PDA

View Full Version : Earliest footprints outside Africa discovered in Norfolk



Clinton P
02-07-2014, 12:57 PM
"Scientists have discovered the earliest evidence of human footprints outside of Africa, on the Norfolk Coast in the East of England."

"The footprints are more than 800,000 years old and were found on the shores of Happisburgh."

Click here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26025763) to read more about this story.

Clinton P

Pappy
08-13-2017, 09:42 PM
Geofacts? Oldest known proto humans is from 500,000 ya? Interesting. Kinda weird that the substrate was there for 800k then vanished!

A Norfolk L-M20
08-13-2017, 10:03 PM
All depends on what you see as human. There isn't a broadly accepted definition. Personally what I regard as human starts around then or a bit later, during the Middle Palaeolithic. For others they might argue the emergence of AMH, or even later with cognitively modern humans.

300,000 years isn't that much time in hominid evolution. A hominid didn't suddenly give birth to a human 500,000 years ago.

However, sure, the report was dumbed down and sensationalised a bit. Earliest hominins might have been a better title. It was a cool find, and only a few years after knapped flints were found in cliffs nearby in Suffolk, dating around 750,000 years old.

Pappy
08-14-2017, 01:38 AM
A couple of points about what is human, imo. A human could have built a boat to arrive on a distant shore as well as sew some shoes together after weaving his fish net. Why else construct a boat? Exploring takes some radical abstract thought patterns, fishing does not. Being blown out to sea and accidentally landing on a foreign shore is pretty random unless fishing and boats were a dominating feature 800,000 years ago.
Was there ice involved? Not likely since the mud the "prints" we're left in would have been buried or frozen solid.
Imo, these prints are geofacts with zero supporting logic to give foundation to idea of any kind of bipedal foot prints.
Unless I missed something astounding like actual foot prints, with heal to toe action.

Saetro
08-14-2017, 05:38 AM
A couple of points about what is human, imo. A human could have built a boat to arrive on a distant shore as well as sew some shoes together after weaving his fish net. Why else construct a boat? Exploring takes some radical abstract thought patterns, fishing does not. Being blown out to sea and accidentally landing on a foreign shore is pretty random unless fishing and boats were a dominating feature 800,000 years ago.
Was there ice involved? Not likely since the mud the "prints" we're left in would have been buried or frozen solid.
Imo, these prints are geofacts with zero supporting logic to give foundation to idea of any kind of bipedal foot prints.
Unless I missed something astounding like actual foot prints, with heal to toe action.

Yeah, but as there was land all the way, why make a boat? That makes no sense.
The earliest that limited sea travel was needed was to get across from Africa to Arabia. But that was in sight of land.
What was truly human was to travel by water to somewhere you could not see from the land you were leaving: when travelling from Sundaland to Sahul sometime between around 70kyBP and 50kyBP, on the way towards Australia.