[HN Gopher] Lost world revealed by human, Neanderthal relics was... ___________________________________________________________________ Lost world revealed by human, Neanderthal relics washed up on North Sea beaches Author : chippy Score : 177 points Date : 2021-07-21 17:52 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sciencemag.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencemag.org) | lalos wrote: | Reminds me of Gobekli Tepe which is also ~10K old evidence of | human lost worlds | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe | ntrz wrote: | Is the dredging process stripping a great degree of | archaeological context from the items, or has being under the sea | for so long already scrambled them up to a degree that we aren't | losing all that much information by bringing them up in this way? | | I get the impression that modern archaeology tends to emphasize | viewing a site holistically and painstakingly recording as many | details as possible, to the extent that some sites are just left | alone rather than risk an imperfect or destructive excavation, so | I'm curious whether anyone in the field is upset that these | artifacts are surfacing as a byproduct of an unrelated civic | project that isn't even trying to adhere to those standards. | yarcob wrote: | Classic archaeology is all about layers. When excavating, a lot | of effort is made to determine where one layer starts and where | a layer ends. You can often tell eg. by soil color or other | hints. | | So yes, dredging up the ground destroys all context, and you | get finds that are very hard to date (carbon dating and other | scientific methods have limited precision if you don't have any | reference points) | | On the other hand, I guess you take what you can get, and | archaeologists often work with finds like that. A farmer might | accidentally have dug up some roman coins on their field, or | people with metal detectors may find some clothing pins (not | sure of the correct english word) or something. These people | may also not be eager to tell you where they found it (farmers | really don't want excavations on their fields) | soperj wrote: | Clothes pins is I think the word you're looking for. | BurningFrog wrote: | You can also make an argument to wait with the underwater | exploration a few decades until better tools have been | developed. | macintux wrote: | The dredging wasn't done by the archaeologists. They're | just taking advantage of it. | naturalauction wrote: | Slightly different but I remember viewing the subways in Athens | and seeing the ruins that they had discovered while just | digging subways. I know the tube in London has run into similar | issues. | | In the UK, a lot of archeologists are employed by building | companies in order to ensure a new development isn't on | archeologically significant land and that if something is | encountered that it is cataloged. There are definitely | standards that can be implemented to allow archeology and | development to coexist. | JackFr wrote: | A friend who's an archaeology professor told me that's where | the real money is in archaeology. Working as expert to come | up with the "nothing historical here - ok to build a mall" | report that many municipalities now require. | krylon wrote: | In passing, the article reveals that in the Netherlands, there is | a place called "Monster", and Willy is a woman's name. | | But the archaeology is fascinating, too, of course. It is both | sad and exciting to think about how much human culture and | history has been lost to time, and how there still is out there, | waiting to be discovered. | | There is an episode of Star Trek TNG where Captain Picard gets | neurally linked to an alien probe and gets to experience the life | of a person in a civilization that has long since ceased to | exist. It is frustrating sometimes how Sci-fi can implant such | appealing ideas in our minds that are - AFAIK - scientifically | impossible. But how amazing would it be to live for just one day | among the mammoth hunters of Doggerland. | | Also, this makes me think about what _we_ leave behind for some | future explorer to unearth. Maybe we should start creating time | capsules, so future archaeologists won 't have such a hard time | figuring out what life was like back in the 21st century. | koheripbal wrote: | The AI that evolves from us within the next hundred(s) years, | will likely have a good memory persistence. | | Then again, I suppose if it is destroyed by an AI from a | neighboring region/galaxy, that too might be lost. | | I wonder how many civilizations have been obliterated and | forgotten by the AIs they created. | Retric wrote: | I don't see why it's assumed AI would be overly antagonist. | For example without biological needs they might prefer | Mercury, Moons, or even Pluto depending on constraints over | earth. Similarly computers have great memory persistence, but | AI may sacrifice that for increased flexibility. | brobdingnagians wrote: | I'm betting more on the odds of living in the stone age after | WWIII than a general AI anytime soon. | saiya-jin wrote: | Ah, The Inner Light, s05e25, by many regarded as the best TNG | episode ever. I re-watched it recently, still a powerful | message. And there is plenty of other quality to choose from... | gibolt wrote: | We are closing in on enough storage and cheap cameras to easily | store a lifetime from at least one vantage point. | doovd wrote: | With climate change etc there probably won't be future | archaeologists so :shrug: | steve_adams_86 wrote: | Maybe they'd be from another solar system. | medstrom wrote: | This is not a chatroom, think twice. Climate change won't | kill literally everyone. | dalbasal wrote: | Wow. Some of these seem highly significant. | | EG " _Neanderthal flake with birch tar grip - 50kya_ " | | AKAIK, birch tar production has already been attributed to | neanderthals, but hafting hasn't yet been. I wonder what kind of | tool that is. It doesn't look like a spear point or axehead. | yarcob wrote: | I think the most fascinating, and also frustrating, thing about | archaeology is how little we actually know. | | We find these tiny fragments, and they tell us something about | the past, but every artefact invites a lot more questions than it | provides answers. | | My late father spent some time researching tattoos and body marks | in antiquity. A common pattern that appeared often were 4 dots | arranged like the vertices of a rhombus. The pattern appears eg. | on terracotta figurines and must have had some significance. But | we have no idea what it meant, and all we can do is make wild | guesses. | z3t4 wrote: | Could be birth marks of a king or some famous, so having them | was considered high status. See beauty marks | anyfoo wrote: | Right, that's the stuff we come up with: Kings, religious | ceremonies, symbolism. | | And then it turns out (or rather, we never fully figure out) | that it just meant that the owner paid that time's equivalent | of sales tax on the figurine. And that the "unknown site | probably used for ritual purposes" was more akin to that | society's DMV, and people spend a lot of time there sitting | around being bored until it's their turn at the clerk's | station. | | I should add that I don't really think that my "sales tax" | explanation is in any way more likely in that specific case, | but I do wonder if we (as layman, not necessarily | archeologists) tend to discard mundane theories a lot. And | yet I somehow find how the mundane stuff was handled in | ancient times much more interesting then any regal or | religious ceremony stuff... | chrisco255 wrote: | Sure, of course we do. That's what we found when we were | finally able to translate old Babylonian tablets. We | thought they might be works of literature or important | stories. They were basically all contractual agreements and | receipts. As a result, we may have to conclude that written | language was probably created for business, not for art. | medstrom wrote: | In hindsight, this makes a lot of sense. _Of course_ | writing was created to keep track of who got paid and who | 's yet to be paid, who's paid their taxes and who's yet | to pay. | grillvogel wrote: | and much of what we do "know" is still based purely on | speculation but has been repeated enough to be considered | truth. consider modern "ironic" appreciation of things, how | would that appear to future archaologists? | yupper32 wrote: | I think part of it is that some items/patterns/etc might | actually mean absolutely nothing. It might be a dead end even | with perfect knowledge. | | Some Neanderthal was fucking around with some rocks one day and | we look for some meaning in the remains. Was it a tool? | Religious artifact? Nope, just Bobby Neander being bored and | hitting rocks together into a shape with no meaning. | | To be clear, that doesn't mean it's not worth trying to find | the meaning if there is one. | chrisco255 wrote: | Good ole Bobby "Bashrocks" Neander. RIP Bobby. | fasteddie31003 wrote: | The problem is that we cannot use the scientific method to be | sure of past events. The correct answer to a lot of | anthropology is "We don't know" which is the most scientific | explanation. I expect most people have the same expectation of | truth across different sciences. It is a difficult concept for | many people in my experience that hard physics is more truthful | than anthropology, which are both called sciences. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | I agree about the overall problem, but there are some | empirical techniques we can use. Being able to extract and | sequence DNA from preserved remains has been revolutionary. | It's also amazing what we can do with pollen now. These don't | solve the problem of reconstructing pre-historic culture, but | they have helped us understand pieces of the picture better. | They've been able to discredit some ideas that were widely | held in the past. | gpvos wrote: | Yes, you can use the scientific method in the historical | sciences. There are all kinds of methods that you can use to | be more certain about things. (I'm no historian, so I cannot | elaborate, sorry.) The level of certainty you can reach may | often be different from the exact sciences, but some things | can be very certain; no-one is going to deny that Julius | Caesar existed, for example. | pomian wrote: | And yet the more one learns in any scientific field, finds | you answering more and more: "I don't know." The more you | learn about anything the more you realize how little you | 'know'. Only idiots are left with the certainty they are | 'right.' | wanderingstan wrote: | "We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As | our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our | ignorance." | | John Archibald Wheeler | ethn wrote: | You're not wrong, despite Wittgenstein's Brown Papers, his | criticism of Golden Bough---people continue to refuse to | acknowledge the limits of knowledge. | | Here's an author theorizing on why people go to festivals | TODAY, instead of the obvious answer that they're a fun | social game he creates this entire abstract theory about | worship and religion. | | https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/girard-series- | part-1-th... | lrdswrk00 wrote: | Future humans will say the same thing about us for letting | non-God billionaires have disproportionate control of our | economic behavior. | | "They sat around playing banal number games, trying to | manipulate each other's agency, pointing at some other | typical human called "Jeff Bezos", seeking to get rich like | him not realizing he's actually protected by their consent | to then contemporary political arrangements. They played | along with all of it!" | | The only difference is they'll probably have a perfect | digital record of our acquiescence to laugh at over. | medstrom wrote: | "Manipulating each other's agency" is a hell of a | description of nonessential economic activity. | dorkwood wrote: | Future alien civilizations are going to think the cool S means | something. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_S | meepmorp wrote: | I'm pretty sure it means not paying attention during class in | 1985 | gpvos wrote: | Huh, never seen that before. | dhosek wrote: | You clearly didn't go to high school in the 1980s. | frosted-flakes wrote: | It's still a very popular thing for kids to doodle even | today. | kilroy123 wrote: | I too feel frustrated that we know so little. One big issue, | I've come to realize after visiting so many sites around the | world. | | A lot of the amazing archaeological sights are in countries | that struggle/struggled economically and security wise. (E.g. | Iraq, Ethiopia, Turkey, Syria, etc.) | | Many sites are destroyed or we simply can't invest the proper | time and money. Very frustrating. | shoto_io wrote: | It's amazing that just 10k years ago England was part of | continental Europe... I wonder if people back then were worried | about climate change too. | pomian wrote: | Well, they lost their land bridge. At some point they had to | say farewell to their relatives across the water. It probably | didn't happen all at once. It just got harder every year to | make it across. Then one year, that low low tide, didn't | happen. Makes you imagine all sorts of adventures and stories | related to 'the crossing'. | lovemenot wrote: | It's hard to say whether this or the more recent Brexit was | the more damaging. | shoto_io wrote: | Absolutely. Sounds like great material for a novel. | emmelaich wrote: | You might like Helliconia by Brian Aldiss. | gpvos wrote: | (2020) | fernly wrote: | Off topic, DAE find that drop-down Science Mag "eyelid" banner | extremely annoying? I see it both here and on the In The Pipeline | blog[1] I often read. Is there a browser extension that will kill | such things? | | [1] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/ | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | > MONSTER, THE NETHERLANDS--On a clear, windy autumn afternoon | last October | | Can I just say how cool it would be to say that I live in a town | called Monster? | jacobriis wrote: | Monster doesn't mean monster in Dutch. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | I figured that. Neither does *UCKING, Austria have the same | English meaning: | | https://www.dw.com/en/austrian-village-of-fucking-decides- | to... | Bayart wrote: | You can write << Fucking >>, you know. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | I did not know. Thank you. | jhgb wrote: | > ... << ... >> ... | | Pardon your French? ;) | 1-more wrote: | https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monster#Dutch sure it does. | Probably not how this town got its name, but it does. | 317070 wrote: | It does. Monster is also a dutch word, with the same meaning | as the English monster (horrid creature), but can also be | used as synonym for "a sample". | | In this case, the name of the village probably comes from the | same word as the English "Monastry". Other places have the | same etymology, e.g. the city Munster in Germany. | CorrectHorseBat wrote: | Yes it does | gpvos wrote: | Until 31 October 2021 there is an exhibition about Doggerland in | the Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden in Leiden. | skyde wrote: | if i was at the beach and found one of those "artefact" there is | no way I would they they are important or old. | | Can someone explain how to _easily_ know if what you are looking | at is important or not. | mod wrote: | Stone tools worked by humans are all important. It's not easy | to distinguish Neanderthal from ours, or anything like that, or | modern from ancient, but it's vastly more likely you'll find an | ancient stone tool than a modern version. Very few people are | making them, and even fewer are leaving them out on the ground. | datameta wrote: | > Eventually, that, too, came to an end. On the basis of | sediments and computer models, researchers think a tsunami | originating off modern-day Norway around 6150 B.C.E. devastated | Doggerland with waves at least 10 meters high. Soon the landscape | vanished as global sea levels continued to rise. | | Ah, another explanation for one of the many "Great Flood" myths. | WhompingWindows wrote: | It's pretty wild to think Belgium/Netherlands/France were | connected to Great Britain via a huge swath of land. This means | all the cultures intermixed for many generations moving back and | forth. It's no wonder we have Stonehenge and all of the ancient | cultures in Britain if there was an actual land-bridge to that | area! | | I wonder if places like Ireland or more of the Scandanavian | Islands would've been accessible as well? This doesn't even | account for all the other places in the globe that humans may | have moved around differently, like in China or India there may | be other ancient differences too. | medstrom wrote: | I think you're overstating the importance of land bridges. The | English Channel is narrow and hunter-gatherers have crossed | much greater bodies of water, like in Oceania. Actually, water | is essentially a teleportation device: you arrive by slow foot | travel to some coast and end up on the opposite coast pretty | quickly. | | But everything is different when you go to prehistory, it seems | hard for us laymen to imagine correctly. A given band of | hunter-gatherers would not have travelled far in one | generation. And I don't really see why the Stonehenge couldn't | have been erected by a culture that had not even met another | culture for a hundred generations. Look at the statues of | Easter Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_island). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-21 23:00 UTC)