The oldest evidence for humans swimming is from 100k years ago | Hacker News Reader

The oldest evidence for humans swimming is from 100k years ago

phys.org

23 pointsdiodorus31 comments

Didn't all of our ancestors, all the way back to fish, swim at least once in a while?

Do any of our close relatives swim? Do chimps and gorilla?

I caught an armadillo once when I was like 10. I threw him in a pond to see if he could swim (yes total dick move). I hypothesized the armor would sink him and was prepared to rescue him.

He swam to the other side fine (but not very gracefully) and ran away. Knowing nothing with certainty, I would venture all mammals can "swim" to some degree and with with varying levels of effectiveness if it's life or death.

I googled a bit and there are some mammals that can't swim.

Easy ones that can't swim are giraffes and hippos due to their body shapes. Rhinos are a maybe, we're not sure. Some believe camels, but there's a link showing some camels that swim more than 3km to reach grazing areas.

There are also videos of various apes swimming, and its believed that they (like humans) can all learn to, even though its not natural.

Finally there are various dog breeds that can't swim due to their anatomy or fur.

Hippos can't swim? They spend most of their time in water, and are excellent swimmers.

I guess the idea is that they kind of walk on the bottom:

Hippos Can’t Swim? | Natural World | BBC Earth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu4T9kawhAM

And from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus#Characteristics_a...

"Despite being semiaquatic and having webbed feet, an adult hippo is not a particularly good swimmer, nor can it float. It rarely enters deep water; when does, the animal moves by bouncing off the bottom."

Thanks for the insight

Other primates can be taught to swim, but like humans, it isn't a functional instinct. If you throw an untrained chimp or gorilla into deep water, they will thrash and flail much as an untrained human would.

How can archeology tell you about swimming? Skip the article and go to its source https://phys.org/news/2018-12-surfer-ear-ancient-pearl-diver...

There is a kind of bone spur that you get in your ear if you swim a lot in cold water. Archeologists spot that in skeletal remains.

A recent story suggested that "Ancient Humans May Have Sailed The Mediterranean 450,000 Years Ago".

[https://www.sciencealert.com/ancient-humans-may-have-sailed-...]

[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2022.09.001]

If so it seems very likely that the 'archaic hominins' knew the dangers of sailing without being able to swim. Doesn't rise to the level of 'evidence', but 350,000 years later? I'd guess so.

More accurate title: The oldest evidence we have for humans swimming is from 100k years ago.

The operational word about is "evidence"

It's inconceivable that humans or the evolutionary ancestors of humans did not swim before 100k years ago. After all, most mammals are able to swim to a certain extent.

Do chimpanzees and bonobos swim?

Do chimpanzees and bonobos gather a significant portion of their food from water resources? Archeological records of ancient homonids show remnants of mollusks and fish going back long before this report of "evidence of swimming". It seems logical that species would proficient in moving about the environments where they regularly gathered food.

Ok, we'll use that above. Thanks!

I read this as "The earliest humans swam 100k, years ago"

I was ready to be _very_ impressed

I really like the aquatic ape theory, and don't understand why it isn't taken more seriously as a possibility, even if there isn't currently any strong evidence for it

It may contribute negatively that when you Google it all the top YouTube results are "race realists," etc

I didn't know this. That's unfortunate.

The fact that you (and others) "really like" it, in spite of the total lack of evidence, means we should take it less seriously, not more. It is a glaring red flag for bias, which we should attempt to compensate for. Our aesthetic sense has no bearing on truth, but it does affect what lies we tell each other.

You can apply this principle quite widely: the better it feels to believe something, the less likely it is to be true.

Being a contrarian rationalist doesn't magically compensate for bias. Evidence does. Lack of evidence isn't evidence against something.

How did they learn?

On that note I’m old and was never taught as a kid, is there an efficient method to learn

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-young-is-too-young-for-chil...

Take lessons at YMCA

Learning to swim is about as natural as learning to crawl.

I’m not saying this with any disparaging intent. Why don’t you just go in a pool when you have the chance and try? If you don’t have access at all, then my apologies.

Do it! While everyone is different it was easier for me than learning to ride a bike. As an adult it is really about spending time in the water at a depth where you feel confident and experiencing what it feels like to be in and move in the water. Experiment with how your body floats and how you can use your arms and legs in the water for movement. Copy what others are doing! Then it is just a matter of going deeper at your own pace as you get more confident.

Sometimes new swimmers struggle with water in their nose when they go under the surface. At first you can simply pinch your nostrils closed. Then practice creating positive air pressure in your nose by blowing a bit of air out of your nose, gently when you go under. It is kinda like submersing an upside down cup in water. The air in the cup gets trapped and keeps the water out. Be warned though if your nostrils turn upside down, the opposite is true. That is a good time to exhale more air. :)

I mean, weren't we all fish?

> She describes her history as also a study of whiteness and white culture. The part that swimming plays in world history is not neutral.

> Swimming is closely bound up in the history of patriarchy.

Come on, this is academics these days?

It’s starting to read like the blurbs artists have to come up with for their works.

They are worse than the annoying marketing landing pages for most SaaS which are a jumbled mix of buzzwords. It comes across much worse on art and research because for artists on one level they pretend to be anti-establishment and research is supposed to be more or less free of crass influence; but here we are…

Art and research are not that different when you think about it. They require highly dedicated, intensively focused individuals to dedicate their lives to the work, but the benefits are diluted and distributed across all of society. So both basic research and art is funded largely by patronage, either by private owners or by the state. Some forms of research are funded by private industry, but those are specific cases.

I wonder if it's like hitting buzzwords on a resume. You find a way to throw it in, because it costs you nothing to add it, but you might get dinged for not having it.

I cringed when I read that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com