It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

55 thousand year old modern human from Manot cave in Israel

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Its been a good day for paleo humans,
from dienkes' blog

It seems that this abstract came online one day early on my news feed and will probably appear in Nature tomorrow. I will update this entry when the paper properly appears. This is of course very important because it directly proves that modern humans appear in Eurasia before the Upper Paleolithic revolution, and disproves the theory that modern humans spread UP technologies with an expansion out of Africa.

We will have to wait until tomorrow to see exactly what they compared it against. The abstract contrasts it with "other early AMH" from the Levant, which I presume means the Skhul/Qafzeh specimens of ~50ka earlier than Manot. But, they also say that it is similar to UP Europeans and recent Africans, which suggests that they did not find any particular similarities to old African skulls of which there are many.

The abstract

Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans

Authors: Israel Hershkovitz, Ofer Marder, Avner Ayalon, Miryam Bar-Matthews, Gal Yasur, Elisabetta Boaretto, Valentina Caracuta, Bridget Alex, Amos Frumkin, Mae Goder-Goldberger, Philipp Gunz, Ralph L. Holloway, Bruce Latimer, Ron Lavi, Alan Matthews, Viviane Slon, Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer, Francesco Berna, Guy Bar-Oz, Reuven Yeshurun, Hila May, Mark G. Hans, Gerhard W. Weber & Omry Barzilai

A key event in human evolution is the expansion of modern humans of African origin across Eurasia between 60 and 40 thousand years (kyr) before present (bp), replacing all other forms of hominins. Owing to the scarcity of human fossils from this period, these ancestors of all present-day non-African modern populations remain largely enigmatic. Here we describe a partial calvaria, recently discovered at Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel) and dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr bp (arithmetic mean ± 2 standard deviations) by uranium–thorium dating, that sheds light on this crucial event. The overall shape and discrete morphological features of the Manot 1 calvaria demonstrate that this partial skull is unequivocally modern. It is similar in shape to recent African skulls as well as to European skulls from the Upper Palaeolithic period, but different from most other early anatomically modern humans in the Levant. This suggests that the Manot people could be closely related to the first modern humans who later successfully colonized Europe. Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations. Moreover, at present, Manot 1 is the only modern human specimen to provide evidence that during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic interface, both modern humans and Neanderthals contemporaneously inhabited the southern Levant, close in time to the likely interbreeding event with Neanderthals.

dienekes.blogspot.com...


very interesting stuff indeed


edit on 27-1-2015 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
This could be the proof of the theory that humanity commenced in the Levant, for which there is supporting evidence.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I always wondered why Neanderthals apparently never went *into* Africa?

They were close, but no evidence they were there.




posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The Sahara was once a mighty desert, before it was a mighty desert now. Impassible to people unprepared to deal with it. In between then and now, there have been intermittent wet periods.

But acted as a tool of isolation, much as it does now. Imagine migrating north out of Africa today. Your choices of exit are fairly limited.
edit on 1/27/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

There is the chance that incorrect conclusions have been made.

If you enter a subject with a goal in mind it becomes easy to reach that goal.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

So, 55k years old??? I doubt that. Maybe more like 5.5k years. If the skeleton is antediluvian, then it can be up to 6,123 years old at the most. If it is post-diluvian, then its can be no older than 4,467 years old. Earth maybe much older than 6,123 years, but human civilization is not. If we are talking modern human, then I would go with something within the 4k year figure. Neanderthals seem to be more associated with the antediluvian age (since so many caves are so "flooded" with neanderthal-like bones). The more domesticated features that modern humans have today seems to be a result of sudden environmental change.

This article opperates of two axiomatic biases: the Darwinistic theory (not fact) of evolution, and the idea that radio-active dating is reliable. There are too many unknown factors to rely on radio-active decay, and macro-evolution has yet to be proven.

This link shows a few of the shortfalls of radio-active dating:

www.pathlights.com...


+8 more 
posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: punkinworks10

So, 55k years old??? I doubt that. Maybe more like 5.5k years. If the skeleton is antediluvian, then it can be up to 6,123 years old at the most. If it is post-diluvian, then its can be no older than 4,467 years old. Earth maybe much older than 6,123 years, but human civilization is not. If we are talking modern human, then I would go with something within the 4k year figure. Neanderthals seem to be more associated with the antediluvian age (since so many caves are so "flooded" with neanderthal-like bones). The more domesticated features that modern humans have today seems to be a result of sudden environmental change.

This article opperates of two axiomatic biases: the Darwinistic theory (not fact) of evolution, and the idea that radio-active dating is reliable. There are too many unknown factors to rely on radio-active decay, and macro-evolution has yet to be proven.

This link shows a few of the shortfalls of radio-active dating:

www.pathlights.com...


Your right. Lets just believe the bible and stop science all together because the gospels are so much more accurate.

Humans no older than 6,000 years? You have to be religious to believe something that ignorant.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 02:28 AM
link   
lol... lol, lol, lol

Well if the thread (which is good) is going to go "That Way" why not test the DNA to see if it was Palestinian or Israeli and really get an argument going.

Seriously tho, this stuff is "Hot" one could really stir the pot here...

This backs up Theories nicely that the Indonesian Caldera explosion caused climate changes leading to an Out of Africa migration post 70,000 years ago.

The thing of that is... and why I say this is a potentially a "Hot" topic because so many Hominid species vanish after that, since that time we lost Neanderthals, "Hobbit Man" in Indonesia, Denisova... I believe another Hominid was just discovered off the coast of China today, DNA seems to indicate that Caucasians and Asians have the DNA of a third unknown Hominid species...

So here we are prior to the arrival of this particular strain which is essentially Identical to modern Africans today leaving Africa and in the following Millennium until recent History we loose this almost Tolkien like world with many Humanoid forms with great variance and are essentially left with a Human race that is remarkably inbred and Asians and Caucasians having 1-3% remaining genes from 2 other forms...

I see serious implications here, in regards to racism and maybe even the "bloodline" Theories that get thrown around here.

For all intents and purposes, Modern Africans emerged from the continent and essentially either Killed, Raped or Screwed ALL other Hominids of which there was quite a handful out of existence.

I have to wonder at this, Is there a genetic predisposition for racism against Africans because of this among Europeans and Asians? Obviously if Neanderthal DNA survived and So did Denisova there was a degree of "avoidance" in those species which could well still be there to a degree in some individuals. Then there are some serious questions we should maybe ask in regards to the aggressiveness factor, Pre this migration, many hominids living side by side, post they are gone, surely this migration is highly aggressive sexually/physically.

A can of worms this topic is in all reality, when we have families "breeding" genetic traits a very common theme From Egypt to Asia and Europe and stories of bloodlines I have to ask myself if they could not actually be focusing on rebuilding or holding onto those Denisovan and Neanderthal traits.

People have a lot of outlandish theories when it comes to stories from the bible, ancient religions involving Aliens the supernatural, Mythology....

But I Think it all goes back to this time period of the last 100,000 years and the varying types of Hominids and almost all Myths from all cultures have a degree of long term oral tradition describing these various humanoids and interactions.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Some archaeology that could be linked to this.

ETA it isn't racism just because it isn't Africa.

newsfeed.time.com...


Africa may not be the birthplace of modern man after all.

Israeli archaeologists digging in caves east of Tel Aviv have discovered eight human teeth dating from 400,000 years ago, which may be the earliest traces of the human species.

“The teeth are scattered through the layers of the cave, some in the deeper part, that is to say from 400,000 years and through all kinds of other layers that can be up to 200,000 years,” Avi Gopher, of Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology, told the AFP.

“It is accepted at the moment that the earliest Homo sapiens that we know is in east Africa and is 200,000 years old, or a little less. We don’t know of anywhere else where anyone claims to have an earlier Homo sapiens,” he said.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth

newsfeed.time.com...

“It is accepted at the moment that the earliest Homo sapiens that we know is in east Africa and is 200,000 years old, or a little less. We don’t know of anywhere else where anyone claims to have an earlier Homo sapiens,” he said.


How about the Petralona cave in Greece?


The cave was accidentally discovered in 1959 by Fillipos Chatzaridis, a local shepherd looking for a spring. The Petralona skull, estimated at about 700,000 years old by A. Poulanis [1] and confirmed by geological analysis [2] [Other estimates vary widely. www.nature.com... for example says 200,000.], was found there in 1960[3] by Chistos Sarrigiannidis, another local. Further research in the cave has yielded 4 isolated teeth,[4] then two pre-human skeletons dated about 800,000 years,[5] a great number of fossils of various species and what is considered as the oldest traces of fire known to this day.[6] The fossils have been at the Geology School of the Thessaloniki Aristotle University since 1960.[7]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on WedWed, 28 Jan 2015 05:31:41 -06001AMkuWednesdayam by Dr1Akula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Dr1Akula

IMO there are probably many examples of older than those found in Africa that are yet to be found.

I posted the article because it is another 'older than the oldest African find' in Israel. Also because it is important to comprehend that the ''agenda'' if there is any is not racism it is truth.

Those denying older finds because they want an 'ooa' scenario are showing racism more than those seeking the truth.

As for the articles content that you quoted, you would need to take task to them for any inaccuracy in not being aware of an even older find in Greece.
edit on 28-1-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Text As for the articles content that you quoted, you would need to take task to them for any inaccuracy in not being aware of an even older find in Greece.


This happens all the time. Being "captain obvious" too many in the fields of archeology have based their bread & butter degrees and seniority in "theories" that are now needing revised. As new evidence comes to light there is no real reason NOT to revisit existing theories and amend them, that is IF you truly are following the scientific method.

Just opinion here, but for the lay person so much of the material is in journals that are cost prohibitive, written up in countries without english translations due to the technical difficulties , that I'm sure we could have absolutely fascinating discussions if we had more information.

For example I ran into some material about neanderthal remains that demonstrated these skeletons were semi-out of place due to unusual hybridization documented in French & Dutch ( I think) research, but the google translate had such fits attempting to translate the specialized tech-speak that reading was half guessing game due to the gaps, and may be something other than I was assuming DUE to the butchered tech speak!!

Totally OT but there is always the rallying cry the public has no interest in science, but when we do take an interest we are blocked by deliberately obtuse communication from within these specialized fields.


edit on 28-1-2015 by Caver78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

It does appear that inaccuracy from journals can be caused by translation or denial of other research, it could also be a matter of timing, one journal being published as another thesis is being confirmed. Perhaps the dates on those journals might throw some light on that specific incident.

As for translation inaccuracies and ''obtuseness'', it also seems par for the course. I read and analyse journals as part of my postgraduate studies and something that irks is that often information is not filtered to the mainstream. For example, water is blue, it actually is, it is visible in small quantities and more so in large quantities but the text books still say ''colourless''. Look at the oceans / swimming pools etc., it is the MOST OBVIOUS denial of facts seeing as life on Earth depends on water.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The scriptures are ancient whereas science is still young in comparison. It would be unwise write off the bible and trust our limited observation over ancient wisdom.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I respect your view and opinion. However I must point out that the scriptures were stories written by man, devised by man, and passed down by man. Man is fallible and often has his own agenda.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: criticalhit

Lol just imagine.... "And the Dna is..... O Christ.... Arian..." That would make for some head scratching lol

how different is the Palestinian Dna compared too Jewish? Being from such tight quarters would there be a big difference?

Could there be any other conteders for who it is? An ancient Phoenician ancestor perhaps?

Can they even get DNA out of what they found anyway?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DerekJR321


Man is fallible and often has his own agenda.


Science has demonstrated this very same principle. The scriptures have indeed been communicated through man, but what if they originated from a being outside of man? From a scientific perspective, that possibility cannot be ignored. There is much about the scriptures that is forgotten, and for that reason we ignore them. For example, both the OT and NT are phonetically preserved via syllable metering, all of the prophecies harmonize according to a solar calendar that made a sudden switch from 360 to 365.25 days. The patterns found in the syllable metering are the same patterns used by King Solomon (most likely) to create an intercalary system to express the change that occured at the flood. This intercalary system directly connects the Phoenician and Aztec civilizations to the Paleo-Hebrew solar calendar. While less than 1% of Christendom is aware of this knowledge, the high echelons of the Vatican and various Masonic organizations are well aware of what truely happened in the past, and what will come in the near future. This is why NASA wants to leave earth by 2023.

Ive dedicated most of my threads to this theme, so I will not delve any further into the subject. I simply wish to express why I believe "they" are purposely feeding us junk science...lest we all discover the truth burried in our past and the revelation that awaits us in less than 2 short years.

The ancients were trying to warn us of something, and our flawed science is obscuring the message.

My opinion is equally valid and plausible as that of the OP's article.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
They have been feeding people ''junk'' in the form of religions and governments since they obtained power over people via MANipulation.

There is most probably lies being fed to humanity also about the science, I have some personal experience of this that I won't divulge here.

The Vatican /Masons are Manipulators for their own agenda but they are BELOW the true powers of the Universe and despite attempts at using words against such power they have failed. People are awakening to the truth and their ruse will be discovered. The natural order is not man in control it is the Universe and the absolute infinite energy to which everything is subject.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth


They have been feeding people ''junk'' in the form of religions and governments since they obtained power over people via MANipulation.


Indeed they have, and that is why everyone is responsible for finding the truth for themselves.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I wonder how gravity and ressonance frequency effects carbon dating? Of coarse science will dismiss the thought but many see how time and gravity are related yet some science accept that gravity has been a near constant in earth history.




top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join