Our ancestors had advanced technology! [Archive]

aeondaze

7th April 2014, 05:50 AM

Stone Spear Tips Surprisingly Old—"Like Finding iPods in Ancient Rome"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2012/11/121116-stone-spear-tips-science-human-neanderthal-hunting/

Some of our early human ancestors may have been smarter, and deadlier, than we thought, according to a new study of what may be Earth's oldest stone spear points.

If the dating is correct, it suggests our evolutionary forebears mastered the art of the stone-tipped spear half a million years ago—some 250,000 years earlier than previously thought.

To fasten a handle to a blade—a technique called hafting—a prehistoric hunter likely would have had to procure a stone blade, a wooden shaft, twine woven from plants or animal sinew, and glue made from tree resin. The glue itself may have required a mastery of fire, to liquefy the resin, said Shea, of New York's Stony Brook University.

Supplies in hand, the toolmaker would have had to assemble the spear sturdily, "so you don't get killed the first time you use it on a Cape buffalo," Shea said.

Hafting would have been worth the work, because once you add a stone blade, a spear is "going to cause a lot more damage, create more bleeding, and cause the animal to die quicker," said University of Toronto anthropologist Jayne Wilkins, lead author of the new spear-tip study, released Thursday by the journal Science.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____

The archaeological record never ceases amaze me, here we have the hafting of a spearhead a full 250,000 years before the oldest known example!

This raises a lot of questions like why didn't the academics try to hide this from us? I was told they hide this kind of thing, you know they lie, so why wouldn't they lie to us about this? Surely this is a game changer, 500,000 years old makes this technology pretty ancient.

:o

Glass

7th April 2014, 08:03 AM

You linked the article. Did you read it and comprehend it? It seems that not much has changed in the carbon dating world. They are still guessing and trying to find ways to validate their the suppositions. It states clearly that their techniques can yield wide variances in results. They are still using carbon decay techniques all the while admitting that exposure to sunlight can cause big variations in dating due to the different rate of decay caused by exposure to sunlight. 500,000 year old Zebra bones?

Sounds to me like people who's critical thinking processes and theorems are locked in a box of predetermined thinking. I'd bet there's more than a couple PHD's in that lot. Would I be right? Trying to find the right hole for the peg. I know it's the purpose of science to suppose, propose, test and observe. I've said it before. Their determination that they were dealing with an actual tool was to take it, strap it to a stick and chuck it at a carcass? That's confirmation right there for sure. At a guess I'd say they're not hiding it from us because at this point it's mostly bollocks.

They did get 2 things right enough not to be disputed, fire and sharp pointy things changed the future. I got the impression from the story that they think these ancestors hunted alone? Not in packs of overwhelming numbers to ensure a kill. Maybe the space afforded the article was not enough for the detail they have. Does national geographic still provide titilation of bare chested native women or has it evolved beyond that? I think the article is too contradictory to have any serious credibility. Now if they had found some flint tools.... that would be interesting. The time frame does mean that man probably did enjoy the odd brontosarus burger. Interesting that Zebras came before many dinosaurs.

aeondaze

7th April 2014, 08:45 AM

They are still guessing and trying to find ways to validate their the suppositions. It states clearly that their techniques can yield wide variances in results. They are still using carbon decay techniques all the while admitting that exposure to sunlight can cause big variations in dating due to the different rate of decay caused by exposure to sunlight. 500,000 year old Zebra bones?

Really, they're guesing? No this is not called guessing. It is called making educated asumptions based on a vast knowledge and experience of 1)stratgrapgy, 2) geology 3) Chemical properties. Of which I'm assuming you have no knowledge whatsoever. Guessing Sir is what you are doing. Don't project that onto these people who have dedicated their life to this pursuit. At least they are honest about their limitations. So how about you be honest about yours, do you have a tertiary level of education in the sciences?

Sounds to me like people who's critical thinking processes and theorems are locked in a box of predetermined thinking. I'd bet there's more than a couple PHD's in that lot. Would I be right? Trying to find the right hole for the peg. I know it's the purpose of science to suppose, propose, test and observe. I've said it before. Their determination that they were dealing with an actual tool was to take it, strap it to a stick and chuck it at a carcass? That's confirmation right there for sure. At a guess I'd say they're not hiding it from us because at this point it's mostly bollocks.

Sounds to me like you're just some retarded upstart sitting in on a couch scrathching his balls, lol

They did get 2 things right enough not to be disputed, fire and sharp pointy things changed the future. I got the impression from the story that they think these ancestors hunted alone? Not in packs of overwhelming numbers to ensure a kill. Maybe the space afforded the article was not enough for the detail they have. Does national geographic still provide titilation of bare chested native women or has it evolved beyond that? I think the article is too contradictory to have any serious credibility. Now if they had found some flint tools.... that would be interesting. The time frame does mean that man probably did enjoy the odd brontosarus burger. Interesting that Zebras came before many dinosaurs.

Ooh, ooh, they got two things right did they, allmighty one overflowing with wisdom? Where do i start with your first load of garbage, and pray tell how I should take your insinuation that my comprehension is lacking or that I didn't even read the article where in actuality it looks like YOU can't comprehend modern science and mathematics.

I underderstand that you get sand in your vagina whenever a scientist makes an assertion, so for something different how about you get over your little man syndrome and try to shed the morass of insecurities you seem to be carrying.

Again Do you have a tertiary qualification in the sciences? Lets be honest, these people are...

P.S. Get fucked

:D

old steel

7th April 2014, 10:05 AM

Hey op what is with the rude attitude?

Santa

7th April 2014, 10:54 AM

Hey op what is with the rude attitude?

The op seems to have tertiary qualifications in boozology.
Personally, I think that what occurred was a misogynistic union between Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Heidelberghensis and Homo Capensis which became Homo Bankstermysteriosis and later Homo Academiansis, a peculiar genetic mutation known to cause excessive alcohol consumption. :)

Neuro

7th April 2014, 11:08 AM

The article itself casts serious doubts from other scientists re the dating of the finds, and they are not even certain it actually is spear points the artifact represents. Aeondaze your verbal assault on Glass was unwarranted, you have been on the borderline earlier too, so you are banned for one day...

osoab

7th April 2014, 02:07 PM

Libertytree

7th April 2014, 02:31 PM

From the OP headline I was expecting to see/read that they had found a light saber and a Jedi skeleton.

Glass

7th April 2014, 05:56 PM

I have a degree in information technology for the record. A double. So anywho I think the article is too contradictory, saying its using a technique and even they are surprised at the wildly bigger number than they expected.

key word "expected". leads to preconceptions of expectations. Then the Caveat, the techniques may not be accurate. Take what we say with some salt. I did. I think my comprehension is just fine.

singular_me

7th April 2014, 07:28 PM

Aeondaze, are you boozed ??

edit
I typed this after reading your reply to Glass... but now I see that Santa has the same impression

Ooh, ooh, they got two things right did they, allmighty one overflowing with wisdom? Where do i start with your first load of garbage, and pray tell how I should take your insinuation that my comprehension is lacking or that I didn't even read the article where in actuality it looks like YOU can't comprehend modern science and mathematics.

I underderstand that you get sand in your vagina whenever a scientist makes an assertion, so for something different how about you get over your little man syndrome and try to shed the morass of insecurities you seem to be carrying.

Again Do you have a tertiary qualification in the sciences? Lets be honest, these people are...

P.S. Get fucked

:D

singular_me

7th April 2014, 07:53 PM

Aeondaze, carbon 14 has been debubked in the early 1990s, remember? But a few days ago, you asserted that the problem with it had been fixed.... the REAL PROBLEM is that they **never** readjusted discovery dates, so now, one step at the time, they have to shoot themselves in the foot, accusing other factors so they cant be too much blamed for falsifying history. Hence several paradoxical statements in this artcile, as Glass pointed out.... the name of the game is "confusion", which works best with hegelian dialectic by the way

Watch forbidden history by Michael A. Cremo. The way he dates archeological findings, using geology, will make you ponder further.

The archaeological record never ceases amaze me, here we have the hafting of a spearhead a full 250,000 years before the oldest known example!

This raises a lot of questions like why didn't the academics try to hide this from us? I was told they hide this kind of thing, you know they lie, so why wouldn't they lie to us about this? Surely this is a game changer, 500,000 years old makes this technology pretty ancient.

:o

Glass

7th April 2014, 09:09 PM

if other people here think I was wrong with my reading of it I would like to hear it. I didn't get back to this thread until after the ban. I've noticed I did miss read someone else's articles in another thread so I'll post here as an act of contrition. Is that the right word?

I do think a ban was a bit severe here but I'm not about double guessing the forums mods. none of us is perfect.

Horn

7th April 2014, 10:41 PM

A.dazed has had it out with most anyone that replies in contrast.

This thread was specifically setup to launch on anyone replying.

Typically threads are not his and he starts off by stating that he is overqualified in some area and offers two general sentences around the area. Then when contested he gets all huffy, and grills anyone that has an opened mind.

Summarily he offers nothing else on the topic, which then amplifies the fact that he's not even semi-qualified to be commenting.

Horn

7th April 2014, 10:49 PM

Who was that woman archaeologist in Mexico that had all of her evidence scrapped.

Didn't she have some evidence dating around this time?

Serpo

7th April 2014, 11:10 PM

Ive been carbon dated at 45,000 years old but dont feel a day over 30,000 years

Neuro

7th April 2014, 11:20 PM

singular_me

8th April 2014, 06:55 AM

VERY likely - but I dont care as I wont change my mind about the topic

A.dazed has had it out with most anyone that replies in contrast.

This thread was specifically setup to launch on anyone replying.

Typically threads are not his and he starts off by stating that he is overqualified in some area and offers two general sentences around the area. Then when contested he gets all huffy, and grills anyone that has an opened mind.

Summarily he offers nothing else on the topic, which then amplifies the fact that he's not even semi-qualified to be commenting.

Atocha

8th April 2014, 12:12 PM

Who was that woman archaeologist in Mexico that had all of her evidence scrapped.

Didn't she have some evidence dating around this time?

Hueyatlaco, Mexico

Cynthia Irwin-Williams led the team that first excavated the site in 1962

The dig is often associated with Virginia Steen-McIntyre because of her continuing efforts to publicize her findings and opinions. She was the nail that was sticking out that got hammered down.

Virginia Steen-McIntyre--, USGS, and others dated the strata overlying the spearpoints at over 250 thousand years old. As a result, the findings were never published, the site was closed down and the original artifacts were "lost". Until, forty years later, a bizarre chain of occurrences re-opened the case.

Hueyatlaco is an archeological site in the Valsequillo Basin near the city of Puebla, Mexico. After excavations in the 1960s, the site became notorious due to geochronologists' analyses that indicated human habitation at Hueyatlaco was dated to ca. 250,000 years before the present.

Horn

8th April 2014, 01:20 PM

It must be near impossible to develop a biodegradable spearhead.

though I'm sure Israel is probably working on it.

Santa

8th April 2014, 01:34 PM

Hueyatlaco, Mexico

Cynthia Irwin-Williams led the team that first excavated the site in 1962

The dig is often associated with Virginia Steen-McIntyre because of her continuing efforts to publicize her findings and opinions. She was the nail that was sticking out that got hammered down.

Virginia Steen-McIntyre--, USGS, and others dated the strata overlying the spearpoints at over 250 thousand years old. As a result, the findings were never published, the site was closed down and the original artifacts were "lost". Until, forty years later, a bizarre chain of occurrences re-opened the case.

Hueyatlaco is an archeological site in the Valsequillo Basin near the city of Puebla, Mexico. After excavations in the 1960s, the site became notorious due to geochronologists' analyses that indicated human habitation at Hueyatlaco was dated to ca. 250,000 years before the present.

Yeah, that's a fascination story. The fact that the site and evidence was summarily shut down, closed off and intentionally buried lends to its credibility.

aeondaze

8th April 2014, 04:57 PM

Unfuckingbelievable, I mean really.

You get a crimp in your night gown when I bring up some hafted spearheads dated to 500,000 BC and do a hatchett job on it, because (and rightly so) some scientists have their doubts, which is the nature of the discipline. Then you get all hot in the head over a couple of spearpoints dated to 250,000 BC, dated I might add with the very tools that some here have accused of being innacurate and false.

Seriously, this is some fucking warped shit. It just goes to show the level of willfull ignorance crack head theorists dicplay.

The real reason the thread was started was to show how irrational your worldview about the past is. Here scientists have found good evidence that our ancestors were hafting spearheads a full 250,000 years before currently thought and all you freaks that think humans had advanced technology way beyond our current ability refuse to believe it. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

It’s a fucking spear head for christs sake.

A simple spearhead and you can’t accept this, however you’ll accept ridiculous assertions that past humans had more advanced technology than today with no basis in fact at all. Surely a hafted spearhead is a no brainer then? But no, this needs to be relegated to the crackpot realm, while your absurd claims with no evidence get given the green light time and time again in a shameless orgy of intellectual frottage.

Do you see the absurdity of your own supposed argument, or the blind faith that you place in your theories. You hack into this claim with reckless abandon, shouting ‘science is a fraud’, but have nothing to back up your alternative make believe theories which are lacking in so many departments. What a ridiculous bunch of fools you are. Here’s where your theories fall woefully short -

1) If Carbon-14 dating , or for that matter any type of dating technique is a fraud, how can you back up your claims? How in the world do you qualify your absurd theories?
2) If the pyramids are 10,000 years old, and so is say a site like Gobekli Tepe, why would academics date it to 10,000 BC but not the pyramids?
3) Why has the scientific community on mass continued to use C-14 dating, or alternately where are the peer reviewed papers since 1990 that apparently support the premise that C-14 dating is false?

I told Glass to get fucked because he arrogantly insinuated that I didn’t read the article, and I would gladly do it again. A guy that has two IT degrees which aren’t even remotely related to the science of dating and archaeology with the affront to challenge the comprehension of someone with an honours degree and masters in science, specifically related to analysis techniques, again it’s a no brainer and naturally one is going to find the tone offensive, and so I assert Glass you’re nothing more than a puff of wind in a cardigan.

As for the rest of you gutless internet gang bangers that bravely pilled on the shit when I couldn't respond, what does it really say about you?

StreetsOfGold

8th April 2014, 05:21 PM

It’s a.... f#$%ing spear head for christs sake.

Taking the Lord's name in vain?

Ephesians 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Horn

8th April 2014, 05:36 PM

3)or alternately where are the peer reviewed papers since 1990 that apparently support the premise that C-14 dating is false?

Right here, Mr. Scientist.

But what if a well-known — and apparently constant — characteristic of matter starts behaving mysteriously?
This is exactly what has been noticed in recent years; the decay rates of radioactive elements arechanging. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with “constant” decay rates — these values aren’t supposed to change. School textbooks teach us this from an early age.

http://news.discovery.com/space/do-solar-flares-change-the-nature-of-constant-radioactive-elements.htm

aeondaze

8th April 2014, 05:51 PM

Right here, Mr. Scientist.

http://news.discovery.com/space/do-solar-flares-change-the-nature-of-constant-radioactive-elements.htm

So what?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the decay rate was found to vary due to fluctuations in the earths environment. Its what science does. Adjust things as better data comes along, unlike the wildly ridiculous theories bandied around here. Will this be a game changer? I seriously doubt.

FWIW, this isn't a peer reviwed paper just findings as of the moment, findings which sugest there are seasonal variations in isotopic decay of C-14.

To add credence to what I'm saying. They NEVER said, C-14 dating is completely inacurate for use in dating did they? No.

Who is Discovery.com? A sensationalist lightweight science digest for noobs like you.

o)(~

Carry on...

Horn

8th April 2014, 05:58 PM

That's it Aeon give credit then take it away, you're so very predictable.

Even more so than C-14.

Horn

8th April 2014, 06:04 PM

here's something from Stanford U.

The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

vacuum

8th April 2014, 07:18 PM

Using a technique called electron spin resonance dating, the team dated a zebra adjacent to the points to roughly 500,000 years ago. And they dated sediments around the stones using optically stimulated luminescence, which gauges how long ago sunlight last struck a sample. That technique is relatively new, though, and can yield different dates depending on the assumptions made about the geologic history of a site, the study authors admit.

Perhaps the only way to strengthen the case for the spear points' surprising age is to find similar weapons at sites that have already been reliably dated, Chazan and Shea agreed.

Shea said he'll be on the lookout next year, when his team will head to East Africa (http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/continents/africa/) for National Geographic Society-supported fieldwork unrelated to the Kathu Pan 1 project. "We'll see if we can find these things," he said. (National Geographic News is part of the Society.)

Overall, the search, Chazan said, is just getting underway.

"We have only begun to have the ability to date assemblages in this time range in southern Africa," he said, "so it is hard to say whether what we have found is an anomaly. I suspect it is not."

Looks like an interesting find, but they'll want to get more samples to help build out more of a solid theory on this. It wouldn't surprise me if the date gets pushed back on spearheads however, because dates are always being pushed back in archeology...

Glass

8th April 2014, 07:25 PM

aeondaze truly man you can go fuck yourself. bad temptered holier than thou attitude. The degrees suggest I have some critical thinking ability. As to the rest of it. unrepentant then nothing can be done for you. you also made the list.

Dogman

8th April 2014, 07:33 PM

Earth is old enough that several very advanced civilizations could have lived and cratered, and if geology is half ass true, dam near all traces of those civilizations could vanish! The Australian aboriginals have been as far as the science of our time back date back at least 50,000 years ago. Who can say if there were hi-tech civilizations that date back ever deeper in the past?

The epic Ramayana of the Hindus, is one history or epic from days before writing was even thought of and was (oral) which in many ways India has had the longest dam near unbroken civilization on the planet. Not to mention the stonework found in south America, that would give modern stone masons a major headache, with modern tools.

Give a million years if we as a race/people would vanish. Bet it would be very hard to find any traces that we existed, if at all.

Edit: The Appalachian mountains at were at one time , higher and bigger than the rocky mountain range. Now they are a bunch of high (bumps) hills compared to the rockys

Methinks there is way more to human history on this mudball. But most of the histroy has been lost or warped in storytelling history, until the storys were scribed upon , mud,rock,hides, and paper and that includes papyrus.

aeondaze

8th April 2014, 08:22 PM

Dogman

8th April 2014, 08:30 PM

Here we have two poster who have me on ignore that posted replies to MY thread.

This is how they operate.

They deliberately avoid reading any posts I make yet willfuly partake in this obscene circle jerk of internet gang banging and fraudulent intelectual frottage.

Not even getting into this fight.

But the attitude of the op can set the tone, my post was addressing your op that gives credence to your post and thoughts.

But when one wants to diss, or show dissrecpt to members, you will reap what you sow.

Been there and done it.. Chips on shoulders posting will bite back.

Nuff said on my part..

Horn

8th April 2014, 08:33 PM

aeondaze

8th April 2014, 08:34 PM

Looks like an interesting find, but they'll want to get more samples to help build out more of a solid theory on this. It wouldn't surprise me if the date gets pushed back on spearheads however, because dates are always being pushed back in archeology...

Vac, what makes this so interesting is that to haft a spearhead, or axe for that matter, requires a complex knowledge of how to treat resinous pitch to make the required glue or mastic. These substances need to be produced in specific oxygen poor environments, hence the complicated chemical techniques and possibly compositions.

Though as of yet no evidence for these resinous compounds has been found to that age, if and when it does will be more proof of our ancestors complex understanding of the wolrd they inhabited.

Serpo

8th April 2014, 08:42 PM

Here we have two poster who have me on ignore that posted replies to MY thread.

This is how they operate.

They deliberately avoid reading any posts I make yet willfully partake in this obscene circle jerk of internet gang banging and fraudulent intellectual frottage.

Because you attack people personally if they have a different opinion about something ,anything.

You cannot seem to separate a topic from the person delivering it and so attack the person.

Plus you use terrible language which maybe is normal to you but it isnt too me and others.

All you seem to do is insult as opposed to contribute.

As for your convictions on scientists ,having a degree ect , well most here would find that somewhat amusing.

Horn

8th April 2014, 08:51 PM

The real reason the thread was started was to show how irrational your worldview about the past is.

Clearly you were hoping for singular_me to reply firstly,

so you could have more chances to be the pot calling the kettle black.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp5Z7ER6IUQ

Dogman

8th April 2014, 09:21 PM

Vac, what makes this so interesting is that to haft a spearhead, or axe for that matter, requires a complex knowledge of how to treat resinous pitch to make the required glue or mastic. These substances need to be produced in specific oxygen poor environments, hence the complicated chemical techniques and possibly compositions.

Though as of yet no evidence for these resinous compounds has been found to that age, if and when it does will be more proof of our ancestors complex understanding of the wolrd they inhabited. I have read something very close to this a few years ago, and best guess tries of reproduction , mostly failed.

I have collected points from childhood, and have tried to make arrows, spears using the points found, It is not easy, unless the name of the game was to shoot, and or stab and the point is left in the target. And all the uproar that will do to the critter, hit a major organ, kwell, or make them bleed out. One is quick, the other is a waiting game.

The end result is meat on the table.

aeondaze

8th April 2014, 09:32 PM

Plus you use terrible language which maybe is normal to you but it isnt too me and others.

What are you, a fucking cream puff?

I thought you had me on ignore, couldn't resist me could you...:-*

Dogman

8th April 2014, 09:37 PM

Chips on shoulders seem to still be in favor..

Some seem to never learn.

Civil people, civil, which is a good word and way!

Edit? Have no ideal when I post that I favor the word 'if'.
Tho the world is full of if's just like a pool game.

Serpo

8th April 2014, 11:23 PM

http://delectabledesserts.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/puff1.jpg

you are on ignore ......

how come whenever you post you start sounding like an immature raving lunatic

Cebu_4_2

8th April 2014, 11:47 PM

I missed this? WTF... work a day get boozed and still miss this? Getting slow, someone should PM me this stuff.

singular_me

10th April 2014, 04:57 AM

Aeondaze does not impress me as he ignores that sciences sponsored by fiat money and the elites since ever to control the past, present and future IS an agenda which deserves its own thread. As long as he wont dig into it, arguing is vain and futile, I am afraid.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eDzBqq-jUFA/TcPc_pekXEI/AAAAAAAAAqE/PvakcaZ7RaE/s1600/flat-earth%2B%25281%2529.jpg

Clearly you were hoping for singular_me to reply firstly,

so you could have more chances to be the pot calling the kettle black.

singular_me

10th April 2014, 05:39 AM

another renegade scientist that was silenced... however, such a fact would definitely go along with Michael Cremo's presentation and whose theory is entirely based on the observation of strata overlying

why is the very possibility of prediluvian civilizations concealed?

Hueyatlaco, Mexico

Cynthia Irwin-Williams led the team that first excavated the site in 1962

The dig is often associated with Virginia Steen-McIntyre because of her continuing efforts to publicize her findings and opinions. She was the nail that was sticking out that got hammered down.

Virginia Steen-McIntyre--, USGS, and others dated the strata overlying the spearpoints at over 250 thousand years old. As a result, the findings were never published, the site was closed down and the original artifacts were "lost". Until, forty years later, a bizarre chain of occurrences re-opened the case.

Hueyatlaco is an archeological site in the Valsequillo Basin near the city of Puebla, Mexico. After excavations in the 1960s, the site became notorious due to geochronologists' analyses that indicated human habitation at Hueyatlaco was dated to ca. 250,000 years before the present.