Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ebjoker4 t1_iw59i25 wrote

That's a footprint?

42

MarsupialKing t1_iw5verg wrote

Someone educated on the topic please tell me. Do we consider other hominin species humans? These footprints likely weren't from homo sapiens they say. Is it correct for the post to say human or would hominin have been more appropriate?

282

notinferno t1_iw5w3qu wrote

Replying to MarsupialKing (#516,140)

from the article linked in the comments

>This new age implies that the possible track-makers are individuals more likely from the Neandertal evolutionary lineage. Regardless of the taxon attributed to the Matalascañas footprints, they supplement the existing partial fossil record for the European Middle Pleistocene Hominins being notably the first palaeoanthropological evidence (hominin skeleton or footprints) from the MIS 9 and MIS 8 transition discovered in the Iberian Peninsula, a moment of climatic evolution from warm to cool. Thus, the Matalascañas footprints represent a crucial record for understanding human occupations in Europe in the Pleistocene.

188

skimmily t1_iw5z3xu wrote

So what type of dating helps determine that it’s actually this old?

49

orincoro t1_iw6a5dw wrote

Replying to skimmily (#516,309)

They use radio carbon dating of the sediment it was formed in. The sediment itself is formed from a mix of organic and inorganic material, including bacteria, or plant matter. Sometimes you find spores and seeds. The plant matter in the sediment can be accurately dated to when it stopped growing, because the carbon in it will begin to decay predictably at that moment.

So basically it’s the same as if you were studying a plant, but you’re relying on a relatively smaller sample size, and there’s some error because not all the organic matter dies at the same time. But it gives you a range that is pretty close, within a few thousand years.

(ETA: apparently not for things quite this old).

34

fogobum t1_iw6ddda wrote

Replying to orincoro (#516,769)

Due to the short half life of carbon 14, radio carbon dating is only useful for about 50,000 years.

> In this paper, we report new Optically Stimulated Luminescence dating that places the hominin footprints surface in the range of 295.8 ± 17 ka

46

BobWentToMars t1_iw6rzw9 wrote

Replying to MarsupialKing (#516,140)

I work in the field, basically where you want to draw the line is very variable depending on which academic groups you work with and what is classified as human comes down more to a discussion of behaviour than biology or genus.

Some people here say anything homo is human. But there are not many who would think of habilis and naledi as human. The Hobbit (can't be bothered spelling out the whole name) is often a more grey area. Denisovan, Neanderthal and Sapien are generally pretty safe to be considered as human, especially as we know we have genetic transgressions with them (i.e we fucked and made kids who also made kids). And atleast from a Neanderthal and Sapien stand point, much after the archaeological material contains evidence of behavioural traits we would say are human (Denisovan is harder as archaeology we think is denisovan probably shows the same, but we aren't sure the archaeology is denisovan linked).

Anyway big debate but short hand- most homo species of the middle Pleistocene onwards you can get away with calling Human with some major asterixs here and there.

75

Chubbybellylover888 t1_iw6ufcq wrote

Replying to Ripcord (#516,975)

Yeah the correct term for human species is hominin. This includes the likes of neanderthals, denisovans etc but excludes other great apes.

Hominid is used to describe all the great apes.

6

gomurifle t1_iw6wpgl wrote

How do you even agedate a footprint to 300k years a go? How do they differentiate the age of the rock itself from the footprint?

10

ihateusedusernames t1_iw6yjqs wrote

Replying to ilikepizza2much (#517,263)

There is a distinction between hominID and hominIN. neanderthals and denisovans are frequently considered to be hominins, which implies a closer relationship with homo sapiens; hominids are more distant relatives. As noted above, chimps and bonobos are hominids.

5

MarsupialKing t1_iw70uu6 wrote

Replying to BobWentToMars (#517,488)

Gotcha. I'm somewhat involved in the biology field so it seems a bit like the debate of what exactly constitutes a species amongst animals. Grizzly bears and polar bears create fertile offspring but are clearly different animals, being the easiest example. Thanks for the info. Early humans is one of the most interesting fields of study to me, I just can't handle all the mystery and questions we will never have answers to!

7

C4l4do t1_iw74414 wrote

Watch ancient apocalypse on Netflix. Graham has some very interesting ideas.

17

LingQuery t1_iw7zegt wrote

Replying to orincoro (#516,744)

Yep.

Hominoidea (hominoid: those resembling man): All old-world apes

Hominidea (hominid: those akin to man): Great apes

Hominini (hominin: man-like): humans and chimps

Homo (man): humans and our closest cousins

The proposed subtribe homininan (very man-like) would exclude chimpanzees but include australopithecines.

The less-common hominineae (hominine: those very akin to man(?)) would sit just below the hominids and include gorillas, chimps, and folks while excluding orangutans.

1

kelteshe t1_iw82l74 wrote

Replying to MarsupialKing (#516,140)

Considering the fact that modern human fossils have been found at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, which date back some 360,000 years…. It’s quite possible it was anatomically modern humans. Or at least extremely close.

My bet is that the age of humanity will keep getting older and older the more we discover. And as archeology starts to explore the areas covered by water (but were not covered 12k+ years ago)… our understanding of human history will drastically change to include a lost civilization of modern humans in the last 100k years. A civilization that had the capacity to map the planet, had a understanding of the precessional cycle and the dimensions of the planet. As well as a vast understanding of astronomy and geometry.

6

TheFleebus t1_iw87jrx wrote

Replying to whiteFinn (#518,805)

Scientism isn't a thing. It's a term / idea invented by YEC as a rebuttal to the statement that "faith is not a path to truth". A sort of "I know you are but what am I?". Materialism or Naturalism may be more accurate way of describing people who believe naturalistic evidence as described via scientific methods - even if they personally do not fully understand the methods used.

2

TheFleebus t1_iw88qn4 wrote

Replying to gomurifle (#517,732)

A comment further up said they used Optically Stimulated Luminescence to date the sediment that tuned in to rock. You can read about the dating technique [here](https://www.baylor.edu/geosciences/index.php?id=955929#:~:text=Optically%20stimulated%20luminescence%20(OSL). The rock and the footprint must be the same age as the footprint was made while the sediment was still soft. It was then rapidly covered by more sediment, preserving the impression. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the sediment solidified under the pressure of the overlaying material.

(Edit: fixed link)

1

whiteFinn t1_iwdyvyw wrote

Replying to TheFleebus (#520,324)

Scientism is one of those terms, often twisted to mean something more easily attacked. While I certainly do not believe that science is the only way to truth, what I meant here when I said "scientism", is that just because omeone is a 'scientist', and brands their work as 'science', it does not mean that their oppinions are any more valid, and certainly not to be taken as automatic facts, if they cannot argue for them.

Sceintism is very much a thing.

1

dutchwonder t1_iwj4nrm wrote

Replying to ChaseSweatshirt (#519,385)

Oh no, he has very much earned his reputation as pseudohistorical hack with his terrible research methodology, heavy reliance on old, outdated, and often plain bad secondary sources without doing even basic checks. (For instance, are they even reading the maps they're working with?), and his blatant mischaracterization of the field and studies.

Of course, Graham's explanation for why anyone knowledgeable in the field immediately calls him out for his flagrant and basic mistakes is that they must be in cahoots instead of his "research" being terrible.

3