeing her on the 13th so I'll mention it to her then.

Cool

I'm curious as to what made you look at that particular spot near Easkey. You must have had some sort of an inkling to dig there?

Not really, I was just a kid looking for fossils, so eyes accustomed to looking for things standing against the background kinda thing. It stood out because it wasn't the right colour for the geology in the area(carboniferous limestone) and in the hand looked out of place and not natural basically. I had a suspicion but thought it was part of something bigger. TBH Only identified it when I got back home and looked it up.

Funny you should mention the woodworkers - I'm a woodturner myself.

ahh that explains how you knew how to let it dry naturally.

If you ever come across a piece of wood you need to preserve and you haven't got the patience, there is a treatment called PEG, I think it is polyethelene glycol. Don't know a whole lot about it though.

Cheers for the tip.

slowburner

slowburner wrote: »

Such treasure! To physically relate to a Neanderthal piece of handiwork must be some experience.
There is a chance that I might be able to get that pitch like substance analysed. PM me if you would like me to investigate the possibility, I know someone who might be able to organise it.
Here's my meagre collection - a possible artefact from Wadi-el-rum c.9,000 bp. Although it looks to my untrained eye as if it is an offcut.
And the butt of a post, cut with a stone axe from a bog in Longford. The post was part of the structure of a wattle road (not sure of the proper term, but you probably know what I mean). The lump of wood is probably hazel and was given to me as a wet sponge! I was told that it would rot away but I dried it out over about 5 years. It gives me a shiver to think it is possible that one of my ancestors hewed that log with stone tools. From memory, I think it was dated to about 9,000 BP.

Oops - that should be 3,600 BP!

slowburner

Wibbs wrote: »

Here's one Irish lithic I found while I was fossil hunting as a kid, as you do.

Found it (and I could walk you to the exact spot today) 5 inches down from surface, and 8 inches above the limestone bedrock in Easkey Co Sligo? Where the river runs into the sea. I even kept a little drawing for every fossil location and included that in one. Yep weird kid. :D It's flint, not local and about 3 inches long, still sharp. Mad/sad that I was I stuck it in my fishing jacket and used it as a "knife" for cutting fishing line for years. Big into fly fishing at the time. I figured the guy/gal made it to be useful and thousands of years later it still was. I retired it after a few years though Still sharp.

On the analysis front I would defo be interested S. It could just be some crap picked up over the millenia, but if it's not, if it can be identified as tar/pitch then it gets real interesting.

Its amazing what you can find in rock shops, auctions and on the ground

Is it true that there are no Irish lithics?

I mentioned the analysis part to my friend the other day - she said to leave it with her (the subject that is:D).
Is the neanderthal lithic from France, by the way?

Wibbs

slowburner wrote: »

Is it true that there are no Irish lithics?

Oh there are loads out there. Less flint based ones I gather, because of the local rarity of the material. Quartzite, various cherts etc. I reckon a fair number are missed because they dont follow the rules of the flint based examples which are more researched anyway.

I mentioned the analysis part to my friend the other day - she said to leave it with her (the subject that is:D).

Cool! Thanks

Is the neanderthal lithic from France, by the way?

All the ones in that particular group with one exception are French. The majority of the Neandertal ones I have would be French, with one Spanish and a couple of German ones. I've a few French/German neo/meso blade cores. I've two mesolithic (sapiens) examples from England and one possible neandertal blade but I have my doubts design wise. I've had a couple of UK paleolithic handaxes, but moved them on to get other stuff(I find the UK stuff generally quite roughly made by comparison to the European stuff of the same age) Of my even earlier paleolithic stuff, one is English(Clactonian), one is French Achulean and one, among the very earliest stone tools known is an Ethiopian Oldowan style chopper tool. Talking in the millions agewise there.

Likely early Erectus or late Habilis(though I'm well dubious of the habilis label myself) Given the thread title maybe I should have started with that one.