Eight-mile frieze of Ice Age beasts found in Amazon rainforest (2020)(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Eight-mile frieze of Ice Age beasts found in Amazon rainforest (2020)
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/amazon-rainforest-ice-age-paintings-scli-intl/index.html
127 comments
The "relatively newer" images you refer to seem to be nearly 12,000 years newer than the images mentioned in this article. They're likely from a different culture entirely.
EDIT: Changed "older" to "newer."
EDIT: Changed "older" to "newer."
The images are of various ages. This article describes the subset that are the oldest, but there are newer ones mixed in. In some places you get layers of them, where you can see that the older ones were drawn over. They can estimate how much later they were added based on the presence of animals and objects that did not exist there 12,000 years ago.
It's true that there's a huge gap in time between the earliest paintings and the newer ones and so some aspects of the culture probably did change. But the area has been continuously populated for millennia.
It's true that there's a huge gap in time between the earliest paintings and the newer ones and so some aspects of the culture probably did change. But the area has been continuously populated for millennia.
You mean 12k years newer, not older.
I'm not positive what GP meant either, but if they were talking about horses, that is mentioned in the article as being there about 12,000 years ago, which is significantly before colonization that first GP mentioned as having brought horses to the area:
> the rock art shows how the earliest human inhabitants of the area would have coexisted with Ice Age megafauna, with pictures showing what appear to be giant sloths, mastodons, camelids, horses and three-toed ungulates with trunks.
> the rock art shows how the earliest human inhabitants of the area would have coexisted with Ice Age megafauna, with pictures showing what appear to be giant sloths, mastodons, camelids, horses and three-toed ungulates with trunks.
Apparently, there were horses in the Americas, but they went extinct about 12k years ago, along with the other megafauna.
What I understand is that different images could have been made in multiple time periods, from the first inhabitants up to today.
Younger Dryas caused megafauna extinction worldwide
s/went extinct/were hunted to extinction by man
Blaming megafauna extinction on humans aligns with current misanthropic fashions, but rapid global warming at the end of the last ice age is a far more likely culprit.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21201-8
I don’t think it’s very credible to conclude the disappearance of both large herbivores has nothing to do with the arrival of a new, exceptionally adept and general apex predator.
Do you know when the megafauna of Madagascar went extinct? Right around the arrival of humans. What about New Zealand? Shortly after the arrival of humans. In every historical, known example of human introduction to a new ecosystem, most animals over 50lbs get eaten.
Do you know when the megafauna of Madagascar went extinct? Right around the arrival of humans. What about New Zealand? Shortly after the arrival of humans. In every historical, known example of human introduction to a new ecosystem, most animals over 50lbs get eaten.
So what’s up with Africa then? Those ones didn’t taste good or what?
I would propose that the megafauna of Africa is less naive regarding hominid predators.
Elephants will go out of their way to kill lion cubs and, according to Tanzanian anecdote, human children.
Elephants will go out of their way to kill lion cubs and, according to Tanzanian anecdote, human children.
The animals there evolved with humans.
It's also interesting that essentially none of the native animals in Africa are domesticatable -- I think donkeys are the one thing we managed to domesticate there, most everything else was brought back from other continents.
Animals you'd think would be basically like other species we've domesticated, like zebras or gnus, take a strong "fuck you" attitude towards people and have resisted modern efforts to domesticate them.
Animals you'd think would be basically like other species we've domesticated, like zebras or gnus, take a strong "fuck you" attitude towards people and have resisted modern efforts to domesticate them.
You've been reading Guns, Germs, and Steel?
So NA megafauna had no problems with wolves but people come along and it’s game over. Still not buying this. Why did horses die out but not bison or deer? How did mammoth go extinct while elephants didn’t when elephants faced more technologically advanced humans over a longer time period? Just doesn’t add up.
Pretty much the same thing it's just that Africa is huge.
And North and South America aren’t?
> but rapid global warming at the end of the last ice age is a far more likely culprit.
Firstly, your linked paper is focused on North America, so we can't say it's also applicable to, say, the extinctions of Homo floresiensis and Stegodon florensis insularis that correlate rather well with the arrival of modern humans.
Secondly, it repeatedly refers to global _cooling_ through the Younger Dryas Event. Just to clarify.
And tbh, claiming the overkill/big black hole hypothesis is merely current fashion is overly simplistic. It was described in the 60s based on available data, and hey, we're getting better data now, so yay, science is incorporating new data, like we expect.
And I'll note that the data points for human predation of megafauna used in that paper are likely to change also with time, so who knows how correct that paper's conclusions will be in another 20 years?
I don't see why "it was probably both" shouldn't be the default position. We know humans hunted megafauna, but like the fossil record, we know that only some evidence will be preserved, and only some of that evidence has been found.
But logically, both environmental change and the introduction of a novel predator (and other novel predators that predator may have brought with them) are bad for populations of species which a low replacement rate.
Kākāpō are a very good example. Human settlement brought habitat loss, causing their numbers to decline, and their breeding success rates to drop (and they were slow breeders to start with) as the more clement habitat was modified by humans, thus pushing them into areas with lower productivity.
But what ultimately pushed them to nearly going extinct was the introduction of very effective mammalian predators (mustelids). They had evolved for a land where the only predators were avian and sight based. So they became flightless because no point in flying away from danger when the danger was flying above you, and they developed cryptic colouration, they'd freeze when they sensed danger and became nocturnal. And most importantly, they used scent in lieu of dramatic colours to find each other in dense forest in the breeding season. No harm there, because raptors hunt by sight, not scent.
But being a smelly bird who is camouflaged and nocturnal and stands still, is no defense against ground predators who hunt by scent and quite appreciate not having to run after you.
I have the diaries of an explorer in the 1890s who would eat five kākāpō for breakfast, they were that easy for him to locate using his dogs, within 80 years of his parrot based breakfasts they were extinct on the mainland.
But yeah, habitat loss reduced their range, then human hunting reduced their range, then feral dogs and later cats reduced their range. But they were still around in decent numbers.
Then mustelids were introduced, and that was the tipping point, but only in the context of the prior stresses.
So for megafauna, hunting pressure places a population under stress, especially in species with a low replacement rate.
Climate change and the resulting changes in the ecosystem also puts populations under stress.
Maybe one of those stressors was survivable, but probably not both.
And for some megafaunal extinctions, especially on islands, it's pretty obvious humans were the deciding factor. Maybe not through hunting, just habitat loss could be sufficient (e.g., elephant bird), but often habitat loss went hand in hand with intensive hunting (e.g., moa)
This paper's worth a read. https://www.academia.edu/2644492/The_Associational_Critique_...
Firstly, your linked paper is focused on North America, so we can't say it's also applicable to, say, the extinctions of Homo floresiensis and Stegodon florensis insularis that correlate rather well with the arrival of modern humans.
Secondly, it repeatedly refers to global _cooling_ through the Younger Dryas Event. Just to clarify.
And tbh, claiming the overkill/big black hole hypothesis is merely current fashion is overly simplistic. It was described in the 60s based on available data, and hey, we're getting better data now, so yay, science is incorporating new data, like we expect.
And I'll note that the data points for human predation of megafauna used in that paper are likely to change also with time, so who knows how correct that paper's conclusions will be in another 20 years?
I don't see why "it was probably both" shouldn't be the default position. We know humans hunted megafauna, but like the fossil record, we know that only some evidence will be preserved, and only some of that evidence has been found.
But logically, both environmental change and the introduction of a novel predator (and other novel predators that predator may have brought with them) are bad for populations of species which a low replacement rate.
Kākāpō are a very good example. Human settlement brought habitat loss, causing their numbers to decline, and their breeding success rates to drop (and they were slow breeders to start with) as the more clement habitat was modified by humans, thus pushing them into areas with lower productivity.
But what ultimately pushed them to nearly going extinct was the introduction of very effective mammalian predators (mustelids). They had evolved for a land where the only predators were avian and sight based. So they became flightless because no point in flying away from danger when the danger was flying above you, and they developed cryptic colouration, they'd freeze when they sensed danger and became nocturnal. And most importantly, they used scent in lieu of dramatic colours to find each other in dense forest in the breeding season. No harm there, because raptors hunt by sight, not scent.
But being a smelly bird who is camouflaged and nocturnal and stands still, is no defense against ground predators who hunt by scent and quite appreciate not having to run after you.
I have the diaries of an explorer in the 1890s who would eat five kākāpō for breakfast, they were that easy for him to locate using his dogs, within 80 years of his parrot based breakfasts they were extinct on the mainland.
But yeah, habitat loss reduced their range, then human hunting reduced their range, then feral dogs and later cats reduced their range. But they were still around in decent numbers.
Then mustelids were introduced, and that was the tipping point, but only in the context of the prior stresses.
So for megafauna, hunting pressure places a population under stress, especially in species with a low replacement rate.
Climate change and the resulting changes in the ecosystem also puts populations under stress.
Maybe one of those stressors was survivable, but probably not both.
And for some megafaunal extinctions, especially on islands, it's pretty obvious humans were the deciding factor. Maybe not through hunting, just habitat loss could be sufficient (e.g., elephant bird), but often habitat loss went hand in hand with intensive hunting (e.g., moa)
This paper's worth a read. https://www.academia.edu/2644492/The_Associational_Critique_...
What comes with people migrating to new environments? New diseases.
It’s bizarre to me that hunting is the “regular suspect” in so many imaginations of the far past when the diseases transported by humans and their animals was almost certainly as substantial a factor in the far past as it was more recently.
It’s bizarre to me that hunting is the “regular suspect” in so many imaginations of the far past when the diseases transported by humans and their animals was almost certainly as substantial a factor in the far past as it was more recently.
Actually was thinking on this, I suspect you're right that this is another potential stressor that should be considered.
Not so much diseases from animals brought by humans, but rather diseases/parasites from related animals who just mosied onto and sometimes over Beringia of their own accord.
E.g., wooly mammoths on the Eurasian steppes and American mastodons spent a lot of time developing in isolation, they could've had their own diseases they'd evolved to resist, then Beringia arises from the seas, and 100 years later, a mastodon catches the Mammmoth-flu or something.
From what little I understand, some of the N. American megafauna have been shown to have limited genetic diversity due to small founder populations, which we know can increase the vulnerability of a population to a novel disease.
I'm wondering how you'd be able to prove or disprove this though, maybe coprolites? Googling this briefly turned up this amazing website with the even more amazing tagline "#1 for fossilized #2"...
https://poozeum.com/
Brb doing a PhD in paleoepizootiology.
Not so much diseases from animals brought by humans, but rather diseases/parasites from related animals who just mosied onto and sometimes over Beringia of their own accord.
E.g., wooly mammoths on the Eurasian steppes and American mastodons spent a lot of time developing in isolation, they could've had their own diseases they'd evolved to resist, then Beringia arises from the seas, and 100 years later, a mastodon catches the Mammmoth-flu or something.
From what little I understand, some of the N. American megafauna have been shown to have limited genetic diversity due to small founder populations, which we know can increase the vulnerability of a population to a novel disease.
I'm wondering how you'd be able to prove or disprove this though, maybe coprolites? Googling this briefly turned up this amazing website with the even more amazing tagline "#1 for fossilized #2"...
https://poozeum.com/
Brb doing a PhD in paleoepizootiology.
I don't believe there's any clear evidence for this theory, though that doesn't mean anything. Die offs from disease don't really leave anything in the fossil record. But it's hard to favor a hypothetical explanation when there's other theories with at least some data supporting them around.
Interesting point, what evidence is there of zoonotic vectors though?
Which domesticated animals would those be in north and South America?
Domesticated? Human beings back then would have been a walking menagerie of pests, right? Seeds and plant matter, mice, mites, flees, pets, and yes if they managed to travel with livestock, them too.
All of which we know today are vectors for the spread of disease.
I have zero expertise to comment on what a primary contributor to population declines might’ve been for any given animal, I just find it fascinating (and baffling) that those who are experts seemingly ignore something that is undoubtedly a contributing factor.
As others point out this is of course understandable, because the story is less compelling. The image of humans with spears tracking down the last wild beast is one imaginations can’t resist. The image of slowly dying and decaying beasts, less so.
All of which we know today are vectors for the spread of disease.
I have zero expertise to comment on what a primary contributor to population declines might’ve been for any given animal, I just find it fascinating (and baffling) that those who are experts seemingly ignore something that is undoubtedly a contributing factor.
As others point out this is of course understandable, because the story is less compelling. The image of humans with spears tracking down the last wild beast is one imaginations can’t resist. The image of slowly dying and decaying beasts, less so.
Might as well blame any other animal then
Wouldn’t that work in both directions though?
Horses are not extinct.
>Horses are not extinct.
"While genus Equus, of which the horse is a member, originally evolved in North America, these horse relatives became extinct on the continent approximately 8,000–12,000 years ago. In 1493, on Christopher Columbus' second voyage to the Americas, Spanish horses, representing E. caballus, were brought back to North America, first to the Virgin Islands; they were introduced to the continental mainland by Hernán Cortés in 1519. From early Spanish imports to Mexico and Florida, horses moved north, supplemented by later imports to the east and west coasts brought by British, French, and other European colonists. Native peoples of the Americas quickly obtained horses and developed their own horse culture.[5][6]"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States
"While genus Equus, of which the horse is a member, originally evolved in North America, these horse relatives became extinct on the continent approximately 8,000–12,000 years ago. In 1493, on Christopher Columbus' second voyage to the Americas, Spanish horses, representing E. caballus, were brought back to North America, first to the Virgin Islands; they were introduced to the continental mainland by Hernán Cortés in 1519. From early Spanish imports to Mexico and Florida, horses moved north, supplemented by later imports to the east and west coasts brought by British, French, and other European colonists. Native peoples of the Americas quickly obtained horses and developed their own horse culture.[5][6]"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States
Yes, that's what I meant!
Horses are native to North America and became extinct after the introduction of humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
your comment makes it seem like colonists reintroduced a native species (idk if that was the intention, but that’s how it reads), when in reality the horse species that were once native in South America was quite different from European Horses.
It also makes it seem like their extinction was due to human action (again, idk if that was the intention), but it also could’ve been due to climate change.
It also makes it seem like their extinction was due to human action (again, idk if that was the intention), but it also could’ve been due to climate change.
The key part from below is "Quaternary extinction event of most of the Pleistocene megafauna that is widely believed to have been a result of human hunting pressure."
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon#Extinction
>Fossil evidence indicates that mastodons probably disappeared from North America about 10,500 years ago as part of the Quaternary extinction event of most of the Pleistocene megafauna that is widely believed to have been a result of human hunting pressure. The latest Paleo-Indians entered the Americas and expanded to relatively large numbers 13,000 years ago, and their hunting may have caused a gradual attrition of the mastodon population.
As far as megafauna and climate, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_of_the_woolly_mammoth#...
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon#Extinction
>Fossil evidence indicates that mastodons probably disappeared from North America about 10,500 years ago as part of the Quaternary extinction event of most of the Pleistocene megafauna that is widely believed to have been a result of human hunting pressure. The latest Paleo-Indians entered the Americas and expanded to relatively large numbers 13,000 years ago, and their hunting may have caused a gradual attrition of the mastodon population.
As far as megafauna and climate, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_of_the_woolly_mammoth#...
The Mormon church believes Tapirs are what were being called 'horses' and what pulled chariots and such, as an apologetic way of covering the fact horses weren't on the continent, but Joseph Smith never knew that.
Covered eight years ago (2015): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/20/colombia-wilde...
Edit: Channel 4 (UK) documentary from 2020 [0,1] as teased here [2]
[0] https://youtu.be/aDmKC_h9Www
[1] Show me the paintings! https://youtu.be/aDmKC_h9Www?t=3073
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/nov/29/sistine-chap...
Edit: Channel 4 (UK) documentary from 2020 [0,1] as teased here [2]
[0] https://youtu.be/aDmKC_h9Www
[1] Show me the paintings! https://youtu.be/aDmKC_h9Www?t=3073
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/nov/29/sistine-chap...
Just to add-on: Channel 4 has also put out related "Lost Kingdoms of Africa/South America/Central America" series, all of which are well-done and showcase offbeat archaeological sites in the same vein as this frieze.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=lost+kingdoms&d=programmes_ps
https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=lost+kingdoms&d=programmes_ps
That one is from the BBC and not Channel 4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4
Ah yep - thank you for the correction!
At the very end of the article, they state that local communities knew of and lead researchers to this art as a side effect of demilitarization of the area.
So not exactly “found”, more “officially documented”.
So not exactly “found”, more “officially documented”.
A significant amount of archeology is like this - Las Monedas cave (for example) has prehistoric cave paintings, but its named after someone dropped 20 coins (or so) in it in the 1700s, many caves that were "discovered" in a modern sense just mean in the context of described by science.
Petra is another one that comes to mind
You hit a similar thing with the language used to describe European colonising explorers ‘discovering’ populated lands. When was Australia discovered? When was New Zealand discovered?
I never understood this artificially forced point. Any explorer can only “explore” from the frame of reference of their culture’s knowledge. Even Australia’s indigenous population has distinct groups from different origins and necessarily different “discoveries”.
Yes. The argument is over whether one frame of reference is valid and another is not, and why.
To discover simply means to find. If I'm playing hide and seek, and my location is uncovered, I might cry out "you found me!" This is not to deny that I existed or knew of my own whereabouts prior to being located.
To say that some European "discovered" Australia is simply a statement that they found something they didn't hitherto know about. There's no implication of validity.
To say that some European "discovered" Australia is simply a statement that they found something they didn't hitherto know about. There's no implication of validity.
Nobody says Europe discovered Australia. They talk about how Australia was discovered, in passive voice. And everybody knows what frame of reference you're supposed to be reading from.
Is that problematic? I'm guessing it was written in a European language, by someone with a European name, from a European perspective, as a starting point.
When I was a kid we would say "Columbus discovered America" and it definitely gave me the impression that no one knew it existed before him. It erases the fact that lost of people knew about it because they lived there for generations.
I don't think it erases anything. Most places that have been discovered by explorers have been populated. I've never in my life heard of somebody who thought America wasn't populated upon its discovery. The label used for the next group of Spanish visitors is literally "Conquistadors" which could not be more clear as to what it involved.
s/European/American
And you start to see the problem here...
And you start to see the problem here...
What exactly is an American name?
There isn't one. That's actually my point. America is a cultural melting pot, and I would argue that presuming supremacy of the European culture is problematic.
You're right but I think the problem is that we just day "discovered" instead of qualifying it with the frame of reference. It's an assumption of a eurocentric perspective.
I trust this is because in currently ethical standards we should trust the concept that everyone belonging modern human civilization. so talking about discovery but didn't contain local residents is not proper anymore.
The way I approach that is by any civilization with an existing written corpus going back in time- European/Chinese for example.
If the Chinese had knowledge of the Americas they’d have been the ‘discoverers’ in mondernity.
Without written continuity it’s hard to credit discoverers…
If the Chinese had knowledge of the Americas they’d have been the ‘discoverers’ in mondernity.
Without written continuity it’s hard to credit discoverers…
I feel like the term "discoverers" discounts the existing human residents of the Americas who also had written histories: e.g. the Mayans, whose written histories were largely destroyed by Europeans. I get what you mean though: how else are we to know now about what happened then without written records? It is just sad how much has been destroyed.
The potential of lost written history is fascinating to me. The Phoenicians of Carthage had boats which were capable of crossing the Atlantic and were known to take journeys well past the straights of Gibraltar, but a lot of their written history has been lost thanks to the Punic wars of Ancient Rome. It would be a fascinating lost episode of history if the Phoenicians "discovered" the Americas well before Vikings or other Europeans did. For all we know, this could have happened but accounts were simply lost to time.
The potential of lost written history is fascinating to me. The Phoenicians of Carthage had boats which were capable of crossing the Atlantic and were known to take journeys well past the straights of Gibraltar, but a lot of their written history has been lost thanks to the Punic wars of Ancient Rome. It would be a fascinating lost episode of history if the Phoenicians "discovered" the Americas well before Vikings or other Europeans did. For all we know, this could have happened but accounts were simply lost to time.
The context has an implicit silent inclusion:
Discovered (for the first time by the "Old World"/Known Written Records)
It's implicit.
Not unlike how we don't discount the extant aboriginals of the Americas being here "first" just because they (generally) aren't actually the descendants of the first human populations that came here (but rather seem to have committed genocide on those people).
It's implicit through context.
Discovered (for the first time by the "Old World"/Known Written Records)
It's implicit.
Not unlike how we don't discount the extant aboriginals of the Americas being here "first" just because they (generally) aren't actually the descendants of the first human populations that came here (but rather seem to have committed genocide on those people).
It's implicit through context.
At different times by different people. Humans were not the first hominids out of Africa.
roughly(1)
Is it surprising that a mere overhang in the rock has been sufficient to preserve art for that long? It sounds like they really are just pigment on cleaned rock, and I would have thought that water dripping, wind, lichens, animals or _something_ over the millennia would have ruined it.
I too was baffled by this, in my experience modern paint isn't going to last that long. But I looked it up and supposedly:
> Because ochre is a mineral, it doesn't wash away or decay, allowing it to persist through the ages. [1]
> ...the ancient artisans of Babine Lake in British Columbia harvested ochre sediment... Then, MacDonald says, they carefully heated it to around 750 to 850 degrees Celsius over open-hearth fires to achieve the colour they desired... Not only would the process yield the vivid red, the ancient artisans must have known, but it would “improve colourfastness, stability and resistance to degradation”, the scientists’ article says... The iron in the material bonds easily to surfaces that are high in silica, like the rock faces, ensuring their durability. [2]
So it seems it's due to actual chemical bonding.
Which makes me wonder -- if you applied ochre to rock today, how hard would it be to then remove? Would it be impossible with regular washing, would you need power washing, or sandblasting even?
[1] https://www.livescience.com/64138-ochre.html
[2] https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2019/11/21/scientists-uncove...
> Because ochre is a mineral, it doesn't wash away or decay, allowing it to persist through the ages. [1]
> ...the ancient artisans of Babine Lake in British Columbia harvested ochre sediment... Then, MacDonald says, they carefully heated it to around 750 to 850 degrees Celsius over open-hearth fires to achieve the colour they desired... Not only would the process yield the vivid red, the ancient artisans must have known, but it would “improve colourfastness, stability and resistance to degradation”, the scientists’ article says... The iron in the material bonds easily to surfaces that are high in silica, like the rock faces, ensuring their durability. [2]
So it seems it's due to actual chemical bonding.
Which makes me wonder -- if you applied ochre to rock today, how hard would it be to then remove? Would it be impossible with regular washing, would you need power washing, or sandblasting even?
[1] https://www.livescience.com/64138-ochre.html
[2] https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2019/11/21/scientists-uncove...
Laser erasers?
Example, one used on some monuments in Florence:
https://www.lasersystemseurope.com/news/infrared-laser-used-...
Example, one used on some monuments in Florence:
https://www.lasersystemseurope.com/news/infrared-laser-used-...
I've personally seen a number of sites with ancient paintings in Cangyuan, Lincang (age ~3000 years) and one site at Malipo, Wenshan (age ~4000 years) in Yunnan, southwest China. These are amongst the earliest evidenced in China. In all cases they have been sited beneath natural rock overhangs and thus semi-protected yet in tropical (high rainfall) areas. This is nothing compared to Australian aboriginal paintings (>40K years) or some other sites (to 65K years). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if its a modern hoax, especially given the images of European contact. The dating is just based on the types of animals -- is there any science that validates the age? There's also no fossil evidence to support the drawings.
https://www.ancientartarchive.org/serrania-de-la-lindosa/
https://www.ancientartarchive.org/serrania-de-la-lindosa/
Same with Australian Aboriginal paintings, some very ancient, some had been repainted yes but even the fact the images last 100 years is pretty amazing.
I wonder if it’s possible that these were documenting something that they were losing, or had lost, as opposed to simply just a document to how they were living currently. Like a historical record of sorts.
That specific period 18000 years ago, was the middle-end of the quaternary megafauna extinction [1] and the earth was transitioning from plenty of mega fauna to none - leading to the birth of property and modernity.
[1] https://kemendo.com/Myth.pdf
That specific period 18000 years ago, was the middle-end of the quaternary megafauna extinction [1] and the earth was transitioning from plenty of mega fauna to none - leading to the birth of property and modernity.
[1] https://kemendo.com/Myth.pdf
Would they have known that something disappeared in the short time span that they observed? Wouldn't it have been more like a frog slowly boiling type of situations?
Perhaps they would have made them extinct by hunting them but I think that happened much later. But I'm not sure at all.
This is so fascinating. What are folks reading in that field that's not too dry, something like Sapiens?
Perhaps they would have made them extinct by hunting them but I think that happened much later. But I'm not sure at all.
This is so fascinating. What are folks reading in that field that's not too dry, something like Sapiens?
Fascinating indeed!
David Wengrow and David Graeber published the absolutely phenomenal The Dawn of Everything [0] which is a must read - though they ask the question (that I think I answer in my paper) "how did we 'get stuck' with hierarchical society proliferating from 10,000BC on?"
The book Blood Relations[1] by Chris Knight is also fantastic here and I got started with my own research with Lionel Sims a British marxist [2]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything
[1]https://blackbooksdotpub.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/blood-r...
[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muya-MSX7uk
David Wengrow and David Graeber published the absolutely phenomenal The Dawn of Everything [0] which is a must read - though they ask the question (that I think I answer in my paper) "how did we 'get stuck' with hierarchical society proliferating from 10,000BC on?"
The book Blood Relations[1] by Chris Knight is also fantastic here and I got started with my own research with Lionel Sims a British marxist [2]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything
[1]https://blackbooksdotpub.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/blood-r...
[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muya-MSX7uk
I thought something like that myself, i.e., that it could have been legends, or a kind of proto-religion based on stories told by earlier ancestors that would have come from the north, which these people would of course not have known. They only knew that there were stories told “from the homeland” where there were large beasts and plenty.
"(2020)" missing in the title? Story was published 1:51 PM EST, Wed December 2, 2020.
Can someone explain what eight-mile has to do with any of this? It's only mentioned in the title and not in the article's text.
I found this paragraph on Wiki:
>A site including eight miles of paintings or pictographs that is under study in Colombia, South America at Serranía de la Lindosa was revealed in November 2020. Their age is suggested as being 12,500 years old (c. 10,480 B.C.) by the anthropologists working on the site because of extinct fauna depicted.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_art - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/nov/29/sistine-chap...
>A site including eight miles of paintings or pictographs that is under study in Colombia, South America at Serranía de la Lindosa was revealed in November 2020. Their age is suggested as being 12,500 years old (c. 10,480 B.C.) by the anthropologists working on the site because of extinct fauna depicted.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_art - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/nov/29/sistine-chap...
There are 3 sites within 8 miles of each other.
Where could one find high resolution photos of these?
There are some at [1,2,3] but I'd be curious to find more too (or at least download/purchase 3).
1: https://lastjourney.exeter.ac.uk/last-journey-wallpapers/ 2: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Ziegler-6/publi... 3: https://issuu.com/universityofexeter/docs/the_painted_forest...
1: https://lastjourney.exeter.ac.uk/last-journey-wallpapers/ 2: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Ziegler-6/publi... 3: https://issuu.com/universityofexeter/docs/the_painted_forest...
I had a hard time believing the 1st image were the actual drawings found. They look extremely well preserved, and quite frankly, gorgeous!
"probably made around 11,800 to 12,600 years ago"
Interesting timeline if you're entertained by the 'lost civilization' / cataclysm discourse.
Interesting timeline if you're entertained by the 'lost civilization' / cataclysm discourse.
The ABC (Aussie) documentary _First Footprints_ is one of the most mind-boggling documentaries I have ever seen. It covers 50,000 years of Australian history.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/australia-culture-b...
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/australia-culture-b...
Especially if you take into account that humans have just arrived in the Far North. That was a quick march south...
Yeah just 1000 years or so. Come on.
I could never look at the number `12k` the same ever since.
> frieze of Ice Age beasts
I wonder how long the headline writer has been waiting for an opportunity to use that one!
I wonder how long the headline writer has been waiting for an opportunity to use that one!
What is "eight-mile" referencing? It's totally unclear to me.
If you had one shot to paint any frieze you ever wanted, would you capture it, or just let it slide?
Anthropologists believe the long, wavy lines featured throughout the frieze depict mom's spaghetti.
Hate that the term "rock art" is still being used. These are pictographs. Calling them rock "art" frames the context in the reader's mind that these represented something aesthetic for the creators, which is highly reductive for the purpose/s they more likely served.
What exactly is the intended purpose you envision?
I struggle to find an outdoor paint that lasts 2 years
It seems to be an overhang, but still... I've also never seen that anywhere in the tropics. Are there others? All the rock paintings I know are either in caves or very different climates.
Ochre is a mineral, not a paint.
It's the fault of modern regulation, requiring it to never cause health issues or problems for the environment.
Yes, 20,000 years ago, people used cancer-causing chemicals to dye rocks that have been regulated out of existence, no small part of the improvements in mortality since that primitive time.
The title font is really hard to read. Thanks Firefox for your reader mode.
Someone here browse the web blocking remote fonts? How was your experience? I know uBlock Origin has this option, I may give it a try.
Someone here browse the web blocking remote fonts? How was your experience? I know uBlock Origin has this option, I may give it a try.
I have and briefly the majority of the time you're missing little to nothing by not using webfonts. Occasionally the design language of a physical media property is carried forward with the font in a way that is interesting enough to be worthwhile (ie _The Atlantic_'s title font is instantly recognizable but not critical).
If you're bandwidth starved (ie ISDN or worse) then it's also a nice speedup.
If you're bandwidth starved (ie ISDN or worse) then it's also a nice speedup.
Yeah, but as I mentioned in other comment, I found many issues with icons by blocking remote fonts, look at Google Podcasts https://imgur.com/a/6de4uNL
Google Podcasts while ugly without that icon font is still usable but the Mercado site seemed to be inaccessible. With uBlock you could allow fonts on the broken sites but probably not worth the effort outside of really low bandwidth.
I block remote fonts w/ ublock! It's pretty handy in a "I always know text is gonna be rendered with a font I can read and it cuts down on having to make the connections to get them. ublock has a bit of a learning curve (half an hour reading on their wiki) to get the most outta it, but just blocking remote fonts just takes a couple clicks in check boxes.
Just tried for a bit, all good til I noticed in some sites using icon fonts I got a weird character, it make sense, but is a problem there, specially for icons without labels, eg: https://imgur.com/a/8D1OC9n
Don't know why devs will use fonts instead of svgs for icons, I guess there is a reason.
Don't know why devs will use fonts instead of svgs for icons, I guess there is a reason.
In the paintings there are many cosine / sine wave type patterns, as well as www type patterns as well.
Any ideas what these are referring to? It seems like they're documenting something?
Any ideas what these are referring to? It seems like they're documenting something?
They were possibly documenting lights in the sky:
https://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/PerattTPSv31-2003...
https://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/PerattTPSv31-2003...
+1 for the theory that humans wiped out the megafauna in America.
The rectangles seem suggestive of agriculture as well.
Primitive forms of agriculture ("intensive gathering" and cultivation) among hunter gatherers were around long before sedentary agriculture developed, on the order of 10,000 years or more [1]
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
If you eat things and spit or defecate out the seeds then assuming a roughly endemic plant and suitable conditions you are going to get more plants of that type coming up where you were. Given hunter-gatherer societies often featured seasonal nomadism, and would thus have experienced plant growth in their seasonal environments through time-lapse staccato, it wouldn't have taken an abnormal intelligence to realise agriculture. It's probably far more ancient than we will ever know.
I would not have guessed any of those were mastodons.
Why would you? I never even knew there were mastodons in South America until today.
The Colombian frieze art looks awfully similar to Dogonland Art in Mali; perhaps they made it all the way to Colombia?
"Located in the Serranía La Lindosa in modern-day Colombia"
why do they need to add "in modern-day" ??
why do they need to add "in modern-day" ??
Every square millimeter of this work needs to be digitized in high color resolution with 3D scans, ASAP.
First the Neatherhals cave paintings in France and now this! Cool
More evidence you can find anything on Amazon.
Turns out it’s a knockoff and not at all 12,000 years old
Fascinating!
[deleted]
[deleted]
> coexisted with Ice Age megafauna, with pictures showing what appear to be giant sloths, mastodons, camelids, horses and three-toed ungulates with trunks
"Coexisted" is a loaded term given that the coexistence lasted for maybe a couple hundred years before every single one of those was hunted to extinction.
"Coexisted" is a loaded term given that the coexistence lasted for maybe a couple hundred years before every single one of those was hunted to extinction.
That's a theory but not proven. Could have been climate change too, or another cause.
North America had megafauna for 55 million years. Do you really think it's coincidence that they all died out 10,000 years ago?
The same environmental changes that encouraged humans and other smaller predators to spread to the Americas may also have lowered the population of the megafauna. But yes, I tend to believe that the environmental change that killed of the megafauna was the arrival of predators smart enough to use pointy sticks and fire, which we call evolution.
They can be quite sad though, e.g. the relatively newer images depict colonization encroaching upon the region - horses (introduced by the colonists), swords, and scenes that appear to show imprisonment of people.