Neanderthals May Have Sailed to Crete

As always, Slayer, very interesting thread.
I agree the image of our cousins is slowly changing, very exciting times indeed

Actually HSN would have had to sail about 40 miles from the next island, you'd be able to see you.destination, no abstract nav skills needed. Also if you can kill a large animal and harvest its hide, if you can make a a tent or tie branches together, all of which HSN was more than adequately skilled for , you can make a canoe, if you can bundle reeds or such together you can make a raft.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
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.

I kind of had the idea that the 'Minoans' brought the cattle with them when they colonised the island, along with other domesticated animals. I could very well be wrong, perhaps Harte or Hanslune could clear that one up. But certainly, psilocybin cubensis is present throughout Europe, but it is happy to grow on most herbiverous droppings, including deer, no cattle needed specifically. The closer relationship though, that we shared with our domestic animals, would have meant that the spores would have been brought closer to home, into the settlement, and been much more abundant.

reply to post by punkinworks10


I just thought, considering what we were discussing on the other thread, and Melos being a source of obsidian. Perhaps swimming to an island, retrieving your own piece of obsidian, or some such other thing in the case of Crete, was some sort of rite of manhood?? Or, since many of these islands were considered as being home to gods and goddesses, getting there was perhaps the equivalent of a pilgrimage...or rite of passage...contest of leadership...you get the idea I am sure.

Speculative of course, but that's where the fun is it sometimes, IMO

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
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.

I kind of had the idea that the 'Minoans' brought the cattle with them when they colonised the island, along with other domesticated animals. I could very well be wrong, perhaps Harte or Hanslune could clear that one up. But certainly, psilocybin cubensis is present throughout Europe, but it is happy to grow on most herbiverous droppings, including deer, no cattle needed specifically. The closer relationship though, that we shared with our domestic animals, would have meant that the spores would have been brought closer to home, into the settlement, and been much more abundant.

Don't know!

You might find the answer here

Domesticated cattle summary

reply to post by Hanslune


That didn't help directly, but it did lead me to this...

According to one, the Podolica derived from cattle that came to Italy in 452 BC following the Huns who, along their way from Mongolia, passed through the Ukrainian steppe, which can be considered the true birthplace of the Podolica breed. Instead, another theory states that as far back as the first century BC, there existed long-horned cattle from Crete, an area that, even in the Minoan age, had macroceros cattle which can be identified as bos primigenius.

eng.agraria.org...

The aurochs (/ˈɔːrɒks/ or /ˈaʊrɒks/; also urus, ure, (Bos primigenius), the ancestor of domestic cattle, is an extinct type of large wild cattle that inhabited Europe, Asia and North Africa; they survived in Europe until the last recorded aurochs, a female, died in the Jaktorów Forest, Poland in 1627.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, I was (most probably) wrong...

Ta, very much.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Yeah sorry I couldn't be of more help but my knowledge of the history of neolithic cattle domestication in Crete is near zilch!

reply to post by SLAYER69


This has been disputed for some time and is not really anything new. It has been going on for many more years than scientists and historians will dare admit. It would rewrite all of history and put a whole lot of people's religious beliefs in jeopardy while causing a lot of people to say "I told you so".

Every corner of the earth has evidence of what you have put forth, it is always interesting to hear another's theory on the migration of our ancestors.

Originally posted by FactFactor

Howdy FactFactor

It has been going on for many more years than scientists and historians will dare admit.

If they don't want to admit it why do they keep talking about it and publishing papers on the subject? The subject has been around since the 1920's and probably goes back to the 1870-80s when archaeology got organized, as you noted its not new nor is it 'hidden'

It would rewrite all of history and put a whole lot of people's religious beliefs in jeopardy while causing a lot of people to say "I told you so".

Hmmm I cannot see why this would effect religious beliefs? Could you explain why you think this would be please?

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Oops


I don't think that swimming there is an option, certainly not an option for starting a population.

Building rafts isnt going to the moon, but it does take bravery to raft across open sea, that's for sure.

I love this.
Thank you again Slayer!

I sail. I started out with an old 1970s 30' Irwin sloop, and lived on it for about a year.
In between boats now, but, sailing is wonderful and I'll have another eventually.
Sailing, boating, scooting about on the water is much easier than you would think.

I can certainly see our primitive relatives coasting along on the waves, certainly staying within site of land for the most part, but, it's entirely feasible there were a few brave souls, as well as many accidental ones that found themselves stepping foot onto new lands they never knew existed with all sorts of new and fascinating foods, and animals in abundance to eat, especially in new locales where there was zero cross competition with other hominids.

On a larger scale, at a much later time, I'm of the opinion due puzzling incidents of some ooparts that world-wide trade at least to some degree may have been practiced, and even prevalent long before ever suspected and recognized in recorded history, as well as more widely distributed.

In this case regarding our Neanderthal cousins, it's a fun fantasy thought to imagine Neanderthal pirates of the Upper Paleolithic.
Captain Crack Marrow and his not-so-jolly band of hulking prominently browed salty sailing skallywags.

On a more serious note, this is indeed quite wonderfully fascinating and taken into consideration could open new avenues of perspective regarding many debatable sites, especially those located on islands with no geological evidence for land-bridges at any time where found artifacts are commonly attributable to Human origin.

Many in this thread seem surprised at Neanderthal being capable of this, but I thought the myth they were primitive imbeciles was put to bed years ago? They had jewellery, tools and built shelters, much the same as our ancestors and they had a larger cranial capacity anyway. I also thought it was accepted that they weren't wiped out, but rather interbred with the more numerous modern Humans which were around at the same time...

Either way, this is an interesting find none the less.

Originally posted by punkinworks10
Oops


I don't think that swimming there is an option, certainly not an option for starting a population.

Not directly to Crete, certainly not, and I was more working on the concept of where the idea to 'try' started...few peoples venture forth without sending scouts out first. So first, someone had to get there to know what was there, and then they had to find a way to get more people there. It's a progression. Either way, I figure if a 8 year old boy can swim the 21 miles across the very cold and choppy English channel, then a grown man should have been able to swim across very warm, high saline waters, even the 40 miles between Crete and it's closest neighbour. If you take it into the context of Greek mythology, and it's reverence of 'heroism' and 'labours', I think it has some basis.

Originally posted by punkinworks10
Building rafts isnt going to the moon, but it does take bravery to raft across open sea, that's for sure.

Building a raft is a useless exercise if you reach the destination to find zero resources, particularly, a lack of fresh water. Some of those islands are five miles from the mainland, all you need is one brave chap with a gung-ho spirit, and Bob's your Uncle.

reply to post by Hanslune


Not a problem, I am quite capable of proving myself wrong it seems

Bull#, We all know that they walked there when Europe was all Ice. They sailed back when the Ice melted.

Originally posted by Krakatoa

I especially like this quote from Simmons, "Modern humans today quibble about which culture was the first to discover this or that country, but the truth is that many lands were probably first discovered and/or settled by hominid species that were not Homo sapiens."

edit on 3-12-2012 by Krakatoa because: Removed redundant link

Maybe we should clarify that. They weren't discovered by Homo sapiens sapiens. If humans and Neanderthals could interbreed, they're the same species. Period.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
If humans and Neanderthals could interbreed, they're the same species. Period.

Not true. there are examples that follow the following pattern:
Animal A can breed with animal B.
Animal B can breed with animal C.
But:
Animal A cannot breed with animal C.


Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by HappyBunny
If humans and Neanderthals could interbreed, they're the same species. Period.

Not true. there are examples that follow the following pattern:
Animal A can breed with animal B.
Animal B can breed with animal C.
But:
Animal A cannot breed with animal C.


Harte

Your examples can go either way and it would be biologically acceptable: one species or two. What matters is the gene frequency.

I will repeat. If humans and Neanderthals could interbreed, then they are the same species. Ditto the Denisovans. This is backed up by the genetic evidence--the examples you give do happen but don't invalidate the species definition as I use it. All it means is that species are identified by gene frequencies so the boundaries between them aren't clear.

Ergo, we and Neanderthals (and Denisovans) are the same species. Different subspecies, perhaps, but even that boundary is hazy.

You stick to your field and I'll stick to mine, thanks.

ETA: Another way to put it is that even if they can't interbreed, it doesn't mean they're separate species. Different species, however, usually can't interbreed. And even if they can, their offspring are usually not fertile. The evidence is that we and Neanderthals did interbreed and there are traces of that in the gene pool.



Hope that clarifies things.

Why wouldnt they! Only takes a coupla logs and some string! SIMPLES!

Originally posted by HappyBunny


Your examples can go either way and it would be biologically acceptable: one species or two. What matters is the gene frequency.

I will repeat. If humans and Neanderthals could interbreed, then they are the same species. Ditto the Denisovans. This is backed up by the genetic evidence--the examples you give do happen but don't invalidate the species definition as I use it. All it means is that species are identified by gene frequencies so the boundaries between them aren't clear.

Ergo, we and Neanderthals (and Denisovans) are the same species. Different subspecies, perhaps, but even that boundary is hazy.

You stick to your field and I'll stick to mine, thanks.

ETA: Another way to put it is that even if they can't interbreed, it doesn't mean they're separate species. Different species, however, usually can't interbreed. And even if they can, their offspring are usually not fertile. The evidence is that we and Neanderthals did interbreed and there are traces of that in the gene pool.



Hope that clarifies things.

Perfectly. It shows that you have your own definition of species based on whether two animals can create a viable offspring.

In other words, you have your own definition of "species."

Fine by me. I wonder what Larus gulls think about it.

Harte