[HN Gopher] Ancient DNA Shows Stone Age Europeans Voyaged by Sea...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Ancient DNA Shows Stone Age Europeans Voyaged by Sea to Africa
        
       Author : gmays
       Score  : 112 points
       Date   : 2025-03-20 18:23 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
        
       | verisimi wrote:
       | https://archive.is/6N7Qr
        
       | dgfitz wrote:
       | > Hunter-gatherers from Europe and North Africa could have
       | traversed the Sicilian Strait in long wooden canoes, navigating
       | from island to island by sight. Many potential stopovers are now
       | submerged, making it hard to find further evidence for these
       | voyages, Lucarini adds.
       | 
       | The title is misleading.
        
         | monadINtop wrote:
         | I don't see how that quote or the article contradicts the
         | title?
        
         | dkarl wrote:
         | It's still a sea, even if you stay within sight of land.
        
           | dgfitz wrote:
           | > Many potential stopovers are now submerged, making it hard
           | to find further evidence for these voyages
        
             | nkrisc wrote:
             | What's your point?
        
               | dgfitz wrote:
               | I'm so sorry, I don't understand the disconnect.
               | 
               | > Hunter-gatherers from Europe and North Africa could
               | have traversed
               | 
               | "May" and "could have" aren't meaningful, and the quotes
               | ends with additional ambiguity.
        
               | nkrisc wrote:
               | I don't see the problem. They're making a claim and have
               | some evidence. That of course doesn't mean they're
               | actually correct, but that's their claim.
        
               | anigbrowl wrote:
               | You're interpreting 'could have' as a possibility when it
               | can also be interpreted as a statement of capability.
               | 
               | - Evidence X, Y, Z points to a European origin for these
               | discoveries.
               | 
               | - How could Europeans have got to North Africa so long
               | ago?
               | 
               | - They could have done it by island hopping.
        
         | TwoPhonesOneKid wrote:
         | You could also cross in a raft. Or on a log. You can swim
         | across (riskily, quite riskily) at the straight of gibraltar
         | itself. We've known humans have been seafaring tens of
         | thousands of years before our earliest archaeological evidence
         | (although dugout canoes are likely just as old, it's very bad
         | conditions for preservation outside of stuff like northern
         | european bogs/the dead sea, and they often just look like logs
         | underwater, not boats)--at no point has Australia been fully
         | connected to continental asia. Hell, this is true for H
         | _Erectus_ , let alone h s sapiens--it's not difficult to
         | believe H Erectus might have pieced together how to lash logs
         | together.
         | 
         | On articles like this, I strongly recommend just ignoring the
         | title. It's enough to make anyone with a mild background in the
         | subject frustrated. The research itself remains incredibly
         | interesting.
        
       | BurningFrog wrote:
       | > _Many potential stopovers are now submerged_
       | 
       | If I was a billionaire, I'd look into funding tech for excavating
       | coastlines during the ice age(s), That's where any 10k old
       | civilizations must have been.
        
         | nradov wrote:
         | It's like the old joke about the drunk who's searching for his
         | lost keys under a streetlight because the light is better
         | there. Archaeologists have barely begun to excavate underwater
         | sites where people lived back when sea levels were much lower.
         | There is surely much to discover but doing anything underwater
         | increases the cost by at least 10x.
        
           | aksss wrote:
           | Take a look at Doggerland. It's been known for over 100 years
           | with no lack of interest, but as you say, underwater
           | archaeology is expensive and technically difficult.
        
             | qwytw wrote:
             | And it's not like there is much to find, most of the things
             | people in Doggerland made were out of wood, there are no
             | ancient stone ruins or lost treasures.
        
               | generativenoise wrote:
               | There may be no grand objects to be found, but that does
               | not mean there isn't much to find. The thing that we will
               | find is more knowledge about those societies.
        
               | wqaatwt wrote:
               | I think it's more about the cost and complexity of
               | finding anything than trying to somehow imply that the
               | societies living there were inferior.
               | 
               | We already know relatively little about Neolithic Europe
               | despite there being major cities there that rivaled or
               | eclipsed those in Mesopotamia in population. Yet we
               | hardly know anything about them in comparison because
               | they used perishable materials for almost everything (and
               | it's not only because of writing). Finding anything
               | useful underwater makes that many times harder.
        
               | nukem222 wrote:
               | > We already know relatively little about Neolithic
               | Europe despite there being major cities there that
               | rivaled or eclipsed those in Mesopotamia in population.
               | 
               | What are you referring to? I could certainly imagine such
               | a thing but I can't say I've ever heard of someone
               | _finding evidence_ of a city that matches this
               | description.
        
               | jajko wrote:
               | You want to find ancient marvels? Start digging literally
               | anywhere in or around Rome. Or half of amazon jungle. Or
               | around London. And so on. You can get much more 'value'
               | in form of artifacts and knowledge from there for given
               | money.
               | 
               | Submerged places... imagine how complex and slow
               | archaeologic excavations look on the ground. Now move it
               | 50m underwater in endless mud. Good luck looking for
               | literal needle in the muddy haystack of 40,000km2. To
               | find what... some fossilized wood or few arrow heads?
               | That culture was very similar to ones on neighboring
               | lands, no atlantis there.
               | 
               | One day, robots can scan and dig through there but there
               | are so many better ways to spending money, any money,
               | that it makes perfect sense nobody is doing it.
        
               | BurningFrog wrote:
               | How can we know that without excavating?
        
               | OJFord wrote:
               | Period, trade - archaeology is but one discipline. How
               | could we track and plan our excavation without writing a
               | to-do/kanban app?
        
               | Someone wrote:
               | Treasures are small and rare enough so you can never rule
               | them out completely, but if there were significant
               | amounts of rocks there, we would know because Doggerland
               | has been fairly thoroughly "ploughed" by fishing trawlers
               | and mapped for research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do
               | ggerland#Discovery_and_inves...)
               | 
               | The geology of the North Sea also indicates "sand" more
               | than "rocks".
        
               | StanislavPetrov wrote:
               | >here are no ancient stone ruins or lost treasures.
               | 
               | Like Stonehenge? How can we possibly know what's there
               | without looking thoroughly?
        
               | qwytw wrote:
               | Because it's highly unlikely given the evidence we have?
               | Is there any reason to believe that material culture in
               | Doggerland could have been fundamentally different to
               | that of other hunter gatherer societies in Europe at the
               | time?
               | 
               | There is a 4000-5000 year gap between Doggerland sinking
               | and Stonehenge i.e. similar to that of Stonehenge being
               | built and our days so it's hardly relevant.
        
             | BurningFrog wrote:
             | That's why we need a few billionaires to chip in!
        
         | jjulius wrote:
         | There's a similar case to be made for the Pacific Northwest -
         | there's likely a good chunk of human history beneath Puget
         | Sound and the Pacific.
         | 
         | https://www.cascadepbs.org/2011/05/lost-civilization-along-w...
        
           | SpicyUme wrote:
           | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027737911.
           | ..
           | 
           | This sea level hinge idea points towards an area to look that
           | didn't get pushed underwater. As far as I have read people
           | are looking and finding signs of humans. The north end of
           | Vancouver island and the Brooks peninsula also may have
           | stayed glacier free during the ice age.
        
         | pratik661 wrote:
         | The Persian Gulf would be a goldmine for this.
        
           | blululu wrote:
           | Surprisingly the Persian Gulf is likely the exact opposite
           | scenario. Modern research suggests that ancient likes like Ur
           | were likely on the coastline while modern Basra would have
           | been totally submerged. In most of the world the post glacial
           | trend has pushed the coastline in but in the Persian gulf the
           | trend points the other way. There is the possibility that the
           | reason that Iraq is such a gold mine for archeological sites
           | is because it is one of the rare places where the sea went
           | the other way.
        
             | kjkjadksj wrote:
             | Persian gulf is just silt being deposited increasing the
             | coastlines. Plenty of other river systems are doing that
             | too.
        
         | walrus01 wrote:
         | Doggerland is probably full of possible archaeological
         | evidence, but it's now submerged. Fishing vessels occasionally
         | haul up a mammoth tusk. Or even a whole mammoth skull with
         | tusks attached.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
        
       | WalterBright wrote:
       | How does DNA show they traveled by sea?
        
         | ch4s3 wrote:
         | The remains found in modern Tunisia shared genes with people in
         | what is now Morocco and Spain. It's more likely they paddled
         | than walked the long way around.
        
           | WalterBright wrote:
           | I'd say the case was probable, but it's still speculation.
           | 
           | I'm glad I'm not an archaeologist. They are faced with very
           | little evidence, and of course try to extend it as far as
           | possible. And then a new discovery throws that under the bus.
        
             | jajko wrote:
             | Sometimes, you just take by far the most logical conclusion
             | and go with it. Like here - sure, they could have gone
             | around via Turkey on some ridiculous super long trip,
             | crossing various cultures not always open to foreigners
             | while leaving no proofs about it. Or just cross the sea,
             | its not that far and sea faring was one of the first skills
             | mankind learned, over much greater distances and rougher
             | seas than Mediterranean.
        
         | poulpy123 wrote:
         | The dna shows the migration pattern, and the migration pattern
         | is only compatible with sea travel
        
       | mjfl wrote:
       | Wasn't the water level lower back then? How much smaller was the
       | Mediterranean?
        
       | calrain wrote:
       | Could the legend of Atlantis just been a reference to early
       | European sailors visiting North Africa, across the Mediterranean?
        
         | forgotTheLast wrote:
         | No. Plato's Atlantis is mentioned as being past the pillars of
         | Hercules in the Atlantic
        
           | Detrytus wrote:
           | Pillars of Hercules name itself is ambiguous, one of the
           | theories is that Plato referred to a pair of Greek islands,
           | not Gibraltar. That would place Atlantis somewhere in the
           | Mediterrain Sea.
        
             | card_zero wrote:
             | The source has Erakleous stelas. Wiktionary tells me that's
             | more like _blocks_ of Heracles, or slabs or monuments.
             | 
             | https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atex
             | t... (press "focus" to swap language)
             | 
             | https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AE%CE%BB%CE%
             | B...
             | 
             | It's kind of completely unambiguous though, given all the
             | details:
             | 
             | > from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean,
             | 
             | > the ocean there was at that time navigable;
             | 
             | > in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say,
             | 'the pillars of Heracles,'
             | 
             | The location is clearly out in the unnavigable Atlantic,
             | and the [whatever] of Heracles form a _mouth_.
        
       | owl_vision wrote:
       | No need for boat during the Messinian Salinity Crisis. This seems
       | to imply once the water started taking over, eyesight navigation
       | was the way.
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
        
         | ch4s3 wrote:
         | There weren't anatomically modern humans the last time the
         | straits of Gibraltar reopened 5.33 MYA.
        
       | blindriver wrote:
       | The story that civilization started 5-6000 years ago in
       | Mesopotamia is pretty quickly eroding away. It's interesting to
       | see all the new evidence for advanced technology existing much
       | earlier than expected.
        
         | jonny_eh wrote:
         | How do you personally define civilization?
        
         | cma wrote:
         | Sounds like they canoed across the narrow Straight of Gibralter
         | with a burned out log canoe (or they put a suggestive image of
         | it in there anyway). Hundreds of people have swum across the
         | Straight of Gibralter, I don't think this is showing emergence
         | of civilization necessarily if it was swimming or canoeing.
        
       | Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
       | Ex-pats not immigrants.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-22 23:02 UTC)