| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Just to add another bit of AE theory. One of our major gripes is that academic subjects are both 'disicplines' (not subject to internal competition) and monopolies (not subject to external competition) and hence both corpulent and wrong-headed.
The Academy likes to give the impression that academics are constantly dissing each other and therefore (by implication) there is furious internal competition. They meet the monopolistic charge by loftily pointing out that they just happen to be the best and that anybody is free to compete -- they seem unaware that actually it requires the State to maintain the monopoly by demanding that all teachers are university-trained and all universities are subject to peer-review by other universities.
We can see all this dimly in the present controversy. A bit of dissing but the overall thrust is all one way -- lengthening Man's history. It would be interesting if anybody comes across any kind of academic movement that seeks to shorten it. My guess as to why this is still impossible is because, psychologically speaking, it would be to climb into bed with Creationists who seek to shorten Man's stay to 4004 BC - 2009 AD.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| You can't survive the frozen north without the tools and the tools can not be developed in the frozen north. |
You are once more committing the "Me, I don't like it there" solecism... |
Stop saying that. You know I never mean that. All I was saying {when I originally wrote that} is that humans as we know them, Eskimoes included, soon die where the Eskimoes live, unless they are properly equipped.
| 1. How did Cro-Magnon exist on the edge of the ice without tools? |
Humans as we know them, Eskimoes included, soon die where the Eskimoes live, unless they are properly equipped.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I said it a long time ago (this is a post retrieved from elsewhere) though apologies if I was wrong then too.
| All I was saying is that humans as we know them, Eskimoes included, soon die where the Eskimoes live, unless they are properly equipped. |
Yes, but that is the matter I wish now to explore, or as it may be, re-explore. What you say is true now but I'd like to know if it was necessarily true then. There are two reasons ex hypothesi for supposing not
1. If we did come out of the sea then tools are not at issue, merely blubber levels.
2. If we did evolve in the Arctic then we could not have had tools initially.
| Humans as we know them, Eskimoes included, soon die where the Eskimoes live, unless they are properly equipped. |
This introduces another important consideration. It is a widespread observation that many species 'over-specialise' (eg are dependent on the nectar of a single flower) and then can't go back when that source is gone. Surely this principle is even more cogent when it comes to Mod Man. The great point about clothes is that you can reduce all that ridiculous blubber you've had to lug about all those years. But after a few more years, and now blubber-free, you can't survive without clothes.
But, Dan, irrespective of whether you agree, could you turn your great mind to the question if I slightly change the phraseology
| How could Cro-Magnon have existed on the edge of the ice without tools. |
And my first contribution to this momentous question is to rifle ancient shamanic lore and come up with the shaman's favourite apparel -- a more or less complete bearskin complete with head. If you understood lots about animals but didn't have any tools, wouldn't this roughly be what you'd end up with by way of 'clothes'?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Clearly we need to dig deeper. |
Different dating techniques are here being used to assemble a single timeline. I do not believe that this is an epistemologically valid procedure. There is a methodological problem here that I believe ought to be addressed with a new AE principle.
When different techniques are combined, I think there are gaps and overlaps inside of which paradigm problems can be hidden. I suspect that calibrations are applied to each dating technique that may generate artificially lengthened or shortened time spans, but also ensure that each method confirms the others where it can and cannot refute the others where it might. Moreover, I suspect that established techniques, complete with their calibration errors, are given preeminent authority when calibrating new methods.
The same principle must apply to our approach to scientific testing in all areas: A consistent observational technique is always required to assemble a single dataset. Different observational methods, applied to the same phenomenon, cannot be combined to shape a conclusion.
Recall our discussion of the moving magnetic pole.
There we initially saw a chart that showed a horseshoe path for the movement of magnetic north. I don't know the scientific standing of this chart as it was later contradicted by a second chart posted to the thread. Nevertheless, it was interesting that the bow in the "U" pattern occurred at that point in history where the movement of magnetic north could actually be tracked by direct human observation (around 1900). It was my judgement that all dates shown in that diagram, prior to 1900, are likely to be conjecture derived from rock samples.
Wrong or right in my guesses concerning the origins of the magnetic data, the principle I have formulated here, I believe remains valid: It is unscientific to combine data derived from different observational methods within a single dataset. Certainly, that dataset cannot be a valid basis for theory.
This rule applies even when the two methods overlap!
If sonic waves are used to determine the nature of the Earth to a depth of 50 miles, consistent core samples taken directly from the first few miles may indeed boost our confidence in the validity of the method, but results from the two methods cannot be combined as a single, composite picture of the Earth's structure. When proposing a theoretical model of the Earth's greater depths, only the Sonic data is available for reference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | 1. They all implicitly confirm that pre-40,000 carbon dating is useless since nobody has used it |
Don't you find it odd that the cut-off date for the validity of Carbon Dating coincides with the earliest dates for modern man, as orthodoxy had it at the time Carbon Dating was developed?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
Not knowing much about these dating techniques, I decided to have a quick look at what was involved in some of them.
The first thing I found regarding TL was a report by one exponent of the art, criticizing the methods employed by a rival team in preparing samples for analysis. He also went on to question the validity of the extrapolation curves used by this rival team to arrive at dates, which I presume differed from his own findings...I didn't bother reading any further.
In my line of business, interpolation is an acceptable measurement technique with quantifiable uncertainties, whereas extrapolation is at best educated guesswork (you can shape a curve to fit whatever projected result you desire)... (if I was to produce a calibration procedure that relied on extrapolation, the accreditation authority would rip it up for arse paper.)
And Uranium dating looks to have inherent problems arising from the unquantifiable nature of the initial isotope ratio, of the moisture within the sediment, in which a particular sample was fossilized...so seems to be good for comparative measurements within the same layer but iffy as an absolute measurement between different layers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| But on a wider note, you should get used to feeling for what's right. At the moment it is inconceivable, if Modern Man started out in Africa in 200,000 (or even 130,000), that he would have left just one 100,000 site in Israel and a doubtful 60,000 one in Australia. But people should post up other pre-40,000 sightings for us to sink our teeth into in case I have done 'the crowd' an injustice. |
I was hoping someone else would post up the China situation, because I don't know much about it -- other than that they have some very early dates -- but might as well mention it....this is an abstract (article costs money) from Journal of Human Evolution (2002)
"It has been established that modern humans were living in the Levant and Africa ca. 100ka ago. Hitherto, this has contrasted with the situation in China where no unequivocal specimens of this species have been securely dated to more than 30ka. Here we present the results of stratigraphic studies and U-series dating of the Tongtianyan Cave, the discovery site of the Liujiang hominid, which represents one of the few well-preserved fossils of modern Homo sapiens in China. The human fossils are inferred to come from either a refilling breccia or a primarily deposited gravel-bearing sandy clay layer. In the former case, which is better supported, the fossils would date to at least approximately 68ka, but more likely to approximately 111-139ka. Alternatively, they would be older than approximately 153ka. Both scenarios would make the Liujiang hominid one of the earliest modern humans in East Asia, possibly contemporaneous with the earliest known representatives from the Levant and Africa. Parallel studies on other Chinese localities have provided supporting evidence for the redating of Liujiang, which may have important implications for the origin of modern humans."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I agree with Ishmael's point about using a single method for a single timeline but The Authorities have a point when they say that if carbon-dating gives up the ghost around 40,000 then other methods will have to be used. I also have long been suspicious about the coincidence between 40,000 as a date originally for the terminus of Modern Man and for carbon-dating. In fact I developed a theory years ago that the second was invented because of the first...but I don't know if this is really true.
I seemed to remember that the basic problem of all these measurements used to be that some worked well for short time spans and others worked well over aeons but there was a gap between them just for the period of greatest significance for human evolution. I don't know if this is still true. Or ever was.
Chad, you're in the biz professionally, you should be thinking of leaving the day-job at least for a sabbatical to solve this one for us. And Mankind of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The China figures are interesting. I read it as originally the local-powers-that-be dated everything in accordance with the prevailing (Western) paradigm (ie to 30,000) but then started re-dating everything big style once the same Western Authorities gave them the green light with the 100,000 to 200,000 figures elsewhere. Certainly this kind of talk
| The human fossils are inferred to come from either a refilling breccia or a primarily deposited gravel-bearing sandy clay layer. |
does not inspire much confidence. I noted that all the Big Numbers seemed to come exclusively from the uranium method. Whassup, China, can't you afford a lab that shows the Chinese are amongst the oldest people in the world? Or maybe they could....and they weren't....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| ...the fossils would date to at least approximately 68ka, but more likely to approximately 111-139ka. Alternatively, they would be older than approximately 153ka. |
Doesn't this massive range of possible dates ring alarm bells regarding the precision of the dating techniques?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| When different techniques are combined, I think there are gaps and overlaps inside of which paradigm problems can be hidden. I suspect that calibrations are applied to each dating technique that may generate artificially lengthened or shortened time spans, but also ensure that each method confirms the others where it can and cannot refute the others where it might. Moreover, I suspect that established techniques, complete with their calibration errors, are given preeminent authority when calibrating new methods.. |
I agree with you.
There must be a 'pecking order' for dating techniques...
They can produce radically different results for the same items. For example the AMS technique was used to re-test some controversial dates from North America. One was a human skull from Laguna Beach and the other one from Los Angeles, both found in the 1930s.
Initially using carbon 14 dating the Laguna skull was dated to 17 500BP and a long bone found in association with it was dated to 14 800BP. The Los Angeles skull was dated by the same method to 23 600BP. Both had been treated to avoid contamination by the usual methods.
In the 1980s AAR (Amino Acid Racemization) was applied to both. Using this method the Los Angeles skull was dated to 26 000BP.
AMS dating was applied in the 1980s. It redated the Laguna skull to 5100BP and the Los Angeles skull to 3560BP. This is quite a change! The site stratigraphy dates had been in line with the original carbon 14 and AAR dates. The only explanation offered for the discrepancy between the dating was contamination. But surely this is a warning for all dates to be treated with caution!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I also have long been suspicious about the coincidence between 40,000 as a date originally for the terminus of Modern Man and for carbon-dating |
Out of interest, do you know of any specimens dated to 40 000BP using carbon dating? In my experience, carbon dating usually is applied to human remains thought to be much younger, and older remains are nearly always tested by other means. (Despite the confident claims about the reliability of carbon dating to 40 000BP and beyond....)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
The closest animals to humans are wolves not bears; there are legends aplenty about feral children and so forth. The most likely scenario to my mind is that people managed to survive the Arctic by living with wolves (and then proceeded to dominate them) but it ain't very likely I concede.
Is the Out-of-Canada thesis dead in the water?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Do you get that impression? I thought things were going rather well. I can even live with true African dates of 100,000 plus because then I will do what palaeo-anthropologists were (and still to some extent are) happy to do which is to make a distinction betwee Cro-Magnon (Modern Man plus modern toolkit) and Early Modern Man (anatomically Modern Man with hominid toolkit). There's nothing to stop Cro-Magnon coming out of Canada since even orthodoxy believes that they arose somewhere in Central Asia (their phrase for "We give up").
But obviously I'd rather not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
Thanks Hatty...
| The closest animals to humans are wolves not bears |
...that brings us neatly back to our best friend...Canis Lupus --
the most important tool in Cro-Magnon's kit.
When he first pulled himself from the sea onto the ice (even with all that blubber) he would have noticed a sharp drop in temperature, but that's where all those skins from the seals he had been eating came in handy.
So he has clothes; he probably also has a few tools and weapons made from bone and narwhal tusks and the like (which would have disappeared along with his fossils)... but he isn't going to be able to drag his big fat blubbery arse very far, without the help of somebody who knows how to survive in these conditions...
HERE FIDO!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
