Oolite Bulletins

Not your fault at all SandJ, the image was poorly chosen by me. It looks like several others that I've looked at and checked the original - but on that, one I so hurriedly chose, there is no frame identification! I wrongly assumed that it was a faithful reproduction but it could be a close up of an elephants epidermis. I shall try to find a more workable frame but not today. I'm afraid the heat is getting to me.

Greyth wrote:

THow old is our species? Estimates vary from 150,000 years and ever upwards in extremes. However, all trace of our civilisation and culture, until very recently, could be traced for less than 12,000 years.

I cannot remember the story title, book or author, but one I read decades ago has stuck with me; it was someone who travelled back in time briefly and saw dinosaurs running around with hand-guns.

Since then I have pondered: how long did it take for us to get from 'animals' that left no trace of our existence, to atomic energy?

What is the likelihood of there being a species toward the end of the dinosaur reign reaching similar brain capability as us? Of it eating its way through the planet's species, or just trashing the environment like we have? And doing so without leaving much that will still be evident?

In 65 million years from now, with 65 million years of erosion and tektonic plate movement, will there by anything left on the Earth that we produced? If we dropped dead tomorrow, would any of our great civil engineering projects be standing after a century? The people that built pyramids in the jungles are barely evident after just a few centuries. And the current mass extinction we have done is, on a geological timescale, almost instantaneous.

Could the time of the mass extinction of the dinosaurs have been the last time intelligent life evolved on Earth? And trashed the place, big time?

Greyth wrote:

How old is our species? Estimates vary from 150,000 years and ever upwards in extremes. However, all trace of our civilisation and culture, until very recently, could be traced for less than 12,000 years. Given any similar interregnum without natural global catastrophe our species could have, presumably, made the transition from troglodyte to bungalow dweller several times and that possibility may present the beginnings of a unified theory.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/ ... /mann-text
This singularly peculiar and abstract construction dates from approx 12,000 years ago. Against all probability it appears to have been deliberately inearthed. However the fact that it is present and has been carbon dated by organic remains to the end of the last ice age turns our notions of what humans were capable of at that time on their heads. Our standard chronology of geology puts this at the end of the last ice age and at around the time that the continental shelf submerged. It is an ancient wonder.

"Could have" and "did" are two totally different concepts. The Roman Empire could have had hot air balloons and bronze cannons: they had easy access to all the necessary materials, including a sufficiently high grade of bronze casting. They could have had moveable type, and printing presses: all the individual bits were there. They didn't, though. History is not progress: there is no constant upward trend. The whole concept of "progress" is very new, and for every human culture throughout history except our own, the past has been where things were great, not the future. Most cultures have a narrative of decline, from a previous Golden Age when everything was better. Even where they could see technological progress, it was usually sneered at, as something that their revered ancestors had had no need of.

Civilisation – at its root, settled urban dwelling and sufficient agriculture to sustain a population capable of specialisation – has occurred at numerous locations and at various times all over the planet. It has often collapsed again, often before metalworking has emerged. Stone age peoples have constructed many marvellous things, because human beings are clever and it's amazing what we can do when we set our minds to it, regardless of the available technology. There are doubtless undiscovered remains of other stone-age (and possibly even early metalworking) cultures to be found all over the planet – most archaeological traces are lost: by its very nature archaeology depends on both abandonment and preservation of sites – but there's no evidence for any sophisticated, technological, pre-ice age culture. Modern civilisation is leaving geological traces; even the Romans managed to pollute ice-cores with lead. Ice-cores can extend back over hundreds of thousands of years, and nobody has found a sniff of anthropogenic pollution in deep time.

One of the principal difficulties with the emergence of civilisation is that early agriculture – pretty much all early agriculture before the development of the iron plough – is bloody hard work, and a much more uncertain affair than good old hunting and gathering. There are indications that it emerges often as an act of desperation, when sudden environmental shifts trap a population in a restricted area and they are forced to endure the horrible effort and random strokes of fate attendant on early farming.

Hunting and gathering is what humans are best at, and it's not tremendously hard work, compared to scratch-farming with sticks – see for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

This is one very good reason why city-based agricultural civilisations might take so long to arise: no hunter-gatherer in his or her right mind wants to settle down and start grubbing in the soil. It's back-breaking, unhealthy (you can't just move away when the dung-pile gets too high), and prone to catastrophic failure.

There is indeed 'could have', 'did', and then there is 'did differently'

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/893279_f260.jpg

Greyth wrote:

There is indeed 'could have', 'did', and then there is 'did differently'

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/893279_f260.jpg

Absolutely. Where older cultures saw the past as the abode of heroes, champions and gods, we now tend to over-value modern technology and fail to realise – like watching a stage magician – just what can be achieved if someone puts in enough highly skilled labour over a long period of time, and uses some nifty, probably closely guarded craft techniques we haven't thought of, or couldn't be bothered to try because we'd just get a machine to do it.

Still, though, the Tiwanaku stone-cutting techniques weren't enough to stave off several bad harvests in a row!

I know of no evidence or theory that links the razing of 'Puma Punka' to drought or famine? I would like to suggest also that radioactive events may sway radiometric analyses such that works appear younger than is actually the case.

Greyth wrote:

I know of no evidence or theory that links the razing of 'Puma Punka' to drought or famine?

The quoted source for the following is: The Tiwanaku: Portrait of an Andean Civilization (Peoples of America); Alan L. Kolata (Author) It sounds like an interesting read about an interesting people.

An archaeologist who worked the site wrote:

The elites' power continued to grow along with the surplus of resources until about 950. At this time a dramatic shift in climate occurred, as is typical for the region. A significant drop in precipitation occurred in the Titicaca Basin, with some archaeologists venturing to suggest a great drought. As the rain became less and less many of the cities furthest away from Lake Titicaca began to produce fewer crops to give to the elites. As the surplus of food dropped, the elites' power began to fall. Due to the resiliency of the raised fields, the capital city became the last place of production, but in the end even the intelligent design of the fields was no match for the weather. Tiwanaku disappeared around 1000 because food production, the empire's source of power and authority, dried up. The land was not inhabited again for many years. In isolated places, some remnants of the Tiwanaku people, like the Uros, may have survived until today.

Greyth wrote:

I know of no evidence or theory that links the razing of 'Puma Punka' to drought or famine? I would like to suggest also that radioactive events may sway radiometric analyses such that works appear younger than is actually the case.

But there's no evidence for any advanced technological civilisation that we don't already know about. As I mentioned before, we can see evidence for pollution from Greek and Roman metalworking in ice-cores. Any older significantly industrial culture would have left traces of their pollutions, too – but there's nothing there. The Tiwanaku were very skilled stonemasons: it's amazing what you can do with hammers, string, skill and patience. But that's not the same thing as being nuclear engineers.

I can easily accept that famine and or drought led to breakdown of civil authority and maintenance the infrastructure. Indeed, it seems to have been a recurring theme across the globe but unlikely a thing to lay low so uniquely crafted a construction? I am aware of some of the legends of peoples of the altiplano but they are even more fantastical than the evidence itself.

[edit]
Here's some evidence of a civilisation that we know we know nothing about, I expect you will already have heard of it. In truth the argument continues as to whether these are natural formation or no. I cannot get my head around the natural formation theory so I guess I'm dogmatic on this one.

http://scubaemporium.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... art-1.html
[/edit]

[double edit] lol
Radioactive events can occur naturally.
[/edit]

Greyth wrote:

I can easily accept that famine and or drought led to breakdown of civil authority and maintenance the infrastructure. Indeed, it seems to have been a recurring theme across the globe but unlikely a thing to lay low so uniquely crafted a construction? I am aware of some of the legends of peoples of the altiplano but they are even more fantastical than the evidence itself.

From Wikipedia:

Much of the architecture of the site is in a poor state of preservation, having been subjected to looting and amateur excavations attempting to locate valuables since shortly after Tiwanaku's fall. This destruction continued during the Spanish conquest and colonial period, and during 19th century and the early 20th century, and has included quarrying stone for building and railroad construction and target practice by military personnel.

It's been through a lot, basically!

SandJ wrote:

What is the likelihood of there being a species toward the end of the dinosaur reign reaching similar brain capability as us? Of it eating its way through the planet's species, or just trashing the environment like we have? And doing so without leaving much that will still be evident?

Very good question. Although I don't want to go into my full train of thought, I have part of a story concept in mind based on:
Allosaurus existed approximately 150m years ago.
Tyrannosaurus Rex existed 65m years ago.
That's 85 million years between Allosaurus and T.Rex.
And 65 million years between the KT Event and present day. In that 65 million years, apes became dominant and climbed to the top of the food chain.
In the 85 million years between Allosaurus and T.Rex, it's certainly within the realms of possibility that a "sentient" genus of amphibians or reptiles evolved. Maybe more than one.

If it happened, where did they go? Where are their fossils? Maybe their death rituals precluded leaving "evidence" behind for the future. Maybe time and erosion and various events removed evidence of their civilisation or maybe we haven't learned to recognise the leftovers.

Maybe, just maybe, all we know of dinosaurs is wrong.

Greyth wrote:

Here's some evidence of a civilisation that we know we know nothing about, I expect you will already have heard of it. In truth the argument continues as to whether these are natural formation or no. I cannot get my head around the natural formation theory so I guess I'm dogmatic on this one.

http://scubaemporium.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... art-1.html

There's some links and references on the manmade-or-natural debate here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_M ... pretations

Sea levels, and land levels, do change, though, and it wouldn't be hugely surprising to find traces of previously unknown stone-age civilisations around the globe. After all, there are already plenty of sunken cities that we know about, and Japan is in an earthquake zone:
http://www.underwaterdiscovery.org/Site ... fault.aspx

There are many examples of human footprint imprints in sedimentary rock that predate the KT boundary. Embarrassingly I recall one plate (photo) in which there were both a human and dinosaur footprint. I've never found it on the internet but in a catalogue many years ago. In another instance (can't remember if it was the same catalogue) there was the impring of flip flop type footwear. The imprint was so fine that I could make out the stitching. Of course it is possible they were faked or that the strata in which they were discovered was mis-dated or had somehow become again a sediment, however their number almost precludes the possibility of fakery on an industrial scale.

Recently an ancient skull was discovered that appears to have larger cranial capacity than modern humans boast. From memory the capacity bettered our own by an approximate 14%. It must be understood though that increased cranial capacity may not mean larger brains. It could mean an increase in fluid and membranes. I'll try to 'dig up' some more info on that.

Greyth wrote:

There are many examples of human footprint imprints in sedimentary rock that predate the KT boundary. Embarrassingly I recall one plate (photo) in which there were both a human and dinosaur footprint. I've never found it on the internet but in a catalogue many years ago. In another instance (can't remember if it was the same catalogue) there was the impring of flip flop type footwear. The imprint was so fine that I could make out the stitching. Of course it is possible they were faked or that the strata in which they were discovered was mis-dated or had somehow become again a sediment, however their number almost precludes the possibility of fakery on an industrial scale.

There aren't. There really aren't. Scientists are the most inquisitive people on the planet, and to get ahead in science you have to find new stuff all the time. To become a really famous scientist, and to achieve the highest scientific awards, you have to overthrow something old and established. If good, hard evidence existed for e.g. "human footprint imprints in sedimentary rock that predate the KT boundary", then some scientist, somewhere, would have used it to win the Nobel Prize.

[edit to add] http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=176

Science is an open forum. Anyone can join. It has its problems as does any other human institution but it is hugely, vastly better than any other process at finding out new things.

Greyth wrote:

Recently an ancient skull was discovered that appears to have larger cranial capacity than modern humans boast. From memory the capacity bettered our own by an approximate 14%. It must be understood though that increased cranial capacity may not mean larger brains. It could mean an increase in fluid and membranes. I'll try to 'dig up' some more info on that.

A possible explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial ... eformation

Greyth wrote:

There are many examples of human footprint imprints in sedimentary rock that predate the KT boundary.

What makes them fanciful is that they are human footprints. Our feet are somewhat specialised: mammalian ape's rear hands converted for load-bearing of an almost-uniquely upright back-boned animal. That they should turn up contemporaneously with dinosaurs is far-fetched. There is no inevitability about our 'rise' to the top of the food-chain.

Something with a tread and clearly artificial, but for a 3-toed foot, would a very serious matter!