Was the Stone Age the Wood Age?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Was the Stone Age the Wood Age?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/04/science/archaeology-neanderthals-wood.html
127 comments
http://archive.today/HWex0
Of course. And bone and antler, too. One of the primary techniques for manufacturing stone tools - shared by Neanderthals and probably other pre-human hominids - was (is?) using a piece of wood or bone, as the hammer. The wood is softer, but it's elastic, and it deforms when it impacts, and transfers the energy in a different way. The resulting tools are distinct, and the development of the soft hammer techniques might have been one of the first advances, beyond trying to make a rock with a sharp edge at all.
Very exciting to find actual evidence though. Organic implements almost never ever survive.
Very exciting to find actual evidence though. Organic implements almost never ever survive.
That’s interesting. Nowadays I think (although I’m certainly not very handy) soft faced hammers are mostly used to protect what you are hammering, right? So it is mostly an aesthetic thing.
Of course ancient humans also had a sense of beauty, but I guess I tend to assume they were much rougher with their construction. I wonder what they were trying not to scuff.
Of course ancient humans also had a sense of beauty, but I guess I tend to assume they were much rougher with their construction. I wonder what they were trying not to scuff.
[deleted]
For stone age tools it would have been less for the aesthetics and more for: what else are you going to use? You can use stone to hit stone, but depending on the stones and the intent (and the technique), achieving the right results might be difficult or impossible.
Other options: you don't have metal really. You could grind stuff, maybe, but that's a _lot_ of effort.
So soft faced hammers should have had a place just by virtue of lack of other good options. My understanding is that for several things it'd be a lot of effort but relatively low technique required and relatively low risk of just cracking/smashing whatever you're trying to work on into uselessness.
Other options: you don't have metal really. You could grind stuff, maybe, but that's a _lot_ of effort.
So soft faced hammers should have had a place just by virtue of lack of other good options. My understanding is that for several things it'd be a lot of effort but relatively low technique required and relatively low risk of just cracking/smashing whatever you're trying to work on into uselessness.
> what else are you going to use?
Even today there aren't many uses for metal (excluding brass) hammers apart from driving nails, stone (carving) chisels and everything involving deforming metal. For everything else you can use a "soft" hammer or mallet.
Even today there aren't many uses for metal (excluding brass) hammers apart from driving nails, stone (carving) chisels and everything involving deforming metal. For everything else you can use a "soft" hammer or mallet.
[deleted]
Makes me wonder if some cultures didn't use falls to carve/drill stones with water
> mostly used to protect what you are hammering
Yes, but that still includes tools like woodworking and wood carving chisels, froes, axes, metal splitting wedges (to protect against metal splinters flying around),...
Yes, but that still includes tools like woodworking and wood carving chisels, froes, axes, metal splitting wedges (to protect against metal splinters flying around),...
What about string age?
Doesn't seem mentioned in the text or comments. This short video blew my mind: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/T4Couxopo2w
Doesn't seem mentioned in the text or comments. This short video blew my mind: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/T4Couxopo2w
I think that's probably right but... that video basically says "you could use string for lots of things long ago, the movie Castaway proved it was necessary, we use string for lots of things today." Short-form videos are not a useful source of information.
Videos in general are awful for most information
yet it will likely be the main way the current generation learns
It's funny that they mention the wheel when the Inca didn't use the wheel, but used ropes and tension everywhere.
that's probably part of the Mesolithic or upper Paleolithic when people also started to use bone tools much more
The small brother of a string is a threat
The small brother of a string is a threat
At least for the Kebaran culture in the levante there is increasing evidence that a wood age in architecture preceded the stone temples of Gobekli Tepe. (Wadi Hammeh 27)
Here's the great thing about wood: every age is the wood age. We have always put the most advanced tool technology of the age toward working with wood, because wood has been eternally useful. And in turn, wood-based technology has advanced with the tools used to craft it. In a symbiotic relationship, those uses of wood advance the uses of other materials, too.
Almost every building today (most of them are small house-like structures) is made of wood, and it has been that way for recorded history. Wood shows up in many places where you would expect humans to have come up with a more advanced material today, too.
In that way, classifying a "wood age" is not all that useful.
Almost every building today (most of them are small house-like structures) is made of wood, and it has been that way for recorded history. Wood shows up in many places where you would expect humans to have come up with a more advanced material today, too.
In that way, classifying a "wood age" is not all that useful.
The electrical distribution grid where I live is mostly wood and pottery.
Probably every, or at least almost every, age is the wood age by bulk. But in terms of high-tech manufacturing, every age could probably be called the ceramic age. Pottery, glass, spaceship tiles, computer chips.
Metals get outsized attention I think because we use them to kill each other, so switching to a new metal is quite dramatic.
Metals get outsized attention I think because we use them to kill each other, so switching to a new metal is quite dramatic.
Metallurgy is a very specific form of ceramics. Glass too.
Uranium being a recent example
In Europe almost no building is made of wood, except for decorative floors.
You must have never lived outside of a city if that is your perception of buildings. Most of the buildings I have seen in the European countryside are made with a significant amount of wood. Even brick and stone buildings will often have a timber structure. Most buildings are not in cities, in general.
Scandanaivans use a particularly large amount of wood, even in their city centers and even for skyscrapers.
Scandanaivans use a particularly large amount of wood, even in their city centers and even for skyscrapers.
I guess it depends on the region. In Italy, the vast majority of buildings, both in the city and in the countryside, are in stone, bricks and concrete. In some mountainous region in the second half of the 19th century there was a mandated reconstruction of old buildings in bricks and stone to prevent fires.
In northern Europe the building style is entirely different and most houses still have a wooden frame.
In northern Europe the building style is entirely different and most houses still have a wooden frame.
I believe AAC is really popular in Europe too (which I suppose could just be considered another form of concrete, but it provides decent insulation, making it more suitable to colder climates).
> Most buildings are not in cities, in general.
Citation? It doesn't stand to reason given that most people live and work in cities, not in rural areas, especially in Europe [1].
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?location...
Citation? It doesn't stand to reason given that most people live and work in cities, not in rural areas, especially in Europe [1].
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?location...
Most people live and work in cities, but most city buildings house far more than one person.
I'm including suburbs and towns in my definition of "cities", meaning urban settlements. I'd like to see some quantitative data either way.
I'd wager that even under that definition most city houses in Europe house more than one family. At least in continental Europe, I am not so sure about Britain. But most of Europe doesn't have extensive single family home suburbs in the way the US has.
Good grief, which part of Europe are you from ... Concretia?
Even in the UK we describe our normal building habit as "sticks n bricks" and there are a lot of sticks. Under my feet, right now, there are wooden joists and a plywood subfloor. I live on a hill. Some ground floor (first floor) rooms have solid conc. sub floors but the other half has the usual (1930s) two foot cavity, involving brick piers on conc raft and wooden joists to slap the floor across.
We still have a large stock of wattle and daub cottages with thatched roof too.
Every other country in Europe I have ever visited has rather a lot of wooden buildings in it too. I lived in West Germany for some years, for example.
Sticks and bricks lends itself to an environment with plenty of mud and fewer trees. It is quite brittle so no earthquakes thank you. The UK's largest recent earthquake was basically a knee trembler.
Even in the UK we describe our normal building habit as "sticks n bricks" and there are a lot of sticks. Under my feet, right now, there are wooden joists and a plywood subfloor. I live on a hill. Some ground floor (first floor) rooms have solid conc. sub floors but the other half has the usual (1930s) two foot cavity, involving brick piers on conc raft and wooden joists to slap the floor across.
We still have a large stock of wattle and daub cottages with thatched roof too.
Every other country in Europe I have ever visited has rather a lot of wooden buildings in it too. I lived in West Germany for some years, for example.
Sticks and bricks lends itself to an environment with plenty of mud and fewer trees. It is quite brittle so no earthquakes thank you. The UK's largest recent earthquake was basically a knee trembler.
Modern German buildings are mostly concrete blocks/CMUs with concrete subfloors and wood mostly used to carry the roof. But of course that's a somewhat recent development, sometime in the first half of the 20th century. Before that there was a lot of brick with wooden floors, and before that either stone with wooden subfloor or wooden frames filled with clay.
Of course this is somewhat region dependent, and wood is definitely making a comeback again
Of course this is somewhat region dependent, and wood is definitely making a comeback again
That will be the shires then!
I have never heard the phrase 'sticks n bricks'. That is technical parlance. Nobody in the history of Eastenders has used that phrase.
It is true that there are wattle and daub houses but it is the one thatched roof cottage that you notice next to the busy A road, not the thousands of semis in the neighbouring estates.
In Glasgow there are large parts of the city where only some doors are made of wood. Everything else is concrete, steel, plastic and glass. These are 'closes' (apartments) which is different to the English 'close' (street). I am not sure wood would work for 'closes'.
London has a lot of wood, but so much of London might as well be from Orwell's 'Down and Out in Paris and London'. Landlords do not spend money so those sash windows and wooden floors are there for an eternity. West Germany has far better housing stock with details such as windows that close.
I have never heard the phrase 'sticks n bricks'. That is technical parlance. Nobody in the history of Eastenders has used that phrase.
It is true that there are wattle and daub houses but it is the one thatched roof cottage that you notice next to the busy A road, not the thousands of semis in the neighbouring estates.
In Glasgow there are large parts of the city where only some doors are made of wood. Everything else is concrete, steel, plastic and glass. These are 'closes' (apartments) which is different to the English 'close' (street). I am not sure wood would work for 'closes'.
London has a lot of wood, but so much of London might as well be from Orwell's 'Down and Out in Paris and London'. Landlords do not spend money so those sash windows and wooden floors are there for an eternity. West Germany has far better housing stock with details such as windows that close.
That's actually part of the history of the new world. One of the primary uses of wood in Europe throughout the colonial period was boat-building. As such, one of the primary exports of early settlers and colonial corporations in the British colonies was timber, for boats. Eventually, it led to an indigenous boat-building industry, and from that, American mercantilism.
Depends on when each country ran out of wood.
Depends where in Europe. I'd say in Northern Europe, especially in Scandinavia wood is more frequently used when building homes.
In other places the roof structure is often made of wood. And although technically it's not part of the building, concrete forms used for foundation/walls are mostly made of OSB/plywood.
In other places the roof structure is often made of wood. And although technically it's not part of the building, concrete forms used for foundation/walls are mostly made of OSB/plywood.
There are many countries in Europe where most buildings are made of wood.
most buildings? any example of such a country?
Norway. At least most buildings where people live. That’s not exactly the same statement that most people live in wood buildings, since more people can live in a single concrete block. But I would venture that at least half the population lives in wooden buildings.
If you want a detached house (or a townhouse) in Norway it means wood.
Not all but many of small houses are wood and 50% of the Swedish population lives in these houses[1], some of the bigger houses are wood as well. Construction relies heavily on wood. This was not my experience in many other countries, even when there was wood in the vicinity. I think the readily availability of spruce and pine is one reason. It would be interesting to know statistics from Denmark because in the south of Sweden wood is that used as much.
You can see this in the tradition of constructing fences as well, if there is a lot of wood people use lots of it. In the south near Denmark the tradition is to use as little as possible.
[1] https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/mannisk...
You can see this in the tradition of constructing fences as well, if there is a lot of wood people use lots of it. In the south near Denmark the tradition is to use as little as possible.
[1] https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/mannisk...
Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia etc. etc.
Few buildings in Europe are today solely made from wood, but nearly every building will be part wood. From the frame on which walls and floors are built up with other materials up to the roof where for most houses the very structure is made from wood, it's clear wood is one of the most essential building components. To be honest I struggle to think of any building I've ever seen that has no wood - except for semi-subterranean structures or those built out of natural structures I can't think of any.
In Spain I can tell you that wood is very rarely used except in a decorative fashion. My mom is an architect and will often look down on the fact that most North American single family homes, and even more complex buildings like five-over-ones, use wood structurally.
That sounds like a recent development. Without reinforced concrete and steel there is no way to span walls without timber beams.
> That sounds like a recent development.
Reinforced concrete is almost two hundred years old by now [0]. How many people live in homes built over one hundred years ago? Not only have many of those old homes been replaced, but the population is much larger now.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete#History
Reinforced concrete is almost two hundred years old by now [0]. How many people live in homes built over one hundred years ago? Not only have many of those old homes been replaced, but the population is much larger now.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete#History
> How many people live in homes built over one hundred years ago?
Many people in Europe's historical city centres.
Many people in Europe's historical city centres.
the arch is almost 2500 years old now, and although you do normally use timber beams (or bamboo) to build one, they aren't part of the final structure
vaults, domes, and flying buttresses extend the arch principle to enclose large spaces. there are domes still standing made from unreinforced concrete that are 2000 years old
vaults, domes, and flying buttresses extend the arch principle to enclose large spaces. there are domes still standing made from unreinforced concrete that are 2000 years old
Why look down on structural uses of wood?
In England we definitely use wood in pretty much all houses. The roof trusses, the partition walls, the floorboards, beams to hold the ceiling/upstairs, fixtures (kitchen and bathroom fitted cabinets), doors etc.
I would guess the person you’re responding to doesn’t mean the hidden bits, as I’ve spent time in Spain and definitely come across wood in new buildings.
A potential reason for less obvious wood, Spain has less requirement for insulation than the UK and would benefit from slimmer walled, brick/concrete houses with no wooden partitions holding insulation for cooler temperatures during their peak heat.
I would guess the person you’re responding to doesn’t mean the hidden bits, as I’ve spent time in Spain and definitely come across wood in new buildings.
A potential reason for less obvious wood, Spain has less requirement for insulation than the UK and would benefit from slimmer walled, brick/concrete houses with no wooden partitions holding insulation for cooler temperatures during their peak heat.
Indeed, my parents' UK 1785-ish built house is mostly stone, but it has 3 big salvaged wooden beams (salvaged from shipwrecked masts) running through the frame.
Almost every house in Europe (and elsewhere) has a wooden roof frame.
I have lived in multiple houses and flats in different parts of England, and all but one had wooden floors. I am pretty sure all but that had used in roofs and possibly some other places. The same is true for most houses I have been in.
The structure of near every roof, apart from the skyscrapers, ist made of wood.
By Europe you mean Legoland?
most buildings in america are concrete and/or brick, though the usa is an exception. in most of america, wood is used only for roofs and illegal slums, and even most slums are mostly brick
i don't know what the situation is on other continents but i've sure seen a lot of photos and videos of concrete and brick buildings
i don't know what the situation is on other continents but i've sure seen a lot of photos and videos of concrete and brick buildings
Disregarding the houses, the most popular form of apartment building in the US right now is called a "5 over 1" which has a wood frame on top of a concrete first floor. The facades often aren't wood, but the buildings themselves are usually wood. Most "brick" houses in the US have a brick facade over a wooden house.
The few exceptions are in the densest cities in the US, like New York, where new construction is concrete and steel.
Canada, I am sure, is the same. Mexico and South America, not so sure. I have been around some places in Central America that have tons of wood construction, and so did the parts of Argentina and Brazil I have seen, but you may have better information. Many houses that you think are concrete or brick actually have a wood frame.
The few exceptions are in the densest cities in the US, like New York, where new construction is concrete and steel.
Canada, I am sure, is the same. Mexico and South America, not so sure. I have been around some places in Central America that have tons of wood construction, and so did the parts of Argentina and Brazil I have seen, but you may have better information. Many houses that you think are concrete or brick actually have a wood frame.
Even the concrete and steel houses often start with wood framing of some sort and end with wood as a structural part of any ceilings and roofs. Not to mention stairs, room structures/interior walls, ...
yes, as i said, the usa is an exception. canada is the same as the usa but has a very small number of buildings. argentina, brazil, perú, ecuador, and most of central america are almost entirely reinforced concrete frames filled in with cheap hollow brick and maybe decorated with wood paneling. very poor areas and luxury cabins are sometimes exceptions, and possibly that's where you went in central america
remember there's a billion people living in america. only a third of those are in the usa, and the people in the usa are much more urbanized, meaning less buildings per person. canada is another 4% of the total american population. so roughly three quarters of the buildings in america are outside the usa and canada
remember there's a billion people living in america. only a third of those are in the usa, and the people in the usa are much more urbanized, meaning less buildings per person. canada is another 4% of the total american population. so roughly three quarters of the buildings in america are outside the usa and canada
Many modern brick buildings, have a wood structure with steel brackets, and the brick is only facing, and is not what is holding up the roof. Older brick homes do have brick structural walls or pillars inside, but in recent decades those are usually re-enforced concrete blocks.
that is sometimes true in a few countries like the usa, but in most of america they have a reinforced concrete structure rather than a wood one. new structural brick is quite rare because brick is weak and expensive
My impression is that concrete must be cheaper than wood, given that wood seems mostly used in high income countries and concrete is dominant in low income areas.
There is a lot of wood in all houses even in North Concretia. Every house is filled with wood furniture.
it's a somewhat complicated comparison to make, but i think basically the answer is yes
there's also a coincidental factor, though; wood is cheap where forests are abundant, and although having abundant natural resources such as arable land and wood doesn't guarantee wealth, exhausting your natural resources through deforestation and desertification virtually guarantees poverty.
as for 'cheaper', well, the numerator is dollars, but what's the denominator? i would say it's 'house', but neither concrete nor wood is sold by the house; cement and sand and gravel and rebar are sold by the kilo, and wood is sold by the square meter. so we need some way to make them comparable
one approach is to try to compute 'cost per strength', on the theory that a house's worth of materials is enough materials to be strong enough to work as a house. but there are two different kinds of strength involved here. floors and roofs must resist flexure without breaking, and materialswise, that mostly depends on the material's tensile strength. they also must resist impact loadings, which depends on tensile strength but also flexibility: a more flexible floor can elastically absorb a greater impact energy before reaching the same tensile strain, and a tougher material is one that has a higher elastic energy capacity in this sense. walls, on the other hand, mostly must resist compression from above, and typically this mostly depends on their ability to resist buckling, not their material compressive strength. resisting buckling depends on not strength but stiffness: the material of the buckling beam must not bend far enough that the beam's effective compressive stiffness starts to decrease, causing it to bend further
a lot of people confuse strength and stiffness; i recommend watching the first demo in dan gelbart's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtxA20Q-Uss, although for most of us it took a lot more than that to get enlightened
reinforced concrete (either pretensioned or in compression) gets its stiffness from sand and gravel, which are cheap as dirt (most of the cost of sand is the truck that delivers it to your building site) and its tensile strength from steel. i think the answer is that steel is in fact very much cheaper than wood per unit of either tensile strength or toughness
on the other hand, people usually build concrete walls to be much, much stiffer than wood-framed walls, so it's common for a given area of wood-framed wall to cost less than the same area of concrete wall. to compensate for this, people very commonly build the floors and frame of a building with reinforced concrete, then fill in the walls with cheap hollow brick. this is i think cheaper than a similarly non-load-bearing wood-frame wall made out of 2×4s and drywall, but not by that much
on the gripping hand, galvanized steel studs are cheaper than wooden 2×4s, and they're starting to become popular for low-cost construction, covered with drywall or cementboard
there's also a coincidental factor, though; wood is cheap where forests are abundant, and although having abundant natural resources such as arable land and wood doesn't guarantee wealth, exhausting your natural resources through deforestation and desertification virtually guarantees poverty.
as for 'cheaper', well, the numerator is dollars, but what's the denominator? i would say it's 'house', but neither concrete nor wood is sold by the house; cement and sand and gravel and rebar are sold by the kilo, and wood is sold by the square meter. so we need some way to make them comparable
one approach is to try to compute 'cost per strength', on the theory that a house's worth of materials is enough materials to be strong enough to work as a house. but there are two different kinds of strength involved here. floors and roofs must resist flexure without breaking, and materialswise, that mostly depends on the material's tensile strength. they also must resist impact loadings, which depends on tensile strength but also flexibility: a more flexible floor can elastically absorb a greater impact energy before reaching the same tensile strain, and a tougher material is one that has a higher elastic energy capacity in this sense. walls, on the other hand, mostly must resist compression from above, and typically this mostly depends on their ability to resist buckling, not their material compressive strength. resisting buckling depends on not strength but stiffness: the material of the buckling beam must not bend far enough that the beam's effective compressive stiffness starts to decrease, causing it to bend further
a lot of people confuse strength and stiffness; i recommend watching the first demo in dan gelbart's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtxA20Q-Uss, although for most of us it took a lot more than that to get enlightened
reinforced concrete (either pretensioned or in compression) gets its stiffness from sand and gravel, which are cheap as dirt (most of the cost of sand is the truck that delivers it to your building site) and its tensile strength from steel. i think the answer is that steel is in fact very much cheaper than wood per unit of either tensile strength or toughness
on the other hand, people usually build concrete walls to be much, much stiffer than wood-framed walls, so it's common for a given area of wood-framed wall to cost less than the same area of concrete wall. to compensate for this, people very commonly build the floors and frame of a building with reinforced concrete, then fill in the walls with cheap hollow brick. this is i think cheaper than a similarly non-load-bearing wood-frame wall made out of 2×4s and drywall, but not by that much
on the gripping hand, galvanized steel studs are cheaper than wooden 2×4s, and they're starting to become popular for low-cost construction, covered with drywall or cementboard
In dense US cities maybe. Most US homes are built with wood. ~90% of US home constructions are wood framed.
in the comment you are replying to, i specifically said that the usa is an exception to this general rule
Ah, I misread. I rarely come across america used to refer to the collective continents.
The collective continents are not America, but The Americas, given that it is collection or South America and North America with an isthmus connecting them. I believe Brazilian Portuguese and South American Spanish also use the plural to refer to the set of continents.
I was under the impression that the plural was common in English, but the singular was more common in Spanish. I could certainly be wrong though.
yeah, in spanish and portuguese, generally america is considered to be one continent, not two. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rica begins, for example, "America is the second largest continent on Earth, after Asia."
basically there's a lot of cluelessness going around in this thread by people who've apparently never thought about things like where amerigo vespucci sailed to, what columbus is said to have discovered (by landing where), where the members of the organization of american states are located, where the pan-american highway goes, etc.
basically there's a lot of cluelessness going around in this thread by people who've apparently never thought about things like where amerigo vespucci sailed to, what columbus is said to have discovered (by landing where), where the members of the organization of american states are located, where the pan-american highway goes, etc.
no
The Devonian certainly wasnt a wood age
Trees were most likely fell with stone axes though right?
As the Flinstones teach everybody, don't do the work if a beaver can chop it for you
I'm led to believe that punching them with bare hands, while slow, gets the job done.
How would that even work? Both the wood and your fist will deform to absorb the impact. You may as well try to empty the ocean by scooping up water with your hands and throwing it on the beach.
If we’re being pedantic, you could definitely fell a banana tree by punching it with your hands.
[deleted]
Sorry but I think the parent commenter is joking about the video game Minecraft.
I wish I had the time to punch trees. I’m under a pile of stones to cut.
I really recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Age-Wood-Material-Construction-Civili...
It is about how wood is arguably the most important material in human history. Covers a lot of its useful material properties, and makes very compelling arguments for how wood was instrumental in each era of human development.
https://www.amazon.com/Age-Wood-Material-Construction-Civili...
It is about how wood is arguably the most important material in human history. Covers a lot of its useful material properties, and makes very compelling arguments for how wood was instrumental in each era of human development.
Yes, Ronnie Wood played in the Stones in the same age.
They even had electricity thanks to Charlie Watts.
[deleted]
We are in the wood age again with cellulose / rayon.
Historians like to name things after weapons technology eras
Stone tools were not really weapons. Some could have been used that way but most of the tools we’ve found were about obtaining and preparing food and clothing. And maybe about shaping wood.
Many stone tools were not weapons, but already the Neanderthals used spear points made of stone, which were glued on wooden hafts.
Later, the modern humans used frequently arrow points made of stone.
Later, the modern humans used frequently arrow points made of stone.
Glue is actually surprising item. Seems like first examples of simple glues is 200 ky ago and compound 70 ky... Really makes one think what is and what is not primitive.
They like to name the eras after the relics they find. And since wood rots, the name "stone age" may be a great example of survivorship bias.
Articles like this always make me wonder, if there was another intelligent species in Deep Time, if they never engaged in wide-spread reshaping of the planet (huge population, large-scale mining and construction, etc), how would we be able to tell they existed?
The concept of prior industrial civilizations was explored in a 2018 paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03748. If you exclude industry, it could be exceedingly improbable that we would find fossil evidence of such creatures unless the species existed for several million years.
I would think that they would have discovered and burned all the hydrocarbons, just as our civilization is in the process of doing.
The paper explores this, mass burning of hydrocarbons tends to create ocean anoxic events which sequester carbon. They cite a few papers which suggest the PETM and similar events were due to volcanic intrusion on hydrocarbon deposits.
There's a problem recognizing intelligent species for what they are even if we can meet them face to face. Dolphins, crows, octopus, orangutans, ... Since they don't build civilization as we conceive it, asserting their intelligence is controversial.
One could also argue that a truly intelligent species would not build civilizations, as they tend to create more problems than they solve. The natural solution to natural problems is to evolve, and that works pretty dang well for pretty much all known life, other than our own.
"Whatever happens, we have got. The Maxim gun, and they have not."
It turns out that having 'true intelligence' probably doesn't matter if the tribe from the next valley over has bronze weapons and armour and would quite like to steal your stuff and enslave your people.
It turns out that having 'true intelligence' probably doesn't matter if the tribe from the next valley over has bronze weapons and armour and would quite like to steal your stuff and enslave your people.
> they tend to create more problems than they solve. The natural solution to natural problems is to evolve
Is dying of drought, while being survived by less thirsty mutants, really solving any problems?
I guess there's some genetic lineage that keeps on replicating. Then we humans decide whether it's similar enough to keep labelling it the same "species". If so, maybe we declare that the species solved the problem of the drought.
Meanwhile, I doubt there were any creatures happy to die of thirst for lack of an aqueduct.
If we ignore that unfortunate reality and measure success by DNA replication, then civilization might still being doing alright. We've had a bit of a population explosion in the last few hundred years.
Is dying of drought, while being survived by less thirsty mutants, really solving any problems?
I guess there's some genetic lineage that keeps on replicating. Then we humans decide whether it's similar enough to keep labelling it the same "species". If so, maybe we declare that the species solved the problem of the drought.
Meanwhile, I doubt there were any creatures happy to die of thirst for lack of an aqueduct.
If we ignore that unfortunate reality and measure success by DNA replication, then civilization might still being doing alright. We've had a bit of a population explosion in the last few hundred years.
The natural solution to big changes is mostly to go extinct. Except sometimes a happy few that somehow manage to make it, and then their offspring is like them.
Calling evolution a solution is mostly hindsight.
Calling evolution a solution is mostly hindsight.
Reminds me of a stand up comedian who said about AI: “People are afraid that AI will take their jobs. But if it’s really that intelligent, it’s gonna let _us_ do the work”.
Were there some other intelligent species (or even our own) that developed some advanced civilization before 13 thousand years ago, we’d have evidence in plant and animal life. Supporting large populations required humans to selectively breed all of the plant and animal foodstuffs that humans eat today. As such, we’d expect to find animals and plants that were different from wild specimens at the same layers in Earth.
I’ve often thought that the Northeast of America heavily suggests an “Intelligent Hand”. The sheer amount of plants that are edible is mind boggling. Apples, acorns, elder/choke berries, walnuts, hazelnuts, onions, garlic, cattails, dandelions, cabbage — just to name a few. And that doesn’t include all the medicinal plants like willow bark for aspirin or aromatics like violet, lilac & sage.
And it’s not just the sheer number of varieties, but also how incredibly accessible and nutrient rich that they are. It always feels to me like magic that I can eat entire meals for weeks at a time just off the land in the northeast during the spring, summer & fall seasons. It feels like someone tweaked things to grow these kinds of plants specifically for easy human consumption.
Then again, could be I’m just overthinking. :o)
And it’s not just the sheer number of varieties, but also how incredibly accessible and nutrient rich that they are. It always feels to me like magic that I can eat entire meals for weeks at a time just off the land in the northeast during the spring, summer & fall seasons. It feels like someone tweaked things to grow these kinds of plants specifically for easy human consumption.
Then again, could be I’m just overthinking. :o)
Fruit-bearing plants aren't edible for the sake of whoever is eating them, but for the sake of the plant itself. The animals consuming the fruit are used as a vessel for spreading the seeds.
By being edible, tasty and nutritious, the likelihood of an animal eating the fruit and spreading the seeds is increased, and so both the animal and the plant wins.
By being edible, tasty and nutritious, the likelihood of an animal eating the fruit and spreading the seeds is increased, and so both the animal and the plant wins.
Well humans have been in the Americas and shaping the environment for a long time , so, you’re probably right?
Would we?
We don't dump our crops in bogs, nor bones of cattle. In fact we plough the crop remains into the dirt for the health of the soil, and we grind up the bones of food animals for feed and other uses.
All of our buildings and works would disappear pretty fast, and a simple ice age scours the earth very effectively.
13k years is maybe not enough without an ice age, but in 50k years? No trace, except they'd think a meteor struck and caused a mass extinction event.
(I'm not even sure our last 200 years, where we really expanded, would even be a blip in fossil records)
We don't dump our crops in bogs, nor bones of cattle. In fact we plough the crop remains into the dirt for the health of the soil, and we grind up the bones of food animals for feed and other uses.
All of our buildings and works would disappear pretty fast, and a simple ice age scours the earth very effectively.
13k years is maybe not enough without an ice age, but in 50k years? No trace, except they'd think a meteor struck and caused a mass extinction event.
(I'm not even sure our last 200 years, where we really expanded, would even be a blip in fossil records)
Shell middens. Garbage dumps. Charcoal, burned bones, and carbonized residue from hearthfires. We've identified 150,000 year old villages by digging up their middens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midden
We've found 0.4 million year old wooden javelins in peat bogs. Beyond that, we have intact dinosaur nests with eggs, 100 million years old, and these were not ground down to powder by glaciers. If there were any non-stone-age civilizations older than 10,000 years, their residue would be visible.
We've found 0.4 million year old wooden javelins in peat bogs. Beyond that, we have intact dinosaur nests with eggs, 100 million years old, and these were not ground down to powder by glaciers. If there were any non-stone-age civilizations older than 10,000 years, their residue would be visible.
I think you're not entirely wrong, but the dinosaur remains are fossilized, and that requires special conditions.
I know a load of human remains and accouterments were found in bogs.
Regards to the glaciers, I suppose there are ranges of effects. The Canadian Shield had all topsoil shorn away, in most places even now it's just a few feet of soil then granite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield#Ecologyq
In such areas, nothing survived. Shell middens would be wiped away.
I may have over stated, but my point was it won't be as easy as some think.
I know a load of human remains and accouterments were found in bogs.
Regards to the glaciers, I suppose there are ranges of effects. The Canadian Shield had all topsoil shorn away, in most places even now it's just a few feet of soil then granite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield#Ecologyq
In such areas, nothing survived. Shell middens would be wiped away.
I may have over stated, but my point was it won't be as easy as some think.
BirAdam was referring specifically to ADVANCED CIVILIZATIONS. People who build cities (latin civitas). Many of them, in many places, including places where stuff stays put for millions of years. Mines, quarries, tunnels and canal excavations don't get wiped away. Debris on the ocean floor doesn't get wiped away.
We're not talking about people living in mud huts who only eat fruit, haven't discovered fire, and leave no archeological traces; likewise we're not talking about hyperintelligent dolphins who went extinct, or aliens that landed briefly 4 billion years ago on a continent that got subducted. If you want to talk about the non-discoverability of something that isn't an advanced civilization, go ahead, split that hair.
The next ice age we have is not going to remove any of Canada's open pit mines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-pit_mines
We're not talking about people living in mud huts who only eat fruit, haven't discovered fire, and leave no archeological traces; likewise we're not talking about hyperintelligent dolphins who went extinct, or aliens that landed briefly 4 billion years ago on a continent that got subducted. If you want to talk about the non-discoverability of something that isn't an advanced civilization, go ahead, split that hair.
The next ice age we have is not going to remove any of Canada's open pit mines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-pit_mines
Given enough time, a shell midden becomes limestone.
Children of a future civilization might not find out anything about our culture or language, but they are definitely going to know that we loved oysters. Meanwhile, their scientists will argue about what kind of iron-rich oysters are responsible for the remains of reinforced concrete along our prehistoric shores and rivers.
Children of a future civilization might not find out anything about our culture or language, but they are definitely going to know that we loved oysters. Meanwhile, their scientists will argue about what kind of iron-rich oysters are responsible for the remains of reinforced concrete along our prehistoric shores and rivers.
Yes. Within Sydney, the ~most populous city of Australia, in readily accessible bushland under half an hour from major population centers, you can still easily locate many significant shell middens from aboriginal people presumably last used ~200+ years ago.
On that note, I once met someone who claimed to have found a piece of carved glass in the bushland peripheral to the city which would have dated from the period of initial contact between Europeans and aboriginals. He told me where it was found, in general terms, which is extremely inaccessible and thus it's still probably there - waiting for a rediscovery.
Further on that note, the main difference between hand grinding and initial machine grinding is a reliable rotary axis which generates a degree of symmetry and precision in the workpiece (due to the rotation about a fixed axis) not otherwise available to hand made tools. This is the general basis of all machining, ie. the use of a relatively precision ground reference plane or relative precision reference geometry to achieve precision work. Perhaps it can be said that it was the transition of an energy source to precise rotary motion (such as is used on pottery wheels and presumably very early lathes and grinding equipment) which sparked the industrial revolution and the modern era.
Amazing that the aboriginals of Australia had ~45,000 years (or ~1000 generations) of relatively stable presence but apparently never decided to invest in fixed machines for precision work. I guess this was because there is no evidence they ever had a wheel, which is a prerequisite, though anthropologically one might safely assume they frequently used round shape seedpods, stones or other naturally occurring elements to meet specific technical needs thus perhaps had no need to fashion artificially round elements. One may further suppose their seasonal lifestyles probably emphasised portability and reworkability in technological techniques over precision which probably offered very little in the way of benefit when you were, for example, spearing prey at relatively close range. After all, who wants to carry a machine hundreds of kilometers? Much better to build a new tool when you arrive.
Finally, I have a small ethnographic art collection focused on the Pacific. One of my better pieces is a very long hardwood paddle from the Sepik River of Papua New Guinea featuring immensely complex hand-carved scroll work and carved out of a single piece of solid timber. However, the shaft itself is clearly slightly off straight. Even in cases like this, where the inertial force of an entire boat and its contents would be presumably transferred through the paddle when navigating or stopping by poling off the river bed, extremely experienced and ancient traditional woodworking cultures would still clearly accept inconsistencies. One assumes that picking the right wood (knowing which tree to fell) and how to prepare, treat or store the timber was probably of greater functional utility to producing a useful and lasting tool than absolute geometrical accuracy.
Thus perhaps our current industrial obsession with precision machining is just largely irrelevant to a pre-metal age in which maximum forces were order of magnitudes lower.
On that note, I once met someone who claimed to have found a piece of carved glass in the bushland peripheral to the city which would have dated from the period of initial contact between Europeans and aboriginals. He told me where it was found, in general terms, which is extremely inaccessible and thus it's still probably there - waiting for a rediscovery.
Further on that note, the main difference between hand grinding and initial machine grinding is a reliable rotary axis which generates a degree of symmetry and precision in the workpiece (due to the rotation about a fixed axis) not otherwise available to hand made tools. This is the general basis of all machining, ie. the use of a relatively precision ground reference plane or relative precision reference geometry to achieve precision work. Perhaps it can be said that it was the transition of an energy source to precise rotary motion (such as is used on pottery wheels and presumably very early lathes and grinding equipment) which sparked the industrial revolution and the modern era.
Amazing that the aboriginals of Australia had ~45,000 years (or ~1000 generations) of relatively stable presence but apparently never decided to invest in fixed machines for precision work. I guess this was because there is no evidence they ever had a wheel, which is a prerequisite, though anthropologically one might safely assume they frequently used round shape seedpods, stones or other naturally occurring elements to meet specific technical needs thus perhaps had no need to fashion artificially round elements. One may further suppose their seasonal lifestyles probably emphasised portability and reworkability in technological techniques over precision which probably offered very little in the way of benefit when you were, for example, spearing prey at relatively close range. After all, who wants to carry a machine hundreds of kilometers? Much better to build a new tool when you arrive.
Finally, I have a small ethnographic art collection focused on the Pacific. One of my better pieces is a very long hardwood paddle from the Sepik River of Papua New Guinea featuring immensely complex hand-carved scroll work and carved out of a single piece of solid timber. However, the shaft itself is clearly slightly off straight. Even in cases like this, where the inertial force of an entire boat and its contents would be presumably transferred through the paddle when navigating or stopping by poling off the river bed, extremely experienced and ancient traditional woodworking cultures would still clearly accept inconsistencies. One assumes that picking the right wood (knowing which tree to fell) and how to prepare, treat or store the timber was probably of greater functional utility to producing a useful and lasting tool than absolute geometrical accuracy.
Thus perhaps our current industrial obsession with precision machining is just largely irrelevant to a pre-metal age in which maximum forces were order of magnitudes lower.
> Perhaps... it was the transition of an energy source to precise rotary motion (such as is used on pottery wheels and presumably very early lathes and grinding equipment) which sparked the industrial revolution and the modern era.
possibly, but very early lathes are at least new kingdom and probably old kingdom egypt, so if so it took over 3000 years for that spark to blaze. grinding is much older than that, 44000 years old in australia
precision grinding was crucial to making the pyramids, though those aren't pre-metal. it's also useful for keeping mice out of your stored grain. generally, imprecise construction is liable to collapse on people and kill them, so you'd expect to find precision measurement as soon as you find cities (neolithic), but that is more speculative
the paddle's curvature may be intentional; it reduces impact loads
possibly, but very early lathes are at least new kingdom and probably old kingdom egypt, so if so it took over 3000 years for that spark to blaze. grinding is much older than that, 44000 years old in australia
precision grinding was crucial to making the pyramids, though those aren't pre-metal. it's also useful for keeping mice out of your stored grain. generally, imprecise construction is liable to collapse on people and kill them, so you'd expect to find precision measurement as soon as you find cities (neolithic), but that is more speculative
the paddle's curvature may be intentional; it reduces impact loads
Interesting points. But remember, 3,000 years is only ~60 generations which considering the low populations in history - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_demography - was actually quite rapid in aggregate human experience terms relative to, say, five years today.
agreed, and you can draw clear lines of causality between ancient egyptian culture and current world culture, but the argument that egypt is uniquely important there seems weaker; the song dynasty seems more directly relevant, for example
Current world culture indeed! At least, current internet culture. https://i.imgflip.com/1iofxx.jpg
Some prehistoric group probably didn’t shape the planet on a large scale because there weren’t that many of them and they weren’t knowledge or organized enough.
Depends on how long ago it was.
Two billion years ago? We wouldn't find traces of their industrial activity in rocks - almost all the rocks are gone. We wouldn't notice evidence of mining activity - those mines have been buried by sedimentation, subduction, or vulcanism. We wouldn't find it in atmospheric gas isotopes - those isotopes have long since decayed.
Now if it were 10 million years ago, it is much more likely that we would know.
Two billion years ago? We wouldn't find traces of their industrial activity in rocks - almost all the rocks are gone. We wouldn't notice evidence of mining activity - those mines have been buried by sedimentation, subduction, or vulcanism. We wouldn't find it in atmospheric gas isotopes - those isotopes have long since decayed.
Now if it were 10 million years ago, it is much more likely that we would know.
Much of the iron being mined today was deposited about 2.4 billion years ago, when ferrous iron in the oceans was oxidized and precipitated out as insoluble oxides in Banded Iron Formations.
There are even petroleum deposits whose source rocks go back a billion years. And most coal was deposited in the Carboniferous (thus the name).
There are even petroleum deposits whose source rocks go back a billion years. And most coal was deposited in the Carboniferous (thus the name).
> if there was another intelligent species in Deep Time, if they never engaged in wide-spread reshaping of the planet (huge population, large-scale mining and construction, etc), how would we be able to tell they existed?
Because they will survive. Are we talking about sharks?
Because they will survive. Are we talking about sharks?
Aren’t there certain atmospheric gases that are felt to be only likely to be present in quantity as a result of industrialization, therefore if we see the spectral signatures of those it’s a candidate planet for civilization?
Ancient Greeks believed in a wood age IIRC.