Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Archaeological discoveries, breakthroughs and theories

interesting article:
the conclusion:
And ancient women and men appear to have engaged in the same foraging activities rather than upholding a sex-based division of labor. It was the arrival some 10,000 years ago of agriculture, with its intensive investment in land, population growth and resultant clumped resources, that led to rigid gendered roles and economic inequality.
 
Last edited:
New evidence of a 6,500 year old burial site in northern Finland, after reanalyzing old records and undertaking new fieldwork. Skeletons decay quickly in the acidic soil so they are drawing on other clues like the shape of the pits, traces of red ochre and possible grave goods.
 
I wonder what the climate in the region was like at the time? How old is the Amazon rain forest?
55 million years apparently.

Wiki said:
The rainforest likely formed during the Eocene era (from 56 million years to 33.9 million years ago). It appeared following a global reduction of tropical temperatures when the Atlantic Ocean had widened sufficiently to provide a warm, moist climate to the Amazon basin. The rainforest has been in existence for at least 55 million years, and most of the region remained free of savanna-type biomes at least until the current ice age when the climate was drier and savanna more widespread.

...

There is evidence that there have been significant changes in the Amazon rainforest vegetation over the last 21,000 years through the last glacial maximum (LGM) and subsequent deglaciation.
 
"Yet new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) finds that quite recently—just 500 years ago—a significant portion of the southern Amazon was not the tall-canopied forest it is today, but savannah."

 
Neanderthals used complex adhesives, a team of scientists have discovered.

Its findings, which are the earliest evidence of a complex adhesive in Europe, suggest these predecessors to modern humans had a higher level of cognition and cultural development than previously thought.

(Surely it's not entirely accurate to describe Neanderthals as modern humans' "predecessors" though.)

"These astonishingly well-preserved tools showcase a technical solution broadly similar to examples of tools made by early modern humans in Africa, but the exact recipe reflects a Neanderthal 'spin,' which is the production of grips for handheld tools," says Radu Iovita, an associate professor at New York University's Center for the Study of Human Origins.

The research team [...] re-examined previous finds from Le Moustier, an archaeological site in France that was discovered in the early 20th century.

The stone tools from Le Moustier—used by Neanderthals during the Middle Paleolithic period of the Mousterian between 120,000 and 40,000 years ago—are kept in the collection of Berlin's Museum of Prehistory and Early History and had not previously been examined in detail. The tools were rediscovered during an internal review of the collection and their scientific value was recognized.

"The items had been individually wrapped and untouched since the 1960s," says Dutkiewicz. "As a result, the adhering remains of organic substances were very well preserved."

Several compounds were used to produce the adhesives for holding tools together.

ancient sharp tool of blade and discrete round-edged stone handle

Neanderthals' usage of complex adhesives reveals higher cognitive abilities, scientists discover

danny la rouge
 
Saw this a couple of weeks ago. I'd thought people used to believe that hunter gatherers had been wiped out by hunter gatherers then that they hadn't ...

 
Saw this a couple of weeks ago. I'd thought people used to believe that hunter gatherers had been wiped out by hunter gatherers then that they hadn't ...

"DNA evidence suggests violent battles and the introduction of new pathogens caused another swift genetic shakeup."

I'm not sure how DNA evidence alone could tell you there had been violent battles.

I'm also interested how they ruled out the hunter-gatherers simply fucking off somewhere else.
 
, in what they suspect was a very bloody and very thorough takeover.

“This transition has previously been presented as peaceful," said Anne Birgitte Nielsen, geology researcher and head of the Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory at Lund University. "However, our study indicates the opposite. In addition to violent death, it is likely that new pathogens from livestock finished off many gatherers."
My bold. The claim is nowhere near as strong as the headline makes out.
 
"DNA evidence suggests violent battles and the introduction of new pathogens caused another swift genetic shakeup."

I'm not sure how DNA evidence alone could tell you there had been violent battles.

I'm also interested how they ruled out the hunter-gatherers simply fucking off somewhere else.
Presumably DNA that suddenly stops appearing in the fossil record after a narrow archeological window.
 
Presumably DNA that suddenly stops appearing in the fossil record after a narrow archeological window.
That would establish that they no longer lived there, not what killed them ('violent battles' or 'new pathogens'), or whether they had in fact migrated elsewhere.
 
"DNA evidence suggests violent battles and the introduction of new pathogens caused another swift genetic shakeup."

I'm not sure how DNA evidence alone could tell you there had been violent battles.

I'm also interested how they ruled out the hunter-gatherers simply fucking off somewhere else.
It isn't DNA evidence alone, thats the thing. It is DNA evidence alongside everything else we know. A more important sentence is:

With the rapid rate of distinctive DNA turnover and the a lack of mingling genetics, all signs point to overpowering conflicts that completely anihilated existing communities.

Obviously, what those overpowering conflicts were is well debatable and archeologists have been guilty before of wrongly assuming massive battles must have taken place when they didn't, but it is still a reasonably reasonable conclusion to draw.
 
Though surely as Santino says, that could just be down to them moving away. You still get massive outmigrations long into the historical era when hunter populations come under pressure from stronger incomers.
 
You still get massive outmigrations long into the historical era when hunter populations come under pressure from stronger incomers.
which we know about because we have found evidence, There is, seemingly, no evidence of them having done so here. Of course it's still possible they did so, but thats an even bigger assumption if there isn't actual evidence for it.
 
You would have to find some evidence of those groups moving and traces of their DNA appearing in the places they are thought to have moved.
 
Must confess to having not rtfa as it's blocked here; how wide was the survey? Maybe they did a Visigoth-standard really long trek.
 
Back
Top Bottom