New study suggests early humans 250,000 years ago were more advanced than thought.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: pheonix358

Oh, come on, Get over it!

Loin clothes were worn by all 'Ancient People' Pyramid builders, Those who sailed the seas in prehistory, Those that constructed great engineering achievements in antiquity.

All the 'Ancient Cool Kids' wore them.

It was the "in thing"

Ted Nugent. Manowar.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: Imhotepic

There are a few 'Controversial' sites in the Americas that indicate earlier habitation by man.

Remember though, most of 'North America' was under huge amounts of ice. If there were upright man in the Americas in prehistory he would have settled in the lowest of the lower US 48, Central and South America.

Nah. Link to jpg of maximum ice coverage.

Harte

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Imhotepic

Videos of suburban preteens killing small game can easily be viewed on youtube.

I doubt kids were allowed along on hunting parties except to observe. Taking down large game involved a variety of methods, all of which were extremely dangerous.

Depends on the hunting method. In cases where they were running animals off the cliff, it seems as if most of the tribe would be there. At one of the buffalo jump sites in Texas they found the remains of a young boy who had died when the animals ran off the cliff.

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: Byrd

Man, you are frigging smart, do you happen to have any info in your skull, about the mutation that enabled our ancestors brain to get bigger as the jaw muscles got smaller, i like to think, that it was a spontaneous mutation, and it did not take that long..

Also, what in the world is happening to our jaw? will it eventually disappear, leaving only a tiny hole?

Not really, but it takes place over a million year span and across several human species.

What actually happens is that we were domesticating ourselves. This same type of change happens in other animals as they become domesticated.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Imhotepic

Videos of suburban preteens killing small game can easily be viewed on youtube.

I doubt kids were allowed along on hunting parties except to observe. Taking down large game involved a variety of methods, all of which were extremely dangerous.

Depends on the hunting method. In cases where they were running animals off the cliff, it seems as if most of the tribe would be there. At one of the buffalo jump sites in Texas they found the remains of a young boy who had died when the animals ran off the cliff.

I remember reading about that.

Someone forgot the rules and let the kid come along. At some point they have to, obviously. Until the hunt is successful however, they should remain at a 'safe' distance. What if the stampede doesn't work and the party gets charged by tons of pissed off herd? Or the pit fall isn't lethal and the wounded animal again, attacks?

A slow frightened youngster in the midst jeopardizes everyone, trying to save the boy gets others killed maybe.

I've watched so many predator hunting nature shows, when the juveniles come along they are noisy, rush to soon, screw everything up. Subsistence hunting is vital to survival of the 'pack', kids stay home or follow in wake.

a reply to: Imhotepic

I no longer live in the region, but, hopefully I'll be going back there in the Fall. I need more physical proof. Anyway here's the gist... which unfolded on a time line doing other activities.

First thing that made me go hmmmmm:
How I found the ramparts... Simple, on the edge of a farm field that I found when I looked it up on Google Earth... which, I can't find it again, because I can't remember the exact location... Let me explain.

I was rambling on a Photography run when I came across a strange, conical hill. I take a lot of Landscape Photography, always use my Jeep to get to some very remote spots... At the time I didn't think anything of Pyramids then because well... what happened next helped me clue in.

When I got home from the ramble. I was thinking images I took, and the strange, uniform, round hill I found by one of the rivers I was shooting. Why not Google Earth it? I looked up the weird round hill on Google Earth, and overladed an infrared mapping... and was shocked by rampart edges that showed under the soil on the fields edge... going up into the Conical Hill. There was a grain field over the base of the hill, till the Hill's steepness stopped the farming activity. I wasn't expecting anything like a rampart. I was actually shooting on the other side, the river side, of the hill. Didn't even think Pyramid until the Google fly by, then, doubted everything, going on about my business.

Clue #2 The Rock Wall:
While Jeeping with a buddy (extreme four wheeling in deep woods - so no expensive camera equipment that may break) I stumbled on a rock wall. I thought the rock wall was highly suspicious... because it was mortar-less.. In the absolute middle of nowhere. In the middle of the Drift-less Area - Like mentioned, I was Jeeping then so I was in the bushes big time. When I found it I was actually answering the call of nature... ahem... While Jeeping you tend to get jostled about so... yep. I was on some trail, the could have been a deer trail (gotta love Jeeps) When I had to stop, halfway on the edge of a treed hill.... I went to the edge of the trail and started my thing, sort of looking around, when I spotted stacked stones at the bottom.

At first I really wanted to think it was an old sluice-dam, or flume, but it was too... fancy, substantial. Now, I realize it may have been the bottom rim of something.

It was in a deep valley, and, only walled on one side,at the bottom, to a height about 5 feet. The other side of the valley 'V' bottom was earth. This was a steep valley, and except for the rock wall, the earth went hard up on both sides, just one had a rock wall in the base that 'L'd down into a trough of sorts... Again I filed it away... not quite making the connection because there are trees growing in them... Bushes, plants.. hell it looks like a hill! It was weird finding a rock wall, mortar-less, but the old lumber business left strange stuff everywhere just out in the woods…. But it was mortar-less!

Now, after some of the work by Prof. Scott Wolter I think that maybe it is the side of the base of a Pyramid.. I am not kidding.

I know I can retrace my steps, because I have the photo run from it, and can use my my work-flow (images took in the photo-run you never use of publish work) to retrace, the coordinates in the meta data… I just need to put the vacation days, and the scratch together to put get some proof.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Imhotepic

Videos of suburban preteens killing small game can easily be viewed on youtube.

I doubt kids were allowed along on hunting parties except to observe. Taking down large game involved a variety of methods, all of which were extremely dangerous.

Depends on the hunting method. In cases where they were running animals off the cliff, it seems as if most of the tribe would be there. At one of the buffalo jump sites in Texas they found the remains of a young boy who had died when the animals ran off the cliff.

I remember reading about that.

Someone forgot the rules and let the kid come along. At some point they have to, obviously. Until the hunt is successful however, they should remain at a 'safe' distance. What if the stampede doesn't work and the party gets charged by tons of pissed off herd? Or the pit fall isn't lethal and the wounded animal again, attacks?

A slow frightened youngster in the midst jeopardizes everyone, trying to save the boy gets others killed maybe.

I've watched so many predator hunting nature shows, when the juveniles come along they are noisy, rush to soon, screw everything up. Subsistence hunting is vital to survival of the 'pack', kids stay home or follow in wake.

I have to wonder just what they, the ancients considered too young to hunt. After all the average life span wasn't that long, something like 30 years. So what we would consider being a young child might not have been seen that way back then. Its just as likely that children as young as 8 or 9 may have participated in the hunting trips. Now I'm not saying they were the actual hunters themselves (though they may have been) more like a support staff or sorts, the ones to clean the kill, prep it for storage/ cooking for the tribe, or even advance tracking of prey a head of the hunting party. To be honest I don't know what part they would have played, though likely Byrd or Harte could better answer that, all I know is the children had far more responsibilities than today's kids. The idea that childhood is a time of care free expression is a relatively new concept, and not something that our relatives from even as little as 120 years ago would have shared.

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

I have to wonder just what they, the ancients considered too young to hunt. After all the average life span wasn't that long, something like 30 years.

The day a young man comes home with large game killed with weapons fashioned by his own hand is the day they began to let him come along with the men on the hunt.

Up until then he struggles to listen and observe the lessons given by experienced seniors in the tribe, village, family group whatever. Not everyone gets it. Some don't even try, there are lots of other things to do besides hunt back at 'home'.

Hunters are a skilled and select group amongst any successful 'civilization'.

Edit:

Its just as likely that children as young as 8 or 9 may have participated in the hunting trips.

Not likely, if a wounded animal takes off they need to be strong to keep up with the chase. Hunting is usually opportunistic, opportunity arise suddenly, they need to be silent and coordinated to stalk and close. Youngsters are fidgety, noisy tramping through the brush compared to the skilled. They would never risk either injury, loss of game from ignorance or being delayed by slower members. The hunting party is a team a cohesive unit. Kids aren't allowed.

This is not 'primitive behavior" this is a pinnacle of human achievement.

Boys hone their craft, fashion their weapons and skillfully employ them to bring home small game.

Most of us couldn't hold a candle to this. How primitive does this make us seem by comparison?

originally posted by: intrptr
Most of us couldn't hold a candle to this. How primitive does this make us seem by comparison?

Yes, I see what you mean, modern hunters using automatic weapons and trucks, to kill large mammals instead of birds, total savages

a reply to: Marduk

Yes, I see what you mean, modern hunters using automatic weapons and trucks, to kill large mammals instead of birds, total savages

Not in that village.

But I get your point, the savages are the ones slaughtering species to the brink of extinction, not to cull or eat them just get a bit of Rhino horn or elephant tusk, make a gorilla palm ashtray or a baby orphan to sell to the highest bidder.

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge
Now I'm not saying they were the actual hunters themselves (though they may have been) more like a support staff or sorts, the ones to clean the kill, prep it for storage/ cooking for the tribe, or even advance tracking of prey a head of the hunting party. To be honest I don't know what part they would have played, though likely Byrd or Harte could better answer that, all I know is the children had far more responsibilities than today's kids.

Since there is certainly no way to know this, your guess is as good as Byrd's or mine.
In the event of running animals off a cliff or into a pit, I can see fairly young boys being used to guide the herd, along with adults, of course. Your other speculations make sense too, except the tracking part, which would require advanced skills for a youngster. Perhaps going along with a tracker as training, though.

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge
The idea that childhood is a time of care free expression is a relatively new concept, and not something that our relatives from even as little as 120 years ago would have shared.

This is a fact. The concept of adolescence is new. You can even find modern arguments that such a state doesn't actually exist.

Harte

I am baffled at how "scientists" throw out these huge numbers as if they are unquestionably accurate. Carbon dating will reveal the truth when "scientists" stop making up numbers and stick to empirical evidence. If there are no remains to carbon-date, then they should stop making up numbers.

#CarbonDateLucy
#CarbonDateLucy
#CarbonDateLucy
#CarbonDateLucy
#CarbonDateLucy

Early man look caucasian in OP.

lol


i hope this is what goes into history books... oh...

originally posted by: cooperton
I am baffled at how "scientists" throw out these huge numbers as if they are unquestionably accurate.

Isn't it a little odd to be castigating the scientists who worked on this site a wrote the paper based solely on a print media article when you haven't read the paper for yourself? Even the article says "about 250,000 years". That's hardly an endorsement of accuracy or precision. And again, until the paper itself becomes available, it's a little premature to rush to judgement isn't it?

Carbon dating will reveal the truth when "scientists" stop making up numbers and stick to empirical evidence.

Which numbers were made up? You're jumping the gun with the assumptions. Not only that, 14C dating wouldn't have been used on a site or on implements of this age. even with accelerated mass spectrometry counting individual carbon atoms to give a precise ratio of 12C to 14C atoms, the degree of accuracy you can achieve tops out at 100 KA. There are many other dating methods available and even IF 14C were being used(provided the potential dates were within the range this method could be used), it is NEVER the only dating method used to ascertain a potential date.

If there are no remains to carbon-date, then they should stop making up numbers.

Did you even read the article from the OP? They were dating and identifying animal proteins left on lithics used to butcher the animals in question. So again, specifically which numbers are made up?

#CarbonDateLucy
#CarbonDateLucy
#CarbonDateLucy
#CarbonDateLucy
#CarbonDateLucy

Can't carbon date fossilized remains that are over 3 million years old.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Can't carbon date fossilized remains that are over 3 million years old.

Which reverts to my point - why are you under the assumption they are 3 million years old? They didn't even try to carbon date it. If they would, the truth would be revealed.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

Can't carbon date fossilized remains that are over 3 million years old.

Which reverts to my point - why are you under the assumption they are 3 million years old? They didn't even try to carbon date it. If they would, the truth would be revealed.

#

Yeah, they dated it using the potassium argon method and then later with the more accurate argon argon method.

Its accurate up to 1.25 billion years

Why do you religious types never bother to do your own research, where is the payoff in looking laughably uninformed all the time

a reply to: cooperton

The only thing being revealed here is your scientific illiteracy and absolute ognorance towards the multitude of dating methods available in Anthropology and Paleontology. Why would they use 14C to date FOSSILS? Do you understand how fossilization/permineralization even works? The organic material that is tested via 14C no longer exists. It has been completely replaced and mineralized, It can't be tested that way even if they wanted to. As usual, you pick a tiny piece of a post to attack and ignore everything else because you don't have the most basic understanding of how any of this works.

I'll ask again... which numbers are made up? Did you actually read the citation from the OP? Or are you just running wild with assumptions based on parroting info from AIG's sites per your normal routine? It's beyond ignorant to make accusations based entirely on ignorant assumptions when I know you haven't read the actual paper the article was based on.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

The only thing being revealed here is your scientific illiteracy and absolute ognorance towards the multitude of dating methods available in Anthropology and Paleontology.

Terrible, terrible Ognorance

a reply to: Marduk

Damn you and your eagle eye!