The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Study Suggests Sea Travel 130,000 Years Ago

Researchers including a geologist from North Carolina State University have found tools on Crete that are supposed to be 130,000 years old. The dating was based on the rate that Crete has been rising out of the sea. The tools are said to most resemble some used in Africa 700,000 years ago.

Per the first article:

In addition, the team analyzed the layer bearing the tools and determined that the soil had been on the surface 130,000 to 190,000 years ago.

Since Crete has been an island for 5 million years the suggestion is that the users of the tools arrived on it by sea. If the dating is accurate the tools would evidence sea travel 70,000 years earlier than previously thought. The articles do not address whether the possible sea travel might have been accidental.

The findings were reported last month at a meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. A formal report has been accepted for publication in Hesparia, the journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, a supporter of the fieldwork.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/573005-cretan-tools-point-to-130...

Tags: Crete, Humans, Jubinsky, Sea, Travel

2 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on August 18, 2011 at 6:06pm

Thanks for the post -- interesting article.

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on August 19, 2011 at 4:36am

Happy you like it!

Permalink Reply by Bryon on August 19, 2011 at 3:21pm

Salt anyone?

Permalink Reply by CJ on August 31, 2011 at 9:57pm

Very interesting. Wait....so the Earth is not 6,000 years old???? ;-)

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on September 1, 2011 at 5:14am

That's a good one.

Permalink Reply by Vulpes on September 1, 2011 at 3:33pm

No no no. You clearly are not educamacated. The earth is known to be 10,000 years old. Everything these so called scientist tell you is a lie lie lie.

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on September 2, 2011 at 5:37am

Right! Right! Right!

Permalink Reply by Bryon on September 1, 2011 at 12:16pm

What journal has the evidence and research for this hypothesis been presented. I could be wrong but, the Boston Harold does not strike me as a source for cutting edge science albeit fringe. Besides the article has been archived.

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on September 1, 2011 at 4:17pm

The finding is posted in numerous places on the internet.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_EN...

I think 130,000 year old tools were probably found on Crete and that the users arrived there by sea. However, this does not mean that the sea travel was the result of any designed technology by the users. They could have been accidentally swept to Crete while hanging on to a tree.

Permalink Reply by Vulpes on September 1, 2011 at 3:39pm

I will admit a bit of ignorance here. I though that modern homo sapiens came onto the scene about 100,000 years ago. Am I wrong or are these tools from another ancestor. Like homo erectus or neantherdal man.

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on September 1, 2011 at 4:25pm

I think the theory is that they are from pre-homo sapiens. I would guess almost certainly Neanderthal.

Permalink Reply by Bryon on September 2, 2011 at 11:38am

Anatomically modern Homo sapiens date back to between 150k and 200kya. Behaviorally modern goes back about 60k to 70kya, roughly the time of emergence from the Toba bottleneck. Boat building is considered to be behaviorally modern, and since 130kya is about 60k years to soon for that... A land bridge idea could be explanatory if only just as the last interglacial began at just about 130kya and sea levels in the Mediterranean basin may still have been low enough to accommodate passage. But... it is still 70k or so years to soon for Homo sapiens. Neanderthal on the other hand... The tools in the photos appear to be of the Mousterian Industry if they are tools at all. I sure wish there was more description of the site, the layer and perhaps other such evidentiary material. This seems to be a very preliminary finding with a lot of questions still to be resolved, hence the lack of journal publication. It did make me raise an eyebrow.