Just found this website. Looks like exactly what I’m looking for.
Let’s see if I can link to a specific chart.
No preview, but that link should show all animal fossils of the Kimmeridgian age (in the late Jurassic). You can see how unevenly distributed our exploration is. There are huge geographic areas where there’s no scientific information at all. You can browse to other times easily.
Most of which will never be seen.
What sort of record we should expect to see depends entirely upon what sort of artifacts were created, the circumstances in which they were deposited, and the subsequent history of the area.
They didn’t in this version, but that’s a stretch from it is utterly impossible that the Egyptians could ever have done so. (Certainly other groups domesticated crops all on their own without any input from outsiders.) Are you now asserting that stitched clothing is an essential part of “civilization”?
No, they very likely wouldn’t. The Himalayan sedimentary strata are mostly the remnants of ancient seas (limestones, siltstones); stones would most commonly find their way into the sea by being washed down from terrestrial sites. When stones, including stone tools, are caught up in streams and rivers and floodwaters, they tend to get pounded against each other, smoothing and rounding them; with long-distance transport, distinctive toolmarks and evidence of knapping get eroded away. You need sediments formed on land, or at least not involving long moves in water, to preserve artifacts of land-based creatures well.
So they couldn’t turn a door handle. Would they have been able to scrape bark from trees, for example?
The question you asked, as I recall, was “Where are this civilization’s houses?” No, they didn’t live at Gobekli Tepe; where they did live is unsolved. We’ve found local settlements; is that all there was, or have we just not found what is there?
WHAT proportion? ninety-five percent? a tiny fraction of one percent? something in the middle?
If, e.g., five percent of all of the stone tools ever made survive 150,000 years, but only one percent survive a million years, and 0.0000001% make it 50 million, then you would NOT expect to see the same amount or distribution of evidence for dinosaurian tool-making as you do for Acheulean tool-making, even if the initial quantity and type of tools were similar. (This isn’t even getting into factors influencing where researchers look or what actually gets found.)
I’m just making up some numbers here, because I’m unfamiliar with any literature on how many Acheulean tools may ever have existed (we know roughly how many have been found, but not how many were made or how many are still extant but remain to be found). Feel free to supply some numbers yourself. However, if you haven’t at least thought about this question, then you have no rational basis for concluding that you “would” find evidence as you apparently expect.
Enough will.
A complete non-answer.
They weren’t in a locale to actually develop the agriculture they did. Wheat is an Anatolian grass.
But sure, they could possibly have developed an agriculture around papyrus roots. Whatever fantasy story you want to tell yourself.
Please don’t try an explain geology to me like I’m ignorant. There are plenty of terrestrial deposits in the Himalayas.
Learn something new every day. Boy, is it dorky-looking. So, that’s your candidate for master wood craftsmen, eh?
They could scrape it, but they sure couldn’t plait it into a rope.
If they’re not at the site, but scattered over the whole area, then Gobekli Tepe wasn’t a settlement and therefore wasn’t part of a civilization.
Show me the city.
The argument from ignorance that is the theme of this whole thread, repeated in miniature.
Somewhere in the middle.
I’m tired of repeating myself, so let me try this.
If you pile a thousand extrapolations atop one another, we would have weekend vacations on a terraformed Mars. No one extrapolation is scientifically indefensible. However, the sum total is infinitesimally possible and the likelihood that all the individual steps would be hidden as well is even smaller.
People in this thread are only using dinosaurs as their example because dinos are cool and the movies make them appear a thousand times smarter than any ever were. Substitute any other animal and any other gap and no one would have this conversation. Substitute any creature from cryptozoology and the mocking would be heard from a terraformed Mars, although a similar set of extrapolations could be just as legitimately postulated.
One could apply the above statement to human space travel to find alien civilizations as well. I have been following this thread and the arguments, and I am revising my prior assessment of the possibility of dino civilization (and adding alien civilization) to: Possible: not really (hey, anything’s possible, right?). Probable: No. Likely: No.
Yes, this is exactly what made me start this thread. Our fossil record is incomplete and extrapolation is not necessarily supportable.
For example, looking at Reptiles (which on the linked site includes birds, but not mammals) in four different Early Cretaceous ages: Berriasian, Valanginian, Hauterivian, and Barremian. These cover 24 million years in total. There are large areas with no specimens at all. Although we could extrapolate across large area or from other ages, doing so doesn’t give a lot confidence in what was or was not there and then.
If you are gonna put words in posters mouths and not debate politely, then there is no use debating at all. This is FQ.
No, an answer that takes into account reality. If the artifacts deposited were mostly wood or bone or other organic material, you’re going to get different survival prospects than if they were mostly lithic. If the primary area subsequently ended up mostly under the seafloor and/or under a couple of thousand feet of sediment, less is going to be found than if the area is readily accessible to a future generation of archaeologists. If they lived primarily in landforms not conducive to sedimentary deposits, or areas that were subsequently heavily eroded, less will have survived. Without knowing something about the initial environment and location, the best you can say is “it depends.”
Sorghum, barley, and pearl millet (among others) are African grasses. I already said the Egyptian civilization would not have been exactly the same, but there were cereal grains they could have domesticated instead. (Millet and sorghum, at least, were domesticated in Africa; barley is more complicated, with DNA evidence suggesting most domestic barley descends from a wild ancestor in Israel or Jordan, but locations ranging from Morocco and Ethiopia to Tibet have been suggested as possible domestication sites.)
There aren’t that many that are both from a potentially relevant time period AND easily accessible to current researchers (much less that have been surveyed well). The Sub-Himalayan sequence is all post-Chicxulub, e.g., while most of the Tethys Himalayan sequence is too old, with a fair bit of pre-Cambrian sediments.
No, it’s merely one example of the very wide range of dinosaur dentition, since you were apparently not familiar. Other oviraptorids had parrot-like beaks (but they weren’t birds). Some dinosaurs had needle-like teeth, while others were more akin to blades.
Also remember that teeth need not be used only by the species that grew them. Most dinosaurs shed teeth throughout their lifetime, making discarded teeth available to other to whatever could grasp them.
A number of sanctuaries in ancient Greece were not cities; Olympia, for example, was out in the boondocks (they planted wheat in the stadium between Games). Does that mean Olympia wasn’t part of a civilization?
WHERE in the middle, though, determines whether we can realistically expect to find widespread evidence, just a few isolated and cryptic exemplars, or almost nothing at all.
[Moderating]
@MrDibble did not put words in posters’ mouths. When a moderator rejects your flag, that’s not a signal that it’s your responsibility to fight back against other posters. Let’s keep things civil, here.
Fixing the urls:
For example, looking at Reptiles (which on the linked site includes birds, but not mammals) in four different Early Cretaceous ages: Berriasian, Valanginian, Hauterivian, and Barremian.
… they’d be irrelevant since you don’t build a civilization using just wood and bone tools
“less” is not “nothing”
None of which are from, or at least were domesticated, in Egypt. Your fantasy story had Egypt, specifically, developing along the same lines as in an unisolated Africa. My argument is that if Africa is isolated, there’s no reason Egypt develops first at all. In an isolated Africa, the Nile Valley is a sideshow, not a crossroads.
Why are you telling me things I already clearly know, when I cited centres of origin already?
So, not none.
I wasn’t familiar with that one dinosaur. I’m perfectly familiar with the range of dinosaur dentition.
It’s still magical thinking to think one beaver dinosaur means dinosaurs were potentially going to be chewing up a Dinosaur Lothlorien.
So, not our non-pronating theropods, then - a tool you can only wave from side to side is a useless tool.
We can very easily point to the cities associated with Olympia. For GT, we can very easily point to the … scattered huts.
Show me the city.
By “middle”, I mean 50%, more or less. Maybe 30%, maybe 40%. Plenty enough.
I read somewhere about a chunk of China that had much less evidence of prehistoric tool use than might have been expected, and the researchers eventually realized that the area without stone tools corresponded to the range of bamboo at the time. A lot of tools that were made of stone elsewhere were likely made of bamboo by the hominids (or early humans, i forget) there.
I’m struggling to see how you could have bamboo hand axes or adzes or … a lot of what stone tools were used for. I can see bamboo replacing wood, but stone?
You can put a pretty good edge on bamboo, and harden it with fire. Then you can use it to cut skins and flesh and wood, is my understanding.
That replaces cutting blades, but not axes and adzes.
I’ve looked into this, and I think you got a slightly distorted impression of what’s being argued - bamboo replaces some stone tools, but not all. Just because there are no Acheulean tools found doesn’t mean there are no stone tools found.
Basic Mode I stone choppers are still found, and in fact you need them to process the bamboo into the tools that replace the other more sophisticated blades and eventually microliths that occur elsewhere.
And recent Chinese finds seem to be disputing the existence of the line altogether, according to that first Wiki article.
So those hominids still had stone tools, but fewer, less sophisticated stone tools. That’s certainly consistent with my fuzzy memory. Thanks for looking this up.
On the “dinosaurs didn’t” side, the fact that the range of tool use at varying times and places is so well documented does argue that if dinosaurs developed tools, we would have found some evidence of that.
That and that no dinosaur lineage we know of could have wielded them.
My wife, who has a degree in geology and passed her language requirement by compiling a dictionary of Middle Kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphs, still goes to digs (pre-COVID) and today was wearing a t-shirt from one with the slogan “Every Flake Tells A Story.”
The double meaning is particularly apt here.