http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-shelter-pushes-human-history-back-to-65,000-years/8719314
Including a ground edge axe excavated from the 65,000 year level.
roughbarked said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-shelter-pushes-human-history-back-to-65,000-years/8719314Including a ground edge axe excavated from the 65,000 year level.
Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-shelter-pushes-human-history-back-to-65,000-years/8719314Including a ground edge axe excavated from the 65,000 year level.
Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
Your recent rebellion against what the media tells us could be a sign of early onset curmudgeon.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-shelter-pushes-human-history-back-to-65,000-years/8719314Including a ground edge axe excavated from the 65,000 year level.
Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
I agree. However, there were many who would never go there before who can go there now.
Peak Warming Man said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-shelter-pushes-human-history-back-to-65,000-years/8719314Including a ground edge axe excavated from the 65,000 year level.
Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
Your recent rebellion against what the media tells us could be a sign of early onset curmudgeon.
He’s been practicing his big word list.
Peak Warming Man said:
Your recent rebellion against what the media tells us could be a sign of early onset curmudgeon.
Early onset, bah. I’ll have you know that I’ve had curmudgeon tendencies since adolescence young man.
Discussion and implications
The new excavations have yielded a much larger and more diverse artefact assemblage than those reported previously, with more than 10,000 artefacts recovered in-situ from the zone of first occupation. The improved chronological resolution for the site allows firmer conclusions to be drawn about the global significance of the earliest artefacts.
The first occupants used elaborate lithic technology, ochre ‘crayons’ and other pigments — including one of the oldest known examples in the world of the use of reflective (micaceous) pigment (Fig. 2i, k–m).
They also collected and processed plant foods, as revealed by macrofossils and artefact residues. Artefacts in the lowest dense band show traces of Australia’s earliest evidence of seed grinding and pigment processing, together with the world’s oldest known edge-ground hatchets (Fig. 2a).
The settlement of Madjedbebe around 65 ka (conservatively 59.3 ka, calculated as 65.0 ka minus the age uncertainty of 5.7 kyr at 95.4% probability) sets a new minimum age for the human colonization of Australia and the dispersal of modern humans out of Africa and across south Asia. The final stages of this journey took place at a time of lower sea level, when northern Australia was cooler and wetter.
Our chronology places people in Australia more than 20 kyr before continent-wide extinction of the megafauna and supports an age of more than 60 kyr for the incorporation of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA into the modern human genome. It also extends the period of overlap of modern humans and Homo floresiensis in eastern Indonesia to at least 15 kyr and, potentially, with other archaic hominins — such as Homo erectus — in southeast Asia and Australasia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22968.epdf?referrer_access_token=o4ttHLM3dhWax6LUplG-tdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PaC-2riDmLOGW5zcDGMHfrAhvDpn6kaFUsqVMVAWcTJZewiSOph4t8NnWUF3mHtR1ypVaohFA_lPZQsSCNT1VsFIrV2RIRwb_rk71BYct01j0atU04mg3L4-Gx1Vo2Es5d2pVsrSr2bANU3V0etXqPeG9KSC9pXTQOgvJ8AM3JFyBUXyBbYH5vjs_9P0Z1EHQDTeUIJ4pBZ926UY0nwu8-uuaKKCHJqCHdP1lUZBrtPUIt21PFQGzGg_aBot7WiAw%3D&tracking_referrer=www.abc.net.au
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-shelter-pushes-human-history-back-to-65,000-years/8719314Including a ground edge axe excavated from the 65,000 year level.
Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
One point would be, by having an earlier period when people first arrived in Australia, would place that time around the earlier ice age when sea levels would have been at their lowest. The previous accepted date of between 40 and 50,000 years ago would have meant due to higher sealevels, they would have needed a more sophisticated means of sea travel than was known for the time.
PermeateFree said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-shelter-pushes-human-history-back-to-65,000-years/8719314Including a ground edge axe excavated from the 65,000 year level.
Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
One point would be, by having an earlier period when people first arrived in Australia, would place that time around the earlier ice age when sea levels would have been at their lowest. The previous accepted date of between 40 and 50,000 years ago would have meant due to higher sealevels, they would have needed a more sophisticated means of sea travel than was known for the time.
PermeateFree said:
PermeateFree said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
One point would be, by having an earlier period when people first arrived in Australia, would place that time around the earlier ice age when sea levels would have been at their lowest. The previous accepted date of between 40 and 50,000 years ago would have meant due to higher sealevels, they would have needed a more sophisticated means of sea travel than was known for the time.
What is the temperature, average yearly global temperature in Fahrenheit?
Such a pity they couldn’t make their boats out of stones so we could see how they got here.
party_pants said:
Such a pity they couldn’t make their boats out of stones so we could see how they got here.
The Aborigines recorded much in the form of rock art, but again no evidence. Sorry to disappoint.
>curmudgeon.
had to look that up
transition said:
>curmudgeon.had to look that up
cretin is another interesting word.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
I’m with Rev.
On the other hand it is a new datapoint in a field that has few of them. It’s not nothing.
“Including a ground edge axe excavated from the 65,000 year level.”
Mr. Creationist isn’t going to like this, Yogi.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
I’m with Rev.
On the other hand it is a new datapoint in a field that has few of them. It’s not nothing.
Well this is what science does, chips away until a clearer picture emerges. Having a clearer understanding of when and possibly how the first Australians arrived, plus a completely new tool for that age are large chips.
PermeateFree said:
…a completely new tool for that age are large chips.
The only use i’ve found for large chips is separating two slices of bread and butter.
PermeateFree said:
dv said:The Rev Dodgson said:
Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
I’m with Rev.
On the other hand it is a new datapoint in a field that has few of them. It’s not nothing.
Well this is what science does, chips away until a clearer picture emerges. Having a clearer understanding of when and possibly how the first Australians arrived, plus a completely new tool for that age are large chips.
Absolutely.
This probably needs its own thread:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminescence_dating
PermeateFree said:
dv said:The Rev Dodgson said:
Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
I’m with Rev.
On the other hand it is a new datapoint in a field that has few of them. It’s not nothing.
Well this is what science does, chips away until a clearer picture emerges.
Oh fuck off pf. All that matters in science is concensus. And a 97% figure somewhere. The data is irrelevant.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
dv said:I’m with Rev.
On the other hand it is a new datapoint in a field that has few of them. It’s not nothing.
Well this is what science does, chips away until a clearer picture emerges.
Oh fuck off pf. All that matters in science is concensus. And a 97% figure somewhere. The data is irrelevant.
#Shugs#
What else can you do?
The_observer said:
Oh fuck off pf. All that matters in science is concensus. And a 97% figure somewhere. The data is irrelevant.
Someone needs a hug.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
dv said:I’m with Rev.
On the other hand it is a new datapoint in a field that has few of them. It’s not nothing.
Well this is what science does, chips away until a clearer picture emerges.
Oh fuck off pf. All that matters in science is concensus. And a 97% figure somewhere. The data is irrelevant.
I don’t think that warrants a fuck off, seems a perfectly crommulent statement to me.
If anything your statement sounds a little askew.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The_observer said:Oh fuck off pf. All that matters in science is concensus. And a 97% figure somewhere. The data is irrelevant.
Someone needs a hug.
Hi sailor
AwesomeO said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:Well this is what science does, chips away until a clearer picture emerges.
Oh fuck off pf. All that matters in science is concensus. And a 97% figure somewhere. The data is irrelevant.
I don’t think that warrants a fuck off, seems a perfectly crommulent statement to me.
If anything your statement sounds a little askew.
I hope so.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Interesting, but I really don’t see why this is seen as a huge difference from earlier understanding, or even as particularly surprising.
I’m with Rev.
On the other hand it is a new datapoint in a field that has few of them. It’s not nothing.
This is a very fair point.
dv said:
PermeateFree said:
dv said:I’m with Rev.
On the other hand it is a new datapoint in a field that has few of them. It’s not nothing.
Well this is what science does, chips away until a clearer picture emerges. Having a clearer understanding of when and possibly how the first Australians arrived, plus a completely new tool for that age are large chips.
Absolutely.