Peak Warming Man said:

We used to live in lake.

“Scientists have pinpointed the homeland of all humans alive today to a region south of the Zambesi River.
The area is now dominated by salt pans, but was once home to an enormous lake, which may have been our ancestral heartland 200,000 years ago.”

As a direct descendent, does that give me land rights?

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

We used to live in lake.

“Scientists have pinpointed the homeland of all humans alive today to a region south of the Zambesi River.
The area is now dominated by salt pans, but was once home to an enormous lake, which may have been our ancestral heartland 200,000 years ago.”

As a direct descendent, does that give me land rights?

Have you maintained constant possession and utilisation of the area?

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

We used to live in lake.

“Scientists have pinpointed the homeland of all humans alive today to a region south of the Zambesi River.
The area is now dominated by salt pans, but was once home to an enormous lake, which may have been our ancestral heartland 200,000 years ago.”

As a direct descendent, does that give me land rights?

Have you maintained constant possession and utilisation of the area?

No it’s a busted arsed shithole and I’m glad my ancestors had the four sight to get the hell out.

New Study Pinpoints The Ancestral Homeland of All Humans Alive Today

How do they correlate a DNA profile to a geographic location? Particularly over such long time scales…

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

As a direct descendent, does that give me land rights?

Have you maintained constant possession and utilisation of the area?

No it’s a busted arsed shithole and I’m glad my ancestors had the four sight to get the hell out.

Are you mollwoll’s spokesman now?

furious said:

New Study Pinpoints The Ancestral Homeland of All Humans Alive Today

How do they correlate a DNA profile to a geographic location? Particularly over such long time scales…

Yes, that’s a big logical gap.

If they’d based in on the mtDNA of fossils, that would make sense, but they have not done that.

Also the whole concept that humanity arose in a small area rather than having distributed origins is questionable.

In Sapiens, author Yuval Noah Harare posits that Homo sapiens came from Africa, up through Egypt to India, Asia, the Americas and Oceania. He says Tasmania was the last to be inhabited.

Other humans, such as Neanderthals and those hobbit ones, lived in different areas until Sapiens invaded. Up to six human species lived at one time, but Sapiens dominated for unknown reasons.

Divine Angel said:

In Sapiens, author Yuval Noah Harare posits that Homo sapiens came from Africa, up through Egypt to India, Asia, the Americas and Oceania. He says Tasmania was the last to be inhabited.

Other humans, such as Neanderthals and those hobbit ones, lived in different areas until Sapiens invaded. Up to six human species lived at one time, but Sapiens dominated for unknown reasons.

I’m pretty sure NZ was occupied after Tasmania.

• He says Tasmania was the last to be inhabited.

I think that is demonstrably untrue…

Divine Angel said:

In Sapiens, author Yuval Noah Harare posits that Homo sapiens came from Africa, up through Egypt to India, Asia, the Americas and Oceania. He says Tasmania was the last to be inhabited.

Other humans, such as Neanderthals and those hobbit ones, lived in different areas until Sapiens invaded. Up to six human species lived at one time, but Sapiens dominated for unknown reasons.

I like the idea that the first migration out of Africa was along the coasts, all the way around India to SE Asia. With migration overland into the middle east and Eurasia being a second wave.

furious said:

• He says Tasmania was the last to be inhabited.

I think that is demonstrably untrue…

TATE says 42,000 years for Tasmania, which would make it well ahead of the Americas, even if you ignore NZ.

The Rev Dodgson said:

furious said:

• He says Tasmania was the last to be inhabited.

I think that is demonstrably untrue…

TATE says 42,000 years for Tasmania, which would make it well ahead of the Americas, even if you ignore NZ.

I first thought Easter Island, then realising that was probably pedantic, I then thought the Americas…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

In Sapiens, author Yuval Noah Harare posits that Homo sapiens came from Africa, up through Egypt to India, Asia, the Americas and Oceania. He says Tasmania was the last to be inhabited.

Other humans, such as Neanderthals and those hobbit ones, lived in different areas until Sapiens invaded. Up to six human species lived at one time, but Sapiens dominated for unknown reasons.

I’m pretty sure NZ was occupied after Tasmania.

Yeah didn’t make sense to me either.

He also repeatedly says Sapiens “domesticated” fire and I’m not sure that’s the right word.

Divine Angel said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

In Sapiens, author Yuval Noah Harare posits that Homo sapiens came from Africa, up through Egypt to India, Asia, the Americas and Oceania. He says Tasmania was the last to be inhabited.

Other humans, such as Neanderthals and those hobbit ones, lived in different areas until Sapiens invaded. Up to six human species lived at one time, but Sapiens dominated for unknown reasons.

I’m pretty sure NZ was occupied after Tasmania.

Yeah didn’t make sense to me either.

He also repeatedly says Sapiens “domesticated” fire and I’m not sure that’s the right word.

I think ‘domesticated’ is fair enough.

Divine Angel said:

In Sapiens, author Yuval Noah Harare posits that Homo sapiens came from Africa, up through Egypt to India, Asia, the Americas and Oceania. He says Tasmania was the last to be inhabited.

New Zealand was folkless long after Tasmania was inhabited.

Peak Warming Man said:

Divine Angel said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m pretty sure NZ was occupied after Tasmania.

Yeah didn’t make sense to me either.

He also repeatedly says Sapiens “domesticated” fire and I’m not sure that’s the right word.

I think ‘domesticated’ is fair enough.

I think it’s a bit weird how Sapiens had at least three different and incompatible ways in which fire was “domesticated”.

• The fire stick is an exceptionally hard piece of special wood, not just any piece of wood. It can’t be just picked up anywhere, aboriginal people considered carrying their fire sticks to be even more important than carrying their spears. Twirling it created fire. In Australia, New Guinea and elsewhere. Used by lookouts and hunters for sending smoke signals.

• The flint is a stone again carefully selected for its ability to create reproducible sparks without degradation. Again carried around. In wide use in Europe and elsewhere.

• The smudge pot is a smoldering fire in carefully selected moss. Used in Mongolia and elsewhere, it was a way to transport fire safely on horseback for a nomadic people living in a cold and often wet environment for cooking in a different place every night.

Know any more about these?

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Divine Angel said:

Yeah didn’t make sense to me either.

He also repeatedly says Sapiens “domesticated” fire and I’m not sure that’s the right word.

I think ‘domesticated’ is fair enough.

I think it’s a bit weird how Sapiens had at least three different and incompatible ways in which fire was “domesticated”.

• The fire stick is an exceptionally hard piece of special wood, not just any piece of wood. It can’t be just picked up anywhere, aboriginal people considered carrying their fire sticks to be even more important than carrying their spears. Twirling it created fire. In Australia, New Guinea and elsewhere. Used by lookouts and hunters for sending smoke signals.

• The flint is a stone again carefully selected for its ability to create reproducible sparks without degradation. Again carried around. In wide use in Europe and elsewhere.

• The smudge pot is a smoldering fire in carefully selected moss. Used in Mongolia and elsewhere, it was a way to transport fire safely on horseback for a nomadic people living in a cold and often wet environment for cooking in a different place every night.

Know any more about these?

The Tasmanian aboriginals did not have the art of making fire.
They harvested fire from lightning strikes and then carried it around with them.

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I think ‘domesticated’ is fair enough.

I think it’s a bit weird how Sapiens had at least three different and incompatible ways in which fire was “domesticated”.

• The fire stick is an exceptionally hard piece of special wood, not just any piece of wood. It can’t be just picked up anywhere, aboriginal people considered carrying their fire sticks to be even more important than carrying their spears. Twirling it created fire. In Australia, New Guinea and elsewhere. Used by lookouts and hunters for sending smoke signals.

• The flint is a stone again carefully selected for its ability to create reproducible sparks without degradation. Again carried around. In wide use in Europe and elsewhere.

• The smudge pot is a smoldering fire in carefully selected moss. Used in Mongolia and elsewhere, it was a way to transport fire safely on horseback for a nomadic people living in a cold and often wet environment for cooking in a different place every night.

Know any more about these?

The Tasmanian aboriginals did not have the art of making fire.
They harvested fire from lightning strikes and then carried it around with them.

Rubbish.

It appears there is some disagreement over whether Tasmanian aboriginals could make fire.

dv said:

It appears there is some disagreement over whether Tasmanian aboriginals could make fire.

im not sure they care anymore.

Don’t think I’d be able to make fire in the wild without matches or lighter etc, unless I had a magnifying glass with me and could find some dry tinder.

Dropbear said:

dv said:

It appears there is some disagreement over whether Tasmanian aboriginals could make fire.

im not sure they care anymore.

Considering this:
Truganini was a woman widely considered to have been the last full-blooded Aboriginal Tasmanian. 1812 – 8 May 1876.

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Divine Angel said:

Yeah didn’t make sense to me either.

He also repeatedly says Sapiens “domesticated” fire and I’m not sure that’s the right word.

I think ‘domesticated’ is fair enough.

I think it’s a bit weird how Sapiens had at least three different and incompatible ways in which fire was “domesticated”.

• The fire stick is an exceptionally hard piece of special wood, not just any piece of wood. It can’t be just picked up anywhere, aboriginal people considered carrying their fire sticks to be even more important than carrying their spears. Twirling it created fire. In Australia, New Guinea and elsewhere. Used by lookouts and hunters for sending smoke signals.

• The flint is a stone again carefully selected for its ability to create reproducible sparks without degradation. Again carried around. In wide use in Europe and elsewhere.

• The smudge pot is a smoldering fire in carefully selected moss. Used in Mongolia and elsewhere, it was a way to transport fire safely on horseback for a nomadic people living in a cold and often wet environment for cooking in a different place every night.

Know any more about these?

Sometimes fire was carried in a hollow stick, I think in the form of embers. So you didn’t have to faff about with the hard stick and the soft stick and the bits of grass to get things going.

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I think ‘domesticated’ is fair enough.

I think it’s a bit weird how Sapiens had at least three different and incompatible ways in which fire was “domesticated”.

• The fire stick is an exceptionally hard piece of special wood, not just any piece of wood. It can’t be just picked up anywhere, aboriginal people considered carrying their fire sticks to be even more important than carrying their spears. Twirling it created fire. In Australia, New Guinea and elsewhere. Used by lookouts and hunters for sending smoke signals.

• The flint is a stone again carefully selected for its ability to create reproducible sparks without degradation. Again carried around. In wide use in Europe and elsewhere.

• The smudge pot is a smoldering fire in carefully selected moss. Used in Mongolia and elsewhere, it was a way to transport fire safely on horseback for a nomadic people living in a cold and often wet environment for cooking in a different place every night.

Know any more about these?

Sometimes fire was carried in a hollow stick, I think in the form of embers. So you didn’t have to faff about with the hard stick and the soft stick and the bits of grass to get things going.

I can’t quickly find a reference for that. I don’t remember where I read it. I think it might have been embers of a fungus used, or maybe coals.

buffy said:

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

I think it’s a bit weird how Sapiens had at least three different and incompatible ways in which fire was “domesticated”.

• The fire stick is an exceptionally hard piece of special wood, not just any piece of wood. It can’t be just picked up anywhere, aboriginal people considered carrying their fire sticks to be even more important than carrying their spears. Twirling it created fire. In Australia, New Guinea and elsewhere. Used by lookouts and hunters for sending smoke signals.

• The flint is a stone again carefully selected for its ability to create reproducible sparks without degradation. Again carried around. In wide use in Europe and elsewhere.

• The smudge pot is a smoldering fire in carefully selected moss. Used in Mongolia and elsewhere, it was a way to transport fire safely on horseback for a nomadic people living in a cold and often wet environment for cooking in a different place every night.

Know any more about these?

Sometimes fire was carried in a hollow stick, I think in the form of embers. So you didn’t have to faff about with the hard stick and the soft stick and the bits of grass to get things going.

I can’t quickly find a reference for that. I don’t remember where I read it. I think it might have been embers of a fungus used, or maybe coals.

Was the fire bow mentioned?

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I think ‘domesticated’ is fair enough.

I think it’s a bit weird how Sapiens had at least three different and incompatible ways in which fire was “domesticated”.

• The fire stick is an exceptionally hard piece of special wood, not just any piece of wood. It can’t be just picked up anywhere, aboriginal people considered carrying their fire sticks to be even more important than carrying their spears. Twirling it created fire. In Australia, New Guinea and elsewhere. Used by lookouts and hunters for sending smoke signals.

• The flint is a stone again carefully selected for its ability to create reproducible sparks without degradation. Again carried around. In wide use in Europe and elsewhere.

• The smudge pot is a smoldering fire in carefully selected moss. Used in Mongolia and elsewhere, it was a way to transport fire safely on horseback for a nomadic people living in a cold and often wet environment for cooking in a different place every night.

Know any more about these?

The Tasmanian aboriginals did not have the art of making fire.
They harvested fire from lightning strikes and then carried it around with them.

In response to that…apparently they used flints.

https://www.aboriginalheritage.tas.gov.au/cultural-heritage/aboriginal-cultural-burning

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I think ‘domesticated’ is fair enough.

I think it’s a bit weird how Sapiens had at least three different and incompatible ways in which fire was “domesticated”.

• The fire stick is an exceptionally hard piece of special wood, not just any piece of wood. It can’t be just picked up anywhere, aboriginal people considered carrying their fire sticks to be even more important than carrying their spears. Twirling it created fire. In Australia, New Guinea and elsewhere. Used by lookouts and hunters for sending smoke signals.

• The flint is a stone again carefully selected for its ability to create reproducible sparks without degradation. Again carried around. In wide use in Europe and elsewhere.

• The smudge pot is a smoldering fire in carefully selected moss. Used in Mongolia and elsewhere, it was a way to transport fire safely on horseback for a nomadic people living in a cold and often wet environment for cooking in a different place every night.

Know any more about these?

Sometimes fire was carried in a hollow stick, I think in the form of embers. So you didn’t have to faff about with the hard stick and the soft stick and the bits of grass to get things going.

Yes. A coal is easy to keep alive but starting a new fire is more work.

buffy said:

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

I think it’s a bit weird how Sapiens had at least three different and incompatible ways in which fire was “domesticated”.

• The fire stick is an exceptionally hard piece of special wood, not just any piece of wood. It can’t be just picked up anywhere, aboriginal people considered carrying their fire sticks to be even more important than carrying their spears. Twirling it created fire. In Australia, New Guinea and elsewhere. Used by lookouts and hunters for sending smoke signals.

• The flint is a stone again carefully selected for its ability to create reproducible sparks without degradation. Again carried around. In wide use in Europe and elsewhere.

• The smudge pot is a smoldering fire in carefully selected moss. Used in Mongolia and elsewhere, it was a way to transport fire safely on horseback for a nomadic people living in a cold and often wet environment for cooking in a different place every night.

Know any more about these?

Sometimes fire was carried in a hollow stick, I think in the form of embers. So you didn’t have to faff about with the hard stick and the soft stick and the bits of grass to get things going.

I can’t quickly find a reference for that. I don’t remember where I read it. I think it might have been embers of a fungus used, or maybe coals.

a coal with dried moss.

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

I think it’s a bit weird how Sapiens had at least three different and incompatible ways in which fire was “domesticated”.

• The fire stick is an exceptionally hard piece of special wood, not just any piece of wood. It can’t be just picked up anywhere, aboriginal people considered carrying their fire sticks to be even more important than carrying their spears. Twirling it created fire. In Australia, New Guinea and elsewhere. Used by lookouts and hunters for sending smoke signals.

• The flint is a stone again carefully selected for its ability to create reproducible sparks without degradation. Again carried around. In wide use in Europe and elsewhere.

• The smudge pot is a smoldering fire in carefully selected moss. Used in Mongolia and elsewhere, it was a way to transport fire safely on horseback for a nomadic people living in a cold and often wet environment for cooking in a different place every night.

Know any more about these?

The Tasmanian aboriginals did not have the art of making fire.
They harvested fire from lightning strikes and then carried it around with them.

In response to that…apparently they used flints.

https://www.aboriginalheritage.tas.gov.au/cultural-heritage/aboriginal-cultural-burning

Only Tasmanians and some extreme south mainland Aborigines had access to flints.

For a culture over 50,000 years old who developed a firestick method of land management, to then to suggest they did not know how to light a fire is idiotic. In Tasmania and other cold wet climates they would commonly carry a smoldering bracket fungus around that could remain alight all day, making much easier to start a fire than other methods.

PermeateFree said:

For a culture over 50,000 years old who developed a firestick method of land management, to then to suggest they did not know how to light a fire is idiotic. In Tasmania and other cold wet climates they would commonly carry a smoldering bracket fungus around that could remain alight all day, making much easier to start a fire than other methods.

Thank you, I couldn’t remember the details.

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

We used to live in lake.

“Scientists have pinpointed the homeland of all humans alive today to a region south of the Zambesi River.
The area is now dominated by salt pans, but was once home to an enormous lake, which may have been our ancestral heartland 200,000 years ago.”

As a direct descendent, does that give me land rights?

>>While it’s certainly a fascinating story, and it sounds neatly self-contained, it doesn’t necessarily fit into the wider context of human evolution and migration that previous studies have pieced together. Fossils attributed to modern humans have been found in Morocco from 300,000 years ago, in Greece from 210,000 years ago, and in Israel from 177,000 years ago. That suggests our ancestors were widespread across Africa, Europe and the Middle East at the time (and long before) this study claims modern humans were isolated in one wetland area in southern Africa.

Tracing mtDNA back down the oldest lineages is a useful tool to apply to the puzzle of human history, but it’s just one of many – and perhaps it’s not wise to draw conclusions as huge as the “homeland of all humans” from this one piece.<<

https://newatlas.com/science/dna-study-human-homeland-southern-african-wetland/

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

We used to live in lake.

“Scientists have pinpointed the homeland of all humans alive today to a region south of the Zambesi River.
The area is now dominated by salt pans, but was once home to an enormous lake, which may have been our ancestral heartland 200,000 years ago.”

As a direct descendent, does that give me land rights?

>>While it’s certainly a fascinating story, and it sounds neatly self-contained, it doesn’t necessarily fit into the wider context of human evolution and migration that previous studies have pieced together. Fossils attributed to modern humans have been found in Morocco from 300,000 years ago, in Greece from 210,000 years ago, and in Israel from 177,000 years ago. That suggests our ancestors were widespread across Africa, Europe and the Middle East at the time (and long before) this study claims modern humans were isolated in one wetland area in southern Africa.

Tracing mtDNA back down the oldest lineages is a useful tool to apply to the puzzle of human history, but it’s just one of many – and perhaps it’s not wise to draw conclusions as huge as the “homeland of all humans” from this one piece.<<

https://newatlas.com/science/dna-study-human-homeland-southern-african-wetland/

Quite