If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Abc.net.au) Interesting Discovery of ancient hooks suggest that early humans fished for tuna. Scientists warn it still could be red herring   (abc.net.au) divider line 29
More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1564 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Nov 2011 at 1:09 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   
 
2011-11-25 12:47:01 PM
I refuse to believe it until they find the ancient canning facilities.
 
2011-11-25 12:55:25 PM
Mike Rowe is already developing the series: Ice Age Anglers.
 
2011-11-25 01:07:28 PM
Were the hooks dolphin safe?
 
2011-11-25 01:31:31 PM
What came first? Beer or fishing?
 
2011-11-25 01:46:55 PM
2wolves: What came first? Beer or fishing?

Beer. Why else would people think that sitting around, waiting, with a piece of string dangling in the water was a good idea.
 
2011-11-25 01:51:57 PM
images.wikia.com

That guy is a jerk!
 
2011-11-25 02:02:08 PM
I expect that many technologies are far older than we know.

Among them would be fishing, sewing, knitting, yarn-making, string-work, wood-work, shoe-making (cobbling), etc. These don't leave durable traces and it takes special preservation to preserve the tools or the products.

For example, I saw an article on the web about small roudish stone objects that were sort of triangular with a hole in the middle. You might think decorative beads, but my research found that they resembled primitive spindles--weights that were used to make yarn (I've done that myself at a historical recreation village).

The "spindles" in this case were over 10,000 years old though, much older than recognized evidence of yarn-making.

It stands to reason though, that humans had the intelligence to gather wool long before they could make needles and awls. Wool is scrapped off by molting sheep, goats, mammoths, etc., in the Spring. You only have to collect it from bushes and maybe wash it if it is really filthy to use it for simple things like padding and felt. I am sure that ancient mammoth-hunters used the wool of the wooly mammoth and other animals and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to twist it into yarn by hand. This is something that most people would do naturally if you give them a bit of wool or cotton.

My suspicion that Siberian wool-gatherers were making yarn tens of thousands of years ago has not be confirmed by science yet, but I don't doubt it. Humans were probably making yarn thousands of years before they made cloth, and made cloth thousands of years before any surviving piece was made.

We know that humans reached Australia and the Americas tens of thousands of years ago. In the case of Australia, it was probably around 65,000 years ago, and they must have crossed open water because the trench between Australia and Papua New Guinea and East Timor is too deep to be uncovered by sea-level change.

So when the scientists manage to press back the beginning of these technologies even further, don't be surprised. It's not News. It's Fark. And remember me. I want to say "I told you so".
 
2011-11-25 02:26:43 PM
Sometimes I think scientists are just floundering about. Perched there atop their sole-less ivory towers.

There just like to fark with us for the halibut.
 
2011-11-25 02:51:15 PM
Who hasn't dangled their worm in the search for tuna?
 
2011-11-25 03:00:04 PM
Smeggy Smurf: Who hasn't dangled their worm in the search for tuna?

I prefer sword fish.
 
2011-11-25 03:20:16 PM
That's pretty farking cool
 
2011-11-25 03:23:00 PM
Modguy: Smeggy Smurf: Who hasn't dangled their worm in the search for tuna?

I prefer sword fish.


something something goyle joke
 
2011-11-25 03:36:10 PM
You're telling me a hook made of bone can catch a tuna?
 
2011-11-25 03:46:09 PM
brantgoose: I expect that many technologies are far older than we know.

Among them would be fishing, sewing, knitting, yarn-making, string-work, wood-work, shoe-making (cobbling), etc. These don't leave durable traces and it takes special preservation to preserve the tools or the products.

For example, I saw an article on the web about small roudish stone objects that were sort of triangular with a hole in the middle. You might think decorative beads, but my research found that they resembled primitive spindles--weights that were used to make yarn (I've done that myself at a historical recreation village).

The "spindles" in this case were over 10,000 years old though, much older than recognized evidence of yarn-making.

It stands to reason though, that humans had the intelligence to gather wool long before they could make needles and awls. Wool is scrapped off by molting sheep, goats, mammoths, etc., in the Spring. You only have to collect it from bushes and maybe wash it if it is really filthy to use it for simple things like padding and felt. I am sure that ancient mammoth-hunters used the wool of the wooly mammoth and other animals and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to twist it into yarn by hand. This is something that most people would do naturally if you give them a bit of wool or cotton.

My suspicion that Siberian wool-gatherers were making yarn tens of thousands of years ago has not be confirmed by science yet, but I don't doubt it. Humans were probably making yarn thousands of years before they made cloth, and made cloth thousands of years before any surviving piece was made.

We know that humans reached Australia and the Americas tens of thousands of years ago. In the case of Australia, it was probably around 65,000 years ago, and they must have crossed open water because the trench between Australia and Papua New Guinea and East Timor is too deep to be uncovered by sea-level change.

So when the scientists manage to press back the beginning of these technologies even further, don't be surprised. It's not News. It's Fark. And remember me. I want to say "I told you so".


Years ago, I saw some Nova type show about a civilization down in South America that built roads where the individual stones were secured to each other with metal retainers or bracings. The metal wasn't prefabbed. It was molten metal poured into channels cut into the stone.

The problem is that it would have required portable smelting technology which wasn't (re)discovered for a few more thousands of years.

As I recall, they dated the construction by accounting for the stellar drift in a nearby observatory that was built with the same materials and techniques. That put the age at about 12-15k years old.

Given enough time, everything old is new again. Always wondered if that wasn't at least partly the inspiration for the origin of humans on Pern prequel by McCaffrey.
 
2011-11-25 03:54:28 PM
What metal could they have used for the road-building that was

- portably melted (for any reasonable value of "portable")
- Durable enough to last a dozen millenia of exposure to the elements

and

- not precious enough to be stolen over the ages?
 
2011-11-25 03:59:31 PM
This discovery has some interesting implications...

I don't know much about the subject, but I believe tuna are a deepwater fish, correct? Fishing for them would mean having the skills and materials to sail (or row, but I mean it in the general "boating" sense) and navigate in the open ocean. If man was capable of doing this 40,000 years ago, it follows that he was capable of traveling to and settling the Americas as well.

Accepted archaeology irks me when it claims that human migration to the Americas happened no earlier that ~20,000 years or so ago, and only via the Bering Strait land route in a North-to-South progression. There are numerous finds I've read of in South America that have been dated much earlier than finds in North America, yet, because they don't fit the accepted timeline, they are either disputed or ignored.

Homo sapiens has been around for ~200,000 years, so far as we know. To believe that mankind back then was less intelligent/capable than mankind now is a grave mistake, a kind of temporal ethnocentrism, yet it seems to be an assumption made by many. I am a firm believer in the likelihood that ancient man not only spread around the globe much, much earlier than currently accepted, but that he may have reached levels of technological sophistication that, while differing from our own, were no less impressive (google "Puma Punku" for an example).

Of course, science relies on evidence. I accept that. If mankind was so sophisticated in the past, where are the artifacts? Where is the proof? I don't have have an answer for that. But there are just so many mysterious structures and finds throughout the world, the mind cannot help but speculate. The idea that agriculture and civilization are only 10,000 years old, and that we, who have gone from the horse to the ion engine in a scant 200 years, are living in the only age to have seen such progress just strikes me as... unlikely.

Am I a nut?
 
2011-11-25 03:59:40 PM
Mister Peejay: What metal could they have used for the road-building that was

- portably melted (for any reasonable value of "portable")
- Durable enough to last a dozen millenia of exposure to the elements

and

- not precious enough to be stolen over the ages?


Lead, possibly. Or maybe it didn't survive weathering, and only concluded it was metal by testing any oxidized residue left behind

/didn't know that Pancoaifo
//just tossing out possibilities.
 
2011-11-25 04:05:16 PM
Neandertroll.
 
2011-11-25 04:42:01 PM
Modguy: Mister Peejay: What metal could they have used for the road-building that was

- portably melted (for any reasonable value of "portable")
- Durable enough to last a dozen millenia of exposure to the elements

and

- not precious enough to be stolen over the ages?

Lead, possibly. Or maybe it didn't survive weathering, and only concluded it was metal by testing any oxidized residue left behind

/didn't know that Pancoaifo
//just tossing out possibilities.


I was 15 or so when I saw that show so it's amazing I can remember even what I can nearly 20 years later.

But I definitely remember being fascinated there could have been such an advanced civilization that utterly vanished leaving nothing but a few roads and an observatory.

Never heard anything else about it so maybe the theory was disproven or the age corrected but we regularly learn what we think is so, isn't necessarily so. Particularly in a field as hard to prove anything as with history.

Things like the Baghdad batteries and the Antikytheria mechanism fascinate me. And not knowing is kind of fun, just for the speculation value.
 
2011-11-25 05:00:29 PM
TheOther: Mike Rowe is already developing the series: Ice Age Anglers.

Deadliest
Ice Age Anglers. You were so close.
 
2011-11-25 05:07:13 PM
amyldoanitrite: This discovery has some interesting implications...

I don't know much about the subject, but I believe tuna are a deepwater fish, correct? Fishing for them would mean having the skills and materials to sail (or row, but I mean it in the general "boating" sense) and navigate in the open ocean. If man was capable of doing this 40,000 years ago, it follows that he was capable of traveling to and settling the Americas as well.

Accepted archaeology irks me when it claims that human migration to the Americas happened no earlier that ~20,000 years or so ago, and only via the Bering Strait land route in a North-to-South progression. There are numerous finds I've read of in South America that have been dated much earlier than finds in North America, yet, because they don't fit the accepted timeline, they are either disputed or ignored.

Homo sapiens has been around for ~200,000 years, so far as we know. To believe that mankind back then was less intelligent/capable than mankind now is a grave mistake, a kind of temporal ethnocentrism, yet it seems to be an assumption made by many. I am a firm believer in the likelihood that ancient man not only spread around the globe much, much earlier than currently accepted, but that he may have reached levels of technological sophistication that, while differing from our own, were no less impressive (google "Puma Punku" for an example).

Of course, science relies on evidence. I accept that. If mankind was so sophisticated in the past, where are the artifacts? Where is the proof? I don't have have an answer for that. But there are just so many mysterious structures and finds throughout the world, the mind cannot help but speculate. The idea that agriculture and civilization are only 10,000 years old, and that we, who have gone from the horse to the ion engine in a scant 200 years, are living in the only age to have seen such progress just strikes me as... unlikely.

Am I a nut?


You are not exactly a nut, but given where humans liked to accumulate, most evidence of large settlements are probably underwater on the continental shelves. Those melting glaciations were tough on any coastal settlements with easy access to the ocean. You need to dive to about 130m to get to the old coastline and that's assuming all the archaeological evidence hasn't been displaced/destroyed by sediments, tides, alluvial deposits, etc.

The Sacramento River would be your best bet?
 
2011-11-25 05:16:34 PM
brantgoose: And remember me. I want to say "I told you so".

t1.gstatic.com
 
2011-11-25 05:35:11 PM
Pancoaifo:
Things like the Baghdad batteries and the Antikytheria mechanism fascinate me. And not knowing is kind of fun, just for the speculation value.


Indeed. We had brains this large for quite a long time. Eventually they were going to be used for something.

Look around today and think about what artifacts will still exist in recognizable form in 40,000 years... and how somebody without a cultural frame of reference might interpret them. Somebody who didn't believe that our civilization was advanced as it is, or that it advanced in the direction that it did.
 
2011-11-25 05:43:55 PM
Pancoaifo: Things like the Baghdad batteries ...fascinate me

Not a fan of Baghdad batteries:

mythbustersresults.com
 
2011-11-25 06:05:23 PM
Deep sea tuna? Aliens.
 
2011-11-25 06:22:55 PM
Wow. Evidence of hooking going back 42,000 years? I guess it really is the world's oldest profession.
 
2011-11-25 06:54:01 PM
Mister Peejay: What metal could they have used for the road-building that was

- portably melted (for any reasonable value of "portable")
- Durable enough to last a dozen millenia of exposure to the elements

and

- not precious enough to be stolen over the ages?


Add to the fact that they hadn't invented the wheel either.
 
2011-11-25 09:04:34 PM
Honest Bender: [images.wikia.com image 205x258]

That guy is a jerk!


Came for A Pup Named Scooby-Doo. Left satisfied.
 
2011-11-25 10:19:57 PM
moralpanic: Mister Peejay: What metal could they have used for the road-building that was

- portably melted (for any reasonable value of "portable")
- Durable enough to last a dozen millenia of exposure to the elements

and

- not precious enough to be stolen over the ages?

Add to the fact that they hadn't invented the wheel either.


See I never understood that they knew what a circle was. Granted they might not know of the axle but the wheel? And since they had no domesticated animals bigger than a Llama they wouldn't build large wagons but wheelbarrows and such,well I just never understood it.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »