MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Origins of Mankind (Somewhat Experimental) (Pre-History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
wizard



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Journey A) possible, yet very fast.
Journey B) infeasible, too fast.
Journey C) too long.
Journey A, C, D, E and F) demonstrate a pattern of distances travelled in equivalent time frames.

There are two distinct expansion periods separated by 15000+ years.

In each expansion there appears to be a pattern of distances travelled per 1000 years (approximately).

Australia and Oceania, are an anomaly!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Since you don't tell us which is Journey A, B etc we are none the wiser. You don't tell us the difference between an anomaly and what is unfeasible. Until you are able to systematise you will never be able to simplify and until you simplify you will never stumble on the truth. Which is always simple, remember. Occam's says so.

Just do what I ask and you will find all kinds of scales falling from your eyes. That's the essence of a Treasure Hunt. You have to follow the setter's instructions to find the treasure. And, I might add, a treasure to be found nowhere else. Wouldn't you like to be the..er...fifteenth person in the known universe to know where we originated?
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Journey A: too long
Journey B: impossibly short
(all six journeys)

Journey A (from the ME to Europe): too long a gap in time
Journey B (from ME to Siberia): suspiciously short.. and illogical
All six journeys: there's a discrepancy between the eastern and western sections, either the dates are flawed (which we're told is not the case) or the ME is not the cradle of civilisation.

If you take the Middle East as the starting point of the journeys, it shouldn't take 15,000 years to get to Europe -- and why so long to reach Africa? After all, the Med is the lake next door, it wouldn't entail a lot of time or navigational expertise to explore the coastline initially. It could be assumed that Mesopotamia was such an idyllic habitat that there was no reason to leave but that doesn't explain either the northern or the Australian figures.

At what point did the sea level rise? Australia is said to have been joined to the Philippines which would make a journey by sea from Asia shorter and less "impossible". After the sea level rose, the original settlers would have been cut off from the mainland from whence they came.

The shortest and most illogical route is the one heading north. A journey from the Garden of Eden to the frozen zone of Siberia doesn't make sense. Doesn't 34,000 BC coincide with the greatest extent of ice? Conversely, it makes sense to suppose that early man was pushed southwards by ice, in which case early man appearing in Australia, and the Middle East, after a couple of thousand years is entirely plausible.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
...you will never stumble on the truth. Which is always simple, remember. Occam's says so.

Not true. We say so.

Occam said only that the truth was ever-so-slightly more simple than error. It's Applied Epistemology that, by contrast, insists upon truth being as simple as can be.

Ok. Returning you now to the regularly-scheduled programming.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A MODEL ANSWER

Middle America - Patagonia: this is 'normal'. What we would expect for natural species expansion, of the order of a mile per year
Beringia - Middle America: much too long. However, AJ pointed out that there was a vast ice sheet in between for the whole period, so no anomaly there.
Middle East - Beringia: impossibly short. The idea of Early Man heading post-haste across the most appalling territory into the teeth of an ice age is ludicrous.
Middle East - Australia: suspiciously short. Pre-supposes maritime skills as well as being a vast distance to progress by natural expansion
Middle East - Africa: suspiciously long. If EM can trek around so rapidly eastwards why not westwards/southwards?
Middle East - Europe: ditto

All the dates from the Middle East are 'wrong', one so wrong as to make the whole scheme untenable. Therefore we apply the 'As above, so below' principle aka The Three Card Trick and reverse the orthodox version of cause and effect. And see if all the anomalies vanish.

Unless some bright sparks creep out from underneath nearby rocks sharpish, this Treasure Hunt will be closing down.
Send private message
wizard



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Key:
A) 35'000 -- 34'000 indicated as Yellow/Asia area, on supplied map.
B) 32'000 indicated as Turquoise/Australia & Oceania, on supplied map.

C) 20'000 indicated as Purple/Europe, on supplied map.
D) 17'000 indicated as Blue/Africa, on supplied map.
E) 12'000 indicated as Magenta/North America, on supplied map.
F) 8'000 indicated as Orange/South America, on supplied map.


There are two distinct and separate expansion periods:
1) A and B.
2) C, D, E and F.

1:
A and B area covered -- vast distances, very fast.

Based on the map supplied, A and B demonstrate enormous distances in the shortest time frames. There is also an unexplainable 15'000 years gap for a journey westwards. Why East and not West?

2:
C, D, E and F) demonstrate an emerging pattern of equilibrium between time and distance travelled; a norm. C, D, E and F also demonstrate a more natural expansion from the west (as we know it), south and eastwards across Asia to Australia and the Americas.

I am inclined to think that C, D, E and F are a more reliable model of expansion than A and B.

A and B may be incorrect by 10'000 years, for example; 35'000 = 25'000 and so on!

This would create more equilibrium throughout the map. However, A and B expansions are still not entirely feasible.

A and B may be incorrect by 20'000 years, therefore Europe would be the correct starting point and equilibrium would follow throughout all times and distances, a norm.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But Wizard I have already told you all the dates are reliable. The secret, when faced with a series of anomalies, is to make a single radical shift and see if that solves everything rather than do what the Academy always does in such circumstances, and what you have slightly done, which is to make a whole series of Procrustean adjustments to make everything fit a given assumption.

I accept you did make a radical shift but it didn't solve the problem. So try another one. One other thing: I have told you the dates we have are to be relied on...but they are not the only dates...there are the ones we haven't got.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Now try an AE approach which is to say, "While we can rely on the Academy for data, we can't rely on the Academy for all the data because they are heavily influenced by such facts as a) where do the current paradigms point, b) where's a nice place to do a summer dig etc etc." In this case we ask, "Where have archaeologists, paleoanthropologists, people walking their dogs etc looked and where haven't they looked."

Now apply that principle to our various areas and decide what range of dates might be applicable to each area.

*By the way, the colouring in the original map is entirely an artefact arising from something chosen from the internet. Please ignore and sorry if that has been misleading you.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'd much rather you did as I ask. Over-writing is a sure sign that you haven't cracked it.
Send private message
wizard



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Key:
A) 35'000 -- 34'000 indicated as Yellow/Asia area, on supplied map.
B) 32'000 indicated as Turquoise/Australia & Oceania, on supplied map.

C) 20'000 indicated as Purple/Europe, on supplied map.
D) 17'000 indicated as Blue/Africa, on supplied map.
E) 12'000 indicated as Magenta/North America, on supplied map.
F) 8'000 indicated as Orange/South America, on supplied map.


There are two distinct and separate expansion periods:
1) A and B; 1st expansion.
2) C, D, E and F; 2nd expansion.

1:
A and B area covered -- vast distances, very fast.

Based on the map supplied, A and B demonstrate enormous distances in the shortest time frames. There is also an unexplainable 15'000 years gap with no westwards journey . Why East and not West?

2:
C, D, E and F) demonstrate an emerging pattern of equilibrium between time and distance travelled; a norm. C, D, E and F also demonstrate a more natural expansion from the west (as we know it), south and eastwards across Asia to Australia and the Americas.

There are 4 prominent factors present within A, B, C, D, E and F:

1)All journeys travel East, South East and South.
2)No westward travel.
3)Unexplained time disparity of 15'000 years.
4)Mick Harper wrote:
I have told you the dates we have are to be relied on...but they are not the only dates...there are the ones we haven't got.


The dates, '... the ones we haven't got..' should tie in, expansion periods linked to climate change; ice ages 1st expansion around 30'000 and 2nd expansion around 18'000.

Taking into account that a 35'000 year old specimen will have an older ancestry, all CM journeys begin in the West, (Europe), travelling East, South and South East from around 40'000/35'000 years.

The first expansion pushed into the Middle East and Asia.

The second expansion also pushed into the middle east, Africa, Asia and beyond.

The European 20'000 figure demonstrates a younger specimen. Older European specimens are not indicated on this map.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Taking into account that a 35'000 year old specimen will have an older ancestry, all CM journeys begin in the West, (Europe), travelling East, South and South East from around 40'000/35'000 years.

This makes no sense. Where is all the CM evidence in Europe then?

The European 20'000 figure demonstrates a younger specimen.

How so?

Older European specimens are not indicated on this map.

Why ever not? Do you think I would just lie? There is no certain CM evidence in Europe before the dates indicated.

I will bring this Treasure Hunt to an end now because of the low numbers of entrants. Half a dozen is a realistic minimum. However I will give the solution to this first level privately to Wizard, Kroew and Morty. The three of you can comment on the solution here so long as you don't give it away to the curs who just watched.
Send private message
wizard



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick, thank you for your PM, I am fascinated with this theory.

Mick I really have endeavoured to follow your guidelines, ...however?

Mick wrote:
To come on the Treasure Hunt you have to say something interesting about these dates.


Mick wrote:
You're quite right to be suspicious of the Middle Eastern figure but for present purposes assume the figures are correct..


Mick wrote:
Even assuming the dating is correct, a figure of, say, 35,000 BP for the fossils we have might easily represent a population that had been there in, say, 40,000.


Mick wrote:
All the dates from the Middle East are 'wrong', one so wrong as to make the whole scheme untenable.


Mick wrote:
But Wizard I have already told you all the dates are reliable.


I wrote:
Older European specimens are not indicated on this map.


Mick wrote:
Why ever not? Do you think I would just lie? There is no certain CM evidence in Europe before the dates indicated.


Is this not certain?
Cro-Magnon found at the Les Eyzies 32,000 and 30,000 years old.

A cursory google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Eyzies
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html

Cro-Magnon 1 was identified as the skeleton of a middle-aged adult male that was less than 50 years old at death based on the degree of closure of his cranial sutures. Most interesting, the face region of the skull is noticeably pitted from a serious fungal infection that was endured during the life of this unfortunate individual. The skull also lacked teeth.

Scientific studies performed on the skeletons found at the Les Eyzies rock shelter indicated that the humans of this time period led a physically tough life. In addition to the fungal infection of Cro-Magnon 1, several of the individuals found at the shelter had fused neck vertebrae indicating traumatic injury, and the adult female found had survived for some time with a skull fracture. The survival of these individuals with such serious physical impairments allows us to conclude the presence of community support amongst individuals, which allowed them to convalesce.

The site was dated to the Upper Pleistocene between 32,000 and 30,000 years old, based on tools and fossil animal bone fragments found in association with the skeletons.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Even assuming the dating is correct, a figure of, say, 32,000 and 30,000 years old, for the fossils we have might easily represent a population that had been there in, say, 40,000.

Then there is the possibility of glacial damage to fossil remains in Britain or even remains now underwater around Dogga Bank area or even the channel and coast of western Europe.

Perhaps there isn't enough absolute evidence to nail any theory,...yet!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The figures I used came from entirely orthodox sources some twenty-odd years ago (they would have had otherwise I couldn't have had the theory!). I have noticed since that quite extraordinary re-appraisals of dates have gone on, expecially among the European ones. And always, always pushing things back. Whither the headline "Early Man not as old as we thought"? Whither the grant?

However, I invite you to make further investigations into this. You will find yourself in very murky waters because, from other and manifold evidences that you are not now to be made privy to, I am pretty sure I am right. For a start, the very Cro-Magnon fossil that gives us our name woiuld have been the very first candidate for carbon-dating fifty years ago....so perhaps you should start there.

This is the only one of your criticisms that I accept. All the rest I stand by -- though perhaps we differ in what is right and proper in a Treasure Hunt. It was difficult with so few participants. As others will testify (...mmm...maybe) things go with more of a swing when there's a shipload of monkeys squabbling.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dear Kroew, I have deleted your last posting even though I encouraged you to post it up. It turned out to be more revealing than I had thought. I will message you privately.

[Needless to say, Kroew guessed right!}
Send private message
wizard



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
However, I invite you to make further investigations into this.


As a matter of personal curiosity here is my starting point to your invitation!

British Archaeology Issue 61 October 2001

Stephen Aldhouse-Green looks at new research on the site of Britain's best-known Palaeolithic burial, a young man who died some 26,000 years ago..

....overall increase in the availability of animals and other forms of food, centred on the 29th millennium. The coincidence of the dating of burnt bones to this period, combined with the presence of burnt Aurignacian artefacts, supports this as the most likely time for Aurignacian presence at Paviland. Radiocarbon dating of an Aurignacian bone spearpoint to around 28,000 bp at nearby Uphill lends additional weight to this interpretation....

...Gravettian visitation is attested by a scatter of large tanged points occurring across southern Britain, including Paviland. Such points are generally dated to 28-27,000 BP, although their use may possibly extend down to the time of the 'Red Lady' burial...

...John Campbell's 1977 study of the Goat's Hole lithic assemblage showed convincingly that it belonged to the later part of the Aurignacian period of the Palaeolithic (c 40-28,000 BP)..


Aurignacian period of the Palaeolithic (c 40-28,000 BP).. ?

The 'Red Lady', when alive, was a healthy young adult male - aged 25-30, about 5' 8" (1.74 metres) in height, and possibly weighing about 11 stone (73 kg) - but less robust than might be expected for this period. Whilst the earliest anatomically modern humans in Europe were characterised by [b]tropically-adapted body proportions,.......No head was found....

.... this is not reflected in the skeleton of the 'Red Lady', probably because the Paviland individual was a product of perhaps 10,000 years of evolution of modern humans within Europe....


40'000 - 36'000?

...Restudy of the Goat's Hole lithic collections has confirmed material ranging from about 40,000 BP to about 13,000 BP (including Mousterian, leaf point, late Aurignacian, early Gravettian, Creswellian, and Final Upper Palaeolithic phases), although the earliest and latest phases are not dated by radiocarbon. Aurignacian finds form the dominant element. These artefacts were made from a range of imported and local raw materials. It is interesting that analysis of the ochres is consistent with a local origin, probably within Gower....

....there may also have been an aura of sanctity attached to the place, explaining the burial here of the 'Red Lady'. We may wonder whether one reason for visits to Paviland, as the climatic downturn accelerated and the British peninsula was increasingly abandoned, may have lain in its status as a special place....

Why? By whom? For how long?

Additional thoughts:

Red Ochre is mined and processed?

Red Ochre is associated with Neanderthal?

Neanderthal engaged in subterranean mining and processing?

There is no animal example in earth's history of subterranean mining and processing!

Subterranean mining and processing is not incipient human behaviour--it is fully human.

Origins of Mankind?

Is the 'Red Lady' -- Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon?

What actually defines modern man -- Gene (Anatomical) or Meme (intelligence)?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 12, 13, 14  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 14

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group