From Science News (found via Archaeology in Europe).
Archaeologists have found quartz tools in the Mediterranean island of Crete, dated to c. 130,000 BP, that resemble the type of tools used in Africa c. 800,000 BP (Acheulean I presume). For that reason they speculate, in spite of the late date, that the makers could have been part of the Homo erectus para-species, rather than H. sapiens or H. neanderthalensis, who lived nearby anyhow.
Whatever the species, what this finding makes clear is that ancient members of our genus were able to navigate, as Crete has never been connected to the mainland, since the Mediterranean Sea exists.
However, and very cautiously, I'd consider the possibility that they could be Homo sapiens, who are known to have lived in Palestine and North Africa not much later than this date.
__________________
Update (Aug 19): Julien Riel-Salvatore mentions in his blog that the paper on this matter has finally appeared (LINK, pay per view). Importantly, he quotes:
The dating of the Palaeolithic in the Plakias region presents a considerable challenge, not least because of the long period of time that may have elapsed since the occupation of the earliest sites, during which postdepositional natural processes may have obscured the archaeological record. Additionally complicating the issue are the small number of sites, the lack of excavation, and the impact of modern development on the area, which has destroyed many sites.
Several approaches to dating were attempted, and our research on this topic continues. At Preveli 2, east of the Preveli Gorge, Palaeolithic artifacts are associated with a flight of marine terraces resulting from relatively high sea levels in the Pleistocene that were preserved by subsequent rock uplift. The lowest late Pleistocene marine terraces resulting from high stands of the sea at Preveli (14 ± 1 masl) and Schinaria (21 ± 1 masl) have 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon ages of 45,400 ± 1,600 and 49,120 ± 2,890 years b.p., respectively, and are correlated with Marine Isotope Stages 3.3 and 3.4, both eustatic high stands. The higher terraces, at 59 and 96 masl, are unquestionably older. How much older? Assuming similar rates of rock uplift (1.4 ± 0.1 m/kyr) determined from the age-elevation relationships of the dated terraces at 14 and 21 masl, it is possible to estimate the approximate ages of the terraces associated with artifacts. This correlation provides an approximate age for the lithic artifacts. The higher terrace, at 96 masl, may belong to Marine Isotope Stage 5, possibly early 5e, ca. 110,000 b.p. Artifacts associated with the terrace at 59 masl could correlate with Marine Isotope Stage 5a, ca. 70,000 b.p. It should be stressed that these are rough approximations and these ages are probably minima that represent a terminus ante quem. If the uplift rate is changed, the terraces and the artifacts associated with them could be much older.
At Preveli 3, Preveli 7, Timeos Stavros 1, and Schinaria 5, Palaeolithic artifacts were found in outcrops of paleosols that exhibit the characteristics of the oldest maturity stage for such features, that is, Maturity Stage 6, or in geological terms, Marine Isotope Stage 6. Together these observations suggest an age of ca. 190,000–130,000 b.p. and serve as a terminus ante quem for the artifacts embedded within them. The stone tools were incorporated in the paleosols as part of a process described by Runnels and van Andel in Epirus: “the top of the Bt horizon itself would move gradually upward as a result of slow deposition, so engulfing any artifacts laid down on former land surfaces above it.” In other words, the Bt horizon, especially as much of the clay comes from eolian sources, will increase in thickness through time, slowly engulfing clasts, such as stone tools, that were formerly in the A horizon.
In sum, the dating of the Palaeolithic sites is based on geological data derived from the study of marine terraces on the southwestern coast of Crete and our identification of paleosols, and these data place the Palaeolithic lithic artifacts firmly in the Pleistocene, ca. 130,000 b.p. or earlier. The chronology can be further refined, however, and a dating program currently in progress may provide data for doing so.
Archaeologists have found quartz tools in the Mediterranean island of Crete, dated to c. 130,000 BP, that resemble the type of tools used in Africa c. 800,000 BP (Acheulean I presume). For that reason they speculate, in spite of the late date, that the makers could have been part of the Homo erectus para-species, rather than H. sapiens or H. neanderthalensis, who lived nearby anyhow.
Whatever the species, what this finding makes clear is that ancient members of our genus were able to navigate, as Crete has never been connected to the mainland, since the Mediterranean Sea exists.
However, and very cautiously, I'd consider the possibility that they could be Homo sapiens, who are known to have lived in Palestine and North Africa not much later than this date.
__________________
Update (Aug 19): Julien Riel-Salvatore mentions in his blog that the paper on this matter has finally appeared (LINK, pay per view). Importantly, he quotes:
The dating of the Palaeolithic in the Plakias region presents a considerable challenge, not least because of the long period of time that may have elapsed since the occupation of the earliest sites, during which postdepositional natural processes may have obscured the archaeological record. Additionally complicating the issue are the small number of sites, the lack of excavation, and the impact of modern development on the area, which has destroyed many sites.
Several approaches to dating were attempted, and our research on this topic continues. At Preveli 2, east of the Preveli Gorge, Palaeolithic artifacts are associated with a flight of marine terraces resulting from relatively high sea levels in the Pleistocene that were preserved by subsequent rock uplift. The lowest late Pleistocene marine terraces resulting from high stands of the sea at Preveli (14 ± 1 masl) and Schinaria (21 ± 1 masl) have 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon ages of 45,400 ± 1,600 and 49,120 ± 2,890 years b.p., respectively, and are correlated with Marine Isotope Stages 3.3 and 3.4, both eustatic high stands. The higher terraces, at 59 and 96 masl, are unquestionably older. How much older? Assuming similar rates of rock uplift (1.4 ± 0.1 m/kyr) determined from the age-elevation relationships of the dated terraces at 14 and 21 masl, it is possible to estimate the approximate ages of the terraces associated with artifacts. This correlation provides an approximate age for the lithic artifacts. The higher terrace, at 96 masl, may belong to Marine Isotope Stage 5, possibly early 5e, ca. 110,000 b.p. Artifacts associated with the terrace at 59 masl could correlate with Marine Isotope Stage 5a, ca. 70,000 b.p. It should be stressed that these are rough approximations and these ages are probably minima that represent a terminus ante quem. If the uplift rate is changed, the terraces and the artifacts associated with them could be much older.
At Preveli 3, Preveli 7, Timeos Stavros 1, and Schinaria 5, Palaeolithic artifacts were found in outcrops of paleosols that exhibit the characteristics of the oldest maturity stage for such features, that is, Maturity Stage 6, or in geological terms, Marine Isotope Stage 6. Together these observations suggest an age of ca. 190,000–130,000 b.p. and serve as a terminus ante quem for the artifacts embedded within them. The stone tools were incorporated in the paleosols as part of a process described by Runnels and van Andel in Epirus: “the top of the Bt horizon itself would move gradually upward as a result of slow deposition, so engulfing any artifacts laid down on former land surfaces above it.” In other words, the Bt horizon, especially as much of the clay comes from eolian sources, will increase in thickness through time, slowly engulfing clasts, such as stone tools, that were formerly in the A horizon.
In sum, the dating of the Palaeolithic sites is based on geological data derived from the study of marine terraces on the southwestern coast of Crete and our identification of paleosols, and these data place the Palaeolithic lithic artifacts firmly in the Pleistocene, ca. 130,000 b.p. or earlier. The chronology can be further refined, however, and a dating program currently in progress may provide data for doing so.
18 comments:
"Whatever the species, what this finding makes clear is that ancient members of our genus were able to navigate, as Crete has never been connected to the mainland, since the Mediterranean Sea exists".
I wouldn't be so sure of the 'navigate' bit, or the 'never been connected to the mainland, since the Mediterranean Sea exists'. How long ago did elephants arrive on Crete? Since the Mediterranean formed, or were they isolated there as water rose?
Elephants? Didn't even notice that part. But, well, elephants existed in Flores, again along with a hominin and beyond an unquestionable sea barrier. Elephants are good swimmers.
But see which is the problem, Terry: you are so "in love" with your pet theory that are you go into denial and into complicated and tricky argumentations where you don't even mind falling in dishonest dialectal tricks, consciously or unconsciously, only to defend "your love".
*snaps fingers* Wake up!
Nah there's no mention of elephants in that article.
"you don't even mind falling in dishonest dialectal tricks"
What's 'dishonest' about it? You claimed 'that ancient members of our genus were able to navigate' whereas I'm suggesting it doesn't prove that at all. The presence of elephants suggests they could have swum or walked.
"Nah there's no mention of elephants in that article".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_elephant
From Wiki:
"There are many uncertainties about the time of colonisation, the phylogenetic relationships and the taxonomic status of dwarf elephants on the Mediterranean islands".
I have a problem with this comment though:
"Extinction of the insular dwarf elephants has not been correlated with the arrival in the islands of man".
For Cyprus we get, 'The Cyprus dwarf elephant survived at least until 11,000 BP'. Wow. And, what's really interesting, on Tolos 'they became extinct just less than 4,000 years BP'.
First time I ever heard of elephants in Crete or Cyprus. Anyhow, sure, elephants can and do swim very well.
Whatever the case you are in denial. Neither Crete nor Flores were ever connected to the mainland (except in deep geological times that do not matter here). Flores is beyond the Wallace line but H. floresensis arrived there. Crete is in the middle of the sea, separated from Greece and Egypt by deep basins, much deeper than any possible Ice Age lower sea.
It's like pointing you to a large building just a couple of meters in front of you and you claiming "no, it's not there".
Well, sorry if you don't see it. I'm really tired of discussing what is blatantly obvious. At this point it's a total waste of time, specially when you have no evidence at all: just a silly conjecture of your preference, not any different from what creationist hold.
"Flores is beyond the Wallace line but H. floresensis arrived there".
So did elephants, and it's most unlikely that either got there by boat.
"Neither Crete nor Flores were ever connected to the mainland (except in deep geological times that do not matter here)".
I wouldn't be so sure of that. We don't really know the geological history of this tectonically active region. And the comment, 'dated to c. 130,000 BP', is surely significant. This date lies at the end of an extremely prolonged and severe ice age.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
Quote, 'The Eemian or Marine oxygen Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e interglacial (Fig.1) began sometime between 130-140 ka ago (Imbrie et al. 1984; Martinson et al., 1987; Sarnthein & Tiedemann, 1990; Szabo et al., 1994; Stirling et al., 1995) with a warming phase (of uncertain duration) taking the earth out of an extreme glacial phase, into conditions generally warmer than those of today'.
Note, 'extreme glacial phase'. And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif
"I'm really tired of discussing what is blatantly obvious"
Actually the Eemian certainly provides an opportunity for humans to move well to the north:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
"At this point it's a total waste of time, specially when you have no evidence at all: just a silly conjecture of your preference, not any different from what creationist hold".
And those comments hold exactly for the 'great southern coastal migration theory'. As far as I'm aware it was invented by Spencer Wells in order to reconcile his idea of a relatively recent (Upper Paleolithic) emergence from Africa and the consequently necessarily extremely rapid trip to Australia. No-one has actually found any evidence for it. Just 'conjecture of [a] preference, not any different from what creationist hold'.
And somewhere you mentioned that the Persian gulf would have been dry land at the time modern humans emerged from Afirca. Surely that would have provided an even wider front for them to move onto the Iranian Plateau. Even less likely to simply move along the coast.
Terryt and Maju:
It's possible that, especially in times when seas were shallower because of extended glaciation elswhere, that early humans like H.erectus actually were able to make relatively short trips, on rafts of the like, to nearby bodies of land. This might explain Flores and Crete. But OTOH, I don't know. I'm only a Starving Writer, not a prehistoric archaeologist.
Anne G
In this map I carefully reproduced the would be LGM coast of Europe according to a book I own (blue line). However no info was produced specifically for Crete or West Asia east of Rhodes. Anyhow I suspect from the rest of the map that it would not have been too narrow.
Thanks for the map. I'm quite prepared to accept that Crete has never been actually connected to the mainland. But in this case the ancient tool-types, surprising dating and the fact they died out suggests to me a very small group. Again, possibly arriving by accident. Boats not required.
For what I read at A Very Remote Period Indeed, the findings appear to last for about 90,000 years (that would be until 40,000 years ago, more or less, surprisingly coincident with the Ignimbrite Campanian eruption).
But whatever.
Thanks for the link. Quote from the article:
"Both of these observations argue for hominins arriving to the island purely by chance".
Hardly evidence for effective boating. In fact drifting logs is sufficient explanation.
And Archaeoblog is skeptical. Quote:
"I dunno, I am rather skeptical. The artifacts are not dated by any radiometric means, and there aren’t any photos of the artifacts to see if they really are that similar to others from ca. 130k years ago. So, eh, we’ll see".
As is John Hawks. And he wrote:
"there was a faunal turnover on Crete 300,000 years ago. The earlier fauna included a 1.5-meter dwarf mammoth and dwarf hippos. The hippos were hoof-walkers apparently adapted to a 'more terrestrial' activity pattern. Sometime after 400,000 years ago, this fauna was replaced. No more hippos or mammoths, and new, larger, mainland-derived elephants".
The 300,000 year date is a lot earlier than that given for the stone implements but it does show that Crete has, in fact, been connected to the mainland at times. I'm sure the 'larger, mainland-derived elephants' didn't arrive by boat.
How does the fauna indicate connection to the mainland? Both hippos and elephants can swim well. In fact they are relatives of two groups of sea mammals: cetaceans and sirenids respectively.
I am pretty sure that Crete was never in the last million(s) years connected to the continent. How they arrived there is arguable but a sustained presence for 40,000 years is not built on a chance arrival only: they needed to arrive with enough numbers in order to stay and survive. Robinson Crusoe's legacy was nil.
"How does the fauna indicate connection to the mainland?"
If elephants and hippos can get there without boats so can humans. Elephants and hippos may well be good swimmers, but so are humans once they learn how to swim. And, as far as I know, neither hippos nor elephants habitually enter salt water.
Long distance swimming (or marathon swimming) is an elite sport, totally inadequate (if used at all) to colonize islands beyond the horizon line (or even in such sight distance). Even if some highly prepared athletes do it, it is highly impractical and risky.
I don't see why building a simple raft seems so challenging to you. It's as obvious as to see logs floating on the water and borrow the idea. Maybe beats the mind of a chimpanzee... but barely so.
"Long distance swimming (or marathon swimming) is an elite sport, totally inadequate (if used at all) to colonize islands beyond the horizon line"
And so it is for elephants and hippos. Besides which it's not only those animals that appear on Crete. And my (very good) atlas shows that a sea level fall of around 100 metres would virtually, if not completely, connect Crete to the Greek mainland via Kythira. So change in sea level is adequate to explain the 130,000 yrBP tools there.
I asked an expert and you can read his answer at his blog: nobody but you seems to think that Crete was ever connected to the mainland.
And I've posted a reply.
Post a Comment