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.

 

Humans 80,000 Years Older Than Previously Thought?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I saw this article on National Geographic.com today..The thread is the Headline.

I find it interesting that now we are getting closer to the time frame for some of the more "unconventional" claims made about finding tools that are 400,000 years old. I believe--without checking--that those mining sites in California had recovered objects believed to be 450,00 years old? (could be wrong here)

So..here we are..constantly pushing back dates from homo sapiens yet again...

Sorry I couldn't post a link but the gist of it is that these scientists are saying such tools couldn't have been made from some of the more primitive strain of humanity.

So..when do we start looking back at some of these "crackpot" claims? When will the scientific community start saying "Mea Culpa" for all their finger shaking? Isn't it time that we say to everyone "Keep an open mind here...history is ever evolving. After all..it would be criminal to run countries the way some of these scientists operate. It's like an adult version of "I'm smarter than you" or the equivilent of a scientist penis contest (sorry female scientists the world over)

God I love to spend my workday on this site. This is my first thread..so don't make me regret giving up my cherry here!

BY THE BY--Could someone else link the previous threads about all the discoveries about human settlements and tools whose age has been claimed as bogus? I recall the California one but also remember something about a scientist in Mexico ruining her career on some VERY old objects she found.

Sorry..but I have to appear to be workng too!



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
oldest foot prints ever found

is this the story you meant? it's not exactly what you described but it's the closest i could find.

i think, personally, that it is a pretty strange assumption that we are being fed, constantly, that hominids wallowed around in the stone age for 2.5 million years and then built up to this level of technology in 5000 odd years.

to dismiss the possibility that humans, or other hominids, couldn't have reached this level, exceeded it and collapsed to nothing again in all that time is just blinkered thinking.


EDIT:sorry, welcome to ATS, nice first post.

[edit on 4/12/08 by pieman]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
In my lifetime the earth has more than doubled in age.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
That's 82008 years and six days then?



[edit on 4-12-2008 by moonrat]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


It is in the Daily News section online. The atricle is Humans 80,000 Years Older Than Previously Thought?

Here is some of the info:
From National Geographic:


news.nationalgeographic.com...
Modern humans may have evolved more than 80,000 years earlier than previously thought, according to a new study of sophisticated stone tools found in Ethiopia.

The tools were uncovered in the 1970s at the archaeological site of Gademotta, in the Ethiopian Rift Valley. But it was not until this year that new dating techniques revealed the tools to be far older than the oldest known Homo sapien bones, which are around 195,000 years old.

Using argon-argon dating—a technique that compares different isotopes of the element argon—researchers determined that the volcanic ash layers entombing the tools at Gademotta date back at least 276,000 years.

Many of the tools found are small blades, made using a technique that is thought to require complex cognitive abilities and nimble fingers, according to study co-author and Berkeley Geochronology Center director Paul Renne.

Some archaeologists believe that these tools and similar ones found elsewhere are associated with the emergence of the modern human species, Homo sapiens.

"It seems that we were technologically more advanced at an earlier time that we had previously thought," said study co-author Leah Morgan, from the University of California, Berkeley.

The findings are published in the December issue of the journal Geology.

Desirable Location

Gademotta was an attractive place for people to settle, due to its close proximity to fresh water in Lake Ziway and access to a source of hard, black volcanic glass, known as obsidian.

"Due to its lack of crystalline structure, obsidian glass is one of the best raw materials to use for making tools," Morgan explained.

In many parts of the world, archaeologists see a leap around 300,000 years ago in Stone Age technology from the large and crude hand-axes and picks of the so-called Acheulean period to the more delicate and diverse points and blades of the Middle Stone Age.

At other sites in Ethiopia, such as Herto in the Afar region northeast of Gademotta, the transition does not occur until much later, around 160,000 years ago, according to argon dating. This variety in dates supports the idea of a gradual transition in technology.



THE OLD FASHIONED WAY LOL. NOT THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.


 

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 4/12/08 by Jbird]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I believe this is the article you were talking about
please click here



Many of the tools found are small blades, made using a technique that is thought to require complex cognitive abilities and nimble fingers, according to study co-author and Berkeley Geochronology Center director Paul Renne. Some archaeologists believe that these tools and similar ones found elsewhere are associated with the emergence of the modern human species, Homo sapiens. "It seems that we were technologically more advanced at an earlier time that we had previously thought," said study co-author Leah Morgan, from the University of California, Berkeley.


This is a very fascinating article. Thanks to the OP for brining it to our attention. It does seem to support theories that we were way more technologically advanced way earlier. and it only makes sens: how could we have been in the stone age for so long and then suddenly only five thousand years ago suddenly developed all that culture, agrivulture, technology, etc?
It reminds me of the cyclical myan calendar theory or something like that.

ETA: woops must have posted at about the same time

[edit on 4-12-2008 by FunSized]

(quote tags)

[edit on 4/12/08 by Jbird]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlantiswatusi
I saw this article on National Geographic.com today..The thread is the Headline.

I find it interesting that now we are getting closer to the time frame for some of the more "unconventional" claims made about finding tools that are 400,000 years old. I believe--without checking--that those mining sites in California had recovered objects believed to be 450,00 years old? (could be wrong here)

So..here we are..constantly pushing back dates from homo sapiens yet again...

Sorry I couldn't post a link but the gist of it is that these scientists are saying such tools couldn't have been made from some of the more primitive strain of humanity.



Here's a link to your story:
Nat Geo Story

I'm not sure what hoax you referred to above in California. The only one I remember was the Calaveras skull hoax.

Could you be more specific?

Plus, if ancient man was in California, do you really think we could find so much evidence for extremely ancient humans in Africa, yet never find a trace of them in California?

Most of the claims I've seen that scientists have dismissed involved stories about objects found in coal, which mysteriously have since disappeared, or show no evidence of ever being embedded in coal, or are in the possession of young earth creationists that won't allow any testing to be done.


Originally posted by atlantiswatusi
BY THE BY--Could someone else link the previous threads about all the discoveries about human settlements and tools whose age has been claimed as bogus? I recall the California one but also remember something about a scientist in Mexico ruining her career on some VERY old objects she found.

Virginia Steen-McIntyre.
Here's what I wrote about her supposed "destroyed" career a few months ago:

Originally posted by Harte

Steen-McIntyre's work involved dating a handful of artifacts found in Mexico. These artifacts were never hidden away, the findings were (eventually) professionally published, and subsequent investigations showed why the dates she arrived at were likely wrong.

She herself didn't believe the dates she got - they went back to the time of Homo Erectus. But she published them anyway because of a political situation that was about to shut down the excavation - and later it was closed for a number of years due to political gamesmanship.

This wiki page can tell you abou the "controversy." Please note that that particular page states near the end that:


...Steen-McIntyre’s career as a geologist was effectively finished.

Which is pretty much untrue, as her presentation of a paper this year concerning this topic at a conference in 2008 would indicate.

More on this Here.

This is from page 4 of the "Artifact from Atlantis?" thread


Harte



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte...

Much thanks for that info on Virginia. She was the one for sure..also..I think the objects in CA weren't the same from those "coal hoaxs" Wasn't that something about a gold chain being found in coal?

I believe the information was from a mine in California where in the late 1800's maybe early 1900'2 they found tools in the rocks that have been said to be 400,00 years old. I think they have disappeared but can't be sure.

My main point is that we keep coming closer to the number of 400,00 which is a age that has been claimed on different tools found in different sites. I see a lot of stuff on here from all sides that sounds to be solid at face value--but our past keeps marching ever backward.

In my opinion..it makes legends like Atlantis more probable as we push back our development!

HARTE--I'm going to come to you on stuff..I may not like some of the things you've said in other posts..but I like the informastion you bring to the table!



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlantiswatusi
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte...

Much thanks for that info on Virginia. She was the one for sure..also..I think the objects in CA weren't the same from those "coal hoaxs" Wasn't that something about a gold chain being found in coal?

Everybody and his mother, apparently, has been found "in coal" at one time or the other, somewhere in the world.



Originally posted by atlantiswatusiI believe the information was from a mine in California where in the late 1800's maybe early 1900'2 they found tools in the rocks that have been said to be 400,00 years old. I think they have disappeared but can't be sure.

If I'm remembering what your remembering, it was stone artifacts, now that I think of it. And they matched the stone artifacts of the Indians in the vicinity perfectly. The argument there was do you really think that Native Americans have not progressed in their stoneworking over a period of 400,000 years?

Anyway, google up the Calaveras skull story. There may have been some tools associated with it. Here's a starter for you:
Calaveras skull.
Note links at bottom of that page.
Turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by the miners, but it fooled California's State Geologist, making it a famous incident, and that's probably why it's still brought up, because a "scientist" believed it and now conspiracy theorists can claim the State Geologist of California was "silenced" over the matter, or some such! LOL


Originally posted by atlantiswatusi
My main point is that we keep coming closer to the number of 400,00 which is a age that has been claimed on different tools found in different sites. I see a lot of stuff on here from all sides that sounds to be solid at face value--but our past keeps marching ever backward.

In my opinion..it makes legends like Atlantis more probable as we push back our development!

Well, I think you know what I think on Atlantis, and there's no need to "push back" any farther than we already have to account for Atlantis, if you choose to believe it existed. After all, it couldn't be much more than 13,000 years old or so.


Originally posted by atlantiswatusiHARTE--I'm going to come to you on stuff..I may not like some of the things you've said in other posts..but I like the informastion you bring to the table!

That's a very kind thing to say, Watusi.

You're welcome to shimmy right on over and I'll help you if I can, but if I were you I'd try the search function. That's how I find my old posts here, usually, when I have to repost on something I thought I had already shot completely dead.

You know, the zombie pseudo-archaeologists. They and their Dropa Stones keep rising from the grave around here.


Harte



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
One day Edgar Cayce will be proven right imo.We have been here much longer than we think.The date will get pushed back even further in the coming years.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
You may be referring to the Calico site or more properly the Calico Early Man Archaeological Site.

At this site 60,000+ stone tools have been found dating back to 134,000-200,000 years ago.

Most of scientific community considers them to be geofacts, stones that look somewhat human made but made by geological action.

Problems with the site:

The lack of other evidence of human activity

The deep antiquity of the site (there is no other support evidence of mankind being in the new world at this time

The sheer number of possible tools, up to 60,000 - and these not found anywhere else

There is a long running and highly detailed discussion of this at the Hall of Ma'at, bewarned this thread gets hot and heavy and requires the prior knowledge of stone tool manufacturing idioms to be understood

Calico tool discussion



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Tricky63
 


Yes the date is going back as more and more evidence is found to support earlier dates for the start of various parts of what we define as civilization. The 5,000 year date has been long out the window by the way.

Of course the key point is to define what civilization is and how you measure it. By some measures you can take it back to 9,000 BC and by others to 14,000 BC.

Cayce doesn't really figure into the mix, most if not all his predictions in regards to ancient humans haven't come true.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Tricky63
 


Yes the date is going back as more and more evidence is found to support earlier dates for the start of various parts of what we define as civilization. The 5,000 year date has been long out the window by the way.

Of course the key point is to define what civilization is and how you measure it. By some measures you can take it back to 9,000 BC and by others to 14,000 BC.


Hans,

Wouldn't this depend on what definition of civilization you use?

After all, most such definitions require the use of writing, a social network of specialized duties, a government and a permanent (or at least semi-permanent) settlement, no?

What culture from 9,000 BC can lay claim to these criteria?

Harte



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I erred in making a statment about atlantis without some explination:

What I meant to say was...as we keep pushing back the time line for homo sapiens and their "development" We must keep an open mind and not discount that an advanced civilization could have existed before.

With so many holes..the point I will hammer home repeatedly is is is irresponsible to say such and such could NOT have existed because we haven't discovered it yet.

Forget Atlantis...I believe it is a fascinating story...but just that. It's just so easy to throw that damn name around everything I speak of a unknown culture.

HARTE--what I mean is that I have tried to look for the hoax parts. Maybe I need to expand my parameters but I keep coming back to some of the same tired sites that talk abotu the "consciousness" of Atlantis, the crystals, physic crap, flying vechicles. I think someone watched the Disney verison of Atlantis and got carried away. The skull thing I have known about for a while as a fake. After all..anything George Lucas decides to put in a movie must be bullcrap....ooops..the church is after me now! LOL

Lets just say..that as a new face here...I'm also looking for help with some of this stuff because the web is flushed so full of crap. Plus..I'm getitng to know my way around the postngs and my options here...So..I will improve! I will admit..I couldn't find the links I needed. So I passed the buck!


Thanks above guys for the links and information..I'm going to give them a once over!



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
JBIRD--

My bad on the link problems with the article. I though by identifying where the material came from I would cover myself. I didn't read the ENTIRE user agreement. I think I have the gist now.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I wonder how fast most Americans could learn to make good tools from rocks after a sit x scenario?

Not as easy as it looks.

We have been around a long time.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlantiswatusi
I erred in making a statment about atlantis without some explination:

What I meant to say was...as we keep pushing back the time line for homo sapiens and their "development" We must keep an open mind and not discount that an advanced civilization could have existed before.

With so many holes..the point I will hammer home repeatedly is is is irresponsible to say such and such could NOT have existed because we haven't discovered it yet.

Well, I can certainly agree with this.

However, I'm pretty sure that even the hardened skeptics around here (such as myself) don't absolutely preclude ancient civilizations from possibly existing.

They may have existed. But what certainly doesn't exist (as far as we know) is any evidence for these extremely ancient unknown civilizations.

Also, and I know that I've about beaten this horse to death, it depends on what you mean by civilization.

Note the criteria (and that's a partial list) that I mentioned in my earlier post.


Originally posted by atlantiswatusi
Forget Atlantis...I believe it is a fascinating story...but just that. It's just so easy to throw that damn name around everything I speak of a unknown culture.

It's used a little too loosely for my tastes as well. But as long as one clarifies what ione means by it's usage - that some ancient unknown civilization is being referred to here and not necessarily Plato's fable - then it's okay.

After all, even if Atlantis existed, it's absolutely certain that it wasn't named Atlantis. Plato tells us that the names were all "hellenized" when he talks about it in the Critias.


Originally posted by atlantiswatusi
HARTE--what I mean is that I have tried to look for the hoax parts. Maybe I need to expand my parameters but I keep coming back to some of the same tired sites that talk abotu the "consciousness" of Atlantis, the crystals, physic crap, flying vechicles. I think someone watched the Disney verison of Atlantis and got carried away. The skull thing I have known about for a while as a fake. After all..anything George Lucas decides to put in a movie must be bullcrap....ooops..the church is after me now! LOL

I wasn't aware of this being in a movie. You sure you're not thinking of those ridiculous crystal skulls?

The Calaveras skull was (at least) a real human skull.


Originally posted by atlantiswatusiLets just say..that as a new face here...I'm also looking for help with some of this stuff because the web is flushed so full of crap. Plus..I'm getitng to know my way around the postngs and my options here...So..I will improve! I will admit..I couldn't find the links I needed. So I passed the buck!


Thanks above guys for the links and information..I'm going to give them a once over!

I started posting some of this stuff in forums like this one precisely because I couldn't find it easily through searches. A lot of threads from sites like this one would come up in my google searches, and I started out putting in those threads links to what "true believers" here call the "mainstream" or "orthodox" view.

I'm not exactly wedded to any one particular viewpoint, but I must say that when I was finally able to read both sides of one of these crazy stories, the "unorthodox" side always looked sillier and sillier, if not outright fraudulent.

So, with that in mind, here's some very tasty links for you to take and save. I'd check with these first if I were you under any and all circumstances:
www.antiquityofman.com...

Doug's Archaeology Site

Sitchin is wrong

Wild side of Geoarchaeology

Catchpenny's Mysteries of Ancient Egypt

Talk Origins Archive

Site Map at Tour Egypt

Frank Doernenburg's Mysteries of the Past

That should hold you for a while.

Harte

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Harte]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I think you also have to take into account that there are geniuses in any species. Not everybody is the same intelligence. So just as there are a few modern humans who are crazy geniuses today, there were probably about the same percentage of geniuses back 10,000 years ago. I don't think it's too hard to imagine that there were super genius Homo Erectus types running around, who were able to make really good obsidian tools while the rest of the people in their group are making crude tools from chert or some other rock.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Wow! A sane discussion, I'm taken aback, LOL

Harte: Yep, it depends on what criteria you come up with. My comments on 14,000 are related to the findings that some of these criteria were met earlier (pottery-food storage by the Jomon) yet they failed to meet the other criteria. The same for Hatalcuyuk. etc

Stone tools: I learned to make them while at college, it takes a few months to make servicable one. But for a tool to slice things up only a few days of bashing about. To get to the level of well formed spear points a months to a year probably. Professionals who started in the late sixties can now produce tools that equal what early man could do. I think only some of the magnificent flint work of the Aztecs and others of ceremonial tools has not yet been equaled (I might be wrong I don't follow that field anymore)

Other civilizations: Yep, small ones will probably be found. Mainly in the temperate and jungle areas where they based their constructions on wood and dirt.

Advanced civilizations, unlikely that we'd have missed one. However the farther you go back the harder it would be to detect one. Basically world wide civilizations create a massive footprint. A city state or a collection of villages made out of wood would not.

Example if a genius of too arose in one of the off shoots of Homo around say 450,000 years ago and they created a more advanced (bronze age lets say) and reached a population of say 100,000 and were based in an area that was geologically unstable or otherwise destroyed by an act of nature - and they hadn't spread much. We might not find them.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Well, I found two links about stories of objects in coal or objects just out of the known time line. Not sure if either of the websites can be trusted, but many of the stories I have read before and they also provide sources.

www.strangemag.com...

www.rense.com...

The second website goes through different theories of how the objects got there. Personally I believe that humans have been around for much longer then thought, but I don't think that there was once some ancient civilization that had technology to rival our own.

Even though things like batteries and spark plugs have been found (assuming they aren't hoaxs.), if ancient humans had so much technology we would be finding something more then gold chains and crap. Course we have to keep in mind that we can't just dig up the whole world to find out.

I've actually heard of another theory posing that another planet existed in our solar system with life and was somehow destroyed. I guess that makes sense to a point that parts of the other world would be scattered all over the place, maybe it even has some connection to the moon.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join