>>Fossilized human skulls found in a cave in Greece may force a rewrite of the human migration timeline yet again. Archaeologists have dated one of the skulls to about 210,000 years old – roughly 150,000 years older than the previous record-holder for earliest modern human remains in Europe.<<

More and more questions!

https://newatlas.com/human-skull-greece-oldest-europe/60507/

It’s a rich tapestry.

Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.

Bubblecar said:

It’s a rich tapestry.

Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.

Most prehistory remains are based on a handful of finds, which in this case represent the fossil head and the fossil date. Just what information do you require to give it validity?

PermeateFree said:

>>Fossilized human skulls found in a cave in Greece may force a rewrite of the human migration timeline yet again. Archaeologists have dated one of the skulls to about 210,000 years old – roughly 150,000 years older than the previous record-holder for earliest modern human remains in Europe.<<

More and more questions!

https://newatlas.com/human-skull-greece-oldest-europe/60507/

This is truly weird. Is there an independent expert opinion?

The two skulls, dubbed Apidima 1 and 2, were from different species of human living at different times. Apidima 1 was determined to be a Homo sapiens specimen, characterized by the skull’s rounded back. Certain more primitive features were mixed in too, but this is to be expected for its age – humans didn’t reach “full modernity” until about 50,000 years ago.

Apidima 2, meanwhile, was unmistakably Neanderthal in origin. It had a thick, rounded brow ridge, and other minor characteristics of this related species.

But perhaps the most interesting thing about the two skulls is their ages. Although they were found in the same piece of rock, just 30 cm apart, they were separated by roughly 40,000 years in time. Apidima 2 lived about 170,000 years ago – well within the time frame of Neanderthals in Europe – while Apidima 1 was dated to be 210,000 years old.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

It’s a rich tapestry.

Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.

Most prehistory remains are based on a handful of finds, which in this case represent the fossil head and the fossil date. Just what information do you require to give it validity?

I was agreeing that this find is significant, and should provide a cautionary note for those constructing detailed prehistoric timelines with inadequate data.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

>>Fossilized human skulls found in a cave in Greece may force a rewrite of the human migration timeline yet again. Archaeologists have dated one of the skulls to about 210,000 years old – roughly 150,000 years older than the previous record-holder for earliest modern human remains in Europe.<<

More and more questions!

https://newatlas.com/human-skull-greece-oldest-europe/60507/

This is truly weird. Is there an independent expert opinion?

The two skulls, dubbed Apidima 1 and 2, were from different species of human living at different times. Apidima 1 was determined to be a Homo sapiens specimen, characterized by the skull’s rounded back. Certain more primitive features were mixed in too, but this is to be expected for its age – humans didn’t reach “full modernity” until about 50,000 years ago.

Apidima 2, meanwhile, was unmistakably Neanderthal in origin. It had a thick, rounded brow ridge, and other minor characteristics of this related species.

But perhaps the most interesting thing about the two skulls is their ages. Although they were found in the same piece of rock, just 30 cm apart, they were separated by roughly 40,000 years in time. Apidima 2 lived about 170,000 years ago – well within the time frame of Neanderthals in Europe – while Apidima 1 was dated to be 210,000 years old.

An explanation is given in the next portion of your quote.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

It’s a rich tapestry.

Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.

Most prehistory remains are based on a handful of finds, which in this case represent the fossil head and the fossil date. Just what information do you require to give it validity?

I was agreeing that this find is significant, and should provide a cautionary note for those constructing detailed prehistoric timelines with inadequate data.

What do you require as adequate information, other than the very strong evidence given?

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Most prehistory remains are based on a handful of finds, which in this case represent the fossil head and the fossil date. Just what information do you require to give it validity?

I was agreeing that this find is significant, and should provide a cautionary note for those constructing detailed prehistoric timelines with inadequate data.

What do you require as adequate information, other than the very strong evidence given?

Once again you are assuming you are being challenged, when this is not the case.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

I was agreeing that this find is significant, and should provide a cautionary note for those constructing detailed prehistoric timelines with inadequate data.

What do you require as adequate information, other than the very strong evidence given?

Once again you are assuming you are being challenged, when this is not the case.

Car, I am not assuming that I am being challenged, what I do object is the lack of intelligent discussion, being replaced by an unfounded general dismissive comment. If you want to appear knowledgeable about this subject then you might consider how the H. sapiens skull was found below the Neanderthal skull in a different and older deposit. You might also consider that even if both skulls were of a similar age, it would still indicate that H. sapiens left Africa much earlier. Nobody is saying we have enough information, but we do have very good information to consider the finds seriously.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

What do you require as adequate information, other than the very strong evidence given?

Once again you are assuming you are being challenged, when this is not the case.

Car, I am not assuming that I am being challenged, what I do object is the lack of intelligent discussion, being replaced by an unfounded general dismissive comment. If you want to appear knowledgeable about this subject then you might consider how the H. sapiens skull was found below the Neanderthal skull in a different and older deposit. You might also consider that even if both skulls were of a similar age, it would still indicate that H. sapiens left Africa much earlier. Nobody is saying we have enough information, but we do have very good information to consider the finds seriously.

I said that the dating of this find challenges earlier timelines based on inadequate data, which had modern humans in Europe much later.

But you, being paranoid, interpreted my post to mean the opposite.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

It’s a rich tapestry.

Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.

Most prehistory remains are based on a handful of finds, which in this case represent the fossil head and the fossil date. Just what information do you require to give it validity?

I was agreeing that this find is significant, and should provide a cautionary note for those constructing detailed prehistoric timelines with inadequate data.

Reminds me of the Johansen vs Leakey argument over the construdtion of the evolutionary origins of modern man. IIRC, and i probably don’t, Johansen thought we had enough information to construct the complete sequence. Leakey by way of contrast thought we didn’t yet have anywhere near sufficient data.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Most prehistory remains are based on a handful of finds, which in this case represent the fossil head and the fossil date. Just what information do you require to give it validity?

I was agreeing that this find is significant, and should provide a cautionary note for those constructing detailed prehistoric timelines with inadequate data.

Reminds me of the Johansen vs Leakey argument over the construdtion of the evolutionary origins of modern man. IIRC, and i probably don’t, Johansen thought we had enough information to construct the complete sequence. Leakey by way of contrast thought we didn’t yet have anywhere near sufficient data.

and Leaky was correct.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Most prehistory remains are based on a handful of finds, which in this case represent the fossil head and the fossil date. Just what information do you require to give it validity?

I was agreeing that this find is significant, and should provide a cautionary note for those constructing detailed prehistoric timelines with inadequate data.

Reminds me of the Johansen vs Leakey argument over the construdtion of the evolutionary origins of modern man. IIRC, and i probably don’t, Johansen thought we had enough information to construct the complete sequence. Leakey by way of contrast thought we didn’t yet have anywhere near sufficient data.

Donald Johanson is a notorious egomaniac. Many workers in this field collaborated with him only to find him a serious obstruction to the science.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Once again you are assuming you are being challenged, when this is not the case.

Car, I am not assuming that I am being challenged, what I do object is the lack of intelligent discussion, being replaced by an unfounded general dismissive comment. If you want to appear knowledgeable about this subject then you might consider how the H. sapiens skull was found below the Neanderthal skull in a different and older deposit. You might also consider that even if both skulls were of a similar age, it would still indicate that H. sapiens left Africa much earlier. Nobody is saying we have enough information, but we do have very good information to consider the finds seriously.

I said that the dating of this find challenges earlier timelines based on inadequate data, which had modern humans in Europe much later.

But you, being paranoid, interpreted my post to mean the opposite.

No, you just dismiss the subject with a casual wave of the hand, which places considerable doubt on its authenticity, when there is nothing to suggest there is. If you have a problem then you should state it not just dismiss it, claiming insufficient information. Anyone who contradicts your musings is paranoid, so I take that with a grain of salt and consider it another example of your self-glorious attitude.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Most prehistory remains are based on a handful of finds, which in this case represent the fossil head and the fossil date. Just what information do you require to give it validity?

I was agreeing that this find is significant, and should provide a cautionary note for those constructing detailed prehistoric timelines with inadequate data.

Reminds me of the Johansen vs Leakey argument over the construdtion of the evolutionary origins of modern man. IIRC, and i probably don’t, Johansen thought we had enough information to construct the complete sequence. Leakey by way of contrast thought we didn’t yet have anywhere near sufficient data.

This is ridiculous of the extent you will go to save face. There is NO comparison and NOBODY is saying they fully understand the new Homo sapiens find.

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

I was agreeing that this find is significant, and should provide a cautionary note for those constructing detailed prehistoric timelines with inadequate data.

Reminds me of the Johansen vs Leakey argument over the construdtion of the evolutionary origins of modern man. IIRC, and i probably don’t, Johansen thought we had enough information to construct the complete sequence. Leakey by way of contrast thought we didn’t yet have anywhere near sufficient data.

Donald Johanson is a notorious egomaniac. Many workers in this field collaborated with him only to find him a serious obstruction to the science.

Donald Johanson would find a secure and well supported place here.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Car, I am not assuming that I am being challenged, what I do object is the lack of intelligent discussion, being replaced by an unfounded general dismissive comment. If you want to appear knowledgeable about this subject then you might consider how the H. sapiens skull was found below the Neanderthal skull in a different and older deposit. You might also consider that even if both skulls were of a similar age, it would still indicate that H. sapiens left Africa much earlier. Nobody is saying we have enough information, but we do have very good information to consider the finds seriously.

I said that the dating of this find challenges earlier timelines based on inadequate data, which had modern humans in Europe much later.

But you, being paranoid, interpreted my post to mean the opposite.

No, you just dismiss the subject with a casual wave of the hand, which places considerable doubt on its authenticity, when there is nothing to suggest there is. If you have a problem then you should state it not just dismiss it, claiming insufficient information. Anyone who contradicts your musings is paranoid, so I take that with a grain of salt and consider it another example of your self-glorious attitude.

To jog your memory, your first post in this thread is copied below:

Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.

So where are we at now with modern humans evolution, not so much a lineage stretching back as the surviving line of competing hominids but a surviving mongrel of multiple peers with influences mappable across geographic regions.

AwesomeO said:

So where are we at now with modern humans evolution, not so much a lineage stretching back as the surviving line of competing hominids but a surviving mongrel of multiple peers with influences mappable across geographic regions.

That is the question this find raises. If all details are correct, it changes the evolutionary concept of our species.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Car, I am not assuming that I am being challenged, what I do object is the lack of intelligent discussion, being replaced by an unfounded general dismissive comment. If you want to appear knowledgeable about this subject then you might consider how the H. sapiens skull was found below the Neanderthal skull in a different and older deposit. You might also consider that even if both skulls were of a similar age, it would still indicate that H. sapiens left Africa much earlier. Nobody is saying we have enough information, but we do have very good information to consider the finds seriously.

I said that the dating of this find challenges earlier timelines based on inadequate data, which had modern humans in Europe much later.

But you, being paranoid, interpreted my post to mean the opposite.

No, you just dismiss the subject with a casual wave of the hand, which places considerable doubt on its authenticity, when there is nothing to suggest there is. If you have a problem then you should state it not just dismiss it, claiming insufficient information. Anyone who contradicts your musings is paranoid, so I take that with a grain of salt and consider it another example of your self-glorious attitude.

You’re nuts.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

I said that the dating of this find challenges earlier timelines based on inadequate data, which had modern humans in Europe much later.

But you, being paranoid, interpreted my post to mean the opposite.

No, you just dismiss the subject with a casual wave of the hand, which places considerable doubt on its authenticity, when there is nothing to suggest there is. If you have a problem then you should state it not just dismiss it, claiming insufficient information. Anyone who contradicts your musings is paranoid, so I take that with a grain of salt and consider it another example of your self-glorious attitude.

You’re nuts.

We all are, I’ve yet to meet any person who isn’t, myself included.
The whole world is basically insane.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

I said that the dating of this find challenges earlier timelines based on inadequate data, which had modern humans in Europe much later.

But you, being paranoid, interpreted my post to mean the opposite.

No, you just dismiss the subject with a casual wave of the hand, which places considerable doubt on its authenticity, when there is nothing to suggest there is. If you have a problem then you should state it not just dismiss it, claiming insufficient information. Anyone who contradicts your musings is paranoid, so I take that with a grain of salt and consider it another example of your self-glorious attitude.

You’re nuts.

IMO you are a totally useless individual who relies on show to impress others.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

No, you just dismiss the subject with a casual wave of the hand, which places considerable doubt on its authenticity, when there is nothing to suggest there is. If you have a problem then you should state it not just dismiss it, claiming insufficient information. Anyone who contradicts your musings is paranoid, so I take that with a grain of salt and consider it another example of your self-glorious attitude.

You’re nuts.

We all are, I’ve yet to meet any person who isn’t, myself included.
The whole world is basically insane.

Maybe so, but the whole world doesn’t usually interpret a post agreeing that a find is insignificant as “dismissing the subject with a casual wave of the hand”.

It’s pointless replying to Permeate threads because whatever I say, I’m apparently saying something I shouldn’t be saying.

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

You’re nuts.

We all are, I’ve yet to meet any person who isn’t, myself included.
The whole world is basically insane.

Maybe so, but the whole world doesn’t usually interpret a post agreeing that a find is insignificant as “dismissing the subject with a casual wave of the hand”.

It’s pointless replying to Permeate threads because whatever I say, I’m apparently saying something I shouldn’t be saying.

Try getting a life!

>agreeing that a find is insignificant

I mean significant.

Bubblecar said:

>agreeing that a find is insignificant

I mean significant.

More like a Freudian slip.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

We all are, I’ve yet to meet any person who isn’t, myself included.
The whole world is basically insane.

Maybe so, but the whole world doesn’t usually interpret a post agreeing that a find is insignificant as “dismissing the subject with a casual wave of the hand”.

It’s pointless replying to Permeate threads because whatever I say, I’m apparently saying something I shouldn’t be saying.

Try getting a life!

I’d accuse you of gaslighting, except I think you genuinely still don’t realise I was simply agreeing that this is an interesting find that upsets earlier proposed timelines for modern human presence in Europe.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Maybe so, but the whole world doesn’t usually interpret a post agreeing that a find is insignificant as “dismissing the subject with a casual wave of the hand”.

It’s pointless replying to Permeate threads because whatever I say, I’m apparently saying something I shouldn’t be saying.

Try getting a life!

I’d accuse you of gaslighting, except I think you genuinely still don’t realise I was simply agreeing that this is an interesting find that upsets earlier proposed timelines for modern human presence in Europe.

No I don’t, you have done this before, by making light of an important scientific contribution that stifles further conversation and discussion.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Try getting a life!

I’d accuse you of gaslighting, except I think you genuinely still don’t realise I was simply agreeing that this is an interesting find that upsets earlier proposed timelines for modern human presence in Europe.

No I don’t, you have done this before, by making light of an important scientific contribution that stifles further conversation and discussion.

It won’t happen again, because I won’t be posting in any of your threads from now on.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

I’d accuse you of gaslighting, except I think you genuinely still don’t realise I was simply agreeing that this is an interesting find that upsets earlier proposed timelines for modern human presence in Europe.

No I don’t, you have done this before, by making light of an important scientific contribution that stifles further conversation and discussion.

It won’t happen again, because I won’t be posting in any of your threads from now on.

Thank you, I was going to suggest that myself.

For the benefit of those trying to make sense of this thread:

PermeateFree said:

To jog your memory, your first post in this thread is copied below:

Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.

Here is where Permeate reveals his lack of basic comprehension.

That statement I made was not in relation to the dating of this find, but in relation to the conventional picture before that find was dated.

And in fact I chose that particular wording: “Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds” – to be the moral of the tale.

Our view of human prehistory is based on relatively few fossils, and there will almost certainly be more fossils that will continually change the picture, as these have done (although these were actually found some time ago, but have only recently been dated).

Bubblecar said:

For the benefit of those trying to make sense of this thread:

PermeateFree said:

To jog your memory, your first post in this thread is copied below:

Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.

Here is where Permeate reveals his lack of basic comprehension.

That statement I made was not in relation to the dating of this find, but in relation to the conventional picture before that find was dated.

And in fact I chose that particular wording: “Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds” – to be the moral of the tale.

Our view of human prehistory is based on relatively few fossils, and there will almost certainly be more fossils that will continually change the picture, as these have done (although these were actually found some time ago, but have only recently been dated).

What are you doing here? You said you would not post in my threads again. However, shame you cannot address your concerns directly to me, but there again you are an arrogant person considering yourself superior to others.

Tell me, do think Denisovans ever existed? Even now they are only known from scant evidence, far less than we have in this instance, or is this just another of your inconsistencies?

I said before that you’re nuts, but now I just think you’re a dumdum.

I’m not for one moment questioning the veracity of this or that find. I’m pointing out that building detailed pictures of the timelines of human prehistory on the basis of these finds is always going to be speculative and subject to revision when new finds and datings are made.

Can you not understand that this particular dating means that modern humans were present in Europe long before the conventional picture tells us?

Thus: “Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.” New finds are likely to surface that complicate the picture, as these have done.

Bubblecar said:

I said before that you’re nuts, but now I just think you’re a dumdum.

I’m not for one moment questioning the veracity of this or that find. I’m pointing out that building detailed pictures of the timelines of human prehistory on the basis of these finds is always going to be speculative and subject to revision when new finds and datings are made.

Can you not understand that this particular dating means that modern humans were present in Europe long before the conventional picture tells us?

Thus: “Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.” New finds are likely to surface that complicate the picture, as these have done.

Stop twisting everything in order to save face. You just add comment that neither you or I made in order to justify yourself. For goodness sake go away and write your super massive coral symphony, interspersed with poetic gems. Sorry, but you or you ramblings do not impress me at all!

Bubblecar said:

I said before that you’re nuts, but now I just think you’re a dumdum.

I’m not for one moment questioning the veracity of this or that find. I’m pointing out that building detailed pictures of the timelines of human prehistory on the basis of these finds is always going to be speculative and subject to revision when new finds and datings are made.

Can you not understand that this particular dating means that modern humans were present in Europe long before the conventional picture tells us?

Thus: “Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.” New finds are likely to surface that complicate the picture, as these have done.

I shall make my last comments on the matter, then you can do or think what you like.

>>I’m not for one moment questioning the veracity of this or that find. I’m pointing out that building detailed pictures of the timelines of human prehistory on the basis of these finds is always going to be speculative and subject to revision when new finds and datings are made.<<

Nobody is making detailed pictures of timelines, except you!

>>Can you not understand that this particular dating means that modern humans were present in Europe long before the conventional picture tells us?<<

Yes, I have been saying that for some time (go back and check) and it is THIS point that makes the discovery most interesting. Why else would they be writing this paper (published in Nature).

>>Thus: “Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.” New finds are likely to surface that complicate the picture, as these have done.<<

That is very true, but a skull with its dating is NOT insignificant and new species have commonly been described with less. The only thing that will dismiss these finding would be if the dates given are RADICALLY wrong.

Anyway, think what you like. I am seriously considering not posting new natural history subjects, as they do not seem to be appreciated and their significance is often belittled.

Bubblecar said:

I said before that you’re nuts, but now I just think you’re a dumdum.

I’m not for one moment questioning the veracity of this or that find. I’m pointing out that building detailed pictures of the timelines of human prehistory on the basis of these finds is always going to be speculative and subject to revision when new finds and datings are made.

Can you not understand that this particular dating means that modern humans were present in Europe long before the conventional picture tells us?

Thus: “Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.” New finds are likely to surface that complicate the picture, as these have done.

It’s OK Bubblecar, I can follow your reasoning.

Bogsnorkler said:

Bubblecar said:

I said before that you’re nuts, but now I just think you’re a dumdum.

I’m not for one moment questioning the veracity of this or that find. I’m pointing out that building detailed pictures of the timelines of human prehistory on the basis of these finds is always going to be speculative and subject to revision when new finds and datings are made.

Can you not understand that this particular dating means that modern humans were present in Europe long before the conventional picture tells us?

Thus: “Always beware of detailed human prehistory narratives based on a handful of finds.” New finds are likely to surface that complicate the picture, as these have done.

It’s OK Bubblecar, I can follow your reasoning.

Additional supporting evidence.

>>There have been signs that other “failed” human groups were migrating out of Africa at a relatively early date. Last year, for instance, researchers announced the discovery of a 175,000 year old jawbone in Israel, which appeared to belong to a member of Homo sapiens. At the time, the specimen was hailed as “by far the oldest human fossil ever uncovered outside Africa.” Apidima 1 is even older, and “indicates that early modern humans dispersed out of Africa starting much earlier, and reaching much further, than previously thought,” the study authors write.<<

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/210000-skull-may-be-oldest-human-fossil-found-europe-180972629/

A very interesting lecture about Australopithecus sediba and although not concerning this topic, it does expand upon the unknown and the makings of it known in a very thought provoking manner.

Part Ape, Part Human: The Fossils of Malapa | Nat Geo Live
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFuwyBEq1IA