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.

 

Homo civilisation pushed back 400,000 years

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
www.timesonline.co.uk...


Our earliest ancestors gave up hunter-gathering and took to a settled life up to 400,000 years earlier than previously thought, according to controversial research.

The accepted timescale of Man’s evolution is being challenged by a German archaeologist who claims to have found evidence that Homo erectus — mankind’s early ancestor, who migrated from Africa to Asia and Europe — began living in settled communities long before the accepted time of 10,000 years ago.

The point at which settlement actually took place is the first critical stage in humanity’s cultural development.

Helmut Ziegert, of the Institute of Archaeology at Hamburg University, says that the evidence can be found at excavated sites in North and East Africa, in the remains of stone huts and tools created by upright man for fishing and butchery.

Professor Ziegert claims that the thousands of blades, scrapers, hand axes and other tools found at sites such as Budrinna, on the shore of the extinct Lake Fezzan in southwest Libya, and at Melka Konture, along the River Awash in Ethiopia, provide evidence of organised societies.

He believes that such sites show small communities of 40 or 50 people, with abundant water resources to exploit for constant harvests.

The implications for our knowledge of human evolution — and of our intellectual and social beginnings — are “profound” and a “staggering shift”, he said.

Professor Ziegert used potassium argon isotopic dating, stratigraphy and tool typology to compile his evidence. He will publish his findings this month in Minerva, the archaeology journal




posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
400,000 you say?

Cue the Zitchinites !!!


Seriously though. Does this guy have any more data that he relied on, or was it just something he'd take a wild chance on, in hopes of being right? It seems none of the other scientists agree with him. Though, that doesn't make them right either. I guess we'll have to wait and see.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
ah but its not so controversial
its an established fact that Homo Erectus was around from approximately 2 million to around 400,000 years ago.

there is evidence of one specimen from 1,700,000 years ago who lived into old age with only one tooth proving cooperative behaviour

500,000 years ago in china there is evidence that Homo Erectus understood the properties of charcoal which it utilised to control fire

for the vast majority of their existence they were unchanged and had a brain size ranging from 900 to 1200 cc (homo sapiens average 1400 cc)

Homo Erectus used many tools such as hand axes, picks, cleavers and scrapers which it manufactured itself by flint knapping

so its not so astounding
its a bit odd imo to think that they were around unchanged for 2 million years and only figured out how to work together fairly recently before they became extinct
so far as statistics go they are the most succesful Homo species that ever existed
compare their 2 million years with our 150,000




posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
ah but its not so controversial
its an established fact that Homo Erectus was around from approximately 2 million to around 400,000 years ago.

there is evidence of one specimen from 1,700,000 years ago who lived into old age with only one tooth proving cooperative behaviour

500,000 years ago in china there is evidence that Homo Erectus understood the properties of charcoal which it utilised to control fire

for the vast majority of their existence they were unchanged and had a brain size ranging from 900 to 1200 cc (homo sapiens average 1400 cc)

Homo Erectus used many tools such as hand axes, picks, cleavers and scrapers which it manufactured itself by flint knapping

so its not so astounding
its a bit odd imo to think that they were around unchanged for 2 million years and only figured out how to work together fairly recently before they became extinct
so far as statistics go they are the most succesful Homo species that ever existed
compare their 2 million years with our 150,000



Hmmm...maybe you'll start being open minded about OOP artifacts and fantastic lost civilizations such as Atlantis then?



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
homo erectus was not involved with Atlantis

the Bronze age began around 3600bce in the fertile crescent and Atlantis is described as a Bronze age civilisation by Plato in 9600bce and is not known from any other credible source.
Athens features highly in the story and it didn't exist until 1500BCE at the very earliest
Atalntis is named after a Greek God who of course didn't exist until the Greek civilisation which has its earliest roots around 2000bce

you understand I'm sure that Plato was a Philosopher
you understand what Philosophers do right ?
they tell moral stories to teach people how to behave
theres being open minded and theres letting your brain fall out



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
So I saw the thread title and figured they unearthed a pre-historic techno CD...

okay, so we'll just let that joke bomb...

the first joke I thought up was WAY better but it not only would've gotten me banned, I'd have special interest groups at my door.


Originally posted by uberarcanist
Hmmm...maybe you'll start being open minded about OOP artifacts and fantastic lost civilizations such as Atlantis then?


Now this is what I really thought. I don't like to make up my mind on earth's past because it's exactly that, the past, we can't really examine it properly. So I don't rule out wacky ancient civilization theories, although some of them are a litte batcrap insane.
I guess I'm hoping, that just like the Mars/water situation, this will be a ongoing development...

developing into what really depends on the truth though



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
ah but its not so controversial
...
Homo Erectus used many tools such as hand axes, picks, cleavers and scrapers which it manufactured itself by flint knapping

so its not so astounding
its a bit odd imo to think that they were around unchanged for 2 million years and only figured out how to work together fairly recently before they became extinct
so far as statistics go they are the most succesful Homo species that ever existed
compare their 2 million years with our 150,000


Well that's all well and good, but the guy claimed that they were in a civilization of sorts. I mean, even animals (yes I realize we're animals) will live in small groups and use tools from a learned behavior, and even build shelters together. So I don't doubt Homo Erectus was doing it even a million years ago.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
hmmm, edit button is gone...

continuing:

But I don't see how they could have amassed civilizations, without archeological foot prints of course. Then again, our Oceans are 300 ft. higher than at the end f the Ice Age, perhaps there are settlements in the ocean waiting to be discovered (reminds me Hancock's theory in Underworld).



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
homo erectus was not involved with Atlantis

the Bronze age began around 3600bce in the fertile crescent and Atlantis is described as a Bronze age civilisation by Plato in 9600bce and is not known from any other credible source.
Athens features highly in the story and it didn't exist until 1500BCE at the very earliest
Atalntis is named after a Greek God who of course didn't exist until the Greek civilisation which has its earliest roots around 2000bce

you understand I'm sure that Plato was a Philosopher
you understand what Philosophers do right ?
they tell moral stories to teach people how to behave
theres being open minded and theres letting your brain fall out


Well, Mardy Gras, you must realize that I was being somewhat facetious, though your points may not be valid if Formenko's theories ever hold to be true. That being said...I find it odd how you do not mention OOP artifacts in your rebuttal.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Furthermore...wikipedia claims that Athens' origin is at least 500 years older than you claim it to be; It appears it started out sometime in the third millenium BCE.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
400,000 you say?

Cue the Zitchinites !!!


Seriously though. Does this guy have any more data that he relied on, or was it just something he'd take a wild chance on, in hopes of being right? It seems none of the other scientists agree with him.


Hardly unusual in the sciences.


Haven't seen much discussion of the material, BUT... erectus had known "factory sites" where groups would sit down and process out stone cores to make weapons and tools. There's some evidence of use of fire, too, so a village wouldn't be too far beyond the pale.

BUT... as ou said... we need to see the other evidence.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   
What would be the difference between just "stopping by for a moment" and "settled"?

I can see it both directions.

nice find.

would like to hear more about specifically what was found.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by jaydelay]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
... erectus had known "factory sites" where groups would sit down and process out stone cores to make weapons and tools. There's some evidence of use of fire, too, so a village wouldn't be too far beyond the pale.


They actually sat down together to make tools in a uniform fashion? That's really neat. I never really gave Homo Erectus that much credit (aside from fire). I guess I need to look deeper into our very distant ancestry. Thanks for the fun fact Byrd.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by Byrd
... erectus had known "factory sites" where groups would sit down and process out stone cores to make weapons and tools. There's some evidence of use of fire, too, so a village wouldn't be too far beyond the pale.


They actually sat down together to make tools in a uniform fashion? That's really neat. I never really gave Homo Erectus that much credit (aside from fire). I guess I need to look deeper into our very distant ancestry. Thanks for the fun fact Byrd.


You had better start giving them credit! As far as we can tell, they were the first to harness fire and they also crossed 80 miles of open seas (the Torres Strait) to get to Australia!



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist

You had better start giving them credit! As far as we can tell, they were the first to harness fire and they also crossed 80 miles of open seas (the Torres Strait) to get to Australia!


Erectus made it to Australia?! Criminy, I need to brush up on my Archeology! So wait a minute.
that almost brings up that question of...Did we evolve from one clan of Homo Erectus, or did different clans of Homo Erectus evolve separately, but into the same species we are now? I'm officially confused again.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Well, as Marduk said, Homo erectus was around for nearly two million years. It's the longest run of anyone in our family tree. They had fire, they had tools. Having a settled community here and there is definitely not beyond the pale. In fact the only thing we had going for us that H. erectus lacked was the ice age. he lived in a very warm period with a nice abundance of food and living space. There wouldn't have been a lot of drive to work your butt off to build a home or grow crops, if it was just as easy to lay down where you were or reach over and grab some handy fruit.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Erectus made it to Australia?! Criminy, I need to brush up on my Archeology!

And China and a whole lotta other places, including those accessable only by sea voyage.


So wait a minute.
that almost brings up that question of...Did we evolve from one clan of Homo Erectus, or did different clans of Homo Erectus evolve separately, but into the same species we are now? I'm officially confused again.

A good question. The answer is "from one group of homo erectus." If we'd evolved from separate clans, each race would be very genetically different from the other. For instance, tigers evolved all over Asia, and the different groups are just different enough (genetically) that they're listed as separate subspecies.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
A good question. The answer is "from one group of homo erectus." If we'd evolved from separate clans, each race would be very genetically different from the other. For instance, tigers evolved all over Asia, and the different groups are just different enough (genetically) that they're listed as separate subspecies.


I see. So, if some of the Homo Erectus tribes that were smart enough to be able to leave Africa and make sea voyages...I wonder why it was the other Homo Erectuses back home (in Africa) that eventually evolved into what we are now. Like someone said...


Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
There wouldn't have been a lot of drive to work your butt off to build a home or grow crops, if it was just as easy to lay down where you were or reach over and grab some handy fruit.


If the traveling Erectuses were smarter, why did they not survive?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

If the traveling Erectuses were smarter, why did they not survive?



I've read where homo-erectus (H-E) survived until sometime between
200,000 & 100,000BCE.
there's a skull evidence from Liaoning province China where H-E
was coexisting with modern man,
there's also evidence of H-E in England during that same era.

so H-E most likely assimilated with other homo groups, like the
cro-magnons, the Neanderthals, the unique Basques in Europe...et al

see: www.telusplanet.net...
(history is fluid,
just like the info on the linked page should not be construed as
rock solid, true fact)



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
The title of this thread is very misleading... small temporary settlements do not make a civilization. It would probably be more accurate if it said some human groups began settling down 400,000 years ago. Even then they were not permanent settlements, there is no evidence of cultivation of crops or the domestication of animals, both of which are about 10 to 12,000 years old, and the cultural accurements would not add up to a civilization.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join