Hominin head-scratcher: who butchered this rhino 700k years ago?
blogs.discovermagazine.com
blogs.discovermagazine.com
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-man#
Or is it a different one?
I was thinking of the horse figurine found in the Vogelherd cave: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogelherd_Cave
The rhino family evolved something like 20 million years ago. See more details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros#Evolution I still not sure how to read all the data in the table, but 20mya looks like an good approximation.
In Google I got this two maps of the Earth 20mya. Notice the difference in the shape of the Philippine area. http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/flipbook/flipbook.h... http://www.thearmchairexplorer.com/geology/neogene-period
I'm not sure that the rhinos reached that place (the current island) 20 million years ago, but they had plenty of time and a lot of difference in the geography that makes a simple walk possible.
<oversimplification warning. See an accurate version in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Evolution >
On the other hand, Homo Habilis evolved only 2mya and they lived only in Africa, they had tool but they were not very smart. I think that at that time the Philippines were already isolated from Asia.
Homo Erectus evolved 1.5mya. They were quite smart and hd more tools! They went outside Africa to Europe and Asia, but they never crossed some big sea, and never reached America or Australia. They neither crossed some smaller extensions of water to reach some island that were not too close to the continens. So ... the conclusion is that they didn't have good enough boats.
Homo Sapiens evolved 0.3mya. (I was going to write 0.1mya, the number changes too often.) They could cross to some places no Erectus has gone before, so the conclusion is that they have some kind of boats even in ancient times.
So if the rhino was butchered 0.7mya then it must have be killed by some variant of Homo Erectus that have never been found in an island that is not very close to a continent because they didn't have good enough boats because they were smart but not smart enough. So the lack of boats is a problem for the hominin.
Is it possible there are settlements, they're just under the ocean now, on what used to be large flat land bridges?
Quite possible, evidence of settlements at lower levels have been found elsewhere [1].
Why don’t they just move!
But seriously I think that’s why it’s called settling. Ok I’m tired of moving I’m going to stop here and build a life and that’s it. And then they actively ignore any evidence it’s a bad decision. I’m guessing people of yore were similar.
All the answers, if any remain, are deeply under water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Reservoir_e...
In addition, I'm assuming the dating has a margin of error which was not stated in the article, so I'm curious what this margin is. (But even so, I doubt it's a large enough margin to get close to the 600k that was stated, which is already 'far out there')
Electronic spin resonance: ESR, which measures trapped electrons using magnetic fields, is related to magnetic resonance imaging, the medical technique that allows doctors to look for tumors or peek inside your creaking knee. Because ESR essentially tracks the activity — the “spin” — of the electrons without freeing them, the sample can be subjected to repeated dating attempts. ESR also has a longer range — some researchers claim up to 1 million years — but it’s more complicated than other trapped charge methods, leaving it more susceptible to error.
Before releasing a claim like this, I would have to believe they were extremely careful in the testing and interpretation. If they have this wrong, it could be a career killer.
[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/910000...
I think if you throw enough hominins in small boats at the ocean, at least a few of them are bound to survive the trip, right? I wonder how many island settlers in pre-history were just castaways who happened to hold on to a tree long enough to survive a monsoon-spurred ocean trip.
You should pick up Kon-Tiki - those guys discovered a lot about ancient boating.
Despite their homelands being situated among the harshest, most inhospitable climes on Earth, with year round temperatures frequently near or below freezing and constant powerful circumpolar winds from the 'furious fifties,' they were able to tolerate such extreme conditions despite their traditional attire consisting of little more than a loincloth and an occasional loosely draped shawl. They frequently went without protection on their upper body and lower extremities altogether. Darwin describes a vivid scene where a Fuegian mother is standing in a shallow boat that approaches the Beagle in order to conduct raid. She's wearing nothing but newborn nursing at her breast, and she and her child both seem indifferent to the the snowfall and freezing rain melting on their skin.
They did not use permanent dwellings, and basically lived as gatherers using simple temporary makeshift huts with one side facing the wind and the other side open, and of course a fire, which gave the region its name. But it was not uncommon for them to spend days foraging for mussels, drenched in the frigid crashing breakers of the Southern Ocean.
This is 30 years before he published the Origin of Species and long before he had developed an articulated concept of natural selection, but The experience did inspire him to remark how it made intuitive sense that as the population of mankind spread across the Earth, that it would have differentiated and adapted to different climates in accordance with whatever underlying principles had driven the same process he had observed this happening with other species.
If curious, Google around for Jemmy Button and York Minster, these being too individuals who had been kidnapped from Tierra del Fuego and taken to England on a prior Beagle expedition, and returned on the one accompanied by Darwin.
I laughed out loudly at the office when I read this. My coworker is wondering if I'm bonkers.
On a more serious note, the orthodox time line of human existence needs revision. There is too much contradictory evidence: oral accounts, human footprints beside dinosaur foot impressions, Gobeki-Tepli and other structures, prehistoric sculpture like lion-man and vogelherd, now this.
(Probably a species of rhino inhabitant swamps could swim among close islands. Elephants are surprisingly good swimmers so, why not rhinos?)
IMHO concern that the population wasn't large enough for multiple people to attempt the trick ignore the timescales involved. These events could span tens of thousands of years--longer than all of recorded history.
> Using the electron-spin resonance method on its tooth enamel, the team established that the rhino was about 709,000 years old. Thirteen of its bones, according to the study’s authors, showed signs of butchering, including cuts and “percussion marks” on both humeri (forelimb bones), which is typical of smashing open a bone to access the marrow.
Birds don't typically use stone tools heavy enough to split a rhino's bones.
That; as far as we know, tool-using hominins hadn't spread that far by that point, and couldn't have because you can't swim that far without a boat that requires more civilization than we think was around then.
Now I’m not suggesting that there was a bird capable of picking up a rhino but possible capable of picking up individual bones and dropping them or like crows picking up rocks and dropping them on the carcass.
The former is actually a thing:
The bearded vulture has learned to crack bones too large to be swallowed by carrying them in flight to a height of 50–150 m (160–490 ft) above the ground and then dropping them onto rocks below, which smashes them into smaller pieces and exposes the nutritious marrow.
I’m not sure from the article or the limited bit I know whether the butchering was the surprising part, or just the presence of hominids in the Phillipines. It sounds a bit more like the latter.