Evidence of mariners 130,000 years ago on Crete!

Originally posted by sonhouse
I don't think you can see one island from another all the way to Crete. 130,000 years is a long time in human history but they would have been almost the same position as now. I wonder if the med was not as deep then? If so, the land masses would have been higher up and more visible from a distance.

That's a good point.

When humans crossed the Red Sea into Yemen 80,000yrs ago, it is believed the sea level was around 100m or so less than it is today. Not sure what level it was at 130,000yrs ago.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I don't think you can see one island from another all the way to Crete. 130,000 years is a long time in human history but they would have been almost the same position as now. I wonder if the med was not as deep then? If so, the land masses would have been higher up and more visible from a distance.

Just checked, the longest trip is about 25 km. It's not impossible to see considering these are hilly islands. But it's not clear if the height would be enough.

The sea level was around 90m below what it is today 130,000yrs ago.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The sea level was around 90m below what it is today 130,000yrs ago.

Aha. And if people were using tools for ages before that, quite possibly a culture may have got isolated on Crete as the waters rose -- developing naval technology to make it back to the receding seashore!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'd like to see you cross the Mediterranean on a log.

I never said I could, nor did I say your chances of survival were great. What I said was that it was possible. People have been known to go very long distances in the sea after a shipwreck or tsunami.
Surely all it takes a pregnant woman getting carried over to the Island, or two people within say 20 years of each other. Remember they had thousands of years for such a chance occurance to take place.

But archaeologists and experts on early nautical history said the discovery appeared to show that these surprisingly ancient mariners had craft sturdier and more reliable than rafts. They also must have had the cognitive ability to conceive and carry out repeated water crossing over great distances in order to establish sustainable populations producing an abundance of stone artifacts.'
They are speculating. I don't believe the evidence is significant enough to tell us anything about the nautical ability of the people involved.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said I could, nor did I say your chances of survival were great. What I said was that it was possible. People have been known to go very long distances in the sea after a shipwreck or tsunami.
Surely all it takes a pregnant woman getting carried over to the Island, or two people within say 20 years of each other. Remember they had thousands of ye ...[text shortened]... e is significant enough to tell us anything about the nautical ability of the people involved.

Or they could have been ferried over by dolphins. But they'd need flint-knapping skills whatever their mode of transport, which lends credence to the idea of repeat journeys or the initial establishment of a sizeable settlement.

I don't know why it should seem so amazing that people then could make boats, anyway. Dug-outs could be made with flint tools, or rafts with outriggers, or whatever. If Australia was reached 40 000 years ago or so, it hardly stretches credibility that homo sapiens could have sailed to Crete 120 000 years ago.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Or they could have been ferried over by dolphins. But they'd need flint-knapping skills whatever their mode of transport, which lends credence to the idea of repeat journeys or the initial establishment of a sizeable settlement.

I don't know why it should seem so amazing that people then could make boats, anyway. Dug-outs could be made with flint t ...[text shortened]... t hardly stretches credibility that homo sapiens could have sailed to Crete 120 000 years ago.

The current thinking is that Australia was reached by humans (as in us) 60,000yrs ago. 130,000yrs ago we were still stuck in Africa, we didn't make it inot Europe until 40,000yrs ago. So these tools were crafted by either Neanderthals or Homo erectus. I read somewhere recently that tools have been found on one of the Guinean islands which have been dated provisionally as 500,000yrs or older. Again as with the Crete scenario, some sort of boat must have been used, and it wasn't Homo spaiens involved. More likely Homo erectus.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The current thinking is that Australia was reached by humans (as in us) 60,000yrs ago. 130,000yrs ago we were still stuck in Africa, we didn't make it inot Europe until 40,000yrs ago. So these tools were crafted by either Neanderthals or Homo erectus. I read somewhere recently that tools have been found on one of the Guinean islands which have been dated ...[text shortened]... rt of boat must have been used, and it wasn't Homo spaiens involved. More likely Homo erectus.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/home-erectus-crosses-open-ocean/10658

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The current thinking is that Australia was reached by humans (as in us) 60,000yrs ago. 130,000yrs ago we were still stuck in Africa, we didn't make it inot Europe until 40,000yrs ago. So these tools were crafted by either Neanderthals or Homo erectus. I read somewhere recently that tools have been found on one of the Guinean islands which have been dated ...[text shortened]... rt of boat must have been used, and it wasn't Homo spaiens involved. More likely Homo erectus.

Exactly. They mention the tools are Acheulean, which are typical from Homo Erectus.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Or they could have been ferried over by dolphins. But they'd need flint-knapping skills whatever their mode of transport, which lends credence to the idea of repeat journeys or the initial establishment of a sizeable settlement.

And how big is the bag that carries flint-knapping skills? How large a boat is needed to carry it?
The quantity of tools seems to imply settlement over a long period, but I am still not convinced that a single pregnant mother would be incapable of starting such a settlement.
I realize that in-breeding is a disadvantage, but I have known cats to quite happily create a colony from a single pregnant mother, why would homo erectus be incapable?

I don't know why it should seem so amazing that people then could make boats, anyway. Dug-outs could be made with flint tools, or rafts with outriggers, or whatever.
Its not that incredible, but it is quite important. The ability to make tools and the complexity of those tools including boats tell us a lot about a species. I think it is simply too early to conclude that they made boats without better evidence than a 25 mile sea crossing.

I wonder, could chimpanzees be taught to make dugouts? Do you think they use logs as rafts to get across large rivers in the wild?

If Australia was reached 40 000 years ago or so, it hardly stretches credibility that homo sapiens could have sailed to Crete 120 000 years ago.
A different species apparently. The people who crossed to Australia would have been no less intelligent than the Aborigines that live there today - who for all I hear are pretty clever.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And how big is the bag that carries flint-knapping skills? How large a boat is needed to carry it?
The quantity of tools seems to imply settlement over a long period, but I am still not convinced that a single pregnant mother would be incapable of starting such a settlement.
I realize that in-breeding is a disadvantage, but I have known cats to quite ha ...[text shortened]... s intelligent than the Aborigines that live there today - who for all I hear are pretty clever.

You seem a bit confused, the OP is about homo sap, same species as the first Australians. Erectus was dragged in by Proper Knob. Seems Herr Erectus could have been making boats before he domesticated fire. Not sure what chimpanzees or cats have got to do with it.

Well, I'm sure a pregnant mother who happened to be an expert flint knapper could have drifted across on a log and raised a tribe all on her own, so I wouldn't rule out that possibility out of hand, but chances are boat-making was well established among homo sap by 120 000 BC if erectus was sailing so long before that, so I'm more persuaded by that hypothesis.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And how big is the bag that carries flint-knapping skills? How large a boat is needed to carry it?
The quantity of tools seems to imply settlement over a long period, but I am still not convinced that a single pregnant mother would be incapable of starting such a settlement.
I realize that in-breeding is a disadvantage, but I have known cats to quite ha ...[text shortened]... s intelligent than the Aborigines that live there today - who for all I hear are pretty clever.

No, rivers block chimps. They've actually speciated into two different species in Africa on two sides of some river.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No, rivers block chimps. They've actually speciated into two different species in Africa on two sides of some river.

They ought to talk nicely to the elephants.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You seem a bit confused, the OP is about homo sap, same species as the first Australians.

I am very confused.
The article is quite unclear on a number of points and their arguments don't add up.
Here are some of my concerns:
1. They haven't yet dated they layer the tools come from, their dating is based solely on the style of tools.
2. They mention layers being laid down etc over thousands of years and even mention ice ages and glaciers. Yet this is on an island in the Mediterranean. Did it have glaciers? After these tool makers or before?
3. If you are dating tools based on style, surely you have to take into account the possibility of separation from other humans.
4. The dates given are well within the time that Neanderthals lived in Europe. Are we sure it wasn't them?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am very confused.
The article is quite unclear on a number of points and their arguments don't add up.
Here are some of my concerns:
1. They haven't yet dated they layer the tools come from, their dating is based solely on the style of tools.
2. They mention layers being laid down etc over thousands of years and even mention ice ages and glaciers. Y ...[text shortened]... given are well within the time that Neanderthals lived in Europe. Are we sure it wasn't them?

The 130k estimate is from geologists alone:
the team analyzed the layer bearing the tools and determined that the soil had been on the surface 130,000 to 190,000 years ago.

The style doesn't clash with that dating, which is good, but from style alone the interval seems huge:
the style of the hand axes suggested that they could be up to 700,000 years old.

They also don't claim that they knew these were homo sapiens:
Archaeologists can only speculate about who the toolmakers were. One hundred and thirty thousand years ago, modern humans shared the world with other hominids, like Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis. The Acheulean culture is thought to have started with Homo erectus.