Live data from Hacker News

Evidence that the Neanderthals were the first seafarers?

thearchaeologist.org

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: Evidence that the Neanderthals were the first seafarers?

#11
> Long before modern humans existed, 100,000 years ago

100,000ya ago is not "long before modern humans existed." Modern humans are Homo sapiens, and the oldest known Homo sapiens remains (to date, that we know of) are dated to 300,000 years ago, which is now apparently 200,000 years before "long before" Homo sapiens existed. I guess the good news is we invent the time machine before too long.

Re: Evidence that the Neanderthals were the first seafarers?

#15
> Unfortunately, archaeologists are unable to provide additional evidence because any boats used by Neanderthals would have been made of wood, which would have long since decomposed to nothing.

Why make the leap to assume they invented sails, given the lack of physical evidence? I mean, it seems reasonable to think they could have rowed or even floated 40km long before they developed sails, and that they would develop those techniques on the way to doing that.

Re: Evidence that the Neanderthals were the first seafarers?

#16

> Long before modern humans existed, 100,000 years ago 100,000ya ago is not "long before modern humans existed." Modern humans are Homo sapiens, and the oldest known Homo sapiens remains (to date, that we know of) are dated to 300,000 years ago, which is now apparently 200,000 years before "long before" Homo sapiens existed. I guess the good news is we invent the time machine before too long.

I remember when I was a kid, textbooks would draw a distinction between “homo sapiens” and “homo sapiens sapiens.” But it is odd, when I search “homo sapiens sapiens,” I only see links to like, homework helper/yahoo question sites referencing it. Wikipedia and the Smithsonian seem to have dropped the second sapiens.

Is this an update to how this stuff is understood? I vaguely think the extra sapiens was added on to draw a distinction between “behaviorally modern” humans or something like that. But that always seemed more like a cultural thing anyway.

Re: Evidence that the Neanderthals were the first seafarers?

#17

> Long before modern humans existed, 100,000 years ago 100,000ya ago is not "long before modern humans existed." Modern humans are Homo sapiens, and the oldest known Homo sapiens remains (to date, that we know of) are dated to 300,000 years ago, which is now apparently 200,000 years before "long before" Homo sapiens existed. I guess the good news is we invent the time machine before too long.

Came here to see if anyone else had a problem with that timeline.

Re: Evidence that the Neanderthals were the first seafarers?

#18

> Long before modern humans existed, 100,000 years ago 100,000ya ago is not "long before modern humans existed." Modern humans are Homo sapiens, and the oldest known Homo sapiens remains (to date, that we know of) are dated to 300,000 years ago, which is now apparently 200,000 years before "long before" Homo sapiens existed. I guess the good news is we invent the time machine before too long.

I remember when I was a kid, textbooks would draw a distinction between “homo sapiens” and “homo sapiens sapiens.” But it is odd, when I search “homo sapiens sapiens,” I only see links to like, homework helper/yahoo question sites referencing it. Wikipedia and the Smithsonian seem to have dropped the second sapiens. Is this an update to how this stuff is understood? I vaguely think the extra sapiens was added on to d…

The "Human taxonomy" page on Wikipedia still adds the second sapiens to Homo sapiens sapiens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy

This may be because Homo sapiens sapiens is the Homo sapiens type species, but I'm not sure.

Re: Evidence that the Neanderthals were the first seafarers?

#20

It's an interesting theory, but as often is the case, the title is far more definite than the content.

Ye no proofs at all. The feasibility depends a lot on what they mean with "sailing". I guess their use includes "rowing" and "drifting".

they find human-made tools (which they can assign dates to) on islands distant from shore.

Their only explanation that they are hypothesizing is that humans traveled there across water. Do you have a better idea? They're not saying they found boats, they're saying there is clear evidence of human travel.

Focus on the evidence there is, not evidence you would like to see. What do you hypothesize that fits the evidence?

Post reply on HN