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.

 

Hand-axes found in Malaysia dated to 1.83 million years old

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
This is really cool and clearly shows that mankind is more ancient than the MSM schools of science lead you to believe.

Full story here

Also in the article they mention that this find is older than hand-axes found in Africa that were dated to 1.6 million years old. I never heard about that discovery but I'm glad that they mentioned it as it shows that such ancient things are not isolated incidents.

cool !





posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


Soon they will prove that we did not all come out of africa like they believe, I think there were seperate groups of evolving monkeys thus creating the different races, sure we all have similiar midocondrial dna, but there are enough differences to make us not really related.

We are related genetically to bonobo chimps by 99%, it doesnt mean we came from them or them from us, it means our starting points were similar in origin and not neccessarly our starting locations.

They still cannot explain neaderthal man and where he came from, even though we were on the same time line as he. Is it political correctness to have us all come from africa, thus untiting black and white in commenality?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I don't know what a "MSM" is, but "scientists" believe humans have been around for about 4 million years and then some. The article says "early humans" which means what you would call a "human ancestory" like "Lucy." Scientists call those humans but I bet you might not.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Ah, but Homo Erectus was not a human. It is much more likely that Homo Erectus was an ape. Not related to humans, and definitely not a human.

So what this shows to me, is that some apes in the past had developed tools and weapons, not that humans did.


[edit on 30-1-2009 by Hollywood11]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
There are artifacts from many pre-homo sapiens sapiens human-like primates in many parts of the world, especially in south east asia. they are not, however, our direct ancestors... more like distant uncles.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Howdy all


If this study stands it shows that Homo Erectus spread out earlier than previously thought. Homo Erectus remains have been found in that part of the world before.

The earliest stone tools were found by Leakey and others in Africa and the various finds in Africa show the various species of hominids that existed. There are around twenty known.

Present day humans of all races are one species, the superficial difference in humans that we call race are like differentiations in the apperance of horses, cats and dogs, they look different but they are biologically and genetically the same





posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Ah, but Homo Erectus was not a human. It is much more likely that Homo Erectus was an ape. Not related to humans, and definitely not a human.


I think you must have a different idea of "human" than the rest of us have. If you took homo erectus and gave him or her a good hairstyle and dressed them up in something off the rack from Macy's, they could stroll down the street and you'd never say "OMG!! APE!!!"

They're human. Really. They're just an older version of us.

(...and I still don't know what a MSM is. Someone? Anybody? Bueller?)

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Indellkoffer]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Unless a Photograph or a scientific paper is available, it is hard to digest that information.

As per the website, the "Hand Axe" was found "made of quartzite rock, embedded in layers of suevite caused by meteorite impact."

The hand axe would certainly be of a slab of Quartzite rock ...and would have got embedded in the suevite when it cooled down.

I dont think this so called hand axe is a man made object at all.




A suevite breccia is a polymictic impact breccia with clastic matrix that contains shocked and unshocked clasts and cogenetic melt particles (glassy or crystallized).




quote and image from www.impact-structures.com...


The above is just my stream of thought....not necessarily be the true cause.
Let the the scientific analysis define it.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


Without am image we're guesing, we'll have to wait for a published paper.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Sheez. We're discussing the origins of man and you're still hung up on MSM?

Per Wiki, and I think what he is referring to:
Mainstream Media
That would be the largest commercial media centers such as ESPN, MTV, Nick at Night, O, and the other usual sources of science facts.

OR,

He could be referring to:
Method of Simulated Moments
This one is so complicated even I can't understand it:
"In econometrics, the method of simulated moments (MSM) is a structural estimation technique. It extends the generalized method of moments to cases where theoretical moment functions cannot be evaluated directly, like when moment functions involve high-dimensional integrals. MSM's earliest and principal applications have been to research in industrial organization, after its development by Ariel Pakes and others, though applications in consumption are emerging."

I really thought it was what a woman does during sex in order to get it over with quicker, but I think I'm wrong now.

There is the possibility that he was referring to:
Million Skirted Men
Which is a group of men advocating rights to wear skirts. If so, I can see their interest in finding out if clubs 1.83 million years ago allowed men's skirts or not. Somehow, I think they were clothing optional then.

Regardless, MSM is not a science reference source that I am aware of. I personally prefer RSS aggregators that hit all these very boring sites that do nothing but spew facts that I have to actually read in almost entirety to even get the gyst of.

And, based on that, I have been led to believe in the past that man has been here for something like 4 to 6 million years.

However, ( this is where I hope to stimulate the conversation some ), what proof do they have that they were actually manmade? I've often pondered the idea of ancient civilizations, aliens, or other life forms that may have preceded mankind or co-existed with early man. I mean, if they used silicons and plastics and such to build their stuff, it'd all be oil today. There wouldn't be a trace left other than bones. Our natural instinct would lead to us to naturally assume that since they preceded us in time, they'd have to be inferior intellectually. We are moving in that direction now as more and more of our stuff is made from silicons and plastics and less is made from concrete and iron. In 1.83 million years, it will all be gone. If some disaster greatly diminishes man, and he has to re-establish himself for survival. What will those descendants think when they find bones and stuff from 1.83 million years in their past?

They'll think we were apes.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moonage


Howdy Mooage



And, based on that, I have been led to believe in the past that man has been here for something like 4 to 6 million years.


Hans: there isn't a concensus on when earlier hominids become 'homo' but its in that ball park. A lot of material will survive, there a number of threads on that very issue here at the forum.




However, ( this is where I hope to stimulate the conversation some ), what proof do they have that they were actually manmade?


Hans: the line between nature made and man made can get thin, but at that time frame stone tools are fairly certain to have been man made

www.abovetopsecret.com...



They'll think we were apes.


Hans: Probably not if those folks have a similar archaeological ability as we do there see signs of technology, in our teeth, cut gems, disturbances of the ground and yeah, cut stone, brick, glass and other items that don't degrade.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Howdy Hans.

Don't mean to hijack this thread, just wanted to toss some sand in the vaseline. However, the other discussions you linked only go back 10,000 years or so. Not a lot geologically has changed since then. The Earth hasn't been disturbed at all in this semi-peaceful stretch of time. Going back 1,830,000 years presents a completely difference scenario as a lot has changed geologically. What was a toaster 1,830,000 years ago would now be bringing about $1.89 at the pump. What was a toaster 10,000 years ago would still indeed be a very rusty toaster if preserved in the right conditions. The Earth since that time has changed rather wildly many times. It's been the Garden of Eden, and it's been Hell. It's frozen over several times. And, very likely been covered to a certain degree in lava. To assume metal objects would have endured all that is stretching it a bit. I mean, it just wouldn't. An axe ( rock ) here and a bone there is all that is left from that era. Sure, it's farfetched to assume there was much more than that. But, at the same time, if it was a civilization based on stuff that is not as durable as rock, steel, or iron, it would have been completely obliterated fairly shortly after its use. The fact that we haven't found anything proving otherwise doesn't mean something wasn't there. It just simply means we haven't found anything. Just food for thought.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Wow, a 2 mile across crater, thats a dang big bang to be around. It sucked to be that group of early homonids.

There have been some intruging finds over the last couple of decades, that really show that we are only a very small number of peices in the huge puzzle that is our past.
Im not fully in the afro-centric camp of current anthropology.
One reason is that it is very apperant that homo-erectus left africa early on, and spread far and wide.
He even spread into places that are only accesable by water, and the implication of that have been seriouly overlooked.
If homo-erectus can develop into more modern forms in africa, then why cant homo-e, do the same in other parts of the world, given the same need for advancement, ie a change in environment.
There are homo sites in china where they had been using controlled firew as far back as 1.3mya.
I think that homo e left africa, evolved into more advanced forms in both africa and other places then intermingled as the newer forms worked thier way back into africa.

One recent study of trhe DNA of "mungo man" a 40k year old austrailian aborigine suggests that he shares no common maternal ancestor with other modern humans.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Moonage
 



Howdy Monage

Ah but things do survive for surprizing long periods of time. Wooden Javelins survived for 400,000 years but of course we are talking millions - yet we find remains from that period to. Would we be able to detect our own civilization 1.8 milliion years in the past? Yes we would

Oil comes from the remains of microsopic sources of kerogen.

Howdy Punkinwork

Mungo man - say what?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Ah, but Homo Erectus was not a human. It is much more likely that Homo Erectus was an ape. Not related to humans, and definitely not a human.

If the classification starts with "homo," then the animal in question is not only human, he is human by definition which means there's simply no room for argument on this point from you.

Now, if you want to say that the paleozoologists have gotten the classification wrong, you're welcome to that opinion. However, you cannot claim that this misclassification is a fact without providing evidence for such a statement that basically reverses over a hundred years of biological research.

Have you any?

I thought not (having some experience dealing with your claims in the past.)


Originally posted by Hollywood11
So what this shows to me, is that some apes in the past had developed tools and weapons, not that humans did.

An excellent example of how incorrect assumptions can lead to laughably erroneous deductions.

Harte



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Howdy hans,

"Mungo Man" is the remains of an individual found at mungo dry lake in australia, dated to about 40 k years ago.
In a recent study of his mitochondrial dna it has been suggested that he has no common maternal ancestor with modern populations.

I think that the aboriginal people of austrailia and papua new guniea are the decendants of an non african modern human line.



It has been suggested and the discovery of homo florensis seems to confirm this, that homo erectus survived in indonesian and malay archepeligos until very recently.

The other thing is that H E and early modern humans had to know how to make rafts or boats in order to get there, as at no time in recent history, mankinds history, have new guniea and austrailia been accesable by land.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Just a question.

Does hand axe mean a rock?

I do believe that humans have been around longer than "recorded" history but sometimes these claims can get out of hand.

There were no pictures of the "hand axe" so I am somewhat skeptical.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 

Theres a pic of it on AOL news, along with another still in the brecchia matrix.

It says they found seven axes and other tools



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks09
reply to post by Hanslune
 



Howdy Punkinworks

I'm aware of Mungo man just not that unusual characteristization you commented on. Once I reread I remember the story. Thanks for reminding me.

Summary of the report from wiki


mitochondrial DNA was collected from bone fragments from Mungo Man's skeleton and analysed. The mtDNA was compared with samples taken from several other ancient Australian human skeletons, a Neanderthal mtDNA sequence, modern day living Australian Aborigines, and other living humans.

The results showed that despite being anatomically within the range of fully-modern humans, Mungo Man was descended from a different direct maternal ancestor than the most recent common ancestor in the female line of all living humans, the so-called "Mitochondrial Eve". His mtDNA is not entirely extinct, however, as a segment of it is found inserted in nuclear chromosome 11 of many people today.

The results can be reconciled with the Out of Africa model, however, if the Mitochondrial Eve mtDNA type, and the Mungo Man mtDNA type were both spread from Africa, with one maternal line going extinct and one surviving to today. The time of the split between Mitochondrial Eve and Mungo Man's maternal ancestor must have been earlier than the date when the main wave of fully modern humans left Africa, about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago.



This actual report is at

The Mungo man DNA report



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hey there hans,


thanks for the link to the mungo dna report.

anyway back to the original subject, 1.8 million years is very very old to be that far from africa.
And I would like to know if the site is in continental malaysia or the island portion.

The forests of malaysia, indonesia and papua could still possibly hold surviving non sapiens homonids.

Homo florensis, lived at least until the dutch arrived, the locals told of leaving food out for them.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join