Neanderthals May Have Sailed to Crete

reply to post by Plugin


Could, but this theory and study suggests that the islands in mention had no land bridges. I personally believe that if Man created tools, they would have kept expanding out on what else they could "create". What a concept really that goes beyond the material. Maybe they dabbled in societal creation such as government, social structure, diplomacy, trade, etc, etc.

I really think our collective view that they were grunting mindless beings only operating on an animalistic [sic] level is not accurate; given presented evidence. It would however change our view that it was only recently had great leaps of knowledge, when it could be we have been on an extremely long path of evolutionary expansion of skills, know-how and exploration.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Interesting find! I think, personally, that this is more evidence that they were simply another race of people, not some sort of "primitive man". This, the tools, art, burial, and interbreeding with so-called "modern humans" all support that idea. Very nice read, in any case!

There where also (tiny though), mammoths on Crete.

How did they get there? So primitive humans where arround there then as well maybe, but maybe not found fossils of humans yet that old, which doesn't mean they werent around back then? just guessing of course.

reply to post by Plugin


The sea levels would have been lower, but due to the topography of the med basin, the waters would have still been of considerable depth in places. As discussed here in the New Scientist in February...

Neanderthals lived around the Mediterranean from 300,000 years ago. Their distinctive "Mousterian" stone tools are found on the Greek mainland and, intriguingly, have also been found on the Greek islands of Lefkada, Kefalonia and Zakynthos. That could be explained in two ways: either the islands weren't islands at the time, or our distant cousins crossed the water somehow.

Now, George Ferentinos of the University of Patras in Greece says we can rule out the former. The islands, he says, have been cut off from the mainland for as long as the tools have been on them.

Ferentinos compiled data that showed sea levels were 120 metres lower 100,000 years ago, because water was locked up in Earth's larger ice caps. But the seabed off Greece today drops down to around 300 metres, meaning that when Neanderthals were in the region, the sea would have been at least 180 metres deep (Journal of Archaeological Science, DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.01.032).

www.newscientist.com...

The tides and winds of the med make certain islands unreachable by means of drifting, unless approached from the East. So even though the distances are relatively short from mainland Greece, they would have had to work very hard paddling against the currents too.

The greatest argument against earlier colonisation of the islands has been that the pygmy species of animals that had been able to evolve there in seclusion from predators did not reach extinction until about 8,000 years ago, but had a less carnivorous species of hominid inhabited the islands, they may have had a more 'caretaking' attitude to the animal populations. Neanderthals, as we know, ate a very balanced diets rich in plant materials so this would make sense.

reply to post by Plugin


I am not sure about the pygmy mammoths, but there were pygmy elephants, hippos, dwarf deer, and to balance that, very large rodents. It is believed that they were there before the sea dried out, evolving in isolation and found haven on the mountains that would have remained relatively temperate. When the sea returned, they were able to extend their territories and flourish. Because there were no predators, they didn't need the defense of great size, and so naturally selected for more compact size, and which due to the more scarce food resources, gave them greater efficiency in that environment. I believe, though I am not entirely sure, that the hippos also lost the reverse knee joints of their mainland counterparts as they spent less time in water, as that too is a defense mechanism.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Tiny mammoths on Crete:
io9.com...

and yes on a funny note giant rodents as well!

Tiny humans found in in Palau (also on an island).
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Would be cool if they find fossils of tiny humans on Crete in the future (as well). But maybe we just don't get that lucky so we will never know?

So lets assume it was like that, and later when there was more land mass (again), during/shortly after an ice age, the people there got bigger (normal (again?).

The reason they get small is not of, no need for defense I think but just because there wasn't much space.
In a forest close by, there are carps and they only can use small waters, and they are tiny but with allot.
An old friend (a carp lover), once kept some in his Aquarium (not those tiny carps, just young normal carps), and they just would stay small, even with enough food!?

Of course it just could be as they say in the article mentioned that they they could master the seas and that's the explanation for them getting there.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
reply to post by Plugin

 

The tides and winds of the med make certain islands unreachable by means of drifting, unless approached from the East. So even though the distances are relatively short from mainland Greece, they would have had to work very hard paddling against the currents too.

Not necessarily so - if sea levels were 120 metres or more below todays depths, tidal currents could have been entirely different to those we know today (i would actually be surprised if they weren't). Also, as the oceans play such a pivotal role in our weather patterns, i also wouldn't be surprised if wind patterns were also different back then.

These factors could have actually meant it would have been difficult to miss the islands in questions, as opposed to today where you rightly point out that they make these islands virtually unreachable by drifting.

Nice one S&F

The Neanderthals had art and music, so no doubt they could work out simple water craft if the mood hit them IMO.
Homo erectus might have had a smaller brain than us, but he IS credited with fire.. and hey, if even elephants can paint and play the piano, I think it is totally plausible that Homo erectus was perhaps capable of sea travel as well!
haha.. what would i give for just one face to face meeting with our ancestors for just one day...

reply to post by Flavian


I still don't think it would have worked in their favour, the med would still have been landlocked, which is the major effecting factor on tides. Obviously the Bosporus would have still been closed at that point, but again, it is the land lock that mostly limits tidal influence. Winds may have been at higher (relative) altitudes, but still not in 'sailors' favour, less so in that case. Either way, salinity would have been even higher then, so the subsurface currents would have perhaps moved differently, surface currents would have perhaps have been stronger, but not easier to overcome drifting wise and certainly not overly affected directionally. Possibly easier to maintain buoyancy though...especially for swimmers. And, of course, the time of year that they chose to cross would have been, as it is now, all important, suggesting some trial and error. And by that consideration, determination.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


The other large mammals got isolated on the islands when the med filled, On one of the islands off of Italy had fossils of primate that showed signs of bipedalism, from about 6-7 mya.

Great thread! Always interesting when they find out something that wasn't even a thought in their heads before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

The myth of "dumb" neanderthal has been undergoing a revision over the past few years, precisely because of finds like this.

Our cousins were nothing like their portrayal for so long in the popular media. A species doesn't survive and even thrive like the neanderthal did without a little somthin', somethin' going on upstairs.

Smart. Adaptable. They thrived for a long time. Until they ran up against a smarter, more adaptable creature...and were either assimilated, or wiped out by that same creature, the precursors of modern man.

I have long held on to the notion that ancient man was highly intelligent, possibly more intelligent than Homo sapiens, but biological factors such as body type, agility, etc were factors in their decline. I wouldn't be surprised to find that humanity has undergone once before (possibly more) a high level technological advancement in our past.

I have recently been researching the Human Genome Project with fervor in regards to our likely assimilation of the other early hominids such as Neanderthal and Denisova hominin.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Would've been surprised if they didn't travel further than propagated by mainstream science.

While I agree that the Crete findings are incredibly important - almost earth-shattering - the fact is this has been reported right here at ATS before, probably several times:
Link

My mistake for thinking people here remember this - I've commented on it a few times in the past concerning my affection for H. Erectus and my belief that they were capable of ocean travel. I wonder if anyone knew what I was talking about?

Harte

I'm not sure i can believe this.

Neanderthals, despite being quite smart and having weapons and even ceremonies, i doubt that they had the capability to sail from A to B.

Originally posted by Harte
While I agree that the Crete findings are incredibly important - almost earth-shattering - the fact is this has been reported right here at ATS before, probably several times:
Link

My mistake for thinking people here remember this

I did a search with the articles title 'Neanderthals May Have Sailed to Crete' and 'H. Erectus' didint come up.

Also, I'm more than sure that out of the 250,000+ members some of us may have missed it.
I know I did.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Actually the idea of the "Neanderthal's at sea" theory is a bit older

The paper aims to give historical example of errors to which the examination of two fragmentary - and probably pathological - fossil remains can lead in the field of human palaeontology. In 1917, two very special human molars with a wide extension of their pulp cavity and fused fang were found in Neolothic excavations in Malta. As he had observed such a dental morphology of Neanderthal man in Jersey Arthur Keith (1866-1955) called that taurodontism and claimed it was a characteristic between Malta and the Italian coast he asserted that Neanderthat Man had lived in Malta. The theory has never been corroborated and taurodontism is not so characteristic as supposed by Keith. Furthermore it might be an individual pathological feature. Up to now there is no proof of human beings in Malta before about 5,000 BC.

Those teeth - these have been a bone of contention for some time

Neanderthal in Malta

Cattle worship was important to the early people of Crete.

What do cows plop on the ground? What grows on those nice little patties?

Gifts from "the Gods" I would think to myself if I was primitive human. Crete is a fascinating island.

Originally posted by AgentX09
This is wild.Seafaring cavemen.They'd have to mastered boat construction AND celestial navigation.I having trouble seeing pre-erectis having that intelligence level myself.

Both of these I think would be discovered fairly easily.

You see something floating on water as an early human. You start noticing that certain objects float and others do not. One day you set about putting a bunch of items together that float and jump on. "Hey look man, I can sit on the water!" -- boats would follow!

Back in those days there wasn't American Idol in the evenings for entertainment. The sky was the most readily available "movie screen" these people had. Over time some people would notice patterns in the constelations. "Oh hey, that one bright star is always over there..." Observant peoples would discover ways to use the stars fairly straightforwardly.