Australians 65,000 years.

Where have we been?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12987
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:42 pm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... 000-years/

Recent excavation work on the earliest people in Australia are dated at 65,000 years ago. That implies an arrival by sea, which is quite astounding considering the primitive technology. It also pushes back the date for humans in Oz by quite a time. The native Australians have a long history.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23692
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:08 pm

It's not like sea travel was a technological breakthrough.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12987
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:42 pm

That is true Gawd, but this was not a short hop like a river crossing. It was a substantial distance across open ocean. A good dugout canoe could do it, but not a rough raft. For a very technologically primitive people, it was a BIG step.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23692
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:28 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:That is true Gawd, but this was not a short hop like a river crossing. It was a substantial distance across open ocean. A good dugout canoe could do it, but not a rough raft. For a very technologically primitive people, it was a BIG step.
Kon Tiki.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12987
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:54 pm

Kon Tiki was quite sophisticated. Building it required a lot of understanding.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11968
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:00 pm

Timor Sea

The Timor Sea is mostly shallow, with only a narrow strip near Timor that is deeper. 65,000 years ago would have been in the middle of the Wisconsin Glaciation, when sea levels were much lower than now, so the little islands there now would have been much larger, and there likely would have been more of them. It would have been no where near the feat then to cross to Australia as it would be now.

The Natives of Haida Gwai travelled all over the region in dugout canoes, raiding villages on the mainland, Vancouver Island, and southern Alaska. The ocean around there is not serene.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12987
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:59 pm

All true, Oleg.
But we should not forget that 65,000 years ago was a time when our image of humans were of highly primitive, stone wielding savages. My own view is that might need to be modified. The people of the time were probably just as smart as modern humans. If they made dug out canoes with fire and with stone tools, that would require considerable skill and considerable smarts. Crossing a body of ocean, even shallow with lots of islands, requires a vessel that can tolerate turbulence. Not a roughly built raft.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23692
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:10 pm

It's one step from building hogans to building sea-worthy rafts.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:23 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The people of the time were probably just as smart as modern humans. If they made dug out canoes with fire and with stone tools, that would require considerable skill and considerable smarts. Crossing a body of ocean, even shallow with lots of islands, requires a vessel that can tolerate turbulence. Not a roughly built raft.
I'm OK with a 65,000 year old arrival of modern humans in Australia, although I would like some more evidence. Frankly, the issue that interests me is how H. Floresiensis got to just above Australia (Indonesia). Homo Habilis split from Australopithecus five million years ago. It would seem that our ape forefathers got around the planet quite a bit. :D

"New 2017 research suggests that H. floresiensis was descended from the same (presumably Australopithecine) ancestor as Homo habilis, making it a "sister species" to either H. habilis or to a minimally habilis-erectus-ergaster-sapiens clade, and its line much more ancient than Homo erectus itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23692
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:33 am

I'm weak on the human "Island miniaturization" idea. I mean, if that worked the English would all be three feet tall, right?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19012
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:48 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Kon Tiki was quite sophisticated. Building it required a lot of understanding.
I saw the movie. Nothing but a floating raft with a sail of limited use (no keel).

So.....what was so sophisticated about Kon Tiki or using any floating raft to go where wind and waves may take you?

Seems to me the "issue" is what was the mix of desperation to leave where you were to the curiosity of exploration given they were all one way trips?

50K years later with very high tech, North America was "discovered" by accident.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12987
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:04 am

Thor Heyerdahl studied native south American raft building for some time, and even carried out experiments to make sure that the way he made use of native materials was strong enough. It was based on balsa logs which are among the lightest and most buoyant woods. He used hemp ropes, which are quite sophisticated in their own right. That was not a rough raft put together by school boys to play on at their local water hole.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19012
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:09 am

Typical Lance.

Words.......but no engagement.

Silly. You need "more tech" in your communication. Or perhaps just symbols from the Dream Land. Better than the nothing you think is a response.

How high tech is wood that floats and ropes that tie? Could anyone living off the ocean by fishing somehow fall upon such high technologies?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:29 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I'm weak on the human "Island miniaturization" idea. I mean, if that worked the English would all be three feet tall, right?
It would seem you are correct. Australopithecus averaged 1.4 metres in height ( 4 feet six inches). If Homo floresiensis was 1.1 metres (3 feet six inches) and evolved from Australopithecus, there doesn't seem to have been much miniaturisation at all. Additionally, considering we don't have many examples to make a confident statistical assessment, I think we may be able to rule out any miniaturisation in the future.

Can you imagine how different the world would be if there was still another "dumber" living human ancestor on the planet? Would we have made them slaves like horses? Keep them as pets? Would it be like the fourth original Planet of the Apes film? I have no idea! :D

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12987
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:06 am

Recent discoveries have suggested that over the past few million years, there were lots of human relatives. Homer saps has been around for 350,000 years, and our close relatives have been going extinct over that period. What does that tell us ?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23692
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:22 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Recent discoveries have suggested that over the past few million years, there were lots of human relatives. Homer saps has been around for 350,000 years, and our close relatives have been going extinct over that period. What does that tell us ?
That Lee Berger is right.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:37 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Recent discoveries have suggested that over the past few million years, there were lots of human relatives. Homer saps has been around for 350,000 years, and our close relatives have been going extinct over that period. What does that tell us ?
I think we have to think about it in in terms of temporary land bridges. Modern humans are 195,000 years. However, five million years ago when Homo floresiensis made its way to South Indonesia.

I simply can't find any direct information on land bridges to Indonesia from East Africa 5 million years ago.

What gets me, is that if Homo floresiensis made it to Indonesia, then why don't we also see Australopithecus or Homo Habilis in Asia?
:?:

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12987
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:47 am

The thing is, Matthew, we do not know any of the evolutionary pathways.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11968
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by OlegTheBatty » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:29 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I'm weak on the human "Island miniaturization" idea. I mean, if that worked the English would all be three feet tall, right?
It would seem you are correct. Australopithecus averaged 1.4 metres in height ( 4 feet six inches). If Homo floresiensis was 1.1 metres (3 feet six inches) and evolved from Australopithecus, there doesn't seem to have been much miniaturisation at all. Additionally, considering we don't have many examples to make a confident statistical assessment, I think we may be able to rule out any miniaturisation in the future.

Can you imagine how different the world would be if there was still another "dumber" living human ancestor on the planet? Would we have made them slaves like horses? Keep them as pets? Would it be like the fourth original Planet of the Apes film? I have no idea! :D
Elect them president of the United States.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11968
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by OlegTheBatty » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:36 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I'm weak on the human "Island miniaturization" idea. I mean, if that worked the English would all be three feet tall, right?
1 meter, to be exact. That's why the Vikings had such an easy time of it. Of course, now they are all descendants of Vikings and have only partially miniaturized.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34854
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Gord » Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:58 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I'm weak on the human "Island miniaturization" idea. I mean, if that worked the English would all be three feet tall, right?
I thought they were? Until the migration period, of course, when continentals immigrated and bred with their short asses.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10792
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Poodle » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:48 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I'm weak on the human "Island miniaturization" idea. I mean, if that worked the English would all be three feet tall, right?
We ARE all three feet tall. Got anything against that, Tree Man?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10792
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Poodle » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:57 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I'm weak on the human "Island miniaturization" idea. I mean, if that worked the English would all be three feet tall, right?
1 meter, to be exact. That's why the Vikings had such an easy time of it. Of course, now they are all descendants of Vikings and have only partially miniaturized.
Our latest genetic survey has interesting results. It appears to point out that there is no trace of 'Anglo Saxons' in the modern record. As we know they were here and stayed here, it suggests that their particular genetic makeup had arrived before the people did. We may have a missing immigration period.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34854
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Australians 65,000 years.

Post by Gord » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:47 am

The Larsen B ice shelf, early humans in Australia, and the upcoming US solar eclipse:

[bbvideo=560,315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolH--I-h_c[/bbvideo]
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?