“...weapons of war, fabricated and used by a people who had not the use of metals. The situation in which these weapons were found may tempt us to refer them to a very remote period indeed, even beyond that of the present world.” – John Frere.
In April 2009, just months after the great financial crisis almost brought about the collapse of the world’s banking system, I was made redundant by the small computer consultancy for which I worked as a software developer. It was hardly a surprise: the company’s main line of business was mortgage systems for subprime lenders, and this had hardly been a growth area in the 18 months I’d been working there. I had at that point been working in IT for over thirty years, much of it at a large international law firm, but my lengthy stay there was eventually ended by a departmental restructuring. Faced with a second redundancy in two years, I decided it was time for a complete change of direction and that I was going to write a book about human prehistory.
I realise that newly-unemployed software developers don’t typically choose this as a career move, but in my case the idea had been in the air for several years. My interest in human prehistory goes back to the early 1990s, when I read Jared Diamond’s classic The Third Chimpanzee. Prior to then, I had been more interested in the future than the distant past and I had been an avid reader of books by Arthur C. Clarke, Brian Aldiss and Isaac Asimov since my childhood. Much later, I discovered Olaf Stapledon’s future history, Last and First Men, with its breath-taking vision of eighteen successive human species, all very different to Homo sapiens yet, ultimately, sharing much of what makes us human. But I was intrigued by the realisation that in reality, Homo sapiens are not the ‘First Men’. We were preceded by many other hominins (to use the technical term), including Australopithecus, Homo erectus and the Neanderthals, all now extinct. What would it have been like to have lived in a time when there was more than one human species in existence? What were these other people like and how did they live?
The idea of earning my living as a writer was also far from new. My father, Jack Seddon, was a successful screenwriter. Beginning in the 1950s, he and his long-standing business partner David Pursall formed a prolific screenwriting partnership which endured for almost three decades. Much of their oeuvre was comedy, but their credits include two 1960s war movies, the all-star D-Day epic The Longest Day and The Blue Max, which starred George Peppard as maverick German WWI fighter ace Bruno Stachel.
I myself had been plugging away at trying to get myself published since the 1980s and had written two novels. The first garnered encouraging noises from an agent and a flicker of interest from one or two publishers, but in the end nothing came of it. The second novel, which occupied me for much of the 1990s, also failed to find a publisher. It was not until 2003 that I thought about trying non-fiction instead and, after kicking various ideas around, I decided to ‘write something about prehistory’.
However, human prehistory is a huge field and one in which I have no formal background. My degree, gained many years ago, is in the natural sciences and my knowledge at that time was little more than that of an informed layman. Where to start? The answer, in the first instance, was to read. In addition to hard knowledge, I hoped ideas would eventually come to me. I soon realised that while there is much excellent popular literature devoted to many aspects of it, there is nothing that attempts to cover the entire human past in a manner that will appeal to the general reader - the type of person who likes to get their teeth into a good work of non-fiction. I also felt there was the scope for an enthusiastic amateur to make a meaningful contribution to the debate about human origins. By the spring of 2009, the project had occupied me for almost six years. During this time, I had become considerably more knowledgeable about the subject, but I still had only vague ideas as to how I might set about encompassing the whole subject, from the earliest ape-like hominins to the rise of civilization.
Part of the problem, of course, was the demands of the day-job. Even a job that does not demand too great a commitment in terms of overtime is not conducive to a project like this and my two novels – which required far less in the way of research – had both required many years to complete.
Now, faced with unemployment in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s, I realised that I had a choice - either I could look for another IT job, or I could do something else entirely. The first option would simply entail carrying on as before, probably after a lengthy period of unemployment in what was a very tough job market. Frankly, it didn’t sound terribly interesting. When I looked at my finances, I realised that while I wasn’t in a position to retire comfortably, I could afford to take a career break for however long I needed – within reason – to write my book. While there was – and is – an element of risk, it was a no-brainer. It still feels that way now.
© Christopher Seddon 2012
Monday, 23 January 2012
Sunday, 22 January 2012
Coming Soon
This blog has not been updated for almost a year. I will be providing a full update on what I am doing in the next few days.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Nature Magazine: the battle continues
Latest on my battle with Nature Magazine and their ridiculous restriction on accessing content from 1997 and earlier.
Dear Sir
I have been a subscriber to Nature magazine for a number of years. As a science author in the field of human evolution and prehistory, I make extensive use of your online content – in fact it is my principle reason for subscribing to Nature and indeed to other science journals. I therefore find it somewhat vexing to be presented with a paywall if I try to access content from 1997 or earlier. Your website provides the singularly unhelpful explanation that such content is “not available” to personal subscribers, without a word of justification for this policy.
Since I flatly refuse to pay US$ 32 to download such articles, I am forced to obtain them at the British Library. I work from my home in North London and having to travel to and from St Pancras for these articles is a very annoying waste of my time. US$ 32 is far more than any other periodicals charge, even to non-subscribers (and by the way, the currency used in the UK is sterling, not US dollars).
Nor can I make any headway with your support staff regarding an explanation for a policy that strikes me as petty and frankly iniquitous. After nearly three months of repeated chasing and mounting frustration on my part, the best you have been able to come up with is that it is “a business decision supported by the board”, which you must surely accept is a wholly-inadequate explanation. In fact it is obvious that nobody within your organization either knows or cares what the explanation is. 1997 is the year Nature went online and I understand that the earlier content was only placed online more recently. Probably somebody at the time felt it would be a good idea to restrict access to it and because nobody complained the policy has remained in place, the reasoning behind it (if any) long since forgotten.
How much extra revenue is Nature making from this policy? My guess is, not a penny. Or cent. I don’t know, but my guess is that the vast majority of users of the online content are in academia and are not personal subscribers. The few personal subscribers that do use the online content probably obtain the restricted material from a library, as indeed do I. I cannot imagine any subscriber paying to access the restricted content. So all this restriction is accomplishing is to waste peoples’ time. In fact in my case I am seriously considering not renewing my subscription next month on the basis that if I have to go to the British Library anyway, I might as well read the magazine while I am there.
Charging subscribers for this content should be scrapped with immediate effect.
Yours sincerely,
C.P. Seddon
Dear Sir
I have been a subscriber to Nature magazine for a number of years. As a science author in the field of human evolution and prehistory, I make extensive use of your online content – in fact it is my principle reason for subscribing to Nature and indeed to other science journals. I therefore find it somewhat vexing to be presented with a paywall if I try to access content from 1997 or earlier. Your website provides the singularly unhelpful explanation that such content is “not available” to personal subscribers, without a word of justification for this policy.
Since I flatly refuse to pay US$ 32 to download such articles, I am forced to obtain them at the British Library. I work from my home in North London and having to travel to and from St Pancras for these articles is a very annoying waste of my time. US$ 32 is far more than any other periodicals charge, even to non-subscribers (and by the way, the currency used in the UK is sterling, not US dollars).
Nor can I make any headway with your support staff regarding an explanation for a policy that strikes me as petty and frankly iniquitous. After nearly three months of repeated chasing and mounting frustration on my part, the best you have been able to come up with is that it is “a business decision supported by the board”, which you must surely accept is a wholly-inadequate explanation. In fact it is obvious that nobody within your organization either knows or cares what the explanation is. 1997 is the year Nature went online and I understand that the earlier content was only placed online more recently. Probably somebody at the time felt it would be a good idea to restrict access to it and because nobody complained the policy has remained in place, the reasoning behind it (if any) long since forgotten.
How much extra revenue is Nature making from this policy? My guess is, not a penny. Or cent. I don’t know, but my guess is that the vast majority of users of the online content are in academia and are not personal subscribers. The few personal subscribers that do use the online content probably obtain the restricted material from a library, as indeed do I. I cannot imagine any subscriber paying to access the restricted content. So all this restriction is accomplishing is to waste peoples’ time. In fact in my case I am seriously considering not renewing my subscription next month on the basis that if I have to go to the British Library anyway, I might as well read the magazine while I am there.
Charging subscribers for this content should be scrapped with immediate effect.
Yours sincerely,
C.P. Seddon
Friday, 28 January 2011
Modern Humans in Arabia 125,000 years ago?
Stone tools have been recovered from a site in the United Arab Emirates. The tools are reported to be 125,000 years old and it is claimed by British archaeologist Simon Armitage in the journal Science that they were made by modern humans. This date is 40,000 to 60,000 years before modern humans are generally thought to have reached the Arabian Peninsula.
The tools were found at a rock shelter on Jebel Faya, a 350m (1,200ft) mountain equidistant from the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf and lying due south of the Straits of Hormuz. The rock shelter itself is 180m (600ft) above sea level. It contains archaeological layers dating from the Iron and Bronze Ages all the way back to the Palaeolithic. Artefacts from the latter have been found in three layers, the oldest of which, Layer C, has been dated by optical stimulated luminescence methods to the Eemian Interglacial, 125,000 years ago. The artefacts were manufactured using a number of different reduction strategies including Levallois, volumetric blade, and simple parallel methods. The tools include small handaxes, foliates, end scrapers, side scrapers, and denticulates. It has been suggested that they have more in common with contemporary artefacts from North and Northeast Africa than with those known from other Arabian sites. Since the African artefacts were made by modern humans, it is proposed that the Eemian Jebel Faya artefacts were too.
The Eemian Interglacial was warm period between the last and penultimate ice ages during which “humid corridors” opened up in the Sahara Desert. Modern humans reached the Levant, probably via the “humid corridors”, but they are not generally thought to have reached further into Asia. The general view is at that time, the Levant was effectively a north-eastern extension of Africa. After conditions worsened 91,000 years ago, modern humans disappeared from the Levant, which was subsequently re-occupied by Neanderthals.
Armitage believes that humans crossed the Bab Al Mandab Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea at the onset of the Eemian, when sea-levels were fairly low and it could readily be crossed. Once in Arabia, the colonists benefitted from reduced competition for resources and exploit both the coast and interior for food. Groups occupied the southern coast and pushed inland, taking advantage of the warm wet conditions. Armitage suggests that it is these rather than technological innovation that provided the stimulus for the expansion. The more recent Palaeolithic artefacts suggests that the colony survived the harsher conditions that set in at the end of the Eemian, although it was probably cut off from groups living further south.
It cannot be ruled out that the tools were of Neanderthal origin, although co-author Anthony Marks rejects this view and in an article in Science claimed that Neanderthals did not use this combination of tools. Archaeologist Michael Petraglia noted that the site was out of the Neanderthal habitat range. But archaeologist Sir Paul Mellars was quoted as being “totally unpersuaded”. He does not believe that there is any evidence that the tools were made by modern humans and does not see the tool style as African.
I will personally admit to being sceptical and think it is far more likely that these tools were made by Neanderthals. Petraglia’s comments notwithstanding, it was reported last year that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals soon after leaving Africa. Assuming they left via the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, as is widely believed, they must have encountered Neanderthals in Arabia.
Reference:
Armitage, S., Jasim, S., Marks, A., Parker, A., Usik, V., & Uerpmann, H. (2011). The Southern Route “Out of Africa”: Evidence for an Early Expansion of Modern Humans into Arabia. Science , 331, 453-456.
The tools were found at a rock shelter on Jebel Faya, a 350m (1,200ft) mountain equidistant from the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf and lying due south of the Straits of Hormuz. The rock shelter itself is 180m (600ft) above sea level. It contains archaeological layers dating from the Iron and Bronze Ages all the way back to the Palaeolithic. Artefacts from the latter have been found in three layers, the oldest of which, Layer C, has been dated by optical stimulated luminescence methods to the Eemian Interglacial, 125,000 years ago. The artefacts were manufactured using a number of different reduction strategies including Levallois, volumetric blade, and simple parallel methods. The tools include small handaxes, foliates, end scrapers, side scrapers, and denticulates. It has been suggested that they have more in common with contemporary artefacts from North and Northeast Africa than with those known from other Arabian sites. Since the African artefacts were made by modern humans, it is proposed that the Eemian Jebel Faya artefacts were too.
The Eemian Interglacial was warm period between the last and penultimate ice ages during which “humid corridors” opened up in the Sahara Desert. Modern humans reached the Levant, probably via the “humid corridors”, but they are not generally thought to have reached further into Asia. The general view is at that time, the Levant was effectively a north-eastern extension of Africa. After conditions worsened 91,000 years ago, modern humans disappeared from the Levant, which was subsequently re-occupied by Neanderthals.
Armitage believes that humans crossed the Bab Al Mandab Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea at the onset of the Eemian, when sea-levels were fairly low and it could readily be crossed. Once in Arabia, the colonists benefitted from reduced competition for resources and exploit both the coast and interior for food. Groups occupied the southern coast and pushed inland, taking advantage of the warm wet conditions. Armitage suggests that it is these rather than technological innovation that provided the stimulus for the expansion. The more recent Palaeolithic artefacts suggests that the colony survived the harsher conditions that set in at the end of the Eemian, although it was probably cut off from groups living further south.
It cannot be ruled out that the tools were of Neanderthal origin, although co-author Anthony Marks rejects this view and in an article in Science claimed that Neanderthals did not use this combination of tools. Archaeologist Michael Petraglia noted that the site was out of the Neanderthal habitat range. But archaeologist Sir Paul Mellars was quoted as being “totally unpersuaded”. He does not believe that there is any evidence that the tools were made by modern humans and does not see the tool style as African.
I will personally admit to being sceptical and think it is far more likely that these tools were made by Neanderthals. Petraglia’s comments notwithstanding, it was reported last year that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals soon after leaving Africa. Assuming they left via the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, as is widely believed, they must have encountered Neanderthals in Arabia.
Reference:
Armitage, S., Jasim, S., Marks, A., Parker, A., Usik, V., & Uerpmann, H. (2011). The Southern Route “Out of Africa”: Evidence for an Early Expansion of Modern Humans into Arabia. Science , 331, 453-456.
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Loud music in pubs
As a regular pub-goer for many years I find it infuriating that all too often, my experience in a pub is ruined by music that is gradually increased in volume to a level that makes conversation all but impossible. Attempts to find a quieter spot are generally futile; loudspeakers are positioned to ensure that no place in the pub can escape the ghastly conversation-defeating THUD THUD THUD of the music, which itself is generally rubbish, utterly devoid of merit. I will generally be forced to move on and find somewhere quieter. In addition, there are many occasions where I enter a promising looking pub, only to turn round and walk straight out because of ridiculously loud music.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I have nothing against music in pubs, but its purpose should be background. I totally fail to understand how anybody can enjoy volume levels appropriate to a nightclub or trendy bar. The pubs I visit do not have a particularly young demographic and drinkers are of a wide age range, with many in their 40s to 60s. I would imagine that few, if any, feel that the music adds anything to their drinking/eating experience. Furthermore, in the past, when I have gone drinking with work colleagues, there were times when even the younger people in the gruup found the music to be objectionably loud. Finally, I would call upon the support of Sir Patrick Moore, who on the TV program “Room 101” a few years ago listed pubs that play loud music even before he got on to his well-known dislike of fox hunting.
I have heard two theories, neither of which shows publicans in a very favourable light. The first is that the bar staff do it for their own benefit, totally forgetting that it is people like me who ultimately pay their wages. The other is that it is a cynical and wholly-irresponsible ploy to boost sales on the basis that people respond to the stress the music causes by drinking more.
I can in fact refute the latter theory. At one now-embargoed pub in Highgate, I have seen the pub empty almost visibly as the volume is increased. So it is clear that in that case at least, the music is purely for the benefit of the bar staff.
We are often hearing about the decline of the British pub. In such circumstances, surely it is a massive own goal to alienate your customer base by foisting something on them that at best adds nothing and at worst unacceptably detracts from the pub experience. If all drinkers would follow my example of boycotting pubs where loud music is played, by forcing a change of policy it would in the long do the industry a huge favour.
Unfortunately the industry don't seem care very much - I have emailed the British Beer and Pub Association about the issue, but nobody could be bothered to reply.
© Christopher Seddon 2011
Please don’t misunderstand me, I have nothing against music in pubs, but its purpose should be background. I totally fail to understand how anybody can enjoy volume levels appropriate to a nightclub or trendy bar. The pubs I visit do not have a particularly young demographic and drinkers are of a wide age range, with many in their 40s to 60s. I would imagine that few, if any, feel that the music adds anything to their drinking/eating experience. Furthermore, in the past, when I have gone drinking with work colleagues, there were times when even the younger people in the gruup found the music to be objectionably loud. Finally, I would call upon the support of Sir Patrick Moore, who on the TV program “Room 101” a few years ago listed pubs that play loud music even before he got on to his well-known dislike of fox hunting.
I have heard two theories, neither of which shows publicans in a very favourable light. The first is that the bar staff do it for their own benefit, totally forgetting that it is people like me who ultimately pay their wages. The other is that it is a cynical and wholly-irresponsible ploy to boost sales on the basis that people respond to the stress the music causes by drinking more.
I can in fact refute the latter theory. At one now-embargoed pub in Highgate, I have seen the pub empty almost visibly as the volume is increased. So it is clear that in that case at least, the music is purely for the benefit of the bar staff.
We are often hearing about the decline of the British pub. In such circumstances, surely it is a massive own goal to alienate your customer base by foisting something on them that at best adds nothing and at worst unacceptably detracts from the pub experience. If all drinkers would follow my example of boycotting pubs where loud music is played, by forcing a change of policy it would in the long do the industry a huge favour.
Unfortunately the industry don't seem care very much - I have emailed the British Beer and Pub Association about the issue, but nobody could be bothered to reply.
© Christopher Seddon 2011
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
How Neanderthals cooked their food
But the Neanderthals were also capable of harvesting and processing plant foods. In a study published in the US journal PNAS, calculus was removed from the teeth of three Neanderthal individuals: Shanidar III from Shanidar Cave, Iraq and Spy I and Spy II from Spy Cave, Belgium. Shanidar III yielded a large number starch grains, some of which were identified as originating from the Triticeae tribe of grasses, which includes the wild relatives of wheat, barley and rye. Others were from legumes. Importantly, many of the grains had been cooked. Although less numerous than the starch grains, a number of phytoliths were also recovered. These are rigid microscopic bodies, composed of silica, that occur in many plants and serve a number of purposes, including lending the plant structural rigidity and making it distasteful to predators. The bulk of the phytoliths recovered from Shanidar III originated from date palms. Starch grains were also recovered from the two Spy Cave Neanderthals. Some were found to be from tubers, possibly of water lilies. Others were from grass seeds, possibly sorghum.
Although neither site has yielded evidence of stone artefacts specialized for use as grinding implements, or of storage features, there is clear evidence that at both sites Neanderthals were employing preparation techniques which increased the edibility and nutritional quality of plant foods, including husking and cooking of seeds. Date palms have different harvest seasons to barley and legumes, suggesting that the Shanidar Neanderthals practiced seasonal rounds of collecting and scheduled returns to harvest areas.
Anthropologists have long been interested in the timing of two major hominin dietary adaptations; the cooking of plant foods and an expansion in dietary breadth or “broad spectrum revolution”. This led to the incorporation of a diversity of plant foods such as grass and other seeds that are nutritionally rich but relatively costly to exploit. That the Neanderthals mastered both adaptations in two widely-separated climates – Mediterranean and northern oceanic – is further proof of their sophistication.
References:
Henry, A., Brooks, A., & Piperno, D. (2010). Microfossils in calculus demonstrate consumption of plants and cooked foods in Neanderthal diets (Shanidar III, Iraq; Spy I and II, Belgium). PNAS , Early Edition, 1-6.
Although neither site has yielded evidence of stone artefacts specialized for use as grinding implements, or of storage features, there is clear evidence that at both sites Neanderthals were employing preparation techniques which increased the edibility and nutritional quality of plant foods, including husking and cooking of seeds. Date palms have different harvest seasons to barley and legumes, suggesting that the Shanidar Neanderthals practiced seasonal rounds of collecting and scheduled returns to harvest areas.
Anthropologists have long been interested in the timing of two major hominin dietary adaptations; the cooking of plant foods and an expansion in dietary breadth or “broad spectrum revolution”. This led to the incorporation of a diversity of plant foods such as grass and other seeds that are nutritionally rich but relatively costly to exploit. That the Neanderthals mastered both adaptations in two widely-separated climates – Mediterranean and northern oceanic – is further proof of their sophistication.
References:
Henry, A., Brooks, A., & Piperno, D. (2010). Microfossils in calculus demonstrate consumption of plants and cooked foods in Neanderthal diets (Shanidar III, Iraq; Spy I and II, Belgium). PNAS , Early Edition, 1-6.
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Modern humans interbred with Denisovans
In 2008, a distal manual phalanx of from a hominin little finger was recovered from Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains of southern Siberia. The cave is named for a hermit called Dionisij (Denis) who is supposed to have lived there in 18th Century, but if this is true he was only the latest in a long line of inhabitants.
In April 2010, a report was published in the journal Nature (Krause, et al., 2010) suggesting that the phalanx had belonged to a hitherto-unknown human species. The small bone was dated by stratigraphic methods and found to be in the region of 30,000 to 48,000 years old. It is believed to have belonged to a child aged between 5 and 7 years old, but other than that no morphological classification could be made. However, due to the cool, dry climate, it proved to be possible to extract DNA from the bone and isolate mtDNA fragments, from which it proved possible to sequence the entire mitochondrial genome. Because we inherit our mtDNA solely from our mothers, this led to the find being dubbed X Woman, despite being from a juvenile of then unknown gender.
At the time in question, Neanderthals, identified as such by their mtDNA, were living less than 100 km (60 miles) away. The presence of an Upper Palaeolithic industry at Siberian sites such as Kara-Bom and Denisova itself has been taken as evidence for the appearance of modern humans in the Altai before 40,000 years ago. The expectation, therefore, was that the mitochondrial DNA from the bone would match that of either Neanderthals or modern humans, but neither turned out to be the case. Instead, sequencing revealed that X Woman had last shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals and modern humans about a million years ago.
X Woman clearly wasn’t a Neanderthal or a modern human, but what was she (if indeed she was a “she”)? One possibility was Homo heidelbergensis, the presumptive common ancestor of the Neanderthals and modern humans. But Homo heidelbergensis appeared no earlier than 600,000 years ago – long after X Woman’s ancestors. On the other hand, the date of one million years was too late for X Woman to be a late-surviving descendant of the first wave of Homo erectus to reach the Far East.
Towards the end of 2010, a second report was released in Nature detailing the sequencing of X Woman’s nuclear genome (Reich, et al., 2010). It turned out that “X-Woman” lacked a Y-chromosome and therefore was indeed female. Also described in the same report was an upper molar tooth. The latter appeared to be from a young adult and also yielded mtDNA, which in turn confirmed that it belonged to a different individual to phalanx. For this reason, the term “X-Woman” was dropped in favour of “Denisovan”.
According to the report, both mitochondrial and nuclear genomes suggest that the Denisovans are more closely related to Neanderthals than they are to modern humans. The nuclear data suggested that the Denisovans diverged from Neanderthals 640,000 years ago and from present-day Africans 804,000 years ago, suggesting that Densovans and Neanderthals were sister groups, sharing a more recent common ancestor than modern humans and Neanderthals. Africans were used for the comparison to avoid the confounding effects of the interbreeding thought to have occurred between archaic humans (previously thought to be Neanderthals) and the first modern humans to leave Africa. It was also found that the archaic component of the modern Eurasian genome has closer affinities to Neanderthals than to Denisovans, confirming that the interbreeding did occur with the former rather than the latter.
The divergence data obtained from the nuclear DNA is rather at odds with that obtained from the mtDNA. The report suggested two possible causes; firstly interbreeding between Denisovans and as yet unknown hominins; secondly, that the Denisovans retained an archaic mitochondrial lineage that has been lost from Neanderthals and modern humans due to the effects of genetic drift. The latter explanation is the more parsimonious, but the report concluded that the two scenarios were equally likely according to the data.
The most remarkable finding was that 4.8 percent of the nuclear genome of present-day Papuans derives from Denisovans, greater than the Neanderthal contribution of 2.5 percent and meaning that uniquely for modern humans, the Papuans are more closely-related to Denisovans than they are to Neanderthals. Overall, the data was consistent with a scenario in which modern humans, on leaving Africa, interbred with Neanderthals and then, at some subsequent point, the ancestors of present-day Papuans interbred with Denisovans, but this did not affect any other non-African populations. The implication is that Denisovans were present in Southeast Asia as well as southern Siberia. This in turn raises the possibility that the archaic humans living in the Far East as recently as 27,000 years ago (Swisher, et al., 1996), conventionally described as late Homo erectus, may in fact be Denisovans.
The Denisova tooth, which is probably a third or possibly second left upper molar, is fairly large, within the size range occupied by Homo erectus and Homo habilis and larger than that typical of Neanderthals and early modern humans. But the report failed to note that some early modern human teeth are also very large, such as those associated with the 35,000 year old lower jawbone from Peştera cu Oase in Romania I) (Trinkaus, Milota, Rodrigo, Mircea, & Moldovan, 2003; Trinkaus, et al., 2003). Size alone probably does not tell us very much. That the tooth shares no derived morphological features with Neanderthals or modern humans further indicates the distinctiveness of the Denisovans; but it also lacks any features in common with the very few third upper molars that have been recovered from other late archaic hominins in the Far East. Thus the tooth fails to support a connection between the Denisovans and known archaic human fossil remains from the Far East.
Clearly there is a very interesting story here, but until further fossil and/or genetic evidence comes to light, there is nothing more definite that can be said at this stage.
References:
Krause, J., Fu, Q., Good, J., Viola, B., Shunkov, M., Derevianko, A., et al. (2010). The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia. Nature , 464, 894-897.
Reich, D., Green, R., Kircher, M., Krause, J., Patterson, N., Durand, E., et al. (2010). Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature , 468, 1053-1060.
Swisher, C., Rink, W., Anton, S., Schwarcz, H., Curtis, G., Suprijo, A., et al. (1996). Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia . Science , 274, 1870 - 1874.
Trinkaus, E., Milota, S., Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., & Moldovan, O. (2003). Early modern human cranial remains from the Pestera cu Oase, Romania. Journal of Human Evolution , 45, 245–253.
Trinkaus, E., Moldovan, O., Milota, Ş., Bîlgăr, A., Sarcina, L., Athreya, S., et al. (2003). An early modern human from Peştera cu Oase, Romania. PNAS , 100 (20), 11231–11236.
© Christopher Seddon 2010
In April 2010, a report was published in the journal Nature (Krause, et al., 2010) suggesting that the phalanx had belonged to a hitherto-unknown human species. The small bone was dated by stratigraphic methods and found to be in the region of 30,000 to 48,000 years old. It is believed to have belonged to a child aged between 5 and 7 years old, but other than that no morphological classification could be made. However, due to the cool, dry climate, it proved to be possible to extract DNA from the bone and isolate mtDNA fragments, from which it proved possible to sequence the entire mitochondrial genome. Because we inherit our mtDNA solely from our mothers, this led to the find being dubbed X Woman, despite being from a juvenile of then unknown gender.
At the time in question, Neanderthals, identified as such by their mtDNA, were living less than 100 km (60 miles) away. The presence of an Upper Palaeolithic industry at Siberian sites such as Kara-Bom and Denisova itself has been taken as evidence for the appearance of modern humans in the Altai before 40,000 years ago. The expectation, therefore, was that the mitochondrial DNA from the bone would match that of either Neanderthals or modern humans, but neither turned out to be the case. Instead, sequencing revealed that X Woman had last shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals and modern humans about a million years ago.
X Woman clearly wasn’t a Neanderthal or a modern human, but what was she (if indeed she was a “she”)? One possibility was Homo heidelbergensis, the presumptive common ancestor of the Neanderthals and modern humans. But Homo heidelbergensis appeared no earlier than 600,000 years ago – long after X Woman’s ancestors. On the other hand, the date of one million years was too late for X Woman to be a late-surviving descendant of the first wave of Homo erectus to reach the Far East.
Towards the end of 2010, a second report was released in Nature detailing the sequencing of X Woman’s nuclear genome (Reich, et al., 2010). It turned out that “X-Woman” lacked a Y-chromosome and therefore was indeed female. Also described in the same report was an upper molar tooth. The latter appeared to be from a young adult and also yielded mtDNA, which in turn confirmed that it belonged to a different individual to phalanx. For this reason, the term “X-Woman” was dropped in favour of “Denisovan”.
According to the report, both mitochondrial and nuclear genomes suggest that the Denisovans are more closely related to Neanderthals than they are to modern humans. The nuclear data suggested that the Denisovans diverged from Neanderthals 640,000 years ago and from present-day Africans 804,000 years ago, suggesting that Densovans and Neanderthals were sister groups, sharing a more recent common ancestor than modern humans and Neanderthals. Africans were used for the comparison to avoid the confounding effects of the interbreeding thought to have occurred between archaic humans (previously thought to be Neanderthals) and the first modern humans to leave Africa. It was also found that the archaic component of the modern Eurasian genome has closer affinities to Neanderthals than to Denisovans, confirming that the interbreeding did occur with the former rather than the latter.
The divergence data obtained from the nuclear DNA is rather at odds with that obtained from the mtDNA. The report suggested two possible causes; firstly interbreeding between Denisovans and as yet unknown hominins; secondly, that the Denisovans retained an archaic mitochondrial lineage that has been lost from Neanderthals and modern humans due to the effects of genetic drift. The latter explanation is the more parsimonious, but the report concluded that the two scenarios were equally likely according to the data.
The most remarkable finding was that 4.8 percent of the nuclear genome of present-day Papuans derives from Denisovans, greater than the Neanderthal contribution of 2.5 percent and meaning that uniquely for modern humans, the Papuans are more closely-related to Denisovans than they are to Neanderthals. Overall, the data was consistent with a scenario in which modern humans, on leaving Africa, interbred with Neanderthals and then, at some subsequent point, the ancestors of present-day Papuans interbred with Denisovans, but this did not affect any other non-African populations. The implication is that Denisovans were present in Southeast Asia as well as southern Siberia. This in turn raises the possibility that the archaic humans living in the Far East as recently as 27,000 years ago (Swisher, et al., 1996), conventionally described as late Homo erectus, may in fact be Denisovans.
The Denisova tooth, which is probably a third or possibly second left upper molar, is fairly large, within the size range occupied by Homo erectus and Homo habilis and larger than that typical of Neanderthals and early modern humans. But the report failed to note that some early modern human teeth are also very large, such as those associated with the 35,000 year old lower jawbone from Peştera cu Oase in Romania I) (Trinkaus, Milota, Rodrigo, Mircea, & Moldovan, 2003; Trinkaus, et al., 2003). Size alone probably does not tell us very much. That the tooth shares no derived morphological features with Neanderthals or modern humans further indicates the distinctiveness of the Denisovans; but it also lacks any features in common with the very few third upper molars that have been recovered from other late archaic hominins in the Far East. Thus the tooth fails to support a connection between the Denisovans and known archaic human fossil remains from the Far East.
Clearly there is a very interesting story here, but until further fossil and/or genetic evidence comes to light, there is nothing more definite that can be said at this stage.
References:
Krause, J., Fu, Q., Good, J., Viola, B., Shunkov, M., Derevianko, A., et al. (2010). The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia. Nature , 464, 894-897.
Reich, D., Green, R., Kircher, M., Krause, J., Patterson, N., Durand, E., et al. (2010). Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature , 468, 1053-1060.
Swisher, C., Rink, W., Anton, S., Schwarcz, H., Curtis, G., Suprijo, A., et al. (1996). Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia . Science , 274, 1870 - 1874.
Trinkaus, E., Milota, S., Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., & Moldovan, O. (2003). Early modern human cranial remains from the Pestera cu Oase, Romania. Journal of Human Evolution , 45, 245–253.
Trinkaus, E., Moldovan, O., Milota, Ş., Bîlgăr, A., Sarcina, L., Athreya, S., et al. (2003). An early modern human from Peştera cu Oase, Romania. PNAS , 100 (20), 11231–11236.
© Christopher Seddon 2010
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Grim fate of Neanderthal family group, 49,000 years ago
Evidence has come to light of the grim fate of a Neanderthal family group that lived in Spain 49,000 years ago. After apparently enduring a lifetime of privation, they were killed and eaten by members of a neighbouring Neanderthal group – presumably themselves on the brink of starvation and thus driven to extremities.
In 1994, extensive human remains were found at El Sidrón, an extensive system of karstic limestone caves in the Asturias region of northern Spain. Systematic excavation commenced in 2000 and to date around 1800 hominin skeletal fragments and 400 Mousterian-type stone tools have been recovered. The latter include side scrapers, denticulate pieces, a hand axe, and several Levallois points. The human remains are thought to represent twelve Neanderthal individuals, including three adult males, three adult females, three male adolescents and two juveniles and an infant of unknown gender.
A group size of 12 individuals at El Sidron is reasonably consistent with a previous estimate of between 8 to 10 individuals per Neanderthal group, based on the size of sleeping and combustion activity areas in the long-occupied rock shelter of Abric Romaní, near Barcelona. However, because the original external deposit cannot be studied, it could not be rules out that the El Sidrón group was larger and that some original members are not represented among the remains.
The tools and remains were found in a side gallery deep within the cave complex, and was probably introduced into the cave from the surface when a violent storm caused an upper gallery or a series of fissures to collapse. Pebbles and clay were also dragged down from the surface. The whole assemblage is around 49,000 years old. Around 18 percent of the tools have been refitted, suggesting that they are all the same age and that the associated human remains represent all or part of a contemporaneous social group of Neanderthals, who died at around the same time.
The low temperature of the side gallery meant that genetic material has survived and mitochondrial DNA has been extracted from each of the individuals. It was found that all three of the adult males carried the same mitochondrial lineage, but the three adult females all carried different lineages. Mitochondrial DNA is not a part of the primary genome and is inherited solely from the maternal line. The implication, therefore, is that the males shared the same maternal lineages but the females all had different maternal lineages. This suggests that in Neanderthal groups, mature males remained within their family birth group, but females came from outside. Patrilocality, as it is known, is present in about 70 percent of modern human societies, where men remaining in the family home but women move to the home of their new husband upon marriage.
But there is a darker side to the discoveries. All the El Sidrón individuals suffered from developmental stress, or periods of growth arrest, presumably arising from malnutrition. This is indicated by deficiencies in dental enamel, present on over 50 percent of the group members’ incisors, canines and premolars and over 30 percent of their molars. Five of the members had experienced two such episodes of growth arrest and one adult had experienced four. It is clear that for this extended Neanderthal family, life was very difficult – and in the end, it seems, they met a grim fate.
Cut marks and breaks have been found on many of the bones, including lower jawbones, skulls and long bones; evidence of skinning activity and extraction of bone marrow and brains – in other words, cannibalism.
References:
Lalueza-Foxa, C., Rosas, A., Estalrrich, A., Gigli, E., Campos, P., García-Tabernero, A., et al. (2010, December). Genetic evidence for patrilocal mating behavior among Neandertal groups. PNAS .
Rosas, A., Martınez-Maza, C., Bastira, M., Garcıa-Tabernero, A., Lalueza-Fox, C., Huguet, R., et al. (2006). Paleobiology and comparative morphology of a late Neandertal sample from El Sidron, Asturias, Spain. PNAS , 103 (51), 19266–19271.
Vallverdu, J., Vaquero, M., Caceres, I., Allue, E., Rosell, J., Saladie, P., et al. (2010). Sleeping Activity Area within the Site Structure of Archaic Human Groups Evidence from Abric Romanı Level N Combustion Activity Areas. Current Anthropology , 51 (1), 137-145.
© Christopher Seddon 2010
In 1994, extensive human remains were found at El Sidrón, an extensive system of karstic limestone caves in the Asturias region of northern Spain. Systematic excavation commenced in 2000 and to date around 1800 hominin skeletal fragments and 400 Mousterian-type stone tools have been recovered. The latter include side scrapers, denticulate pieces, a hand axe, and several Levallois points. The human remains are thought to represent twelve Neanderthal individuals, including three adult males, three adult females, three male adolescents and two juveniles and an infant of unknown gender.
A group size of 12 individuals at El Sidron is reasonably consistent with a previous estimate of between 8 to 10 individuals per Neanderthal group, based on the size of sleeping and combustion activity areas in the long-occupied rock shelter of Abric Romaní, near Barcelona. However, because the original external deposit cannot be studied, it could not be rules out that the El Sidrón group was larger and that some original members are not represented among the remains.
The tools and remains were found in a side gallery deep within the cave complex, and was probably introduced into the cave from the surface when a violent storm caused an upper gallery or a series of fissures to collapse. Pebbles and clay were also dragged down from the surface. The whole assemblage is around 49,000 years old. Around 18 percent of the tools have been refitted, suggesting that they are all the same age and that the associated human remains represent all or part of a contemporaneous social group of Neanderthals, who died at around the same time.
The low temperature of the side gallery meant that genetic material has survived and mitochondrial DNA has been extracted from each of the individuals. It was found that all three of the adult males carried the same mitochondrial lineage, but the three adult females all carried different lineages. Mitochondrial DNA is not a part of the primary genome and is inherited solely from the maternal line. The implication, therefore, is that the males shared the same maternal lineages but the females all had different maternal lineages. This suggests that in Neanderthal groups, mature males remained within their family birth group, but females came from outside. Patrilocality, as it is known, is present in about 70 percent of modern human societies, where men remaining in the family home but women move to the home of their new husband upon marriage.
But there is a darker side to the discoveries. All the El Sidrón individuals suffered from developmental stress, or periods of growth arrest, presumably arising from malnutrition. This is indicated by deficiencies in dental enamel, present on over 50 percent of the group members’ incisors, canines and premolars and over 30 percent of their molars. Five of the members had experienced two such episodes of growth arrest and one adult had experienced four. It is clear that for this extended Neanderthal family, life was very difficult – and in the end, it seems, they met a grim fate.
Cut marks and breaks have been found on many of the bones, including lower jawbones, skulls and long bones; evidence of skinning activity and extraction of bone marrow and brains – in other words, cannibalism.
References:
Lalueza-Foxa, C., Rosas, A., Estalrrich, A., Gigli, E., Campos, P., García-Tabernero, A., et al. (2010, December). Genetic evidence for patrilocal mating behavior among Neandertal groups. PNAS .
Rosas, A., Martınez-Maza, C., Bastira, M., Garcıa-Tabernero, A., Lalueza-Fox, C., Huguet, R., et al. (2006). Paleobiology and comparative morphology of a late Neandertal sample from El Sidron, Asturias, Spain. PNAS , 103 (51), 19266–19271.
Vallverdu, J., Vaquero, M., Caceres, I., Allue, E., Rosell, J., Saladie, P., et al. (2010). Sleeping Activity Area within the Site Structure of Archaic Human Groups Evidence from Abric Romanı Level N Combustion Activity Areas. Current Anthropology , 51 (1), 137-145.
© Christopher Seddon 2010
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Whatever happened to "the customer is always right"?
If you are running a shop, it always used to be a rule that you should give the customer what they want. Not any more it seems. Increasingly, presumptuous managers are coming round the the idea that THEY know best.
Until recently, I used to have a couple of fresh-baked poppy-seed rolls or ciabattas from my local Sainsburys for lunch. Notably these two types were easily the most popular types, and often sold out. I was therefore completely mystified and a little put out when, shortly before Christmas last year, the store stopped selling poppy seed rolls and then, to compound the felony, discontinued the ciabattas a few months later. As both types remained on sale elsewhere, I assumed that this was the result of some kind of mixup, but after months of correspondance had failed to resolve the situation, I finally got to the bottom of the matter - "This is based on our policy to provide a wide and varied range of products and to offer our customers the opportunity to try something different."
Excuse me, I'll decide when and if I want to "try something different". For my part, I "tried" shopping at Waitrose instead of Sainsburys, which is "different" but probably wasn't the intended consequence of this policy. Unfortunately, Sainsburys are not the only offender. The sandwhich chain Pret a Manger is virtually synonymous with its All Day Breakfast - a bacon, sausage, egg and tomato sandwhich which is even described as "famous" on their website. Except try finding an outlet that actually sells it. If you live in Glasgow or Liverpool, you are fresh out of luck - "None of our shops in Glasgow or Liverpool sell this sandwich" I was informed, after frustrating experiences in both these places. The situation in London is little better; earlier this week I gave up in disgust after trying no fewer than four outlets.
The explanation: "This sandwich is one that Managers can choose whether to sell or not in their shops dependent on sales and customer demand." Right, once again, the manager knows best. If you are nursing a hangover in Glasgow or Liverpool - hardly an infrequent occurrence - you'll have to make do with some ghastly rabbit-food special and tell yourself it it so much better for you than the all-day breakfast you'd dragged yourself out of bed for.
© Christopher Seddon 2010
Until recently, I used to have a couple of fresh-baked poppy-seed rolls or ciabattas from my local Sainsburys for lunch. Notably these two types were easily the most popular types, and often sold out. I was therefore completely mystified and a little put out when, shortly before Christmas last year, the store stopped selling poppy seed rolls and then, to compound the felony, discontinued the ciabattas a few months later. As both types remained on sale elsewhere, I assumed that this was the result of some kind of mixup, but after months of correspondance had failed to resolve the situation, I finally got to the bottom of the matter - "This is based on our policy to provide a wide and varied range of products and to offer our customers the opportunity to try something different."
Excuse me, I'll decide when and if I want to "try something different". For my part, I "tried" shopping at Waitrose instead of Sainsburys, which is "different" but probably wasn't the intended consequence of this policy. Unfortunately, Sainsburys are not the only offender. The sandwhich chain Pret a Manger is virtually synonymous with its All Day Breakfast - a bacon, sausage, egg and tomato sandwhich which is even described as "famous" on their website. Except try finding an outlet that actually sells it. If you live in Glasgow or Liverpool, you are fresh out of luck - "None of our shops in Glasgow or Liverpool sell this sandwich" I was informed, after frustrating experiences in both these places. The situation in London is little better; earlier this week I gave up in disgust after trying no fewer than four outlets.
The explanation: "This sandwich is one that Managers can choose whether to sell or not in their shops dependent on sales and customer demand." Right, once again, the manager knows best. If you are nursing a hangover in Glasgow or Liverpool - hardly an infrequent occurrence - you'll have to make do with some ghastly rabbit-food special and tell yourself it it so much better for you than the all-day breakfast you'd dragged yourself out of bed for.
© Christopher Seddon 2010
Saturday, 16 October 2010
MS Queen Victoria in Istanbul
Launched in 2007, the Cunarder MS Queen Victoria and her sister ship MS Queen Elizabeth are twice the size of the Titanic and significantly larger than the original RMS Queen Mary and RMS Queen Elizabeth and the legendary French SS Normandie.
Tied up alongside the Istanbul Modern art gallery, the sheer size of the ship is apparent in this photograph.
The Victoria is a modified Vista class cruise ship. Unlike her even bigger sister RMS Queen Mary 2, she is not an ocean liner, lacking the reinforced hull and greater speed of the Mary and her predecessors. For this reason, Cunard have been criticised for designating the Victoria and the Elizabeth as "Queen" ships. But the fine lines of the ship contrast sharply with the motorised barge looks of many cruise ships.
The great ship sets sail.
A day after the Victoria's departure, her place on the quay was taken by the even larger but rather more mundane-looking MSC Magnifica.
© Christopher Seddon 2010
Feral cats of Istanbul
It is impossible to go anywhere in Istanbul without seeing cats, often congregrating in large groups.
A short distance from the Hagia Sophia, an orange tabby sits on the bonnet of a Mercedes.
Another orange tabby, sitting on the door of a large, derelict wooden house on the Asian side of the city.
© Christopher Seddon 2010
A short distance from the Hagia Sophia, an orange tabby sits on the bonnet of a Mercedes.
Another orange tabby, sitting on the door of a large, derelict wooden house on the Asian side of the city.
© Christopher Seddon 2010
Sunday, 3 October 2010
The enigmatic "Venus" figurines of Upper Palaeolithic Europe
Female carvings are known throughout the European Upper Palaeolithic and are collectively known as Venus figurines, though they predate the Roman goddess by tens of millennia. They are chiefly associated with the Gravettian period, though they are also known from the preceding Aurignacian. The earliest currently known is the 35,000 year old Hohle Fels Venus, a mammoth-ivory figurine recovered in 2008 at Fohle Fels Cave in the Swabian Jura of south-western Germany (Conard, 2009).
Typically lozenge-shaped, these figurines are characterised by exaggerated sexual characteristics, with very large breasts, accentuated hips, thighs and buttocks, and large, explicit vulvas. Other anatomical details tend to be neglected; especially arms and feet, and the heads generally lack facial detail. The contrast with the classical portrayal of Venus could not be greater. The figurines are carved from materials including mammoth ivory, serpentine, steatite or limestone and are often coloured with ochre. Others are made from fired clay, making them among the earliest known ceramics (Vandiver, Soffer, Klima, & Svoboda, 1989). Many have engraved or incised patterns, which may represent hair and clothing.
Since the first examples were discovered in the 19th Century, many have attained iconic status. These include the Venus of Willendorf, which is 11.1cm (4 3/8 in) high and carved from oolitic limestone. The statue was discovered in 1908 by archaeologist Josef Szombathy near the village of Willendorf in Austria, which is associated with the Gravettian period and now resides in the Natural History Museum Vienna.
The figurines are often interpreted as fertility figures, mother goddesses etc, but their real function is unknown. One novel suggestion, by anthropologists Leroy McDermott and Catherine Hodge McCoid, is that they may be self-portrayals of pregnant women. They note likenesses between a photograph of a “Venus” figurine viewed from above and one of a pregnant woman standing with her feet together, viewed from her own perspective looking down on her breasts and abdomen The theory has met with a certain amount of scepticism, but McDermott and McCoid argue that it provides a parsimonious explanation for the features found in representations of the female form from the Upper Palaeolithic (McDermott, 1996; McCoid & McDermott, 1996).
Typically lozenge-shaped, these figurines are characterised by exaggerated sexual characteristics, with very large breasts, accentuated hips, thighs and buttocks, and large, explicit vulvas. Other anatomical details tend to be neglected; especially arms and feet, and the heads generally lack facial detail. The contrast with the classical portrayal of Venus could not be greater. The figurines are carved from materials including mammoth ivory, serpentine, steatite or limestone and are often coloured with ochre. Others are made from fired clay, making them among the earliest known ceramics (Vandiver, Soffer, Klima, & Svoboda, 1989). Many have engraved or incised patterns, which may represent hair and clothing.
Since the first examples were discovered in the 19th Century, many have attained iconic status. These include the Venus of Willendorf, which is 11.1cm (4 3/8 in) high and carved from oolitic limestone. The statue was discovered in 1908 by archaeologist Josef Szombathy near the village of Willendorf in Austria, which is associated with the Gravettian period and now resides in the Natural History Museum Vienna.
The figurines are often interpreted as fertility figures, mother goddesses etc, but their real function is unknown. One novel suggestion, by anthropologists Leroy McDermott and Catherine Hodge McCoid, is that they may be self-portrayals of pregnant women. They note likenesses between a photograph of a “Venus” figurine viewed from above and one of a pregnant woman standing with her feet together, viewed from her own perspective looking down on her breasts and abdomen The theory has met with a certain amount of scepticism, but McDermott and McCoid argue that it provides a parsimonious explanation for the features found in representations of the female form from the Upper Palaeolithic (McDermott, 1996; McCoid & McDermott, 1996).
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
You couldn't make it up - but rail companies can!
In the last month, there have been two cases where rail passengers have been fined because they got off the train BEFORE the right stop.
Couple fined £114 for getting off train before their final stop - 6 September 2010
Getting off train early costs Durham professor £155 - 27 September 2010
You don't have to be Mr Spock to see that this is a totally illogical state of affairs. In fact it is barking mad and the words "you couldn't make it up" spring to mind. Unfortunately rail companies can and do, being run by people whose brains operate on wavelengths different to those used by the majority of humans since Upper Palaeolithic times.
The arguement employed by the rail companies is that "it is against the terms and conditions" to get off at an earlier stop if buying a discounted-rate ticket, contrary to something known as "common sense" (admittedly in short supply at rail companies). But it is more than contrary to common sense, I would argue that it is also contrary to law.
A train company can force a passenger to leave a train or penalise them for remaing aboard without a valid ticket. What it cannot do is when a train has made a scheduled stop to force or coerce somebody to remain aboard against their will, or penalise them for failing to remain aboard. I would argue that to do so is not only stark staring mad, it is false imprisonment, a serious offence in common law.
If so then the terms and conditions are irrelevant and unenforceble, because common law takes priority. For example, if the terms and conditions said "If you leave the train before your stop, you will be shot", it is extremely unlikely that anybody trying to implement this policy would escape a lengthy jail sentence. I strongly doubt if the argument "I was only enforcing the terms and conditions" would cut much ice in court.
False imprisonment is a less serious offence, but it is still an offence. If somebody did sucessfully argue in a court of law that preventing somebody from leaving a train early did constitute false imprisonment, then railway companies would be in trouble. Which is why I suspect they backed down in the case of Professor Evans, albeit hiding behind the face-saver of "good will". If the London couple had refused to pay, I suspect the outcome would have been the same.
If this argument is ever successfully tested in a court of law, it will hopefully force and end to this ridiculous policy and it will be a massive victory for common sense.
Couple fined £114 for getting off train before their final stop - 6 September 2010
Getting off train early costs Durham professor £155 - 27 September 2010
You don't have to be Mr Spock to see that this is a totally illogical state of affairs. In fact it is barking mad and the words "you couldn't make it up" spring to mind. Unfortunately rail companies can and do, being run by people whose brains operate on wavelengths different to those used by the majority of humans since Upper Palaeolithic times.
The arguement employed by the rail companies is that "it is against the terms and conditions" to get off at an earlier stop if buying a discounted-rate ticket, contrary to something known as "common sense" (admittedly in short supply at rail companies). But it is more than contrary to common sense, I would argue that it is also contrary to law.
A train company can force a passenger to leave a train or penalise them for remaing aboard without a valid ticket. What it cannot do is when a train has made a scheduled stop to force or coerce somebody to remain aboard against their will, or penalise them for failing to remain aboard. I would argue that to do so is not only stark staring mad, it is false imprisonment, a serious offence in common law.
If so then the terms and conditions are irrelevant and unenforceble, because common law takes priority. For example, if the terms and conditions said "If you leave the train before your stop, you will be shot", it is extremely unlikely that anybody trying to implement this policy would escape a lengthy jail sentence. I strongly doubt if the argument "I was only enforcing the terms and conditions" would cut much ice in court.
False imprisonment is a less serious offence, but it is still an offence. If somebody did sucessfully argue in a court of law that preventing somebody from leaving a train early did constitute false imprisonment, then railway companies would be in trouble. Which is why I suspect they backed down in the case of Professor Evans, albeit hiding behind the face-saver of "good will". If the London couple had refused to pay, I suspect the outcome would have been the same.
If this argument is ever successfully tested in a court of law, it will hopefully force and end to this ridiculous policy and it will be a massive victory for common sense.
Sunday, 12 September 2010
70th Anniversary of the discovery of the Lascaux Cave paintings
On 12 September 1940, less than three months after the fall of France, four teenage boys and a small dog named Robot made one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of the last century. The group were walking through the sloping woods above Lascaux Manor, near the town of Montignac, which lies on the Vézère River, Dordogne. They were investigating a local legend about an old tunnel, said to connect Lascaux Manor to the ruined Château de Montignac on the other side of the river. Robot was running on ahead of the boys and was attracted to a deep hole in the ground. Covered with overgrowth, it had been exposed by the falling of a tree.
Accounts vary as to what happened next. According to some versions, the little dog fell into the hole and had to be rescued; others claim the boys used their penknives to enlarge the hole, cutting away earth and removing stones; others suggest that the boys first equipped themselves with picks, shovels and lighting before returning to investigate further. Whichever version is correct, they enlarged the hole and at length they were able to slide through feet-first, one by one, along a semi-vertical shaft embedded with stalagmites, finally reaching a dark underground chamber. There, in the flickering glow of their oil-lamp, they saw prehistoric paintings of horses, cattle and herds of deer, brilliantly multicoloured in reds, blacks, browns and ochres, unseen by human eyes for at least 18,000 years.
Despite the unhappy times, news of the discovery spread rapidly. Villagers flocked to the caves and they soon drew visitors from further afield. Among these was the Catholic priest and archaeologist Abbé Henri Breuil, who was able to attest to the great antiquity of the caves and described them as “The Sistine Chapel of Prehistory”. Another early visitor was Pablo Picasso, who on emerging from the cave, is said to have remarked in reference to modern art “We have invented nothing”.
In 1948, the site’s landowners opened the caves as a tourist attraction, and soon they were attracting a quarter of a million visitors annually. Unfortunately, by 1955 it became clear that CO2 exhaled by the large numbers of visitors was promoting the growth of algae, causing significant damage to the paintings. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to ameliorate the problem, the caves were eventually taken over by the French Ministry of Cultural Affairs and closed to the public in 1963. Only five people a day are now admitted and scholars wishing to visit the caves for research purposes face a lengthy wait for a twenty-minute slot. Ordinary visitors have to make do with Lascaux II, a facsimile of the original which opened in 1983.
The paintings are now believed to be between 18,000 to 19,000 years old – four times older than the Pyramids - and are associated with the Solutrean or early Magdalenian period. There are 915 animals depicted, mainly horses, deer, aurochs (wild cattle) and bison - animals which at that time roamed wild on the steppes of Ice Age Europe (Clottes, 2008). Despite their great antiquity, the Lascaux Caves are certainly not the oldest cave paintings known; that title is currently held by the Chauvet Caves near Vallon-Pont-d’Arc, Ardèche, which are almost twice as old. Considered to be of equal artistic merit with Lascaux, the oldest paintings at Chauvet are now thought to be 36,000 years old (Mellars, 2006), associated with the Aurignacian people and dating to a time when two species of human – Neanderthals and Homo sapiens – coexisted in Europe.
Accounts vary as to what happened next. According to some versions, the little dog fell into the hole and had to be rescued; others claim the boys used their penknives to enlarge the hole, cutting away earth and removing stones; others suggest that the boys first equipped themselves with picks, shovels and lighting before returning to investigate further. Whichever version is correct, they enlarged the hole and at length they were able to slide through feet-first, one by one, along a semi-vertical shaft embedded with stalagmites, finally reaching a dark underground chamber. There, in the flickering glow of their oil-lamp, they saw prehistoric paintings of horses, cattle and herds of deer, brilliantly multicoloured in reds, blacks, browns and ochres, unseen by human eyes for at least 18,000 years.
Despite the unhappy times, news of the discovery spread rapidly. Villagers flocked to the caves and they soon drew visitors from further afield. Among these was the Catholic priest and archaeologist Abbé Henri Breuil, who was able to attest to the great antiquity of the caves and described them as “The Sistine Chapel of Prehistory”. Another early visitor was Pablo Picasso, who on emerging from the cave, is said to have remarked in reference to modern art “We have invented nothing”.
In 1948, the site’s landowners opened the caves as a tourist attraction, and soon they were attracting a quarter of a million visitors annually. Unfortunately, by 1955 it became clear that CO2 exhaled by the large numbers of visitors was promoting the growth of algae, causing significant damage to the paintings. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to ameliorate the problem, the caves were eventually taken over by the French Ministry of Cultural Affairs and closed to the public in 1963. Only five people a day are now admitted and scholars wishing to visit the caves for research purposes face a lengthy wait for a twenty-minute slot. Ordinary visitors have to make do with Lascaux II, a facsimile of the original which opened in 1983.
The paintings are now believed to be between 18,000 to 19,000 years old – four times older than the Pyramids - and are associated with the Solutrean or early Magdalenian period. There are 915 animals depicted, mainly horses, deer, aurochs (wild cattle) and bison - animals which at that time roamed wild on the steppes of Ice Age Europe (Clottes, 2008). Despite their great antiquity, the Lascaux Caves are certainly not the oldest cave paintings known; that title is currently held by the Chauvet Caves near Vallon-Pont-d’Arc, Ardèche, which are almost twice as old. Considered to be of equal artistic merit with Lascaux, the oldest paintings at Chauvet are now thought to be 36,000 years old (Mellars, 2006), associated with the Aurignacian people and dating to a time when two species of human – Neanderthals and Homo sapiens – coexisted in Europe.
Sunday, 5 September 2010
God does not exist (again)
Robin Dunbar’s explanation (Dunbar, 2006) provides what is probably the most convincing explanation of religion. It is based around theory of mind (the ability to anticipate the thoughts of others) and orders of intentionality (what X might be thinking about Y’s thoughts regarding Z).
Story-telling, science and religion all require 5th order intentionality - eg, when writing Othello, Shakespeare required five orders: he intended (1) his audience his audience to understand (2) that Iago wants (3) Othello to believe (4) that Desdemona intends (5) to run away with Cassio. Probably, though, story-telling was a spinoff – from the ability to, as we would now put it, to “do science”. High-order intentionality is crucial to understanding the natural world – science – which would have been crucial to the survival of early modern humans as the left Africa and attempted to colonize novel environments. To understand seasonal migration patterns of herd animals, the correlation between moon phases, tides and fishing, etc and to share this knowledge with others, would have required equally high orders of intentionality.
The ability to tell engaging stories round the campfire would have been a useful spinoff, good for group morale; serving the same purpose as literature – and indeed cinema and theatre today. But there was another spinoff – religion.
Theory of mind is crucial to religion. To engage in religious activities, I must believe in a parallel world inhabited by beings whose intentions can be influenced by my prayers. These beings must be able to understand what I want – requiring third-order intentionality: I believe (1) in gods that can be persuaded to understand (2) what I desire (3) and will act on my behalf. In fact, more than three orders of intentionality are required in any practical religion because religion is a social activity; a shared belief system and people must share their faith with others in a community.
In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that religion is a “misfiring by-product” of something else (Dawkins, 2006), though in early hunter-gatherer societies, religion would have been a powerful group bonding mechanism and not as entirely malign as Dawkins supposes. Only much later, when humans began living in far more complex societies, was religion used as a means of control by the ruling elite.
However, it is possible that it was responsible for social division as far back as the Upper Palaeolithic, manifesting itself in the cave art of that time. David Lewis-Williams has suggested that art and ritual, while contributing to social cohesion, did so by marking off groups from other groups, thus creating the potential for social tensions (Lewis-Williams, 2002); a trend which has unfortunately continued to the present day. It is probably no coincidence that some of the finest art and architecture ever produced has been religious in nature and if Lewis-Williams is right, the origins of this creativity are very ancient indeed.
Story-telling, science and religion all require 5th order intentionality - eg, when writing Othello, Shakespeare required five orders: he intended (1) his audience his audience to understand (2) that Iago wants (3) Othello to believe (4) that Desdemona intends (5) to run away with Cassio. Probably, though, story-telling was a spinoff – from the ability to, as we would now put it, to “do science”. High-order intentionality is crucial to understanding the natural world – science – which would have been crucial to the survival of early modern humans as the left Africa and attempted to colonize novel environments. To understand seasonal migration patterns of herd animals, the correlation between moon phases, tides and fishing, etc and to share this knowledge with others, would have required equally high orders of intentionality.
The ability to tell engaging stories round the campfire would have been a useful spinoff, good for group morale; serving the same purpose as literature – and indeed cinema and theatre today. But there was another spinoff – religion.
Theory of mind is crucial to religion. To engage in religious activities, I must believe in a parallel world inhabited by beings whose intentions can be influenced by my prayers. These beings must be able to understand what I want – requiring third-order intentionality: I believe (1) in gods that can be persuaded to understand (2) what I desire (3) and will act on my behalf. In fact, more than three orders of intentionality are required in any practical religion because religion is a social activity; a shared belief system and people must share their faith with others in a community.
In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that religion is a “misfiring by-product” of something else (Dawkins, 2006), though in early hunter-gatherer societies, religion would have been a powerful group bonding mechanism and not as entirely malign as Dawkins supposes. Only much later, when humans began living in far more complex societies, was religion used as a means of control by the ruling elite.
However, it is possible that it was responsible for social division as far back as the Upper Palaeolithic, manifesting itself in the cave art of that time. David Lewis-Williams has suggested that art and ritual, while contributing to social cohesion, did so by marking off groups from other groups, thus creating the potential for social tensions (Lewis-Williams, 2002); a trend which has unfortunately continued to the present day. It is probably no coincidence that some of the finest art and architecture ever produced has been religious in nature and if Lewis-Williams is right, the origins of this creativity are very ancient indeed.
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Homo helmei revisited
Homo helmei is one of many human species that has failed to gain widespread recognition. Textbooks tend to either mention it only in passing, or not at all. The species was assigned to the single partial skull which was recovered in 1932 by Professor T.F. Dreyer from the depths of the hot spring at Florisbad, some 50km (30miles) from Bloemfontein, South Africa. The skull comprises the right side of the face, most of the forehead and portions of the roof and sidewalls. A single upper right wisdom tooth was also found with the skull and in 1996 two small samples of enamel from this were found to be 259,000 years old using a technique known as electron spin resonance. In 1935, Dreyer described the find as Homo helmei to mark its distinctiveness from other fossil Homo sapiens. Homo helmei is not widely accepted, largely because it is still known only from this one specimen and it is usually “lumped” into Homo heidelbergensis ("archaic Homo sapiens").
The etymology of Homo helmei is something I have yet to find listed in any textbook and it took a good deal of digging around on the internet until I eventually came across the website of the National Museum, Bloemfontein, which provided the following insight:
The town of Florisbad is named for Floris Venter, a local entrepreneur who in 1912 enlarged the pools at the spring for use as a spa. Later that year an earthquake caused a new spring to open up, revealing stone tools and fossils. During the late 1920s, zoologist Professor T.F. Dreyer and his assistant Ms. A. Lyle carried out excavations in the vicinity of the spring. These were funded by Captain R.E. Helme and produced further quantities of animal fossils. The story goes that Venter feared loss of revenue if his baths were temporarily drained and Dreyer and Ms. Lyle had to wade around in the waters and grope for bones. On one such occasion, Dreyer plunged his hand into the spring deposits underwater and – rather in the manner of Little Jack Horner – pulled out part of a human skull, with his fingers stuck between its eyes!
This was the find later described as Homo helmei - it simply means "Helme's Man" and was named for Capt. Helme, whose funding had made the discovery possible.
The etymology of Homo helmei is something I have yet to find listed in any textbook and it took a good deal of digging around on the internet until I eventually came across the website of the National Museum, Bloemfontein, which provided the following insight:
The town of Florisbad is named for Floris Venter, a local entrepreneur who in 1912 enlarged the pools at the spring for use as a spa. Later that year an earthquake caused a new spring to open up, revealing stone tools and fossils. During the late 1920s, zoologist Professor T.F. Dreyer and his assistant Ms. A. Lyle carried out excavations in the vicinity of the spring. These were funded by Captain R.E. Helme and produced further quantities of animal fossils. The story goes that Venter feared loss of revenue if his baths were temporarily drained and Dreyer and Ms. Lyle had to wade around in the waters and grope for bones. On one such occasion, Dreyer plunged his hand into the spring deposits underwater and – rather in the manner of Little Jack Horner – pulled out part of a human skull, with his fingers stuck between its eyes!
This was the find later described as Homo helmei - it simply means "Helme's Man" and was named for Capt. Helme, whose funding had made the discovery possible.
Did Lucy use tools
A paper published today in Nature (McPherron et al, 2010) reports the discovery of 3.4 million year old bones from Dikika in the Lower Awash Valley, Ethiopia with cut marks claimed to have been made by stone tools - some 800,000 years before the oldest-known stone tools from nearby Gona. The only hominins known from the region during this time period is Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy").
The evidence is not overwhelming - no actual tools were recovered and the marks could be due to other causes. But if hominins were butchering carcasses 3.4 million years ago and meat was a significant part of their diet a million years before the appearance of Homo habilis, it would be a problem for the "expensive tissue" hypothesis that proposes that a switch to a meat-based diet released the constraint on brain size, allowing larger-brained hominins such as Homo habilis and Homo ergaster to appear. See this entry on Prof. Hawks ever-informative blog:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/lower/dikikia-cutmarks-mcpherron-2010.html
The evidence is not overwhelming - no actual tools were recovered and the marks could be due to other causes. But if hominins were butchering carcasses 3.4 million years ago and meat was a significant part of their diet a million years before the appearance of Homo habilis, it would be a problem for the "expensive tissue" hypothesis that proposes that a switch to a meat-based diet released the constraint on brain size, allowing larger-brained hominins such as Homo habilis and Homo ergaster to appear. See this entry on Prof. Hawks ever-informative blog:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/lower/dikikia-cutmarks-mcpherron-2010.html
Humans in the Philippines, 67,000 years ago
Mijares et al report in the Journal of Human Evolution the discovery of a 67,000 year old human 3rd metatarsal at Callao Cave on the island of Luzon in the Philippines. The bone is gracile and could be from a small-bodied modern human, like the indigenous "Negrito" people of Island Southeast Asia; or it could be from an earlier-type human - the report stated that it was within the range of Homo habilis or Homo floresiensis.
Either possibility is intriguing - if it is modern, then it implies the migrants from Africa must have left before the 65kya date widely touted, possibly before the Toba eruption - despite the most recent genetic evidence pointing to later rather than earlier dates for the migration. If on the other hand it is pre-modern, then as with Flores we are left with the question of how did archaic humans reach an island which was never connected to the mainland? I've always felt that Homo floresiensis is a downsized version of Homo erectus, descended from a small group who reached Flores by accident after being swept out to sea by a storm or tsunami - but another possibility is that Homo floresiensis was a sea-faring species that established itself on at least two islands in ISEA.
Best to reserve judgement for now.
Either possibility is intriguing - if it is modern, then it implies the migrants from Africa must have left before the 65kya date widely touted, possibly before the Toba eruption - despite the most recent genetic evidence pointing to later rather than earlier dates for the migration. If on the other hand it is pre-modern, then as with Flores we are left with the question of how did archaic humans reach an island which was never connected to the mainland? I've always felt that Homo floresiensis is a downsized version of Homo erectus, descended from a small group who reached Flores by accident after being swept out to sea by a storm or tsunami - but another possibility is that Homo floresiensis was a sea-faring species that established itself on at least two islands in ISEA.
Best to reserve judgement for now.
The Artificial Ape, by Timothy Taylor
On order from Amazon. Sounds interesting and I need to read it, if only for professional reasons. Taylor apparently cites the reduction of lactose intolerance in humans as an example of technology bringing about evolutionary change. Originally, when weaned, the ability to process milk in humans was “switched off” as it was no longer needed. In other words, nearly all adults were lactose intolerant. But with the “secondary products revolution” that followed the Neolithic adoption of agriculture, milk became a useful food source; lactose intolerance became a disadvantage and was selected against.
However, one ”pet” example of such change (I DON’T know if this is in Taylor’s book) has now been shown to be dubious - the change from large ape-like guts in the australopithecines to the smaller guts of humans came about through tool use, enabling humans to butcher carcasses and switch to a meat-based diet. Smaller, less energy-expensive guts were required for this higher quality diet, opening up the way for our large, gas-guzzling brains.
But: australopithecines (not just late ones like A. garhi) may have used tools (McPherron et al, 2010), and probably didn’t have large guts (Haile Selassi, 2010). Both discoveries are very recent, but the inclusion of meat in the australopithecine diet and implied tool use has been suspected for over a decade (Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp, 1999; Teaford & Ungar, 2000).
The trouble with writing in this field is that it is VERY easy to be out of date!
However, one ”pet” example of such change (I DON’T know if this is in Taylor’s book) has now been shown to be dubious - the change from large ape-like guts in the australopithecines to the smaller guts of humans came about through tool use, enabling humans to butcher carcasses and switch to a meat-based diet. Smaller, less energy-expensive guts were required for this higher quality diet, opening up the way for our large, gas-guzzling brains.
But: australopithecines (not just late ones like A. garhi) may have used tools (McPherron et al, 2010), and probably didn’t have large guts (Haile Selassi, 2010). Both discoveries are very recent, but the inclusion of meat in the australopithecine diet and implied tool use has been suspected for over a decade (Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp, 1999; Teaford & Ungar, 2000).
The trouble with writing in this field is that it is VERY easy to be out of date!
Writer's block
Guess it happens to everybody from time to time - the current chapter is one of the key points of the book - the Aurignacian people reach Europe and encounter the Neanderthals. Possibly within 5 millennia the latter are extinct, after a career spanning 500,000 years or so…. gripping stuff, unfortunately brain will not engage.
A book about human prehistory
I have abandoned this blog for over six months, my efforts having been diverted to writing a book about human prehistory. This project now nearing the three-quarters stage.
The as yet untitled work describes how early ape-like hominins such as Australopithecus evolved into more human species such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus and how from these ancestors, modern humans arose and eventually left Africa and populated the rest of the world. The last, still to be written quarter of the book covers what happened when modern humans encountered their close cousins, the Neanderthals and how, at the end of the last ice age, humans adopted agriculture, began living in more complex societies - leading to state-level civilizations and ultimately the world as we now know it.
The project has been in the making for many years, but after my redundancy last year I decided that over 30 years in the IT industry was enough for one lifetime and I took early retirement in order to work on my book full time.
The as yet untitled work describes how early ape-like hominins such as Australopithecus evolved into more human species such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus and how from these ancestors, modern humans arose and eventually left Africa and populated the rest of the world. The last, still to be written quarter of the book covers what happened when modern humans encountered their close cousins, the Neanderthals and how, at the end of the last ice age, humans adopted agriculture, began living in more complex societies - leading to state-level civilizations and ultimately the world as we now know it.
The project has been in the making for many years, but after my redundancy last year I decided that over 30 years in the IT industry was enough for one lifetime and I took early retirement in order to work on my book full time.
Friday, 5 February 2010
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes
There was an interesting letter in Nature last week about a comparative study carried out between the Y chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees. The Y chromosome is one of the two sex-determining chromosomes in most mammals, containing the SRY (sex determining Y) gene, which triggers the development of male gonads. The primate Y chromosome is hundreds of millions of years old and given that chimps are so closely related to humans, one would expect to see little difference between the Y chromosomes of the two species. In fact the male specific regions (MSY) of the two show considerable differences, more consistent with a divergance time of over 300 million years rather than just 6 million years. The authors of the paper attribute the differences to the prominent role in sperm production of the MSY and to differences in mating behaviour between the two species. The heightened sperm competition in the chimpanzee lineage may account account for the changes; the paper suggests that by comparison the human MSY is little changed.
The implication is that the chimpanzee promiscuous mating strategy is the derived behaviour and the mating strategy of the human/chimp last common ancestor was more human-like than chimp-like. This in turn would support Owen Lovejoy’s controversal conclusions that Ardipithecus was monogamous in its mating habits, though this point is not made by the author of the Nature letter.
References:
Hughes, F.; Skaletsky, H.; Pyntikova, T. et al (2010): Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 28 January 2010 Vol. 663 pp 536-539
Lovejoy, O. (2009): Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus, Science 2 October 2009 Vol. 326 p 74
The implication is that the chimpanzee promiscuous mating strategy is the derived behaviour and the mating strategy of the human/chimp last common ancestor was more human-like than chimp-like. This in turn would support Owen Lovejoy’s controversal conclusions that Ardipithecus was monogamous in its mating habits, though this point is not made by the author of the Nature letter.
References:
Hughes, F.; Skaletsky, H.; Pyntikova, T. et al (2010): Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 28 January 2010 Vol. 663 pp 536-539
Lovejoy, O. (2009): Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus, Science 2 October 2009 Vol. 326 p 74
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Big Freeze - January 2009
The worst cold weather since the 1980s brings the usual chaos and total inability of the authorities to cope, but does at least make for a photo opportunity without having to brave the cold!
© Christopher Seddon 2009
© Christopher Seddon 2009
Monday, 4 January 2010
Pulteney Bridge, Bath
Completed in 1773 and designed by Robert Adam, Pulteney Bridge crosses the River Avon at Bath, England. One of only four bridges in the world with shops across its full span it is now a Grade I listed building.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
© Christopher Seddon 2009
Avon Valley Railway
The Avon Valley Railway offers a six mile return train ride along the former Mangotsfield to Bath Green Park branch of the old Midland Railway. It is based at Bitton Station, midway between Bristol and Bath. The former Midland Railway station has been restored from a derelict state to provide excellent visitor facilities. Trains are hauled by either a tank engine or a diesel yard shunter.
© Christopher Seddon 2010
© Christopher Seddon 2010
Monday, 21 December 2009
Remains of Crystal Palace
Originally erected in Hyde Park to house the Great Exhibition of 1851, the Crystal Palace was intended only as a temporary structure but in an impressive example of Victorian can do, it was reincarnated as a permanent attraction in the public space now known as Crystal Palace Park, enjoying its second royal opening by Queen Victoria in 1854.
For more than eight decades the Crystal Palace enjoyed mixed fortunes as a visitor attraction, for the main part being beset by the same problems that would dog the Millennium Dome a century and a half later. It never had enough visitors to break even, despite staging events which included the world's first cat show in 1871.
By the early part of the 20th Century the building was in decline but in 1913 it was saved from developers by the Earl of Plymouth and saved for the nation by a public subscription. During the 1920s restoration work was carried out and the attraction began to make a modest attraction, but sadly in 1936 it caught fire and was totally destroyed.
Plans for redeveloping the site and even rebuilding the palace continue to the present day, but in seven and a half decades have come to nothing.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
For more than eight decades the Crystal Palace enjoyed mixed fortunes as a visitor attraction, for the main part being beset by the same problems that would dog the Millennium Dome a century and a half later. It never had enough visitors to break even, despite staging events which included the world's first cat show in 1871.
By the early part of the 20th Century the building was in decline but in 1913 it was saved from developers by the Earl of Plymouth and saved for the nation by a public subscription. During the 1920s restoration work was carried out and the attraction began to make a modest attraction, but sadly in 1936 it caught fire and was totally destroyed.
Plans for redeveloping the site and even rebuilding the palace continue to the present day, but in seven and a half decades have come to nothing.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Out of Europe?
Three weeks ago, I criticised the “quality” papers (the “Daily Telegraph” was an exception) for running a story based on a two-year-old paper about Homo georgicus as fresh news and for hyperbolic headlines about “rewriting the history of man”. True to form, the media have now completely missed out on an article published in Nature which does – if its conclusions are correct – have a substantial bearing on how we view the path of human evolution. The paper appeared in the 3 September edition of the journal, but due to a postal service that would be considered a disgrace in Somalia, it has only just reached me.
The paper entitled “The oldest hand-axes” in Europe is by Gary R. Scott and Luis Gibert of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, Berkeley, CA. It reports the re-dating of Acheulean hand-axes from Solana del Zamborino and Estrecho del Quipar, both in south eastern Spain. Both sites were previously considered to be among the younger Acheulean sites on the Iberian Peninsula. An age of approx 200ky assumed for Solana was based on its well-developed Acheulean technology. However Scott & Gibert reported revised dates of 0.9mya and 0.76mya for Solana del Zamborino and Estrecho del Quipar respectively, based on magnetic polarity considerations (Scott & Gilbert, 2009).
The oldest Acheulean hand-axes are around 1.65my old, from West Turkana in Kenya and by 1.4mya their usage was fairly widespread in Africa so on the face of it the fact that hand-axes had reached Spain by 0.9mya is hardly earth-shattering, albeit interesting. However while Acheulean hand-axes were once described as displaying a “variable sameness” that strikes “even enthusiasts as monotonous”, later hand-axes do appear to be more refined than earlier ones, which tend to be much thicker, less extensively trimmed and less symmetrical. The “evolved Mode 2” technology is not seen in the archaeological record in Africa until after 600,000 years ago, 300,000 years after its appearance in Spain.
The significance of this is that while even the earlier hand-axes probably represented a cognitive advance over that required to produce the early Oldowan tools, the later hand-axes possess three-dimensional symmetry that may imply a further cognitive advance as the tool would have had to be viewed and rotated through the mind’s eye while it yet remained a block of un-worked stone (Klein, 2005). The date of 600,000 years ago coincides with the first appearance in the fossil record of Homo heidelbergensis, which while slightly smaller-brained than a modern human, was considerably better endowed in that department than its supposed ancestor, Homo erectus. Homo heidelbergensis (or archaic Homo sapiens as it was known until fairly recently) is believed to be the common ancestor of both modern humans and the Neanderthals. Its bigger brain may have helped it to master the harsh conditions in Europe, which was periodically affected by episodes of glaciation. It could also have been responsible for the refinement in hand-axe making technology.
One problem is that there is no obvious evolutionary cause for this expansion in brain size if we accept, as is generally assumed, that Homo heidelbergensis evolved in Africa. The earliest human species, Homo habilis, possessed a larger brain than the australopithecines it is supposed to have evolved from. Its appearance coincides with the start of the present series of ice ages, 2.6 million years ago. Similarly Homo erectus – which also represented a cognitive step-up from its predecessor – appeared around 1.8-1.7mya during a further deterioration in the climate. But no such event seems to signal the appearance of Homo heidelbergensis.
While it would be a mistake to think there is agreement on the matter, a widely-held view is that Homo heidelbergensis evolved in Africa and migrated into Europe. The European deme eventually became the Neanderthals while the stay-at-home African deme eventually became Homo sapiens. Homo heidelbergensis was not the first human species to colonise Europe, but it was the first to stay there and reach more northerly places such as England and Germany. Previous migrants seem to have eventually been extinguished such as Homo antecessor, known from Level TD6 of the Gran Dolina cave, Atapuerca, Spain or back-migrants from Asia, en route back into Africa such as Homo cepranensis, known from a single skull found near Ceprano, Italy. The technology of the TD6 people was pre-Acheulean, that of the Ceprano people unknown. Both “species” were probably Homo erectus (broadly defined) and they were in Europe at about the same time as the makers of the Solana tools.
If it is the case that a) the re-dating is correct and, b) the “2g Acheulian” Solana tools were beyond the capabilities of Homo erectus then another human species must have made them. One possibility is Homo antecessor, but the problem is that while this species is said to have been larger-brained than “standard” Homo erectus (Bermudez de Castro, Arsuaga, Carbonell, Rosas, Martınez, & Mosquera, 1997) it lacked even the older-style Acheulean tools (Carbonell, et al., 2008), though we cannot rule out the possibility that these might at some stage come to light.
A more radical possibility is that a Homo erectus group equipped with Acheulean technology migrated into Europe and – unlike other migrants – managed to adapt to the harsher conditions. These provided the selective pressure for brain expansion and the migrant population eventually evolved into Homo heidelbergensis which then ranged far and wide throughout Eurasia, eventually evolving into the Neanderthals. But one group moved back into Africa and eventually became Homo sapiens. Thus the immediate ancestors of modern humans were actually a species of European origin rather than African.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
References:
Bermudez de Castro, J., Arsuaga, J., Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Martınez, I., & Mosquera, M. (1997). A Hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible Ancestor to Neandertals and Modern Humans. Science , 276, 1392-1395.
Carbonell, E., Bermudez de Castro, J., Pares, J., Perez-Gonzalez, A., Cuenca-Bescos, G., Olle, A., et al. (2008). The first hominin of Europe. Nature , 452, 465-470.
Klein, R. (2005). Hominin Dispersals in the Old World. In C. Scarre, The Human Past (pp. 84-123).
Scott, G., & Gibert, L. (2009). The oldest hand-axes in Europe. Nature , 461, 82-85.
The paper entitled “The oldest hand-axes” in Europe is by Gary R. Scott and Luis Gibert of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, Berkeley, CA. It reports the re-dating of Acheulean hand-axes from Solana del Zamborino and Estrecho del Quipar, both in south eastern Spain. Both sites were previously considered to be among the younger Acheulean sites on the Iberian Peninsula. An age of approx 200ky assumed for Solana was based on its well-developed Acheulean technology. However Scott & Gibert reported revised dates of 0.9mya and 0.76mya for Solana del Zamborino and Estrecho del Quipar respectively, based on magnetic polarity considerations (Scott & Gilbert, 2009).
The oldest Acheulean hand-axes are around 1.65my old, from West Turkana in Kenya and by 1.4mya their usage was fairly widespread in Africa so on the face of it the fact that hand-axes had reached Spain by 0.9mya is hardly earth-shattering, albeit interesting. However while Acheulean hand-axes were once described as displaying a “variable sameness” that strikes “even enthusiasts as monotonous”, later hand-axes do appear to be more refined than earlier ones, which tend to be much thicker, less extensively trimmed and less symmetrical. The “evolved Mode 2” technology is not seen in the archaeological record in Africa until after 600,000 years ago, 300,000 years after its appearance in Spain.
The significance of this is that while even the earlier hand-axes probably represented a cognitive advance over that required to produce the early Oldowan tools, the later hand-axes possess three-dimensional symmetry that may imply a further cognitive advance as the tool would have had to be viewed and rotated through the mind’s eye while it yet remained a block of un-worked stone (Klein, 2005). The date of 600,000 years ago coincides with the first appearance in the fossil record of Homo heidelbergensis, which while slightly smaller-brained than a modern human, was considerably better endowed in that department than its supposed ancestor, Homo erectus. Homo heidelbergensis (or archaic Homo sapiens as it was known until fairly recently) is believed to be the common ancestor of both modern humans and the Neanderthals. Its bigger brain may have helped it to master the harsh conditions in Europe, which was periodically affected by episodes of glaciation. It could also have been responsible for the refinement in hand-axe making technology.
One problem is that there is no obvious evolutionary cause for this expansion in brain size if we accept, as is generally assumed, that Homo heidelbergensis evolved in Africa. The earliest human species, Homo habilis, possessed a larger brain than the australopithecines it is supposed to have evolved from. Its appearance coincides with the start of the present series of ice ages, 2.6 million years ago. Similarly Homo erectus – which also represented a cognitive step-up from its predecessor – appeared around 1.8-1.7mya during a further deterioration in the climate. But no such event seems to signal the appearance of Homo heidelbergensis.
While it would be a mistake to think there is agreement on the matter, a widely-held view is that Homo heidelbergensis evolved in Africa and migrated into Europe. The European deme eventually became the Neanderthals while the stay-at-home African deme eventually became Homo sapiens. Homo heidelbergensis was not the first human species to colonise Europe, but it was the first to stay there and reach more northerly places such as England and Germany. Previous migrants seem to have eventually been extinguished such as Homo antecessor, known from Level TD6 of the Gran Dolina cave, Atapuerca, Spain or back-migrants from Asia, en route back into Africa such as Homo cepranensis, known from a single skull found near Ceprano, Italy. The technology of the TD6 people was pre-Acheulean, that of the Ceprano people unknown. Both “species” were probably Homo erectus (broadly defined) and they were in Europe at about the same time as the makers of the Solana tools.
If it is the case that a) the re-dating is correct and, b) the “2g Acheulian” Solana tools were beyond the capabilities of Homo erectus then another human species must have made them. One possibility is Homo antecessor, but the problem is that while this species is said to have been larger-brained than “standard” Homo erectus (Bermudez de Castro, Arsuaga, Carbonell, Rosas, Martınez, & Mosquera, 1997) it lacked even the older-style Acheulean tools (Carbonell, et al., 2008), though we cannot rule out the possibility that these might at some stage come to light.
A more radical possibility is that a Homo erectus group equipped with Acheulean technology migrated into Europe and – unlike other migrants – managed to adapt to the harsher conditions. These provided the selective pressure for brain expansion and the migrant population eventually evolved into Homo heidelbergensis which then ranged far and wide throughout Eurasia, eventually evolving into the Neanderthals. But one group moved back into Africa and eventually became Homo sapiens. Thus the immediate ancestors of modern humans were actually a species of European origin rather than African.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
References:
Bermudez de Castro, J., Arsuaga, J., Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Martınez, I., & Mosquera, M. (1997). A Hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible Ancestor to Neandertals and Modern Humans. Science , 276, 1392-1395.
Carbonell, E., Bermudez de Castro, J., Pares, J., Perez-Gonzalez, A., Cuenca-Bescos, G., Olle, A., et al. (2008). The first hominin of Europe. Nature , 452, 465-470.
Klein, R. (2005). Hominin Dispersals in the Old World. In C. Scarre, The Human Past (pp. 84-123).
Scott, G., & Gibert, L. (2009). The oldest hand-axes in Europe. Nature , 461, 82-85.
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Bad Science!
While browsing the Independent website yesterday evening I saw this article at the top of the Most Viewed list. An article entitled A skull that that rewrites the history of man is an attention-getter. But when I read the article by Science Editor Steve Connor and this accompanying piece also by Mr Connor I was frankly astounded. The first of the fossil remains in question were discovered near the medieval Georgian town of Dmanisi in 1991 (when Georgia was still a part of the Soviet Union). They were attributed to a new species, Homo georgicus, in a 2002 article in the journal Science (Vekua et al, 2002). Moreover the article is free to download to anybody and does not require a subscription to the journal.
Yet nowhere in either of Mr Connor’s articles does he mention that Homo georgicus has been in the public domain for so long. I’ve read both pretty carefully and they imply that this is a brand new discovery. Furthermore, both the Independent articles are dated 9 September 2009. It does sometimes happen that an old article will feature in a website’s “most viewed” list; this is not the case here.
Turning to the articles themselves, the content leaves a lot to be desired. They are full of phrases such as “conventional view of evolution” and “simple view” which (it is implied) has been overturned by the discovery of the Dmanisi remains. This is utter nonsense. Just about the only thing physical anthropologists ever agree on is to disagree! There is no “simple view” of human evolution that has begun to “unravel”. Rather the view is based on a jigsaw puzzle with pieces that have gradually been added, beginning in the 19th Century with the discovery of the Neanderthals and Java Man.
The “simple view” that Mr Connor alludes to is that Homo habilis evolved from a gracile australopithecine species, possibly A. afrarensis (“Lucy”); Homo erectus evolved from H. habilis and migrated into Eurasia, and that Homo sapiens and the Neanderthals both evolved from Homo erectus via an intermediate form sometimes known as Archaic Homo sapiens. This is a first order approximation that nobody has ever seriously believed represented the true picture.
Homo georgicus is probably an early form of Homo ergaster (“African Homo erectus”). We know that very soon after the appearance of H. ergaster in Africa, Homo erectus shows up in Java. There are two possible interpretations; firstly H. georgicus left Africa and died out, with Asian H. erectus arising from a subsequent migration of H. ergaster from Africa. The second – more likely – possibility is that Homo georgicus carried on into Asia and evolved into Homo erectus. It is more likely because it explains the puzzling absence of the characteristic H. erectus (sensu lato) teardrop-shaped Acheulian handaxes from East Asia. This problem was first noted by the US archaeologist Hallam Movius in 1948. One possible explanation is that the ancestors of the East Asian Homo erectus left Africa before the Acheulian handaxes were invented. This view is supported by the Dmanisi remains, which were found in association with stone tools of the earlier Oldowan type.
Homo georgicus is another piece in the fascinating jigsaw of human evolution, but it doesn’t “rewrite” anything. To suggest otherwise is quite simply bad science and to present a 7 year old article in Science as if it were a new discovery is even worse journalism.
UPDATE:
It appears that I have singled out the Independent unfairly, becuse both the Times and the Guardian also ran the same story. The Times does at least make it clear the discovery happened a while ago, though why three of the UK's four quality newspapers should choose to report on the Dmanasi hominins now is a complete mystery. It also turns out that the Daily Telegraph ran the same story just under two years ago.
Incredibly even Richard Dawkins website is carrying a link - via Twitter and Fox News - to the Times article. While I am fairly certain Prof. Dawkins is not personally responsible for everything on his site, this is a little surprising! I have to say that I wish Prof. Dawkins - as the country's leading populariser of science - would devote as much time and energy to combating this kind of "bad science" as he does to opposing creationism, which anybody with a brain larger than Homo georgicus knows is utter nonsense anyway.
UPDATE 16 Sept 2009
It now turns out that David Lordkipanidze, who has headed up the Dmanisi investigation for some years, was speaking to an audience at the British Science Festival in Guildford. No new information was being presented and indeed Prof. Lordkipanidze's most recent paper on the subject appeared 2 years ago (this was the story carried by the Telegraph in September 2007). The newspapers should really have made these facts clear rather than presenting them as fresh news. Nowhere did I see the words "speaking yesterday at the British Science Festival in Guildford" which would have explained everything.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
References:
Gabunia, L., de Lumley, M.-A., Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., & de Lumley, H. (2002). Découverte d'un nouvel hominidé à Dmanissi (Transcaucasie, Géorgie). C.R. Palévol. , 1, 243–253 .
Gabunia, L., Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Swisher, C., Ferring, R., Justus, A., et al. (2000). Earliest Pleistocene Hominid Cranial Remains from Dmanisi,Republic of Georgia: Taxonomy, Geological Setting, and Age. Science , 228, 1019-1025.
Klein, R. (2005). Hominin Dispersals in the Old World. In C. Scarre, The Human Past (pp. 84-123).
Lordkipanidze, D., Jashashvili, T., Vekua, A., Ponce de Leon, M., Zollikofer, C., Rightmire, C., et al. (2007). Postcranial evidence from early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Nature , 449, 305-310.
Lordkipanidze, D., Vekua, A., Ferring, R., Rightmire, G., Zollikofer, C., Ponce de León, M., et al. (2006). A Fourth Hominin Skull From Dmanisi, Georgia. The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology , 288A, 1146–1157.
Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Rightmire, P., Agusti, J., Ferring, R., Maisuradze, G., et al. (2002). A New Skull of Early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Science , 297, 85-89.
Sunday, 23 August 2009
Nestle Factory, Hayes
This little-known Art Deco classic is the Nestle Factory at Hayes, west London.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
© Christopher Seddon 2009
Thursday, 13 August 2009
A step in the right direction but more needs to be done
A cyclist was jailed for seven months yesterday at Dorchester Crown Court for the offence of “wanton furious riding causing bodily harm”, an obscure piece of legislation dating back to the 19th Century. They were also banned from driving for twelve months.
Rather than stop at a red light, the cyclist had mounted the pavement, hurtled round a blind corner “like a bat out of hell” and struck and elderly man who fell into the road and sustained head injuries from which he subsequently died.
The sentence is a step in the right direction but it is incredible that there is no legislation available to the judiciary for the specific offence of causing death by dangerous cycling. The CPS was forced to fall back on the obscure 19th Century Offences against the Person act of 1861.
Needless to say cyclist organisation CTC wasted no time in saying that this proved that the law did not need to be changed before bleating on about how many more cyclists are killed by motorists than pedestrians by cyclists. Unless the CTC spokesperson believes that two wrongs somehow make a right, I fail to see the relevance of their last remark. I also suspect that fatalities among cyclists would be significantly reduced if they realised that red lights do actually apply to them as well as motorists.
It is patently obvious that the law does need to be changed as the problem with cyclists on the pavement, certainly in London, is endemic. Walk down Holloway Road in North London and within a few minutes I guarantee you will see a cyclist on the pavement. A couple of weeks ago a cyclist travelling on the pavement at least 20mph missed me by about two inches, nearly hit a woman pushing a pram and then, without making the slightest attempt to check his speed, veered around several pedestrians before disappearing down a side street. This is hardly an unusual occurrence. Barely a month goes by without my being involved in a near-miss with one of these lunatics. I have lost track of the number of verbal altercations I have had with them - even mild remonstrations are invariably met with a torrent of foul-mouthed abuse.
Certainly in London cyclists seem to regard themselves as above the law. Unfortunately there is so much buy-in to the "two wheels good four wheels bad" nonsense that there is no will to make the streets safe from cyclists.
There is a clear need for tough legislation to deal with the problem with specific offences of dangerous cycling and causing death by dangerous cycling, with cycling on the pavement being classed as dangerous cycling. Dangerous cycling should carry an automatic minimum driving ban of twelve months and causing death by dangerous cycling an automatic jail sentence.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
Rather than stop at a red light, the cyclist had mounted the pavement, hurtled round a blind corner “like a bat out of hell” and struck and elderly man who fell into the road and sustained head injuries from which he subsequently died.
The sentence is a step in the right direction but it is incredible that there is no legislation available to the judiciary for the specific offence of causing death by dangerous cycling. The CPS was forced to fall back on the obscure 19th Century Offences against the Person act of 1861.
Needless to say cyclist organisation CTC wasted no time in saying that this proved that the law did not need to be changed before bleating on about how many more cyclists are killed by motorists than pedestrians by cyclists. Unless the CTC spokesperson believes that two wrongs somehow make a right, I fail to see the relevance of their last remark. I also suspect that fatalities among cyclists would be significantly reduced if they realised that red lights do actually apply to them as well as motorists.
It is patently obvious that the law does need to be changed as the problem with cyclists on the pavement, certainly in London, is endemic. Walk down Holloway Road in North London and within a few minutes I guarantee you will see a cyclist on the pavement. A couple of weeks ago a cyclist travelling on the pavement at least 20mph missed me by about two inches, nearly hit a woman pushing a pram and then, without making the slightest attempt to check his speed, veered around several pedestrians before disappearing down a side street. This is hardly an unusual occurrence. Barely a month goes by without my being involved in a near-miss with one of these lunatics. I have lost track of the number of verbal altercations I have had with them - even mild remonstrations are invariably met with a torrent of foul-mouthed abuse.
Certainly in London cyclists seem to regard themselves as above the law. Unfortunately there is so much buy-in to the "two wheels good four wheels bad" nonsense that there is no will to make the streets safe from cyclists.
There is a clear need for tough legislation to deal with the problem with specific offences of dangerous cycling and causing death by dangerous cycling, with cycling on the pavement being classed as dangerous cycling. Dangerous cycling should carry an automatic minimum driving ban of twelve months and causing death by dangerous cycling an automatic jail sentence.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
Monday, 20 July 2009
One giant leap for mankind: now for Mars
Forty years ago today, on 20 July 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first men to land on the Moon.
In Houston, the time was 15:17:40 CDT; in the UK 21:17:40 BST. Even aged 14, watching with my family, I was aware of how historic the moment was. I was an avid space enthusiast, my interest (like I suspect many boys of my age) having been sparked by Gerry Anderson’s TV shows such as Fireball XL5 and Thunderbirds. With us that evening was my grandfather, Robert “Pop” Mitchell, who was born in October 1892. He had just turned 11 when the Wright Brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk in 1903, a few years younger than I was in 1969. He was 19 when the Titanic sank and in his early 20s when he fought in the trenches of World War I, where he was seriously wounded in action.
As we now know, the mission came close to failure as the Eagle’s primitive computer, already overloaded, began to take the LM down towards an area strewn with boulders. Neil Armstrong was forced to take control and brought the spacecraft down safely with just 25 seconds of fuel remaining. But to those watching on TV and listening to the dialogue between Armstrong, Aldrin and CAPCOM Charlie Duke (who later went to the Moon himself), there was little hint of trouble:
Mission
Elapsed
Time
102:44:24 Aldrin: 200 feet, 4 1/2 down.
102:44:26 Aldrin: 5 1/2 down.
102:44:31 Aldrin: 160 feet, 6 1/2 down.
102:44:33 Aldrin: 5 1/2 down, 9 forward. You're looking good.
102:44:40 Aldrin: 120 feet.
102:44:45 Aldrin: 100 feet, 3 1/2 down, 9 forward. Five percent. Quantity light.
102:44:54 Aldrin: Okay. 75 feet. And it's looking good. Down a half, 6 forward.
102:45:02 Duke: 60 seconds [at this point Eagle is down to her last 60 seconds of fuel].
102:45:04 Aldrin: Light's on.
102:45:08 Aldrin: 60 feet, down 2 1/2. 2 forward. 2 forward.
102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.
102:45:21 Aldrin: 30 feet, 2 1/2 down.
102:45:25 Aldrin: 4 forward. 4 forward. Drifting to the right a little. 20 feet, down a half.
102:45:31 Duke: 30 seconds [of fuel remaining].
102:45:32 Aldrin: Drifting forward just a little bit; that's good.
102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light [these were actually the first words spoken from the Moon, not as is commonly thought, Armstrong’s famous change of call sign to “Tranquillity Base”].
102:45:43 Armstrong: Shutdown.
102:45:44 Aldrin: Okay. Engine Stop.
102:45:45 Aldrin: ACA out of Detent.
102:45:46 Armstrong: Out of Detent. Auto.
102:45:47 Aldrin: Mode Control, both Auto. Descent engine command override, off. Engine arm, off. 413 is in.
102:45:57 Duke: We copy you down, Eagle.
102:45:58 Armstrong: Houston, Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed.
102:46:06 Duke: Roger, Tranquillity. We copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. We're breathing again. Thanks a lot.
102:46:16 Aldrin: Thank you.
The Moon walk wasn’t actually scheduled until around 07:00 BST next day, with NASA having scheduled a sleep period first, but Armstrong and Aldrin were understandably anxious to get on with the job and having just landed on the Moon I’d imagine sleep was the last thing on their minds. So shortly before four o’clock I dragged my brother (a few days short of his ninth birthday) out of bed and together we watched as Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the surface of the Moon and fluff his lines at the same time:
109:23:38 Armstrong: I'm at the foot of the ladder. The LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches, although the surface appears to be very, very fine grained, as you get close to it. It's almost like a powder. Ground mass is very fine.
109:24:13 Armstrong: I'm going to step off the LM now.
109:24:48 Armstrong: That's one small step for [a] man; one giant leap for mankind.
About 20 minutes later, Aldrin joined Armstrong on the lunar surface:
109:43:08 Aldrin: That's a good step.
109:43:10 Armstrong: Yeah. About a 3-footer.
109:43:16 Aldrin: Beautiful view!
109:43:18 Armstrong: Isn't that something! Magnificent sight out here.
109:43:24 Aldrin: Magnificent desolation.
That first lunar EVA lasted just over 2½ hours. In addition to collecting contingency, bulk and documented lunar samples, Armstrong and Aldrin deployed a seismometer to detect moon quakes and a retro-reflector array to reflect laser beams back to Earth and so determine the Earth-Moon distance very accurately. Also left behind was a US flag; an Apollo 1 mission patch commemorating Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee; Soviet medals commemorating Yuri Gagarin and Soyuz 1 cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov; a gold olive branch; and a plaque mounted on the LM Descent Stage ladder bearing drawings of Earth’s Western and Eastern Hemispheres with an inscription reading “Here Men From The Planet Earth First Set Foot Upon the Moon, July 1969 A.D. We Came in Peace For All Mankind” together with signatures of the Apollo XI crew and President Nixon.
Finally there was a silicon disk containing goodwill statements by US Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon and 73 other world leaders and heads of state. The latter detail makes interesting reading. The signatories include such notorious dictators as Nicolae Ceausescu, Ferdinand Marcos, the Shah of Iran, Chiang Kai-Shek, Park Chung-hee and Anastasio Somoza. Others perhaps more positively remembered include Queen Juliana, Archbishop Makarios, Indira Gandhi and Eamon de Valera. The only signatory still remaining in office is Queen Elizabeth II. France is conspicuous by its absence; so is the USSR and indeed all but a handful of communist countries; China was represented by the Taiwanese ROC.
For months afterwards the story was doing the rounds that the Chinese people had still not been told about the landing and in those pre-internet times it might have been true. By contrast, Soviet television gave extensive coverage to the event.
Before beginning preparations for blasting off from the Moon, Armstrong and Aldrin took their sleep period and, following their example, my brother and I went back to bed. By the time I woke my father was waking my grandfather and telling him about the moonwalk. Six months after the landing, my grandfather passed away, aged 77. His life thus spanned the entire history of human powered flight, from Kitty Hawk to the Sea of Tranquillity.
On 24 July 1969, Apollo XI returned to Earth safely and, after three weeks in quarantine, its crew emerged to a heroes’ reception. But astonishingly, the public almost immediately lost interest. Six more manned missions were sent to the Moon, but only the incredible drama of Apollo XIII made the headlines (and, a quarter of a century later, an excellent if not entirely accurate Hollywood movie). Since December 1972, not a single manned spacecraft has left Earth’s orbit.
In 2002, a moon landing hoax conspiracy theorist confronted Buzz Aldrin outside a Beverly Hills hotel and allegedly called Aldrin "a coward, a liar, and a thief." Aldrin – then aged 72 - punched him in the face. Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor refused to file charges.
It is a fact that thanks to unmanned space probes, we now have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of the Moon; though NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will redress the balance. Already it has returned images of abandoned Apollo hardware, unseen through all these years. The photographs from the Apollo XIV site are particularly good and show footprints left by Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell on the Moon’s surface; finally burying for good the ridiculous conspiracy theory that the Moon landings were faked.
As a boy, my grandfather could hardly have expected to see men land on the Moon in his lifetime, but I never doubted I’d live to see a Mars landing, assuming then that it would happen in the 1980s. If the will had been there, it would have done, but NASA was sidetracked by the space shuttle for decades before returning to the original Apollo concept in an updated form, Project Orion. Very tentatively NASA is now talking about an expedition to Mars in 2037. I’ll be 82 that year – I might just make it.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
In Houston, the time was 15:17:40 CDT; in the UK 21:17:40 BST. Even aged 14, watching with my family, I was aware of how historic the moment was. I was an avid space enthusiast, my interest (like I suspect many boys of my age) having been sparked by Gerry Anderson’s TV shows such as Fireball XL5 and Thunderbirds. With us that evening was my grandfather, Robert “Pop” Mitchell, who was born in October 1892. He had just turned 11 when the Wright Brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk in 1903, a few years younger than I was in 1969. He was 19 when the Titanic sank and in his early 20s when he fought in the trenches of World War I, where he was seriously wounded in action.
As we now know, the mission came close to failure as the Eagle’s primitive computer, already overloaded, began to take the LM down towards an area strewn with boulders. Neil Armstrong was forced to take control and brought the spacecraft down safely with just 25 seconds of fuel remaining. But to those watching on TV and listening to the dialogue between Armstrong, Aldrin and CAPCOM Charlie Duke (who later went to the Moon himself), there was little hint of trouble:
Mission
Elapsed
Time
102:44:24 Aldrin: 200 feet, 4 1/2 down.
102:44:26 Aldrin: 5 1/2 down.
102:44:31 Aldrin: 160 feet, 6 1/2 down.
102:44:33 Aldrin: 5 1/2 down, 9 forward. You're looking good.
102:44:40 Aldrin: 120 feet.
102:44:45 Aldrin: 100 feet, 3 1/2 down, 9 forward. Five percent. Quantity light.
102:44:54 Aldrin: Okay. 75 feet. And it's looking good. Down a half, 6 forward.
102:45:02 Duke: 60 seconds [at this point Eagle is down to her last 60 seconds of fuel].
102:45:04 Aldrin: Light's on.
102:45:08 Aldrin: 60 feet, down 2 1/2. 2 forward. 2 forward.
102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.
102:45:21 Aldrin: 30 feet, 2 1/2 down.
102:45:25 Aldrin: 4 forward. 4 forward. Drifting to the right a little. 20 feet, down a half.
102:45:31 Duke: 30 seconds [of fuel remaining].
102:45:32 Aldrin: Drifting forward just a little bit; that's good.
102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light [these were actually the first words spoken from the Moon, not as is commonly thought, Armstrong’s famous change of call sign to “Tranquillity Base”].
102:45:43 Armstrong: Shutdown.
102:45:44 Aldrin: Okay. Engine Stop.
102:45:45 Aldrin: ACA out of Detent.
102:45:46 Armstrong: Out of Detent. Auto.
102:45:47 Aldrin: Mode Control, both Auto. Descent engine command override, off. Engine arm, off. 413 is in.
102:45:57 Duke: We copy you down, Eagle.
102:45:58 Armstrong: Houston, Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed.
102:46:06 Duke: Roger, Tranquillity. We copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. We're breathing again. Thanks a lot.
102:46:16 Aldrin: Thank you.
The Moon walk wasn’t actually scheduled until around 07:00 BST next day, with NASA having scheduled a sleep period first, but Armstrong and Aldrin were understandably anxious to get on with the job and having just landed on the Moon I’d imagine sleep was the last thing on their minds. So shortly before four o’clock I dragged my brother (a few days short of his ninth birthday) out of bed and together we watched as Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the surface of the Moon and fluff his lines at the same time:
109:23:38 Armstrong: I'm at the foot of the ladder. The LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches, although the surface appears to be very, very fine grained, as you get close to it. It's almost like a powder. Ground mass is very fine.
109:24:13 Armstrong: I'm going to step off the LM now.
109:24:48 Armstrong: That's one small step for [a] man; one giant leap for mankind.
About 20 minutes later, Aldrin joined Armstrong on the lunar surface:
109:43:08 Aldrin: That's a good step.
109:43:10 Armstrong: Yeah. About a 3-footer.
109:43:16 Aldrin: Beautiful view!
109:43:18 Armstrong: Isn't that something! Magnificent sight out here.
109:43:24 Aldrin: Magnificent desolation.
That first lunar EVA lasted just over 2½ hours. In addition to collecting contingency, bulk and documented lunar samples, Armstrong and Aldrin deployed a seismometer to detect moon quakes and a retro-reflector array to reflect laser beams back to Earth and so determine the Earth-Moon distance very accurately. Also left behind was a US flag; an Apollo 1 mission patch commemorating Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee; Soviet medals commemorating Yuri Gagarin and Soyuz 1 cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov; a gold olive branch; and a plaque mounted on the LM Descent Stage ladder bearing drawings of Earth’s Western and Eastern Hemispheres with an inscription reading “Here Men From The Planet Earth First Set Foot Upon the Moon, July 1969 A.D. We Came in Peace For All Mankind” together with signatures of the Apollo XI crew and President Nixon.
Finally there was a silicon disk containing goodwill statements by US Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon and 73 other world leaders and heads of state. The latter detail makes interesting reading. The signatories include such notorious dictators as Nicolae Ceausescu, Ferdinand Marcos, the Shah of Iran, Chiang Kai-Shek, Park Chung-hee and Anastasio Somoza. Others perhaps more positively remembered include Queen Juliana, Archbishop Makarios, Indira Gandhi and Eamon de Valera. The only signatory still remaining in office is Queen Elizabeth II. France is conspicuous by its absence; so is the USSR and indeed all but a handful of communist countries; China was represented by the Taiwanese ROC.
For months afterwards the story was doing the rounds that the Chinese people had still not been told about the landing and in those pre-internet times it might have been true. By contrast, Soviet television gave extensive coverage to the event.
Before beginning preparations for blasting off from the Moon, Armstrong and Aldrin took their sleep period and, following their example, my brother and I went back to bed. By the time I woke my father was waking my grandfather and telling him about the moonwalk. Six months after the landing, my grandfather passed away, aged 77. His life thus spanned the entire history of human powered flight, from Kitty Hawk to the Sea of Tranquillity.
On 24 July 1969, Apollo XI returned to Earth safely and, after three weeks in quarantine, its crew emerged to a heroes’ reception. But astonishingly, the public almost immediately lost interest. Six more manned missions were sent to the Moon, but only the incredible drama of Apollo XIII made the headlines (and, a quarter of a century later, an excellent if not entirely accurate Hollywood movie). Since December 1972, not a single manned spacecraft has left Earth’s orbit.
In 2002, a moon landing hoax conspiracy theorist confronted Buzz Aldrin outside a Beverly Hills hotel and allegedly called Aldrin "a coward, a liar, and a thief." Aldrin – then aged 72 - punched him in the face. Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor refused to file charges.
It is a fact that thanks to unmanned space probes, we now have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of the Moon; though NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will redress the balance. Already it has returned images of abandoned Apollo hardware, unseen through all these years. The photographs from the Apollo XIV site are particularly good and show footprints left by Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell on the Moon’s surface; finally burying for good the ridiculous conspiracy theory that the Moon landings were faked.
As a boy, my grandfather could hardly have expected to see men land on the Moon in his lifetime, but I never doubted I’d live to see a Mars landing, assuming then that it would happen in the 1980s. If the will had been there, it would have done, but NASA was sidetracked by the space shuttle for decades before returning to the original Apollo concept in an updated form, Project Orion. Very tentatively NASA is now talking about an expedition to Mars in 2037. I’ll be 82 that year – I might just make it.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Beneath the Tate Modern
An unassuming door in the Power Hall of the Tate Modern leads to a subterranean world that few have ever seen or, indeed, will ever see. The oil tanks feeding the former power station are due to be converted to gallery space as part of the Tate's 11-storey extension project. On 5 July 2009, as part of an open day, small groups of local residents and their friends were allowed down into the massive underground complex which had never previously been open to the public.
© Christopher Seddon 2009
© Christopher Seddon 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
