recent, and public access.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
Published: 11 October 2021
Abstract
We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains the potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera biostratigraphy results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we constrain the Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than previously
thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval of ~ 8 m
section and the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and favor
a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
"These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace fossil features
including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
indicate the
track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology includes characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such as the presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux placed alongside
digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV becoming progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate traits
such as
the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately shorter
sole and
a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative morphological analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
primitive
hominin and a strong case has been made for it being phylogenetically basal to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like sole9. The morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the Trachilos footprints
cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints and are clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
"This interpretation has been controversial, and several counter-interpretations
have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that the Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a gorilla footprint.
We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the interpretation of Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a
hallux print set
back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and the strongly
oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
length and
finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these features are matched
in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human footprint
used
in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are mindful of the need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that the Trachilos
track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
hominin has
not been disproven.
"The characteristics of these tracks, together with their geographical location
and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
significance is
limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly the
exact
importance of these findings and to put them into a global context, especially
with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
recent, and public access.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
Published: 11 October 2021
Abstract
We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains the >potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera biostratigraphy >results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone >MMi13d, younger than ~6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we constrain the >Trachilos footprints age at ~6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than previously >thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval
of ~8 m section and the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the
slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and favor
a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
Of course: the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma split pongids (Indian Ocean coastal forests) & hominids (Mediterranean coastal forests, e.g. Graecopith., Oreopith., Trachilos...).
The Mediterranean hominids that colonised the Red Sea coastal forests survided: australopiths.
Australopiths split c 8 Ma into Gorilla-Praeanthropus (Rift) & Homo-Pan. Homo-Pan split c 5 Ma into Pan-Australopithecus (S.Africa) & Homo (along Indian Ocean).
Pan & Gorilla evolved in // knuckle-walking etc., whereas Pleistocene Homo remained coastal.
Google:
- ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen
- coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT
On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
recent, and public access.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
Published: 11 October 2021
Abstract
We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains the
potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera biostratigraphy
results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone
MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we constrain the >> Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than
previously
thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval of
~ 8 m
section and the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the
slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and favor
a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
"These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace fossil
features
including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
indicate the
track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology includes
characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such as the >> presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux placed
alongside
digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV becoming >> progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate traits
such as
the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately shorter
sole and
a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative morphological
analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
primitive
hominin and a strong case has been made for it being phylogenetically basal >> to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like sole9. The
morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the Trachilos
footprints
cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints and are >> clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
"This interpretation has been controversial, and several
counter-interpretations
have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that the
Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a gorilla
footprint.
We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the interpretation of
Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a
hallux print set
back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and the
strongly
oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
length and
finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these features are
matched
in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human footprint
used
in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are mindful of the >> need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that the
Trachilos
track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
hominin has
not been disproven.
"The characteristics of these tracks, together with their geographical
location
and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early
hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
significance is
limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly the
exact
importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
especially
with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of January
6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is on
Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even controversial that
it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it there, who knows? One day somebody will come with this idea.
My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol).
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
recent, and public access.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
Published: 11 October 2021
Abstract
We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains the >>> potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by
normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera biostratigraphy >>> results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone
MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we
constrain the
Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than
previously
thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval
of ~ 8 m
section and the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the >>> slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and
favor
a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
"These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace
fossil features
including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
indicate the
track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology includes
characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such
as the
presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux placed
alongside
digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV
becoming
progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate traits
such as
the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately shorter
sole and
a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative morphological
analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
primitive
hominin and a strong case has been made for it being phylogenetically
basal
to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like sole9.
The
morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the Trachilos
footprints
cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints
and are
clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
"This interpretation has been controversial, and several
counter-interpretations
have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that the
Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a gorilla
footprint.
We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the
interpretation of
Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a
hallux print set
back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and
the strongly
oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
length and
finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these features
are matched
in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human
footprint used
in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are mindful
of the
need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that
the Trachilos
track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
hominin has
not been disproven.
"The characteristics of these tracks, together with their
geographical location
and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early
hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
significance is
limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly
the exact
importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
especially
with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of January
The "exact" dating for anything is not possible.
6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date
determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is on
Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even controversial
that it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it there, who knows?
One day somebody will come with this idea.
My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol).
On 13.12.2021. 7:32, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
recent, and public access.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
Published: 11 October 2021
Abstract
We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains the >>>> potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by >>>> normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera biostratigraphy >>>> results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone >>>> MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from
sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin
indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal
polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we constrain >>>> the
Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than
previously
thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval
of ~ 8 m
section and the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the >>>> slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and favor >>>> a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
"These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace
fossil features
including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
indicate the
track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology includes >>>> characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such as >>>> the
presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux placed
alongside
digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV
becoming
progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate traits
such as
the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately shorter
sole and
a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative morphological >>>> analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
primitive
hominin and a strong case has been made for it being phylogenetically
basal
to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like sole9. The >>>> morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the Trachilos >>>> footprints
cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints and >>>> are
clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
"This interpretation has been controversial, and several
counter-interpretations
have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that the >>>> Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an
adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a gorilla
footprint.
We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the interpretation of >>>> Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a
hallux print set
back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and the >>>> strongly
oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
length and
finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these features
are matched
in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human
footprint used
in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are mindful
of the
need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that the >>>> Trachilos
track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
hominin has
not been disproven.
"The characteristics of these tracks, together with their geographical >>>> location
and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early >>>> hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
significance is
limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly the >>>> exact
importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
especially
with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of January
The "exact" dating for anything is not possible.
Of course, so why they are saying that fire use started 700kya,
or they have "dates" for acquiring language "that and that", when they
even don't have upper and lower margins? Actually, they always use upper margins as a rough date.
6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date >>> determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is on
Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even controversial
that it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it there, who knows?
One day somebody will come with this idea.
My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol).
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 13.12.2021. 7:32, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
recent, and public access.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
Published: 11 October 2021
Abstract
We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that
contains the
potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by >>>>> normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera
biostratigraphy
results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone >>>>> MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from >>>>> sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin >>>>> indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal >>>>> polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we
constrain the
Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than >>>>> previously
thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible
interval of ~ 8 m
section and the possibility that the normal polarity might
represent the
slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and
favor
a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
"These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace
fossil features
including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
indicate the
track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology
includes
characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such
as the
presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux
placed alongside
digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV
becoming
progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate
traits such as
the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately
shorter sole and
a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative
morphological
analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a
primitive
hominin and a strong case has been made for it being
phylogenetically basal
to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like
sole9. The
morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the
Trachilos footprints
cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints
and are
clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
"This interpretation has been controversial, and several
counter-interpretations
have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that
the
Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an >>>>> adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a
gorilla footprint.
We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the
interpretation of
Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a >>>>> hallux print set
back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and
the strongly
oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the
length and
finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these
features are matched
in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human
footprint used
in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are
mindful of the
need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that
the Trachilos
track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal
hominin has
not been disproven.
"The characteristics of these tracks, together with their
geographical location
and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early >>>>> hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
significance is
limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly
the exact
importance of these findings and to put them into a global context,
especially
with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of >>>> January
The "exact" dating for anything is not possible.
Of course, so why they are saying that fire use started
700kya, or they have "dates" for acquiring language "that and that",
when they even don't have upper and lower margins? Actually, they
always use upper margins as a rough date.
Did you look at the paper? Ranges are given, for example, in statements
like this:
"Gierliński et al. constrained the youngest possible age by
stratigraphic relationship with the overlying conglomerate, which they interpreted as the Hellenikon Group, deposited during the Messinian
Salinity Crisis (MSC) between 5.60 and 5.53 Ma."
"This leaves planktonic foraminifera as the remaining constraining
factor for the age of the Trachilos footprints with a rather large range between 8.5 and 3.5 Ma."
6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date >>>> determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is
on Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even
controversial that it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it
there, who knows? One day somebody will come with this idea.
My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol).
On 22.12.2021. 21:08, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 13.12.2021. 7:32, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
recent, and public access.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
Published: 11 October 2021
Abstract
We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that
contains the
potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by >>>>> normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera
biostratigraphy
results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone >>>>> MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from >>>>> sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin >>>>> indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB,
between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal >>>>> polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we
constrain the
Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than >>>>> previously
thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible
interval of ~ 8 m
section and the possibility that the normal polarity might
represent the
slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and >>>>> favor
a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
"These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace
fossil features
including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks,
indicate the
track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology
includes
characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such >>>>> as the
presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux
placed alongside
digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV >>>>> becoming
progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate
traits such as
the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately
shorter sole and
a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative
morphological
analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a >>>>> primitive
hominin and a strong case has been made for it being
phylogenetically basal
to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like
sole9. The
morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the
Trachilos footprints
cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints >>>>> and are
clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
"This interpretation has been controversial, and several
counter-interpretations
have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that >>>>> the
Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an >>>>> adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a
gorilla footprint.
We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the
interpretation of
Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a >>>>> hallux print set
back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and >>>>> the strongly
oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the >>>>> length and
finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these
features are matched
in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human
footprint used
in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are
mindful of the
need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that >>>>> the Trachilos
track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal >>>>> hominin has
not been disproven.
"The characteristics of these tracks, together with their
geographical location
and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early >>>>> hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
significance is
limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly >>>>> the exact
importance of these findings and to put them into a global context, >>>>> especially
with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of
January
The "exact" dating for anything is not possible.
Of course, so why they are saying that fire use started
700kya, or they have "dates" for acquiring language "that and that",
when they even don't have upper and lower margins? Actually, they
always use upper margins as a rough date.
Did you look at the paper? Ranges are given, for example, in statements like this:
"Gierliński et al. constrained the youngest possible age by
stratigraphic relationship with the overlying conglomerate, which they interpreted as the Hellenikon Group, deposited during the Messinian Salinity Crisis (MSC) between 5.60 and 5.53 Ma."
"This leaves planktonic foraminifera as the remaining constrainingI was talking about range of the start of using fire.
factor for the age of the Trachilos footprints with a rather large range between 8.5 and 3.5 Ma."
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date
determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is >>>> on Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even
controversial that it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it
there, who knows? One day somebody will come with this idea.
My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol). --
human-e...@googlegroups.com
On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 3:24:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.12.2021. 21:08, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:I was talking about range of the start of using fire.
On 13.12.2021. 7:32, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 2.12.2021. 22:09, Primum Sapienti wrote:
recent, and public access.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
Published: 11 October 2021
Abstract
We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene >>>>>>> sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that
contains the
potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is characterized by >>>>>>> normal magnetic polarity. New and published foraminifera
biostratigraphy
results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean biozone >>>>>>> MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma. Calcareous nannoplankton data from >>>>>>> sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin >>>>>>> indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB, >>>>>>> between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By integrating the magneto- and
biostratigraphic data we correlate the Trachilos section with normal >>>>>>> polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 and 6.023 Ma. Using
cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we
constrain the
Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than >>>>>>> previously
thought. Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible
interval of ~ 8 m
section and the possibility that the normal polarity might
represent the
slightly older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and
biostratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points and >>>>>>> favor
a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.
"These footprints, which possess a suite of characteristic trace >>>>>>> fossil features
including expulsion rims, pull-up structures and toe drag marks, >>>>>>> indicate the
track-maker had a distinctive foot morphology. This morphology
includes
characters that are currently considered be unique to hominins such >>>>>>> as the
presence of a forefoot ball, a non-divergent and robust hallux
placed alongside
digit II on the distal margin of the sole and digits II through IV >>>>>>> becoming
progressively shorter. These are combined with generic primate
traits such as
the absence of a longitudinal medial arch, a proportionately
shorter sole and
a heel that is not bulbous. A straightforward comparative
morphological
analysis of the character suite suggests that the track-maker was a >>>>>>> primitive
hominin and a strong case has been made for it being
phylogenetically basal
to the Laetoli trackmaker, which had a longer, more human-like
sole9. The
morphometric analysis of Gierliński et al.6, shows that the
Trachilos footprints
cluster in the same anatomical space with other hominin footprints >>>>>>> and are
clearly separated from non-hominin primates.
"This interpretation has been controversial, and several
counter-interpretations
have been made. For example, Meldrum and Sarmiento10 suggested that >>>>>>> the
Trachilos tracks may have been made by a non-hominin primate with an >>>>>>> adducted hallux and they illustrated this with reference to a
gorilla footprint.
We believe that this comparison actually reinforces the
interpretation of
Gierliński et al.6. The illustrated track lacks a ball print, has a >>>>>>> hallux print set
back from digit II and separated from it by a substantial gap, and >>>>>>> the strongly
oblique concave posterodistal margin of the sole print reflects the >>>>>>> length and
finger-like character of digits II through V. None of these
features are matched
in the Trachilos footprints, which instead resemble the human
footprint used
in illustration by Meldrum and Sarmiento10. So, while we are
mindful of the
need for caution in the absence of any body fossils, the case that >>>>>>> the Trachilos
track-maker can be identified provisionally as a primitive, bipedal >>>>>>> hominin has
not been disproven.
"The characteristics of these tracks, together with their
geographical location
and supposed age, potentially make them highly informative about early >>>>>>> hominin evolution13,14,15. However, at present their scientific
significance is
limited by the poor age control on the site13. To address properly >>>>>>> the exact
importance of these findings and to put them into a global context, >>>>>>> especially
with respect to Africa, absolute ages are vital."
So, they cannot determinate the exact date, like 26th of >>>>>> January
The "exact" dating for anything is not possible.
Of course, so why they are saying that fire use started
700kya, or they have "dates" for acquiring language "that and that",
when they even don't have upper and lower margins? Actually, they
always use upper margins as a rough date.
Did you look at the paper? Ranges are given, for example, in statements
like this:
"Gierliński et al. constrained the youngest possible age by
stratigraphic relationship with the overlying conglomerate, which they
interpreted as the Hellenikon Group, deposited during the Messinian
Salinity Crisis (MSC) between 5.60 and 5.53 Ma."
"This leaves planktonic foraminifera as the remaining constraining
factor for the age of the Trachilos footprints with a rather large range >>> between 8.5 and 3.5 Ma."
Because the Trachilos footprints are obviously associated with firewalking.
6,053.678 BC, so they will neglect it? Just beautiful.
I mean, what is the reason they are mentioning this date >>>>>> determination? It is obvious that it is older than 5 mya, and it is >>>>>> on Crete, they can establish this firmly. Or, is it even
controversial that it is on Crete? Maybe wind from Africa blew it
there, who knows? One day somebody will come with this idea.
My god, whom I am dealing with (if this makes any sense, lol).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 217:56:01 |
| Calls: | 6,621 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,171 |
| Messages: | 5,317,713 |