Slashdot Mirror


Stone Tools Found On Crete Push Back Humans' Maritime History

The New York Times reports that stone tools discovered on the Greek island of Crete, and reported last month at an academic conference, are strong evidence for rethinking the maritime capabilities of early humans. The researchers who found the tools (hand-axes, cleavers, and scrapers) estimate them to be at least 130,000 years old; if they're right, humans have been traveling long distances at sea (Crete is 200 miles from the northern African coastline) for at least several tens of thousands of years longer than earlier believed.

176 comments

  1. Obligatory ... by Webster9 · · Score: 5, Funny

    132,010 BC @ 00:12 Webster9 wrote: First Post

    1. Re:Obligatory ... by lul_wat · · Score: 0

      Join the Navy they said..

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    2. Re:Obligatory ... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Funny

      The only obligatory remark is of course re. "from the perhaps-a-swallow-brought-them-there dept.":

      Would that be an African Swallow, or a European Swallow?

    3. Re:Obligatory ... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Funny

      And God said "First Post. Oh, and someone turn on the damn lights!" And there was Light...

      --
      Not a sentence!
    4. Re:Obligatory ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Shouldn't that be First Boat?

    5. Re:Obligatory ... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      And there was Light...
      enough to see Satan's goatse.cx post.

      Creation myths are fun!

    6. Re:Obligatory ... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      or maybe they used the tools to build a storage cabinet out of something that floats, like wood. Then a flood carried them away, and across the water.

  2. First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a related story, next to one of the axes they found a mast with the words "First Post".
    But the amazing part was the -1 Offtopic heading right beside the inscription.

    1. Re:First Post by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Even more mystifying was the -1 Redundant.

  3. FIRST BOAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yay, now I'm a troll too

    1. Re: FIRST BOAT by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yay, now I'm a troll too

      First boast?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  4. Not Necasrily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does this give evidence that we have been traveling for longer periods of time. Is it because the stove is from Africa, because than it just shows that stone on Crete was from Africa, and so could have washed up onto the beach. Or am I missing the point :-)?

    1. Re:Not Necasrily? by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FTA:

      Crete has been an island for more than five million years, meaning that the toolmakers must have arrived by boat.

      Stone tools found on an island indicates that humans were capable of rudimentary sea travel in order to get to Crete from the mainland. Also FTA:

      More than 2,000 stone artifacts, including the hand axes, were collected on the southwestern shore of Crete, near the town of Plakias

      That is an awful lot of stone tools to have just "washed up on to the beach" wouldn't you think so?
      TFA states that the team was originally looking for much younger tools on the order of ~11,000 years old when they found these instead. Also FTA:

      The cliffs and caves above the shore, the researchers said, have been uplifted by tectonic forces where the African plate goes under and pushes up the European plate. The exposed uplifted layers represent the sequence of geologic periods that have been well studied and dated, in some cases correlated to established dates of glacial and interglacial periods of the most recent ice age. In addition, the team analyzed the layer bearing the tools and determined that the soil had been on the surface 130,000 to 190,000 years ago.

      Dr. Runnels said he considered this a minimum age for the tools themselves. They include not only quartz hand axes, but also cleavers and scrapers, all of which are in the Acheulean style.

      In other words, the dating of the soil associated with the tools indicates that they are at least 130,000 years old and are of a tool style used by humans/ancestors that is very ancient. The tools were not neccessarily made by early humans as at the time these tools were likely created, humans were not the only hominids. The upper limit for the date of these tools is ~700,000 years which would pre-date modern humans although it seems unlikely that they are that old.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Not Necasrily? by aralin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Crete is 200 miles from coast now. How high was middeterean see during the ice age and have there been islands in between? Maybe they did not travel 200 miles but much lower distance.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    3. Re:Not Necasrily? by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Mediterranean Sea has an average depth of 1500 meters. It is possible that parts of the sea body were shallow enough to have exposed a few islands although it would seem that a great deal of it would still be very very deep and likely rather difficult to traverse without some sort of raft/boat technology.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:Not Necasrily? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stone tools found on an island indicates that humans were capable of rudimentary sea travel in order to get to Crete from the mainland.

      They could have been carried by swallows.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Not Necasrily? by chocapix · · Score: 2, Funny

      FTA:

      Crete has been an island for more than five million years, meaning that the toolmakers must have arrived by boat.

      Stone tools found on an island indicates that humans were capable of rudimentary sea travel in order to get to Crete from the mainland.

      Don't jump to conclusions. Maybe they just built a bridge.

    6. Re:Not Necasrily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't they have been carried off by a storm? After all, if these were bears or lions and not humans, nobody would be mentioning their seafaring capabilities.

    7. Re:Not Necasrily? by Sique · · Score: 1

      No, the bridge was built by apes.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:Not Necasrily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They could have been carried by swallows.

      African or European swallows?

    9. Re:Not Necasrily? by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      Doesn't wash, either way the flight speed is too low.

    10. Re:Not Necasrily? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The tools were not neccessarily made by early humans as at the time these tools were likely created, humans were not the only hominids.

      You're saying it's possible that another, extinct branch of our tree had boats before our ancestors?
      I just assumed that whoever got boats first had to be the ones that ended up covering the globe...

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    11. Re:Not Necasrily? by Q-Hack! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While the Med is, on average, 1500 meters deep, If you look at a map that shows relative ocean depth around the island of Crete you will see that it is possible for a land bridge (or very close to one) on both the east and west sides of the island. Humans have always been known to follow shore lines during migration so this doesn't seem to be a far fetched theory.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    12. Re:Not Necasrily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      African or European?

    13. Re:Not Necasrily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firing up Google Earth, it seems that while Crete is a long ways out, the distance between islands is only about 20 miles? That's a ways, but seems fairly doable on a large raft.

    14. Re:Not Necasrily? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Everyone went primative then.

    15. Re:Not Necasrily? by $0.02 · · Score: 1
      --
      If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
    16. Re:Not Necasrily? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [inspects large version of map, counts topo rings]

      Minimum depth on one end of the chain (between Crete and the next land) is 500m, and on the other end is 750m. So appears it was still an island.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    17. Re:Not Necasrily? by howzit · · Score: 1

      A lot could have changed over 130,000 years! How many times have you seen professors professing that the sea must have been 600ft higher in the past for fossil shells to have been formed in some mountain ranges? NEVR taking into account movement of the land! 1)There may have been a land bridge. 2)The sea in the Med could have been lower. 3)The island could have 'moved' there due to continental drift. 4)There may have been islands in-between that have now sunk or been destroyed by volcanic action.

    18. Re:Not Necasrily? by sglines · · Score: 1

      If you look at this map there is a chain of islands from Crete through Rhodes to Asia Minor in one direction and to Greece in the other. The links don't appear to be more than about 30 miles apart or within sight. I'm sure the idea of a paddle came early to man or proto-man. I don't see this as a very remarkable revelation.

    19. Re:Not Necasrily? by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      If Youtube has taught me anything, T-Pain was the first to have a boat.

  5. Humans are pretty damn clever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and pretty much have always been.

    Humans didn't evolve genetically to this modern technological state, the cleverness has always been inherent.

    1. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Jeffk67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True. Ancient people were just as intelligent as we are. The only reason this is not more evident is because time has erased the remains of their material culture. It would be more surprising if no one thought of make a raft or boat for tens of thousands of years.

    2. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would be more surprising if no one thought of make a raft or boat for tens of thousands of years.

      It's more than that. If they had boats, they had to have some way to navigate and something resembling charts or maps. You don't just launch a raft and hope to get somewhere. Aiming for an island, even a big island, if you're off by a couple degrees you could miss by a hundred miles.

      If this discovery holds up, it's going to overturn a lot of what we think we know about human history. Getting around by sea is more than a hairy frat party on a raft. The ocean is rather effective at eliminating the unprepared and unwary. It means packing tools to make repairs at sea, carrying food and water and something to bail out the boat. Doesn't sound like much until you try it with the technology they had. Then come the questions about what compelled them to make a dangerous journey like that in the first place?

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    3. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      From practical esperience, a raft can easily be constructed that will sail at 2MPH, but wont quite steer as well as intended.

      Given that a sailing boat is powered 24 yours a day, we are talking a 4 days journey, not necessarily to the intended destination. No great achievement.

      Lets say some scum are after you and your family, so you got on your fishing raft to sail up the coast a few miles, and accidentally lost your steering contrivance. 4 days later, you are in Crete, with your wife and kids, and possibkly an in-law or two, or the daughter's boyfriend - anyway, enough to start a new family if you are not too fussy about incest. Or manybe Fidel Castro's ancestors were after you and a whole load of you set off over a period of months.

      Either way, 4 days at sea is not a very tough journey in the Med, its not like 4 days in the North Atlantic in Winter. I have spent several days at see in a small sailing boat in the North Sea, and not eaten tinned food for the whole trip! Its not that tough! The worst bit was having to have cheap instant coffee instead of the real stuff! (And an incident where I washed my hair with Fairy Liquid and tried to rince it off with sea water!)

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aiming for an island, even a big island, if you're off by a couple degrees you could miss by a hundred miles.

      In order to miss by a hundred miles with a couple of degree course error, your trip has to be about 3000 miles long, rather than 200. To miss Crete from North Africa would require a sustained course error of about 30 degrees.

      In addition, let's not forget the basic navigational techniques of the Polynesians (another Stone Age people who sailed great distances routinely).

      The flights of birds can give you clues to the location of land from dozens to hundreds of miles away - some birds fly over water but sleep only on land - if they're flying in a particular direction late in the day, that's a pretty solid hint of land in that direction.

      Wave patterns can also show you hints as to the directions of land too far away to see, but plenty close enough to reach.

      Plus there's those mountains. Crete's highest peak is visible from about 100 nm. Makes it a lot easier to find when you can see it after you've completed half your voyage.

      And finally, consider that there is a chain of islands from Turkey to Crete (as well as an alternate chain from Greece - and Crete's mountain peaks are barely visible from Greece) - if that chain were followed (as by successive waves of migration), the path would be from one island to the next visible island repeated till you hit Crete.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by miasmic · · Score: 1

      Can you elaborate on the fairy liquid/sea water incident?

    6. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by pnewhook · · Score: 0, Troll

      It would be more surprising if no one thought of make a raft or boat for tens of thousands of years.

      Just as equally surprising is that the romans didn't bother to build an airplane or nuclear reactor, since they obviously knew how to do that too.

      Of course the missing part in the bible is that when Jesus rose from the dead, he hopped in his F22 and spread the message of love and advanced weaponry to the world. Thats how America got to be number one.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    7. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't just launch a raft and hope to get somewhere. Aiming for an island, even a big island, if you're off by a couple degrees you could miss by a hundred miles.

      Except the Polynesians have a whole culture based on practically nothing but that and a set of taboos. The Hawaiian chain is thousands of kilometers from anything else. How did the firth Hawaiians get there? By aiming in a direction and going until they hit something.

      It's also worth noting that right from the beginning, ancient cultures spend a lot of time staring at the stars and memorizing them. It's a very short step to using them for some navigation.

    8. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to wait until you have a map of a yet undiscovered area, you're never going to discover that area.
      Columbus made it to America without a map.

    9. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more than that. If they had boats, they had to have some way to navigate and something resembling charts or maps. You don't just launch a raft and hope to get somewhere.

      Yup, cause that's exactly how Columbus didn't stumble across the Americas.....

    10. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so straight forward, for instance it is believed that abstract thinking was developed in ancient Greece , the modern way of thinking born in the renaissance...You can see evidence of this in modern people, the way that the brain organize itself vary between people of different cultures and languages, the way people think about religion in modern times is different that it was in earlier times, even for Christians/Muslin fundamentalist

      The potential was all there but it just wasn't the same.

    11. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by quenda · · Score: 1

      True. Ancient people were just as intelligent as we are.

      but any Cretin can build a boat.

      And what about the Flynn effect?

    12. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Ancient people were just as intelligent as we are.

      If by this you mean people 10K years ago, you might be correct. If you are thinking anything beyond that there seems to be evidence for active selection for intelligence around the time of the discovery of agriculture, 10-30K years ago.

      The tools in the study (no pun intended) are 130K years old.

    13. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yea, but he was going to India.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    14. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Quothz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Crete's highest peak is visible from about 100 nm.

      It took me about thirty seconds to shake nanometers out of my head and come up with nautical miles. "Gosh," thought I, "that's even flatter than Kansas, where the highest peak can be seen from several microns' distance."

    15. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, people made it across the Pacific from southeast asia to Australia, Polynesia, Hawaii, and even as far as Easter Island (if not all the way to South America proper) on not much more than rafts made of hollowed out logs. Thus crossing the Atlantic may even have been easier in comparison. For propulsion, oars or primitive sails don't involve that much technology either. (If you have the ability to hollow out a log to make your boat, then oar making is easy in comparison. If you can make clothes with cloth or hides, fashioning a sail with similar methods isn't that big a step.) In regards to navigation, if you've been looking at the sky enough, you know that certain stars give you a decent sense of direction as well as the positions of sun and moon. Also the fact that certain animals appear often near islands or coastlines helps with navigation as well. If you know how to fish to some degree, food is less of a problem on the long journey as well. You pack what you can and catch the rest along the way. And by gathering enough wood or various plant/animal oils, it's also quite possible to cook on your hollowed out log boat by hauling along a non-flammable rock or having an area or container filled with enough sand or pebbles. Making the long trip just means having enough common sense to plan it out a bit and having enough luck that the weather holds for the journey.

      Then come the questions about what compelled them to make a dangerous journey like that in the first place?

      I think the most obvious answer would be that they wanted to get away from other people. I'm pretty sure that this idea holds true today for individuals that would willingly colonize other planets despite the ridiculously high risks in doing so with current technology.

    16. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be "anyone who can build a boat can be a Cretan"?

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    17. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crete's highest peak is visible from about 100 nm.

      If that's how far away I can see the highest peak, then it much be the flattest island on earth!

    18. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Jeffk67 · · Score: 1

      That does push things back a bit but do you really think humans developed modern intelligence only 10-30K years ago? There were two population bottlenecks at 140k years ago and 60K years ago that could have been where we began to select for intelligence. I often wonder if paleolithic and neolithic people were so much less sophisticated in their thinking as modern people or were they simply using technologies and materials that were appropriate to their circumstances. A lot of what is passed off as evidence of civilization, for example, social stratification, looks like a really bad deal for the average person.

    19. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by quenda · · Score: 1

      They say that, but I'm told all Cretans are liars.

    20. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grugg bashes Ghggg. But good. Gorlg will be angry, when he knows. (Strenuous philosophical inquiry, there.). ...er, If he knows? Grugg, plus a splitting headache, puts the corpse on a log, and pushes it far into the waves. The tide does the rest. Carrying a not-quite-dead Ghgg to a Strange New Place With No-One. Until...

      Sacrifices on rafts to the mgg-g spirits catch on big.
      Or Death Sentence by stranding on piece-of-wood. Or...
      Really unlucky fishermen (fisherthals ?). Plus storms or very big fish. They just got carried away :)

      Or most of the above.

      "Lost" prior art, I suppose. :D

    21. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      If you are thinking anything beyond that there seems to be evidence for active selection for intelligence around the time of the discovery of agriculture, 10-30K years ago.

      It depends a little who you ask, but the consensus about the origin of agricultural technologies is that it took place from about 10000 years ago until the last few hundred years (where do you draw an end - at the 18th century experimental farms of the squirarchy, or at the statistical sciences developed at Rothampstead in the 1920s and 1930s?)
      So if your dates are accurate (and I'd like to see the citations for the evidence to back those dates), then development of agriculture is associated with a decrease in selection for intelligence. Which rather blows a hole in your thesis.

      Yes, our ancestors were intelligent, probably just as intelligent as us, possibly more intelligent on average. But that intelligence probably predates the change over from hunt-and-gather lifestyles to more sedentary ones including significant livestock and eventually crop-raising. As the Kzinti say, "How much intelligence does it take to sneak up on a leaf?"

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    22. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cro-magnons (please excuse the archaic terminology) had bigger brains that H.Sapiens - in general. Ditto for H.Neanderthalensis. Theirs were just differently balanced. Less Frontal, more of the rest. More senses, sensibility, dreams, intuition ? More "drive" ? More holistic ?

      Successful hunters, and gatherers, must administer to their resources, somehow. Linear language is a cage, too. Like a laser, not easy to turn into a lightbulb. Hunters, however, tend to track and concentrate. So.... maybe.

      The bigger H.Neanderthalensis brains discovered are on par with larger H.Sapiens ones. So, high intelligence was probably there. Just different strokes. A smart H.Neanderthalensis probably outthought an H.Sapiens of average or sub-par intelligense (now, isn't that a really neat, serendiptical typo?). With a slightly different and more emotionally or sensorially connected intellectual toolbox.

       

    23. Re:Humans are pretty damn clever... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 0

      Then come the questions about what compelled them to make a dangerous journey like that in the first place?

      The same thing that inspired our fishy ancestors to crawl out of the water and onto land? The same thing that inspired the first neanderthal to journey out of the cave and start a fire? The same thing that drove us to land on the moon....

  6. They're just rocks. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Those look like rocks to me, not "stone tools".

    1. Re:They're just rocks. by Zedrick · · Score: 4, Informative

      Okay. So you don't have any archaeological training and you haven't studied them under a microscope to verify that they were indeed used as tools (this can be determined by examining the amount and direction of ... uhm, microscopic marks. Don't know what it's called in English).

      But just because you don't know anything about a subject doesn't mean you have to have opinions about it.

    2. Re:They're just rocks. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I knew someone was going to say that.

      Many primitive stone tools look like plain rocks at first glance, but there are distinctive chip and wear patterns on tools that just don't occur by chance. An expert will be able to tell you very quickly if you're dealing with an actual tool or just a rock that's assumed a suggestive shape.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:They're just rocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      An expert will be able to tell you very quickly if you're dealing with an actual tool

      Seriously. You're just asking for a smartass remark.

    4. Re:They're just rocks. by Arker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To the untrained eye that is all they would appear, sure. I dont think the troll moderation was entirely fair - I would bet that a lot of readers looked at the photo at the top of that page and thought the same thing.

      But, look for instance at the second piece from the right at the top of the story. Look at the top-left edge. See those repeated scallops that define the edge? That is not a naturally occuring stone, that is a hand-axe or "chopper" which has been intelligently worked and shaped for a purpose.

      The article is pretty crappy though (as is expected with "science reporting" unfortunately.) The commentary regarding early human sea-crossing capabilities is a bit... well... warped. Even though there is a throwaway mention of non-modern humans it is given no context and the rest of the text appears quite ignorant of it. The fourth paragraph is one big facepalm. It implies several times that this find somehow indicates a 200-mile crossing from Africa, when it does nothing of the sort. Given the loose dating (prior to 130kya by geological strata) it would seem quite likely that the ancient population who made these tools crossed at or near a glacial maximum, when sea levels were much lower than today, making for much less open sea even if they did come directly from the African coast. And, at least from what I can see, there is no reason whatsoever to think they came from that direction anyway. More likely they came in over much shorter distances from the north, at a time when sea levels were low and the voyage would have been very short. If the dating comes in as early as some of the quotes indicate, this could even have been at the same time that the hippopotamus made the same journey.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    5. Re:They're just rocks. by pitchpipe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But just because you don't know anything about a subject doesn't mean you have to have opinions about it.

      I know there's a joke in here somewhere that includes the words "Uh dude," and "Slashdot," but I can't quite make it out.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    6. Re:They're just rocks. by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But just because you don't know anything about a subject doesn't mean you have to have opinions about it.

      You can thank sound bites and modern politics for that.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:They're just rocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the untrained eye that is all they would appear, sure. I dont think the troll moderation was entirely fair - I would bet that a lot of readers looked at the photo at the top of that page and thought the same thing.

      The poster would have known better had he made even the slighest effort to investigate the subject before speaking about it. That is not sincere inquiry or useful discussion, so it's a troll even if unintended. You could say that the trolling effect is manifested in all of the follow-up posts that were made to correct him.

      Sometimes the mods are trigger-happy but this isn't one of those times.

    8. Re:They're just rocks. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most of the primitive tools here at Slashdot don't have any marks to indicate they had any kind of function at all. ;-)

    9. Re:They're just rocks. by germ!nation · · Score: 1

      See those repeated scallops that define the edge? That is not a naturally occuring stone.

      I always take issue with statements like this. Given enough time and situations there is a probability of 1 of stones with that shape occurring and human brains (and cognitive bias) are fantastic at reading into things that aren't there. I grant you it may well just be shorthand by specialists in the field when talking in general public though.

      Which is not to say these aren't the real deal.

    10. Re:They're just rocks. by Arker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sure, if you can smuggle the mathematical concept of infinity in you can always get absurd results. :)

      But in reality these are indeed as you say 'the real deal' - stones dont knapp themselves. If you ever get a chance to see how things things were made up close you will understand why. It's quite a fascinating - and painstaking - craft.

      I'm still thinking the article is melodramatic fluff though. It's not at all surprising to see these things on Crete with such a date. We know archaic homonids made them, we know they spread out all along the coastlines 'beachcombing' just as our own ancestors did a little later. And island-hopping to Crete during a glacial maximum should have been well within their capabilities - other large mammals were doing it too, the hippos I already mentioned, elephants, even deer made that crossing at various points.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    11. Re:They're just rocks. by martas · · Score: 3, Informative

      striations?

    12. Re:They're just rocks. by martas · · Score: 1

      i was going to make the same note, only about the "suggestive shape" part...

    13. Re:They're just rocks. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you can smuggle the mathematical concept of infinity in you can always get absurd results. :)

            There's no need. I always carry a zero with me. (Eyes glaze over) "Stay away! I have a zero and I'm not afraid to use it!"

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:They're just rocks. by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      See those repeated scallops that define the edge? That is not a naturally occuring stone.

      I always take issue with statements like this. Given enough time and situations there is a probability of 1 of stones with that shape occurring and human brains (and cognitive bias) are fantastic at reading into things that aren't there. I grant you it may well just be shorthand by specialists in the field when talking in general public though.

      Which is not to say these aren't the real deal.

      Gee thanks for the meta-dialetic FUD. So enlightening. Follow that logic and the (impossible) infinite number of monkeys will, eventually, produce the entire works of Shakespeare...

      Now I need another beer ;-p

    15. Re:They're just rocks. by Shin-LaC · · Score: 1

      What if it is a stone with a suggestive shape, but was actually made that way by someone? People used to make a lot of those...

    16. Re:They're just rocks. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      According to TFA(or at least one of the many I've read on this subject so far), the tools are of a style used by pre-humans 700,000 years or so ago. They're not saying that these tools are necessarily that old, or that they're made by pre-humans, just that the tools are of that style. It's a bit like finding a katana in a rubbish tip in New Jersey. You can't say that it was made by someone who was Japanese, but you can say that it might have been. The discovery is very new, and they'll find out more in due time.

      As to the rest of it, what does it matter whether they came from Greece or from Africa. They think based on the evidence(the style of the tools, the known populations at that time) that it's more likely Africa, but it doesn't really matter.

      Two thousand tools is a hell of a lot, you're talking about a large number of individuals even if they weren't all there simultaneously. That means at the very least a community of some description, and likely a fairly large one for that kind of time period. To get a population that large you'd have to get there, likely on purpose. Yes 20 miles is a lot less impressive than 200, but it's still sea travel. It's still taking enough people to build a population 20 miles over the sea. To get from mainland Greece they'd have to do it several times. Even under those circumstances it's a hell of a lot more than we thought people at that time were capable of.

    17. Re:They're just rocks. by Kozz · · Score: 1

      I've got a stone which myself and family have long thought could be a tool. Essentially it's a "flattened golf ball" sized pebble stone with a 1/4"-diameter depression approx 1/2" deep in one flattened side. Everything looks smooth, though, with no visible grooves/striations. Tool (like a spindle handle), or just a coincidence of erosion, etc? I tried looking online for comparisons but found nothing like it. Got any references for tools of this nature?

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    18. Re:They're just rocks. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Those look like rocks to me, not "stone tools".

      To the uneducated, a lot of source code just looks like bug ridden inane rantings from incompetent software people who have no social skills and have yet to get out of their parents basement. Oh wait - bad example.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    19. Re:They're just rocks. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      That's the kind of thing that has to be examined in person, I think. A local university or museum will have someone who can take a look at it, and will probably be glad to do so.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    20. Re:They're just rocks. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Trillions of rocks on the planet and you seem to think that it would be impossible for random chance to create "distinctive wear patterns"

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    21. Re:They're just rocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pic or it didn't happen

    22. Re:They're just rocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only took one or two monkeys to write the entire works of Shakespeare. We don't know his (or their) names, except that they called themselves "William Shakespeare" at times.

    23. Re:They're just rocks. by Arker · · Score: 1

      According to TFA(or at least one of the many I've read on this subject so far), the tools are of a style used by pre-humans 700,000 years or so ago

      Acheulian industry, yes. It was used by H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. neanderthalis, as well as H. sapiens, from nearly 2 million years ago right up to modern times.

      As to the rest of it, what does it matter whether they came from Greece or from Africa.

      Au contraire, it matters a great deal. If they came from Greece it would be, as I said, no surprise, just confirmation of current analysis. If they came directly from Africa that would be truly shocking however, since it would be a blue-water crossing rather than a chain of island hops.

      They think based on the evidence(the style of the tools, the known populations at that time) that it's more likely Africa, but it doesn't really matter.

      That's just the thing, the article certainly makes it sound that way, only it doesnt even hint at any evidence that might actually indicate that.

      I suspect the author was confused, or just wanted to write something dramatic.

      Yes 20 miles is a lot less impressive than 200, but it's still sea travel. It's still taking enough people to build a population 20 miles over the sea. To get from mainland Greece they'd have to do it several times. Even under those circumstances it's a hell of a lot more than we thought people at that time were capable of.

      It would have been a multigenerational expansion rather than a single voyage. A group moves to the first island in the chain, then some years later when that one grows crowded a group splits out and colonises the next, and so on. This is the way H. erectus colonised much of the planet and the way H. sapiens did it again later as well. It really isnt any more or less than is to be expected.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    24. Re:They're just rocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An expert will be able to tell you very quickly if you're dealing with an actual tool or just a rock that's assumed a suggestive shape.

      A suggestive shape Indeed

  7. Interesting Article But... by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 4, Informative

    Although they state that the tools have been dated to be around 230-190k years ago, but that tools could have been made far prior to that, giving a possible estimate of the tools being up to 700k years old. Despite this, they never really say why this changes their view on sea-faring of ancient times. Currently the north shore of Africa is about 200 miles from crete, but what they seem to have failed to take into account (or at least mention in the article) is that in ancient times sea levels were much much lower. This is estimated to be due to deglacification around 7k years ago. The National Institute of Oceanography states that in studies the sea level of India's coast were about 100m lower about 14k years ago, so extrapolating (a dangerous game I know =) we could say it may be possible that at some point the voyage to Crete was either walkable, or a very short sea voyage. It should also be noted that the technology is of the Acheulean type. Regardless it is still a fascinating discovery, and it never ceases to amaze me at how much we underestimate our ancestors, until we slowly find things that we never thought possible before, for example the Antikythera mechanism. Who knows what we'll find out tomorrow.

    --
    "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    1. Re:Interesting Article But... by T+Murphy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The only post I see mentioning a change in sea levels was posted AFTER the parent... why is this redundant?

    2. Re:Interesting Article But... by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Totally offtopic note: I have been to crete and it is one of my favorite places in the world. There is something about visiting the place where Zeus supposedly came into being is quite cool.

      --
      "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    3. Re:Interesting Article But... by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Funny

      The National Institute of Oceanography states that in studies the sea level of India's coast were about 100m lower about 14k years ago, so extrapolating (a dangerous game I know =) we could say it may be possible that at some point the voyage to Crete was either walkable, or a very short sea voyage.

      So you're saying that the oceans didn't even exist 1,529,360 years ago!? I know, snarky, but I couldn't resist. Hey, you said it was a dangerous game!

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    4. Re:Interesting Article But... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Totally offtopic note: I have been to crete and it is one of my favorite places in the world.

      I used to feel the same, but a lot of it has been sadly MacDonaldised to the point of trashiness. I first visited the place in '79, before the tourist industry had had a chance to tighten its grip, and it was sublime in its authenticity. I can't really say the same now...

    5. Re:Interesting Article But... by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Will Durant said, "Civilization is always older than we think. Beneath our feet were also people who lived and loved." Indeed, it never is a good idea to think that we've found everything. Not even close (which is what still gives me hope for FTL travel lol).

      --
      Qxe4
    6. Re:Interesting Article But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I went there in '78 before It became completely despoilt. I trashed it for later visitors, I left it covered in Lime.

    7. Re:Interesting Article But... by JackieBrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      McDonald's signs are how Man in four thousand years will discover that the whole world was once globally connected.

      There will be debates as the signs are uncovered about whether they could have been formed naturally, but - in the end - it will demonstrate the global society we have today.

    8. Re:Interesting Article But... by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative

      Currently the north shore of Africa is about 200 miles from crete, but what they seem to have failed to take into account (or at least mention in the article) is that in ancient times sea levels were much much lower.

      They did. Because the Mediterrean is very deep (average ~1500 metres), especially in the southern part, lowering the shore line doesn't do very much to the distance.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    9. Re:Interesting Article But... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      And the Big Macs will still be edible. Or at least, as edible as they are in our own time.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    10. Re:Interesting Article But... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      This is estimated to be due to deglacification around 7k years ago. The National Institute of Oceanography states that in studies the sea level of India's coast were about 100m lower about 14k years ago, so extrapolating (a dangerous game I know =) we could say it may be possible that at some point the voyage to Crete was either walkable, or a very short sea voyage.

      Good point. The size of the glaciers in the last ice age peaked about 18k years ago so the sea levels would have been lowest about then (the water had to come from somewhere). So potentially people could have either walked to Crete around that time frame, or it would have been a much easier boat trip so the boats need not have been very sophisticated, maybe no more than rafts.

      Just putting forward an alternate explanation, I'm no expert in this area.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    11. Re:Interesting Article But... by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative

      I just checked: The shelf in front of the african coast is very narrow, and more than 200 m are reached just 20 nm off the shore. Crete itself doesn't have a shelf at all, directly off the coast it goes down to 500 m.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    12. Re:Interesting Article But... by Natural+Join · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Despite this, they never really say why this changes their view on sea-faring of ancient times. Currently the north shore of Africa is about 200 miles from crete, but what they seem to have failed to take into account (or at least mention in the article) is that in ancient times sea levels were much much lower. This is estimated to be due to deglacification around 7k years ago. The National Institute of Oceanography states that in studies the sea level of India's coast were about 100m lower about 14k years ago, so extrapolating (a dangerous game I know =) we could say it may be possible that at some point the voyage to Crete was either walkable, or a very short sea voyage.

      Not if the sea floor was anything like it is today. A drop of 100m/328 ft would get you about 7 miles further off the coast of Africa than with today's sea levels. On the Crete side, the sea floor drops precipitously off the southern coast, and 100m gets you only about 1 mile. So the lower sea level you cite would shave less than 10 miles off the 200 mile journey.

      You can verify the sea floor elevation with Google Earth.

    13. Re:Interesting Article But... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Although Crete is 200 miles from the coast of Africa, there are lots of intervening islands between it and Greece, and the crossings are more like 10 and 20 miles rather than 200. You can see one island from the next. These are still formidable crossings for ancient humans, but not so grand as a single 200-mile trip.

    14. Re:Interesting Article But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the Mediterrean is very deep (average ~1500 metres), especially in the southern part, lowering the shore line doesn't do very much to the distance.

      Except that Crete is much closer to Greece than it is to northern Africa, and while the Mediterranean as whole may be quite deep, the Aegean Sea is quite shallow. Also as some other poster pointed out, there is a chain of islands from Greece to Crete. So the GP could very well be right. 130,000 years ago, Crete was probably a not overly long walk or a worst a series of short water crossings from Greece.

    15. Re:Interesting Article But... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      This assumes that civilization falls between now and then, and falls hard. I like to hope that it won't.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    16. Re:Interesting Article But... by howzit · · Score: 1

      A lot could have changed over 130,000 years! How many times have you seen professors professing that the sea must have been 600ft higher in the past for fossil shells to have been formed in some mountain ranges? NEVR taking into account movement of the land! 1)There may have been a land bridge. 2)The sea in the Med could have been lower. 3)The island could have 'moved' there due to continental drift. 4)There may have been islands in-between that have now sunk or been destroyed by volcanic action

    17. Re:Interesting Article But... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Currently the north shore of Africa is about 200 miles from crete, but what they seem to have failed to take into account (or at least mention in the article) is that in ancient times sea levels were much much lower.

      True.

      This is estimated to be due to deglacification around 7k years ago.

      That's the number-one reason on that time-scale.

      The National Institute of Oceanography states that in studies the sea level of India's coast were about 100m lower about 14k years ago,

      Seems reasonable, and you're using the Indian coast as a proxy for "global sea-level" because you think that have been no significant vertical movements of that part of the coast over that time-scale. Which is OK - we know that the Pakistan and Myanmar coasts are relatively active (Rann-of-Kutch earthquake of a couple of years ago ; the 2006 tsunami) ; it's less well-known that the east coast of Africa is rather wobbly - until you look at the movements further inland on the rift valleys ; looking for coastal stability in the Mediterranean is pretty much a WOMBAT. So yeah, I'd take 100m relative drop in sea level as a first approximation.

      so extrapolating (a dangerous game I know =) we could say it may be possible that at some point the voyage to Crete was either walkable, or a very short sea voyage.

      As you know, extrapolation is a dangerous game. 100m of sealevel decrease means completely different things depending on the steepness of the coastal regions and seabed. On the west coast of Scotland, you might acquire 50 to 200m of horizontal distance on your coastline ; on the east coast here, you'd acquire tens of kilometers for the same sea level fall. In the southern North Sea you'd change it from being sea to being low, rolling land. (I grew up over 100km from the coast in southern Englandshire, and at an altitude of barely 100m.) What effect you get from a particular fall in sea level depends entirely on how steeply the seabed decreases in your area under study. So you need a bathymetry map. (Greek : bathos = depth ; -metry = measurement) Google Earth has the data you need : explore the coasts of Egypt/ Lybia and the south coast of Crete. You'll find that the 100m depth contour is indistinguishable from the coast along the southern shore of Crete (at least, at the resolutions that I used), but lies around 10km off the coast on the Lybia/ Egypt side. So, by dropping sealevel by 100m (if that's what happened in the Mediterranean ; funny things have happened in the past at Gibraltar), you turn a 360km-odd journey into ... 350km. Big deal.
      You may be remembering hearing about the Mediterranean drying up completely. That was (several times) around 5 to 7 million years ago in the Miocene, and the Med dried out several times. A lot of the seabed of the Med has up to a kilometre of salt deposited from that event, below 1.5 to 2 km of water. But the prospect of protohumans crossing the Med during the "Messinian Salinity Crisis" ... not plausible, I think.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    18. Re:Interesting Article But... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Do some calculations. If the islands had moved through this distance over 130000 years, then over the 130 years of instrumental surveying, they'd have moved several hundred metres. Yeah, right.
      Land bridge? Where did the volume of rocks go? All approximately 2000 cubic kilometres of it?
      Sea lower in the Med? See previous comments about the areas bathymetry.
      Islands in between - see 'land bridge'.

      A lot can happen on a human scale over 130,000 years ; like the emergence of a new species, and the development of virtually all of our culture, science and technology. But to the Earth, it's barely anything.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    19. Re:Interesting Article But... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      So potentially people could have either walked to Crete around that time frame, or it would have been a much easier boat trip so the boats need not have been very sophisticated, maybe no more than rafts.

      Just putting forward an alternate explanation, I'm no expert in this area.

      I've just spent another whole minute with Google Earth (not because it's the only appropriate tool, but because it's readily available), running the cursor around the north side of the island, its easy to trace an isobath (line of constant depth) at 1km water depth. So, in the event that the Mediterranean suffered a 1km shallowing (which has happened, but a lot more than 100000 years ago), then Crete would still be an island, and by a substantial amount.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    20. Re:Interesting Article But... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Agreed. However if the sea level dropped by 100m, You can get to Crete from Greece via the island chain to the northwest, with only two boat trips: one of 6 miles, and the other of 15 miles. This is easily doable even in a primitive boat or raft.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    21. Re:Interesting Article But... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Agreed. However if the sea level dropped by 100m, You can get to Crete from Greece via the island chain to the northwest, with only two boat trips: one of 6 miles, and the other of 15 miles. This is easily doable even in a primitive boat or raft.

      And the climate on the Balkan peninsula at 100000 years ago was ... an awful lot worse than on the north coast of Africa. Which is why (I presume) the article's authors considered the possibilities of immigration from Africa as well as from the north.
      Given that the first Homo sapiens to leave Africa very likely had to cross the Bab al Mandab, the technology of crossing (approx) 30km of water has been available to almost all humans, almost all of the time that they've been recognisably humans. The largest plausible exception to this is the arrival of humans in Europe, which could have happened via Gibralter (12km voyage), or through the Levant (nothing more than river crossings, though some of them can be pretty hairy).

      The big question is not "could humans have made these crossings?", it's "why would they have made these crossings?"
      If you've got a settlement anywhere with a hunter-gatherer society, then by definition, people are going to be exploring to the limit of their short term transport - say, several day's walk. So, any time that a group feels the need to branch out (because they don't like the Boss, for example) then there is likely to be some place which they already know (from that 4-day trip last year, when they Ugggh-the-Rebellious went further than Boss told him he could) which is at least acceptable ... and another 2 days beyond that ... we'll find out when we've set up camp there.
      When such people meet the coast, they're practically certain to have some existing fishing and watercraft skill (retained through use on lakes and rivers as their tribe has migrated, at a pace of around two kilometres a year) which can be adapted over a few decades to marine fishing use. Then, if you can see land over the horizon ... that's the "couple of days" travel in the previous discussion. You don't go much further than you've gone already, and you scout before you attempt to settle ; you don't burn your bridges (adolescent males are easily replaced, so send them ; their contemporaneous sisters are probably pregnant already and are not so expendable). If you find that there's not enough land, or game, or the climate is too bad, then you don't go there at the next 4-day migration, instead you go along the coast. When there are neighbours on all sides ... welcome to population pressure and the cloud you see in the future is either agriculture or conquest by your agricultural neighbours.
      Given that scenario, then I'd expect on first principles that the settlement of Crete and the other Mediterranean islands would have been settled from the north, as you say. But (and it's a big "but"), if the coasts and interior of Europe were uninhabitable, or so marginally habitable as to kill off settling groups within a generation (while there were still people who knew where "back" was, so they could go "back" before things got too bad), then you could have settlement on habitable islands from the south. But I'd still expect Sicily to have been settled (and crossed) before Crete, and Gibralter to have been crossed into Iberia before either Sicily or Crete.

      (Actually, I have a suspicion that coastal migrating communities might well move substantially faster than inland communities ; they've got fewer travel options ; they've a more consistent environment to move into, and they've got their founder population to avoid in one direction, and so really only one direction to explore in. Which gels with the rapid spread of AMHs (Anatomically Modern Humans) from Africa to Australia (taking around 50ka) and to the Americas after another 30ka.
      But hey, I'm just a geologist - WTF would I know?)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  8. Maybe they walked to Crete by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From TFA:

    Crete has been an island for more than five million years, meaning that the toolmakers must have arrived by boat. So this seems to push the history of Mediterranean voyaging back more than 100,000 years, specialists in Stone Age archaeology say.

    There have been some pretty severe ice ages within the last million years when the sea levels were very low. For instance Japan used to be connected to Korea (and the Sea of Japan was a lake) only 18,000 years ago. Crete was probably really close to Greece back then too, maybe even connected.

    1. Re:Maybe they walked to Crete by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You highlight the quote - "Crete has been an island for more than five million years"

      What part of the quote are you and the GP failing to understand? Why do you both seem to be under the delusion that archeoligists have never heard of ice age migration when archeology was the discipline that discovered it?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Maybe they walked to Crete by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Getting to an island that is now ~500 km off shore is understandably hard for the GP to imagine being anything other than daunting if not nearly impossible for hominids living at that time. The GP and GGP are just looking for an explanation that makes it easier for such an ancient journey(s) to have taken place. TFA doesn't explicitly cover this but considering that the average depth of the Mediterranean Sea is ~1500 meters I would imagine that islands would be rather rare even during periods of glaciation.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:Maybe they walked to Crete by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Getting to an island that is now ~500 km off shore

      Where do you get that number from? Other people are mentioning 200 miles which is also wrong. According to Wikipedia, Crete is only 100 miles (160km) from mainland Greece and looking at the map there are several small islands in between so each single journey by sea might only involve 30 miles or so. If the sea level was lower it is quite likely that there would be more islands sticking out, and if the surface was frozen in the winter, then there is your problem solved without any seafaring technology.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    4. Re:Maybe they walked to Crete by gujo-odori · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll leave it someone less lazy than I to check if there was an ice age around the time they think the tools were made.

      If we assume for the moment that there wasn't, and further assume that there are no islands in between Crete and Greece, I still could be convinced that ancient humans might have made such a voyage. After all, Pacific islanders have been known to make long sea journeys in outrigger canoes without navigational tools. Plus, as TFA states, the human migration to Australia started about 60K years ago, and you can bet nobody walked there.

    5. Re:Maybe they walked to Crete by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and if the surface was frozen in the winter, then there is your problem solved without any seafaring technology.

      Even during an ice age I doubt the Mediterranean ever came anywhere near freezing. But I agree with your other points.

    6. Re:Maybe they walked to Crete by TempeTerra · · Score: 3, Informative

      The original humans reached Australia when the sea levels were significantly lower, and while you're right that you couldn't just walk it, there may have only been a single crossing of ~90km between southeast asia and the Australia-ish landmass. Wiki

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    7. Re:Maybe they walked to Crete by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      I'll leave it someone less lazy than I to check if there was an ice age around the time they think the tools were made.

      If we assume for the moment that there wasn't, and further assume that there are no islands in between Crete and Greece, I still could be convinced that ancient humans might have made such a voyage. After all, Pacific islanders have been known to make long sea journeys in outrigger canoes without navigational tools. Plus, as TFA states, the human migration to Australia started about 60K years ago,

      and you can bet nobody walked there.

      I'll take that bet - on not being able to walk into Gondwanna land >40000 years ago.

    8. Re:Maybe they walked to Crete by rhook · · Score: 1

      What does Crete being ~100 miles from mainland Greece have to do with it being 200 miles from Africa?

    9. Re:Maybe they walked to Crete by perko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Maori (sorry but I can't be buggered to copy and paste all the macrons) and Tahitian and Hawai'ian navigators had a 32 point compass rose based on the stars. Furthermore, they didn't set out blindly in a Great Fleet; they migrated over time, and there were voyages back and forth among the Polynesian islands. "Without navigational tools" sort of discounts how useful the stars can be.

    10. Re:Maybe they walked to Crete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 200 mile figure is the distance from Africa, which is the only other place the same age tools have been found so far.

    11. Re:Maybe they walked to Crete by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The Maori (sorry but I can't be buggered to copy and paste all the macrons

      Just use doubled vowels. Thats how it should have been transliterated in the first place. Its not as if its a sound that doesn't occur in English, its just lengthened.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  9. Bah. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Don't talk to me about humans' maritime history. It's nothing but primitive stone tools, sodomy, and the lash."

    1. Re:Bah. by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      ... primitive stone tools, sodomy, and the lash.

      But, how do the stone tools fit into the, um, picture? (No no, please don't imagine it.)

    2. Re:Bah. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So it's true. Whatever human ever did, he did it for the one big reason...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Bah. by radtea · · Score: 1

      But, how do the stone tools fit into the, um, picture? (No no, please don't imagine it.)

      No imagination required

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  10. The article assumes too much. by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not so sure the find is suggestive of "maritime capabilities". To prove such a statement, you would have to prove evidence of navigation. Even if it were only celestial navigation, stronger evidence would be to find more than one such remote site with similar styles of survival technology. From the article: More than 2,000 stone artifacts, including the hand axes, were collected on the southwestern shore of Crete, near the town of Plakias. The question, at least for now, should be whether or not they went back.

    1. Re:The article assumes too much. by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not so sure the find is suggestive of "maritime capabilities". To prove such a statement, you would have to prove evidence of navigation. Even if it were only celestial navigation, stronger evidence would be to find more than one such remote site with similar styles of survival technology. From the article: More than 2,000 stone artifacts, including the hand axes, were collected on the southwestern shore of Crete, near the town of Plakias. The question, at least for now, should be whether or not they went back.

      Try looking up Kon Tiki, and Maori chants as navigation.

    2. Re:The article assumes too much. by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the suggestions. I haven't bumped into the Maori chants yet, but I love the movie Whale Rider! Anyway, here's a book I read last year when I was putting around in Bristol Bay with a lunatic for a skipper. http://www.stevethomashome.com/navigator.html Enjoy!

    3. Re:The article assumes too much. by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      Ever watch a documentary on how the Hawaiian islands were found by Polynesians with no instruments, and before they learned how to write and do any kind of math? The could find islands that were hundreds of miles away by watching for certain cloud patterns in the sky. Compared to that, even sailors who were completely brain dead could find land sailing around in the Mediterranean. I mean, any direction you go from any point, and you'll find land.

    4. Re:The article assumes too much. by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the suggestions.

      No problem - Kon-Tiki was a journey of more than 4000km on a raft, the journey has been duplicated since.

      I haven't bumped into the Maori chants yet,

      Try for a start...

      but I love the movie Whale Rider!

      Haven't seen it, or Lord of the Rings ;-p

      They are both fantasy movies

      Anyway, here's a book I read last year when I was putting around in Bristol Bay with a lunatic for a skipper. http://www.stevethomashome.com/navigator.html Enjoy!

      (Was) an interesting read - though a little, um, simplistic. From memory he only covered celestial navigation - which is used to determine which songs/chants are required to go to a certain destination by a path largely determined by the prevailing winds and currents.

  11. it's my beach party by networkzombie · · Score: 1, Interesting

    These are quartzite. The three types of stone that can be cleaved to make tools are quartzite, obsidian and flint. Quartzite is the worst of the three because it doesn't cleave well. If these hominids were "going to sea" you would think they could trade up for flint or obsidian. I'd guess that stone-age teenagers used the area for beach barbeques (the stoned-age). A few thousand tools simply mean a well used party spot. Turning a few old tools into a theory that humans were sea travelers a hundred thousand years before previously thought is a stretch.

    1. Re:it's my beach party by thelonious · · Score: 1

      Possibly. You may be weighing in relatively short distance sea travel as being more complex than the actuality.

    2. Re:it's my beach party by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Turning a few old tools into a theory that humans were sea travelers a hundred thousand years before previously thought is a stretch."

      The article states Crete has been an island for five millions years. It also states that previously the earliest known sea crossings were 60Kya.

      How did the tools get there without some species of hominoid crossing the water? 200 miles is a long way to swim, so how did the hominoids cross the water? What makes you think they brought the tools with them? How do you know that quartz is not the only suitable tool making rock found on Crete?

      Nobody is suggesting they deliberately navigated to Crete but it's not a streach to think they were "going to sea" in some sort of raft/boat that was used for near shore spear fishing. Nor is it a streach to think a some of them were swept away to sea by currents/storms and ended up accidently colonising Crete.

      Science is about the best available explaination that fits the evidence, do you have a better explaination of how hominoids got to Crete other than the one that says they arrived by some sort of prehistoric boat/raft?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:it's my beach party by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nobody is suggesting they deliberately navigated to Crete

      Maybe not but islands make their presence known by affecting the atmosphere (clouds form above them) and by providing a home to sea birds (where did that bird come from? There must be land that way). Also Crete has tall mountains (about 2100 metres high) so it could be seen from fifty kilometres away or so, assuming good atmospheric conditions.

      Another thing is that while we don't know what species left these tools, there were many modern humans around. These people were as smart as us and may have known a lot more about the world than we give them credit for.

    4. Re:it's my beach party by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "These people were as smart as us and may have known a lot more about the world than we give them credit for."

      Agreed, finding evidence they had boats/rafts is giving them more credit than they were previously afforded. The problem with the diliberate navigation idea is there is currently no evidence to support it. Until such evidence is found the idea can only be considered speculation at best.

      Ignorance of technologoy does not imply they were stupid. Modern humans are much less ignorant about technology but most would starve to death if they had to track and kill an antelope with nothing more than carefull observation and a sharp stick.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:it's my beach party by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If these hominids were "going to sea" you would think they could trade up for flint or obsidian

      Actually, I'd expect the opposite. You don't embark on a potentially fatal sea crossing if you're one of the successful hunter gatherers back home. I'd imagine that the ones building the raft were the outcasts from the tribe, who were lucky to have any tools at all.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:it's my beach party by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      I'd imagine that the ones building the raft were the outcasts from the tribe, who were lucky to have any tools at all.

      Posting on /. and you have not realised its the nerds that are the outcasts?

      You must be new here.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    7. Re:it's my beach party by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      That's only actually a fairly recent phenomena. Even the ancient Greeks who were more about the physical body and manliness than most respected their blacksmiths. They sure as hell didn't like them, they stank for one, but the guy who can make your shiny new weapon which is better than your old weapon is someone you have to pay attention to.

    8. Re:it's my beach party by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      but the guy who can make your shiny new weapon which is better than your old weapon is someone you have to pay attention to.

      You also need to pay attention to the guy who got your old weapon. He may attack you while you're admiring yourself in the reflection of your shiny new weapon ;-)

    9. Re:it's my beach party by Disfnord · · Score: 1

      I hate to be one of those people who shout "WRONG", but your wrong, many times over. Those tools are quartz, quartz is not an uncommon raw material (although not a very good one), and any number of fine grained rocks can be used for chipped stone tools, not just the three you listed. For example, you'll find that the majority of chipped stone tools in the Aleutians are made from basalt. Northern Minnesota has a large quantity of siltstone tools (and central MN has a large percentage of quartz tools). Also, quartzite can be a great raw material. Hixton Quartzite from Wisconsin is a dream to work with, one of the best raw materials in the area. Finally, while obsidian is easy to work, it is quite brittle and unsuitable for many tasks. But given the number of artifacts recovered at this site, they most likely were using local materials, not ones they brought with them. Quartz, as shitty as it is as a raw material, might have been the best available to them.

    10. Re:it's my beach party by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      How did the tools get there without some species of hominoid crossing the water? 200 miles is a long way to swim, so how did the hominoids cross the water?

      Perhaps they swam or rafted over from the North instead? Crete is only about 74 miles from mainland Greece, and there are island chains between them. During an Ice Age sea levels would be lower so there would probably be even more and larger islands between them.

      Crete is nearly as close to Asia Minor (Turkey), also w/ island chains in between.

      I really don't understand the author's decision to quote the distance to the African coast. The only reason I can think of is appalling geographic ignorance.

    11. Re:it's my beach party by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they swam or rafted over from the North instead? Crete is only about 74 miles from mainland Greece, and there are island chains between them. During an Ice Age sea levels would be lower so there would probably be even more and larger islands between them.
      Crete is nearly as close to Asia Minor (Turkey), also w/ island chains in between.

      However, at the time at which the style of stone tools were in use on the African mainland, the climate on mainland Europe was pretty harsh. Think in terms of north Siberian tundra of the present day, or Baffin Island. While humans were able to make it into central Europe on occasions, I don't recall them being reported from this particular time period (which could simply mean that they came in during relatively good millennia and died out in the next millennia. WGAF.)

      I really don't understand the author's decision to quote the distance to the African coast. The only reason I can think of is appalling geographic ignorance.

      Humans (possibly AMHs, Anatomically Modern Humans) were present in Africa at about this time, producing comparable tools ; the conditions in Europe at the time were considerably worse ; the conditions in the Balkan mountains were probably even worse than the average in Europe ; things probably weren't particularly sunny and marvellous in Anatolia either, because they're pretty mountainous too ; meanwhile, the Sahara ... wasn't (well, it wasn't a major desert ; plenty of woodland, minor lake basins, much less of a challenge to cross than it has been in recorded history). So I think that the suggestion of an approach from the south is not irrational. And considering that the authors also consider the prospect of there being transits across the Mediterranean at Gibralter too, then it's unjustifiable to say that they're ignorant of the other plausible alternatives.
      They don't mention the prospect of crossing the Mediterranean across the Tunis/ Sicily/ Italy route. that'd be considerably narrower under 100m lower sea levels. It'd still require boats of some sort, but probably only a day at sea.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  12. Not so far from Greece by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Informative

    Its pretty easy to island hop from mainland Greece to Crete. You would be looking at 20km at a stretch. Thats very easy in a modern sea kayak. Even if proper hulls were beyond them they could build a sailing raft. There was more wood around in those days.

    1. Re:Not so far from Greece by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Its pretty easy to island hop from mainland Greece to Crete. You would be looking at 20km at a stretch.

      A fair point, which deserves an answer. The reason they're not thinking that is, probably, that there has as yet been no evidence that there were humans in mainland Greece anything like that early. The earliest known sign of human habitation in Europe is only ca. 40k years old.

      Humans in Africa, however ...

    2. Re:Not so far from Greece by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason they're not thinking that is, probably, that there has as yet been no evidence that there were humans in mainland Greece anything like that early. The earliest known sign of human habitation in Europe is only ca. 40k years old.

            There's too much speculation. "No evidence of human habitation" doesn't mean there absolutely were no humans, only that we haven't found settlements. I for one would be much more comfortable with an undiscovered Greek sea-faring civilization engaging in island-hopping trade among islands within sight of each other than a mysterious African tribe that suddenly invented the boat to colonize the island they had somehow heard about "over the horizon". Occam's razor, and all that. Obviously if a single discovery can completely "revolutionize" archaeological thought like this, then the "facts" and "evidence" are fairly shaky at best and I wouldn't back a claim that "Greece was uninhabited" is set in stone.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Not so far from Greece by whatajoke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      an undiscovered Greek sea-faring civilization engaging in island-hopping trade among islands within sight of each other than a mysterious African tribe that suddenly invented the boat to colonize the island
      Still not comfortable with our African ancestry I see.

    4. Re:Not so far from Greece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. he's just really fond of boats

    5. Re:Not so far from Greece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there's the saying, The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

      I just wanted to use that saying because I like it, and this post seemed the closet to where it would apply.

    6. Re:Not so far from Greece by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      And to the best of my knowledge, a modern sea kayak would have been substantially beyond what it was believed humans were capable of over 100 thousand years ago. I can drive from one side of the country to the other in a car in just a few days. Even a few hundred years ago, that trip would have been considered almost impossible.

    7. Re:Not so far from Greece by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Still not comfortable with our African ancestry I see.

            Nah, it's called using dramatic device to make a point :) I have no problems with our ancestry because if we go back far enough, we all come from the same puddle of slime.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Not so far from Greece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope that's a joke...
      Can't believe it was scored insightful.

      Either that or you missed the core of his point about the technologies involved.

    9. Re:Not so far from Greece by michael_cain · · Score: 1

      Its pretty easy to island hop from mainland Greece to Crete. You would be looking at 20km at a stretch.
      ==========
      The reason they're not thinking that is, probably, that there has as yet been no evidence that there were humans in mainland Greece anything like that early.

      The logical answer. Of course, that leaves the question of why a group who could cross the 200 miles from northern Africa stopped at Crete, rather than island-hopping on across to Greece.

    10. Re:Not so far from Greece by hchaos · · Score: 1

      A fair point, which deserves an answer. The reason they're not thinking that is, probably, that there has as yet been no evidence that there were humans in mainland Greece anything like that early. The earliest known sign of human habitation in Europe is only ca. 40k years old.

      Humans in Africa, however ...

      There is no evidence for Homo sapiens in Europe 130k years ago. However, according to the article, these tools are Acheulean technology, which was used by Homo erectus. These were not modern humans, and this technology was pretty widespread across Europe, as well as Africa and Asia.

    11. Re:Not so far from Greece by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah but as I pointed out. Sailing rafts could have been built. The technology is pretty simple.

    12. Re:Not so far from Greece by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Even if proper hulls were beyond them they could build a sailing raft. There was more wood around in those days.

      Was there? 100000 to 200000 years ago (the authors do put pretty broad limits on their dating) had temperatures around 4 to 8 centigrade colder than present, which would make for a greatly different climate, and probably rather less wood.
      OTOH, previous climatic postdictions I've seen for the Sahara in the same time period has it considerably more clement and wood-rich.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    13. Re:Not so far from Greece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The earliest known sign of human habitation in Europe is only ca. 40k years old.

      The tools are consistent with Neanderthals. Neanderthals inhabited Europe 130,000 years ago, and Neanderthal remains have been found in Greece.

  13. Could ancient humans do the backstroke? by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 1, Funny

    Maybe they were just very good swimmers?

  14. Oh Those Crazy Cretans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just when you think you've figured them out.

  15. it's a riddle by thelonious · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What's long, hard and full of seamen? Stone tools, of course!

  16. Atlantis by troll8901 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did any of them discover a moonstone?

    Nur-Ab-Sal! Nur-Ab-Sal!

  17. Re:they WALKED (not on water) by voidphoenix · · Score: 2, Informative

    Try 5.33Mya.

  18. Re:they WALKED (not on water) by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, you are thinking of the black sea. The mediteranean is 5 million years old.

  19. Re:they WALKED (not on water) by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Med has not been a dry basin for millions of years. You could have learned that if you'd RTFA or just did a little basic homework before spouting off a totally false statement like that.

  20. Re:they WALKED (not on water) by wish+bot · · Score: 1

    You need to read less science fiction.

    --
    lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
  21. Africanswallows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    299 miles is not far for a swallow to fly, even if its not migrating.

    Were there coconuts too?

  22. Re:I read a lot by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

    In fact, I don't know if you know this or not, Greeks were spawned by niggers

    Really? That's absolutely fascinating. I had previously assumed that, unlike all of the other humans on the Earth whose ancestors came from Africa, the Greek civilisation had sprung full-formed from the head of Zeus. Thank you for correcting my belief.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  23. How about a simpler explanation? by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    So we found stone tools. Can we actually carbon date stone or how did we end up with the explanation that these things have to be 120k years old? By the logic that human created stone tools back then?

    Well, I can make stone tools. Sure, it might take a while to get it right, but there's plenty of material lying around. So gimme a few weeks/months and presto, 120k year old stone tools.

    Now why would I do such a thing? Well, what would I do if there was nothing else around that I could make tools out of? Imagine this: A group of sailors stranding on a far away island after a horrible storm that pushed them away from their usual routes. They have no idea where they are and have no idea where they could go, and the island is able to supply them, so... why bother going into the perils of the sea again? Only problem: No copper, no iron, no nothing to make tools out of.

    I guess you can imagine the rest.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:How about a simpler explanation? by joelsanda · · Score: 2, Informative

      In addition to carbon data there are other strata around things dug up that give an indication to its relative age. Another indication of a tool's age is mentioned in the article's fourth paragraph: style of manufacturer.

      Since those folks didn't leave readme files or cookbooks around, everything was taught by learning how the person a little older than you did things. For that reason there's a remarkable amount of consistency in materials and manufacturer, given how difficult making stone tools with stone tools can be. The tools they used were fashioned to provide enough direct force at an angle of impact to provide the right fracture on the right material so a chip would flake off. For example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture.

      It was so difficult to make those tools stone age peoples in Colorado, USA would carry them over the Continental Divide west of the Denver area to the present day Denver area when hunting. A cache of them were found recently in a private yard where some landscaping work was done. Their protected condition and careful placement suggested the original people may have stashed a set here for a return hunting trip or similar.

      These tools are very hard to make. Given a few months of time people today would do nothing but learn how to live with two fingers instead of ten. When I was an anthropology student I not only the chance to see these tools up close but watch a demonstration of someone making them. And that was rock on obsidian for arrow heads and knives.

      --
      The Luddites were ahead of their time.
  24. Sorry .... those were mine ... by joelsanda · · Score: 1

    left behind when some friends and I were camping. You can keep them.

    --
    The Luddites were ahead of their time.
  25. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure some of the Galactica people landed around there.

  26. Cretan Hop? by c10 · · Score: 1

    There's no stoppin' the cretins from hoppin' You gotta keep it beatin' For all the hoppin' cretins Cretin! Cretin! I'm gonna go for a whirl with my cretin girl My feet won't stop Doin' the Cretin Hop Cretin! Cretin! 1-2-3-4 Cretins wanna hop some more 4-5-6-7 All good cretins go to heaven

  27. Re:I read a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Your great, great, great, great, great- grandmother was fucked by a nigger, and had a half-nigger kid. That is a fact. Now tell me, am I lyin'?"

    No, because all humans are descended from Africans, including the ancient Greeks, the ancient Turks, and you and me. Humanity is all one big happy family. Well, except for the few nutbars that think they are somehow completely different from the rest. They're usually not as happy because they are in deep denial of the reality that we're all quite closely related, and they miss out on the beauty that is possible to see within the diversity of humans around today. It's sad, really.

  28. Are you calling the ancient people stupid? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why would ancient people make "tools" of those shapes when they could find stones of those shapes in a rock pile?

  29. 200 mi from Africa, 5000 mi from the Jersey Shore by toboldh · · Score: 1

    and 100 miles from Greece. So what? Come on folks, look at the bloody map. It's only 50 miles from Turkey.

  30. Re:I read a lot by Reziac · · Score: 1

    The parent was meant as a troll, but there's actually some truth to his post. The dark curly hair found in parts of southern Europe is not native to the (relatively modern) continent, but rather was the result of African slaves (and some freemen) interbreeding with Greeks and Romans.

    However, I find Zeus' explanation far more amusing :)

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  31. More we don't know than we do know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fully expect that one day we will find evidence of a pre-historic civilization that is more advanced than the oldest historic civilizations, or maybe even recent ones. If there was something as advanced as what we have today we would probably have found evidence by now; Geological processes wouldn't wipe out rebar that fast. But how much would be left of, say, a civilization at the level of ancient Greece or even Rome after 50,000 years?

    It's amazing when you stop to think about it, but if you pick any subject there's probably more we don't know than we do know. Even of our own species' history we don't know more than a few thousand years with any certainty or detail.

  32. Re:I read a lot by BumbaCLot · · Score: 1

    Apparently no one else has seen True Romance...
    I thought nerds likes Tarantino...
    Hopper vs Walken