You must log in or register to comment.

MarsupialKing t1_iw5verg wrote

Someone educated on the topic please tell me. Do we consider other hominin species humans? These footprints likely weren't from homo sapiens they say. Is it correct for the post to say human or would hominin have been more appropriate?


notinferno t1_iw5w3qu wrote

from the article linked in the comments

>This new age implies that the possible track-makers are individuals more likely from the Neandertal evolutionary lineage. Regardless of the taxon attributed to the Matalascañas footprints, they supplement the existing partial fossil record for the European Middle Pleistocene Hominins being notably the first palaeoanthropological evidence (hominin skeleton or footprints) from the MIS 9 and MIS 8 transition discovered in the Iberian Peninsula, a moment of climatic evolution from warm to cool. Thus, the Matalascañas footprints represent a crucial record for understanding human occupations in Europe in the Pleistocene.


ryschwith t1_iw67073 wrote

I'm not sure there's an official delineation but I think anything in the genus Homo tends to be described as "human."


jumpsteadeh t1_iw7nvyc wrote

The title is paraphrased; the researcher's exact words were "some dude from 300,000 years ago"


Emergency-Nebula5005 t1_iw88l21 wrote

Somehow, this makes it even more fantastical. A dude just out for a walk. 300,000 years ago. Maybe he took his dog with him.


wbruce098 t1_iw87k8y wrote

The Dude abides. My Neanderthal guy was just looking for some milk for his Caucasians.


RandomStallings t1_iw7ywe7 wrote

Homo is Latin for human, so yes, that's correct.

Edit: apparently there are debates about this, too.

Not to be confused with homo in Greek, which means same.


BobWentToMars t1_iw6rzw9 wrote

I work in the field, basically where you want to draw the line is very variable depending on which academic groups you work with and what is classified as human comes down more to a discussion of behaviour than biology or genus.

Some people here say anything homo is human. But there are not many who would think of habilis and naledi as human. The Hobbit (can't be bothered spelling out the whole name) is often a more grey area. Denisovan, Neanderthal and Sapien are generally pretty safe to be considered as human, especially as we know we have genetic transgressions with them (i.e we fucked and made kids who also made kids). And atleast from a Neanderthal and Sapien stand point, much after the archaeological material contains evidence of behavioural traits we would say are human (Denisovan is harder as archaeology we think is denisovan probably shows the same, but we aren't sure the archaeology is denisovan linked).

Anyway big debate but short hand- most homo species of the middle Pleistocene onwards you can get away with calling Human with some major asterixs here and there.


MarsupialKing t1_iw70uu6 wrote

Gotcha. I'm somewhat involved in the biology field so it seems a bit like the debate of what exactly constitutes a species amongst animals. Grizzly bears and polar bears create fertile offspring but are clearly different animals, being the easiest example. Thanks for the info. Early humans is one of the most interesting fields of study to me, I just can't handle all the mystery and questions we will never have answers to!


xstoopkidx t1_iw7f1yt wrote

Didn’t think growler bears were fertile?


Rangifar t1_iw8di40 wrote

I am pretty sure I heard the biologists here in the NWT talking about how they had genetic evidence that there were multiple generations of growlars.


MarsupialKing t1_iw8rr39 wrote

My understanding is that they are. Quick Google search says so but I haven't Dove into any scientific journals on the topic


orincoro t1_iw69mnd wrote

Hominin = human. “Homo” Neanderthalensis, habillus, denisovans, etc are all human.

Edit: hominin, not hominid.


Ripcord t1_iw6fapl wrote

Hominids include humans. Not all hominids are humans.

Chimps are hominids, for example.


Chubbybellylover888 t1_iw6ufcq wrote

Yeah the correct term for human species is hominin. This includes the likes of neanderthals, denisovans etc but excludes other great apes.

Hominid is used to describe all the great apes.


gbRodriguez t1_iw72080 wrote

Hominins are human. Hominids includes all Hominidae including chimps.


LingQuery t1_iw7zegt wrote


Hominoidea (hominoid: those resembling man): All old-world apes

Hominidea (hominid: those akin to man): Great apes

Hominini (hominin: man-like): humans and chimps

Homo (man): humans and our closest cousins

The proposed subtribe homininan (very man-like) would exclude chimpanzees but include australopithecines.

The less-common hominineae (hominine: those very akin to man(?)) would sit just below the hominids and include gorillas, chimps, and folks while excluding orangutans.


kelteshe t1_iw82l74 wrote

Considering the fact that modern human fossils have been found at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, which date back some 360,000 years…. It’s quite possible it was anatomically modern humans. Or at least extremely close.

My bet is that the age of humanity will keep getting older and older the more we discover. And as archeology starts to explore the areas covered by water (but were not covered 12k+ years ago)… our understanding of human history will drastically change to include a lost civilization of modern humans in the last 100k years. A civilization that had the capacity to map the planet, had a understanding of the precessional cycle and the dimensions of the planet. As well as a vast understanding of astronomy and geometry.


affordableweb t1_iw7gt4n wrote

Hominin are ancient humans. The terms are loosely interchangeable. Right?


MarsupialKing t1_iw8s2ni wrote

Beats me! I think for a couple of laymen having a conversation on the topic, sure. I was asking in the context of academics and professional distinction between them


ilikepizza2much t1_iw6n9gb wrote

They are hominid, part of the wider family, not homo sapiens like us.


ihateusedusernames t1_iw6yjqs wrote

There is a distinction between hominID and hominIN. neanderthals and denisovans are frequently considered to be hominins, which implies a closer relationship with homo sapiens; hominids are more distant relatives. As noted above, chimps and bonobos are hominids.


Intelligent_Moose_48 t1_iw7fhqx wrote

Generally these days hominin are considered human. Basically all the species in genus Homo, but not older ones like Australopithecus, which would be more properly considered a human ancestor


skimmily t1_iw5z3xu wrote

So what type of dating helps determine that it’s actually this old?


orincoro t1_iw6a5dw wrote

They use radio carbon dating of the sediment it was formed in. The sediment itself is formed from a mix of organic and inorganic material, including bacteria, or plant matter. Sometimes you find spores and seeds. The plant matter in the sediment can be accurately dated to when it stopped growing, because the carbon in it will begin to decay predictably at that moment.

So basically it’s the same as if you were studying a plant, but you’re relying on a relatively smaller sample size, and there’s some error because not all the organic matter dies at the same time. But it gives you a range that is pretty close, within a few thousand years.

(ETA: apparently not for things quite this old).


fogobum t1_iw6ddda wrote

Due to the short half life of carbon 14, radio carbon dating is only useful for about 50,000 years.

> In this paper, we report new Optically Stimulated Luminescence dating that places the hominin footprints surface in the range of 295.8 ± 17 ka


ebjoker4 t1_iw59i25 wrote

That's a footprint?


kacmandoth t1_iw5cayv wrote

I am much more inclined to believe this is just some weird erosion shaped like a foot.


seansy5000 t1_iw65h3s wrote

You seem qualified to make that statement.



whiteFinn t1_iw7g995 wrote

No evidence or explanations, just a bunch of angry people downvoting. Scientism is getting out of hand.


TheFleebus t1_iw87jrx wrote

Scientism isn't a thing. It's a term / idea invented by YEC as a rebuttal to the statement that "faith is not a path to truth". A sort of "I know you are but what am I?". Materialism or Naturalism may be more accurate way of describing people who believe naturalistic evidence as described via scientific methods - even if they personally do not fully understand the methods used.


whiteFinn t1_iwdyvyw wrote

Scientism is one of those terms, often twisted to mean something more easily attacked. While I certainly do not believe that science is the only way to truth, what I meant here when I said "scientism", is that just because omeone is a 'scientist', and brands their work as 'science', it does not mean that their oppinions are any more valid, and certainly not to be taken as automatic facts, if they cannot argue for them.

Sceintism is very much a thing.


C4l4do t1_iw74414 wrote

Watch ancient apocalypse on Netflix. Graham has some very interesting ideas.


panacrane37 t1_iw7jkoi wrote

Interesting sure, but Graham Hancock is widely considered a pseudo-science hack. Grain of salt with him.


ChaseSweatshirt t1_iw7rcul wrote

But he’s described as that unfairly. You should take those comments with a grain of salt as well


TheodoreOso t1_iw83fhb wrote

He thinks all non-european accomplishments came from the heavens and takes oral folklore as definitive proof of how history went down. He's a pseudo-science hack.


dutchwonder t1_iwj4nrm wrote

Oh no, he has very much earned his reputation as pseudohistorical hack with his terrible research methodology, heavy reliance on old, outdated, and often plain bad secondary sources without doing even basic checks. (For instance, are they even reading the maps they're working with?), and his blatant mischaracterization of the field and studies.

Of course, Graham's explanation for why anyone knowledgeable in the field immediately calls him out for his flagrant and basic mistakes is that they must be in cahoots instead of his "research" being terrible.


gomurifle t1_iw6wpgl wrote

How do you even agedate a footprint to 300k years a go? How do they differentiate the age of the rock itself from the footprint?


TheFleebus t1_iw88qn4 wrote

A comment further up said they used Optically Stimulated Luminescence to date the sediment that tuned in to rock. You can read about the dating technique [here]( The rock and the footprint must be the same age as the footprint was made while the sediment was still soft. It was then rapidly covered by more sediment, preserving the impression. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the sediment solidified under the pressure of the overlaying material.

(Edit: fixed link)