Evidence of Palaeolithic humans in ireland

Fighting leprechaun 20

Wibbs wrote: »

It's an odd conundrum indeed CC. Especially given that even far more primitive humans show up on islands in the rest of the globe and modern humans seem to show up in pretty short order when conditions change even slightly for the better. That said, even with far more extensive sediments surviving in the UK human occupation sites are rare enough. Well modern human ones anyway. The earlier archaic human paleo stuff is relatively common. Far longer periods of relative stability over time for a start. Taken over a period of half a million years, even uncommon events and deposits can start to look common.

Are there any such earlier sediments present here CC? I mean pre say 50,000 kya stuff? I suppose one would have to identify a time when Ireland was connected to mainland europe(and/or the UK) in the last 500,000 years and sift through that for lithics or evidence of butchery.

Other issues may have been the relative lack of decent material for making tools here. Parts of southern England are chock full of very high quality flint on the surface and by the Neolithic an industry in the stuff was well in play. Quite different to here. There's plenty of examples from elsewhere when other materials other than the cherts were utilised(quartzites and the like), but it might have been a factor? Any occupation was likely sporadic and in tiny numbers too. Doubly so for archaic humans who were never common in the landscape anyway(like any apex predator). Neandertals throughout their range were the most "common" before Sapiens, but best estimates give a number of 40,000 across Eurasia at their peak.

If they did make it here, it was likely by the tiny handful and not for very long, so to find evidence of them would require the right sediments, in the right place and time, when they were present and a huge dollop of luck. IIRC there were some late 19th century finds from Galway(?) claimed as possible Neandertal and they were referenced here ages ago, but they looked about as Neandertal/Mousterian as the Tara Brooch.

Its interesting though l do think humans were probably here from various dates. The problem is ultimately erosion from those damn ice sheets which is why theres missing gaps in the epoch of the ice age to relatively recently. The entire middle paleo is missing pretty much . Those ice sheets did a number on the island and any evidence pre dating 40,000 bp will be hard to find and vague . I remember Environmental Change experts getting annoyed by it . Imagine the headache it gives archaeologists kek . Its also maybe because we havnt looked the last time caves were excavated was before they had Radiocarbon dating.. nearly every fragment of bone from the upper paleo comes from that we really havnt looked at all tbh.

Wibbs

The ice did a number on us alright, but it still surprises me that we've found no archaic lithics at all. Well, one, but it's reckoned to be an erratic brought here by the ice. Maybe there are earlier sediments under those dropped glacial sediments, particularly at the borders of where the ice stopped? Or the evidence is drowned by the seas off our coasts. When seal levels rose we lost a lot. Look at a well known site like the caves of Gibraltar. That was a stroke of luck that they remained above sea level, whereas the vast plains the Neandertals hunted and lived in are now under the Mediterranean.

Fighting leprechaun 20

Wibbs wrote: »

The ice did a number on us alright, but it still surprises me that we've found no archaic lithics at all. Well, one, but it's reckoned to be an erratic brought here by the ice. Maybe there are earlier sediments under those dropped glacial sediments, particularly at the borders of where the ice stopped? Or the evidence is drowned by the seas off our coasts. When seal levels rose we lost a lot. Look at a well known site like the caves of Gibraltaer. That was a stroke of luck that they remained above sea level, whereas the vast plains the Neandertals hunted and lived in are now under the Mediterranean.

Eh . Have we really looked plus there have been quite a few actually but you're right they were said to have been earrtic . Perhaps it came from somewhere else in ireland ?there was a 300,000 years old piece discovered on Aran Islands l beileve . . Its a good idea but no one has bothered to look how many irish deep sea archaeologists do you see running about the place ? I think 'no' l know theres paleo deposits in irish caves they just have not been looked at . Its so fecking frustrating lol . We know at least there was paleo people here during the late paleo at least .

What about finds being reused and or mischaracterized? What about checking the National Museum of Ireland archives l know alot of the finds havnt even been looked at . It could be possible a plethora of evidence is just sitting in storage .

slowburner

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

What about checking the National Museum of Ireland archives l know alot of the finds havnt even been looked at . It could be possible a plethora of evidence is just sitting in storage .

That is how the bear patella was identified in the first place. The 1902 antiquarian finds are being re-examined.

Cianmcliam

slowburner wrote: »

That is how the bear patella was identified in the first place. The 1902 antiquarian finds are being re-examined.

The finds in the museum from the Castlepook cave and the cave itself were examined in detail by Tony Sutcliffe in the mid-70s but the report he produced was never published. Frank Mitchell personally inspected a new part of the the cave that was discovered long after the original finds, 34,000+ bones in all were removed in the first investigations so they were pretty thorough. There were also several bones from the museum re-classified after other people examined the museum collections over time, so it's not like they were just forgotten about.

Cianmcliam

Wibbs wrote: »

It's an odd conundrum indeed CC. Especially given that even far more primitive humans show up on islands in the rest of the globe and modern humans seem to show up in pretty short order when conditions change even slightly for the better. That said, even with far more extensive sediments surviving in the UK human occupation sites are rare enough. Well modern human ones anyway. The earlier archaic human paleo stuff is relatively common. Far longer periods of relative stability over time for a start. Taken over a period of half a million years, even uncommon events and deposits can start to look common.

Are there any such earlier sediments present here CC? I mean pre say 50,000 kya stuff? I suppose one would have to identify a time when Ireland was connected to mainland europe(and/or the UK) in the last 500,000 years and sift through that for lithics or evidence of butchery.

Other issues may have been the relative lack of decent material for making tools here. Parts of southern England are chock full of very high quality flint on the surface and by the Neolithic an industry in the stuff was well in play. Quite different to here. There's plenty of examples from elsewhere when other materials other than the cherts were utilised(quartzites and the like), but it might have been a factor? Any occupation was likely sporadic and in tiny numbers too. Doubly so for archaic humans who were never common in the landscape anyway(like any apex predator). Neandertals throughout their range were the most "common" before Sapiens, but best estimates give a number of 40,000 across Eurasia at their peak.

If they did make it here, it was likely by the tiny handful and not for very long, so to find evidence of them would require the right sediments, in the right place and time, when they were present and a huge dollop of luck. IIRC there were some late 19th century finds from Galway(?) claimed as possible Neandertal and they were referenced here ages ago, but they looked about as Neandertal/Mousterian as the Tara Brooch.

Yeah not very likely to find any intact sediments from before the last glacial maximum, except what was washed down into caves or off the south coast. There's a pretty mad account from the late 1700's in Monaghan when a mill was being built, while digging the foundations they found 'elephant' (mammoth) bones and it was reported to the Royal Society of London.
There are midlandian bones of large mammals from a warm period around 30,000 years ago, probably dragged into caves by scavengers. Again, no butchery marks but hyena teeth marks have been noted.

Fighting leprechaun 20

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Yeah not very likely to find any intact sediments from before the last glacial maximum, except what was washed down into caves or off the south coast. There's a pretty mad account from the late 1700's in Monaghan when a mill was being built, while digging the foundations they found 'elephant' (mammoth) bones and it was reported to the Royal Society of London.
There are midlandian bones of large mammals from a warm period around 30,000 years ago, probably dragged into caves by scavengers. Again, no butchery marks but hyena teeth marks have been noted.

Interesting if its true . Can you link me to where you got that info from ? Why do you keep bringing up butchery marks though ? Is that supppse to be a commonality or something ? Can you also give me your sources for the 16,000 bp irish elk bog bodies . Id actually be excited if that was true .

*You said -Irish bogs and lake sediments have also been extensively studied. Plenty of Irish Elk and reindeer bones have been unearthed in and along former lake edges where they drowned in boggy water. None have shown any signs of butchery. This period would have been the most suitable for Palaeolithic hunters, 16,000-11,000 years ago*

Can l see your evidence for irish elk being unearthed in such places from 16,000 bp.

Cianmcliam

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

Interesting if its true . Can you link me to where you got that info from ? Why do you keep bringing up butchery marks though ? Is that supppse to be a commonality or something ? Can you also give me your sources for the 16,000 bp irish elk bog bodies . Id actually be excited if that was true .

The mammoth bone finds are mentioned in Frank Mitchell and Michael Ryan, 'Reading the Irish Landscape'.

16,000 years ago is when the Woodgrange Interstadial conditions started to creep in after the last glacial max. The Irish Elk actually came into its own just before the Younger Dryas, 11,000 years ago or thereabouts. There are older Elk from the warm period between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago found in caves.

Butchery marks would be the best indicator apart from actual stone tools, and with the very large selection of bones available from caves it is unusual not to find some if people were around. Food doesn't spoil as quick if kept in caves and is less likely to be scavenged so you might expect some butchered bones from earlier periods than the bear patella.

Wibbs

I suspect if a site is found with paleo stuff, it'll be a currently unknown one. Certainly with pre Sapiens stuff. That lithic technique is very distinctive and would stand out from later lithic stuff very easily(in the majority of cases. "Scrapers" might be a grey area). To the degree that as a kid on holliers in France in the early 80's I picked up a few pieces sitting on the ground. Granted I had somewhat of "my eye in" being a fossil mad kid in Ireland*, but it shows a) how distinctive that stuff usually is that even an amateur kid with a few books on the matter can spot and b) how relatively common it is in places with long habitation and little destruction of sediments.

Back then I did find a fair few Irish lithics in my fossil hunting, neolithic in era(proudly presented like the crown jewels to the National museum, though I did keep one piece) and probably dismissed a shedload of mesolithic stuff, or in my gormlessness thought it debitage, but never saw even a sniff of anything more tantalising. If I had been the same kid looking in the south east of England I'd have been in Disneyland by comparison. Though I did note pretty decent flint and flint nodules washed up by the sea on the south east coast. Maybe an underwater outcrop? It was quality enough to practice my very clumsy attempts at knapping on anyway. I got ok ish at the pressure flaking stuff, but I found the Mousterian hard hammer stuff required way more skill, power and practice. There are some great knappers out there who can fashion incredible tools, but I've only ever seen a mere handful that can pop out a Mousterian point with any regularity.

That nothing has been found yet is not exactly grounds for optimism. As CC notes this island had periods where food was on the hoof all over the place and evidence for that food is fairly common(damn near every "big house" had an Irish Elk head. Hell, a mate of mines Da had an antler, dug up while digging turf), yet no sign of human predation? The larder was open, but it seems on current evidence that nobody was exploiting that.




*on a vineyard visit walking through the vines and a couple of other places, like when me and the Da went fishing. I was actually looking for fossils, but always had the major gra for Neandertals. Funny how it never really leaves you either as even today put me in an area like a beach with fossiliferous sediments nearby and I can get the eye back in pretty quickly.

Fighting leprechaun 20

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The finds in the museum from the Castlepook cave and the cave itself were examined in detail by Tony Sutcliffe in the mid-70s but the report he produced was never published. Frank Mitchell personally inspected a new part of the the cave that was discovered long after the original finds, 34,000+ bones in all were removed in the first investigations so they were pretty thorough. There were also several bones from the museum re-classified after other people examined the museum collections over time, so it's not like they were just forgotten about.

I very much doubt these caves were thoroughly looked at . These caves are huge labyrinths after all theres probably millions of deposits down there bit of an exaggeration on your part . Infact many of these caves werent even looked at . Even still many of the finds of 1903 have not been looked at in over a century .

If anyone is interested .
https://books.google.ie/books?id=wmlhCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=irish+caves+have+not+been+examined&source=bl&ots=r2D8SHNGFC&sig=ogkzBPx6mXGy6CzTLoFpKDu0jL4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4sPLlvfLRAhWpLsAKHb5RDUgQ6AEILjAE

Im actually kinda quoting dr Marion Dowd the author of the book you probably got your information from .:p

Many caves were not looked at and nor were they fully excavated . Some diposits were sure but alot werent . And theres thousands of finds that havnt been looked at in over a century .

The head of the natural museum of ireland has also stated something similar .

Cianmcliam

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

I very much doubt these caves were thoroughly looked at . These caves are huge labyrinths after all theres probably millions of deposits down there bit of an exaggeration on your part . Infact many of these caves werent even looked at . Even still many of the finds of 1903 have not been looked at in over a century .

If anyone is interested .
https://books.google.ie/books?id=wmlhCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=irish+caves+have+not+been+examined&source=bl&ots=r2D8SHNGFC&sig=ogkzBPx6mXGy6CzTLoFpKDu0jL4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4sPLlvfLRAhWpLsAKHb5RDUgQ6AEILjAE

Im actually kinda quoting dr Marion Dowd the author of the book you probably got your information from .:p

Many caves were not looked at and nor were they fully excavated . Some diposits were sure but alot werent . And theres thousands of finds that havnt been looked at in over a century .

The head of the natural museum of ireland has also stated something similar .

I'm reading the linked pages in Marion's book, but they don't suggest the explorations in the early 1900's were anything but excellent and thorough. They even catalogued each find according to a grid so the exact locations can be plotted by researchers today. She says quite clearly that the excavations certainly were rigorous.

Cianmcliam

By the way, there's also some great up-to-date summary info in 'Advances in Irish Quaternary Studies' just out in 2017, written after the bear patella find.

Fighting leprechaun 20

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The mammoth bone finds are mentioned in Frank Mitchell and Michael Ryan, 'Reading the Irish Landscape'.

16,000 years ago is when the Woodgrange Interstadial conditions started to creep in after the last glacial max. The Irish Elk actually came into its own just before the Younger Dryas, 11,000 years ago or thereabouts. There are older Elk from the warm period between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago found in caves.

Butchery marks would be the best indicator apart from actual stone tools, and with the very large selection of bones available from caves it is unusual not to find some if people were around. Food doesn't spoil as quick if kept in caves and is less likely to be scavenged so you might expect some butchered bones from earlier periods than the bear patella.

I know that i said that in one of my pervous comments . O.p l why are there no to virtually no fossils from before the end of the last ice in ireland ? Apart from cave deposits . Are you just saying bucthery marks because l brought it up ?

is it because the last ice sheet would have destroyed much of the older deposits which has been known for a very long time . Middle Paleo finds are most likely going to be found in cave diposits . Sadly any evidence of neanderthals would have been mostly destroyed by the belting this island took over numerous cold stages on and off . Any evidence will be found in ancient remnants deep within cave systems or maybe the sea floor?

Fighting leprechaun 20

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I'm reading the linked pages in Marion's book, but they don't suggest the explorations in the early 1900's were anything but excellent and thorough. They even catalogued each find according to a grid so the exact locations can be plotted by researchers today. She says quite clearly that the excavations certainly were rigorous.

Im not saying he didnt do a good job im simply stating it is never mentioned that he explored every inch of the cave system like you claimed . Im simply quoting her that thousands of the finds were not even looked at in over a century . Very few of these caves were examined and likewise they were only dented in terms of archaeological richness . Im sure she would agree with that .no?

Dr dowd her self stated an irish middle paleolithic was most likely .

Cianmcliam

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

Im not saying he didnt do a good job im simply stating it is never mentioned that he explored every inch of the cave system like you claimed . Im simply quoting her that thousands of the finds were not even looked at in over a century . Very few of these caves were examined and likewise they were only dented in terms of archaeological richness . Im sure she would agree with that .no?

I never said they explored every inch of the cave, I said the same as Marion, the excavations were very thorough. 34,000 bones from a single cave is extraordinary by any standard.

Fighting leprechaun 20

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I never said they explored every inch of the cave, I said the same as Marion, the excavations were very thorough. 34,000 bones from a single cave is extraordinary by any standard.

Again you cannot state these caves were excavated to a high enough standard to discount paleo finds . I would not call that thorough . Not all caves in waterford cork area were even excavated some areas were even closed off .

Surely you can accept the points made as vaild ?
And surely you can accept that some of your comments were holly inaccurate .

Dr dowd stated there is probably much older than 12,800 bp . Theres probably evidence of paleo people here going back to the middle paleo and much early late paleo .

Im enjoying this theard .

Fighting leprechaun 20

slowburner

Wibbs wrote: »

Though I did note pretty decent flint and flint nodules washed up by the sea on the south east coast. Maybe an underwater outcrop?

Isn't there a submarine outcrop near the Isle of Man?

Cianmcliam

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

Again you cannot state these caves were excavated to a high enough standard to discount paleo finds . I would not call that thorough . Not all caves in waterford cork area were even excavated some areas were even closed off .

Surely you can accept the points made as vaild ?
And surely you can accept that some of your comments were holly inaccurate .

Dr dowd stated there is probably much older than 12,800 bp . Theres probably evidence of paleo people here going back to the middle paleo and much early late paleo .

Im enjoying this theard .

I'm not sure what you mean, do you think an excavation could not have been thorough unless evidence of palaeolithic humans was found?

Which statements were inaccurate?

cfuserkildare

" 34,000 bones from a single cave is extraordinary by any standard."

Was that 34000 actual bones?
Or 34000 bone fragments?

Because pounded up enough, you would not need many bodies to give that many fragments!

Otherwise that is enough bone to make 165 adult skeletons!!

Cianmcliam

cfuserkildare wrote: »

" 34,000 bones from a single cave is extraordinary by any standard."

Was that 34000 actual bones?
Or 34000 bone fragments?

Because pounded up enough, you would not need many bodies to give that many fragments!

Otherwise that is enough bone to make 165 adult skeletons!!

It would be a mix of bones and bone fragments. Michael Viney says 34,000 bones: 'Up to 34,000 bones had been removed from the Castlepook cave' http://www.irishtimes.com/news/wriggling-our-way-into-history-s-hidey-holes-1.242439

.

Cianmcliam

I think the point that has been lost is that there was a period of up to a thousand years during the Woodgrange Interstadial when Irish Elk and reindeer were plentiful, after the last glacial maximum. No ice sheets or glaciers scoured the landscape after that point, except in high mountain ranges.

Given that, when archaeologists turn up plenty of tiny microliths from the Mesolithic, it is difficult to see how palaeolithic sites, artefacts or bones do not show up from that nearly idyllic hunting opportunity. Nobody seems to have been around from the last glacial maximum until after the Younger Dryas.

Wibbs

IIRC that's around 15000 KYA(sorry not up on the dates. ). Pretty odd when the UK had modern humans for 30,000 years by then and were well capable of seafaring. OK the UK didn't need boats to reach for a much longer time with the land bridge in place, but still. It would have been one bountiful resource for any humans fetching up here. Quirk of history I suppose. Given New Zealand with all its riches wasn't discovered until the 13th century and the peoples of that area were supreme mariners.

Fighting leprechaun 20

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I think the point that has been lost is that there was a period of up to a thousand years during the Woodgrange Interstadial when Irish Elk and reindeer were plentiful, after the last glacial maximum. No ice sheets or glaciers scoured the landscape after that point, except in high mountain ranges.

Given that, when archaeologists turn up plenty of tiny microliths from the Mesolithic, it is difficult to see how palaeolithic sites, artefacts or bones do not show up from that nearly idyllic hunting opportunity. Nobody seems to have been around from the last glacial maximum until after the Younger Dryas.

Ive already brought up this point up but l will again No animal remains from wolfs . Irish elk . Bears have ever been found on the surface deposits from Woodgrange Interstadial . carlow . wicklow . cavan . ect All show signs of glacier scraping .... Carlow has glacial deposits of till (boulder clay) or sand and gravel across the lowlands from around 11,000 years ago .I remember there being a discovery on the eastern side of the Irish Sea, a site dated to 11,000 BC which indicated people were in that area this would line up with 10,500 bc bear bone ?

Why would you find paloe clues to the same extent as the mesolithic ? That makes no sense . Paleo people in the area during that time would have been insignificantly small group of nomads.

Cianmcliam

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

Ive already brought up this point up but l will again No animal remains from wolfs . Irish elk . Bears have ever been found on the surface deposits from Woodgrange Interstadial . carlow . wicklow . cavan . ect All show signs of glacier scraping about 11,000 bp.. as an example Carlow has glacial deposits of
till (boulder clay) or sand and gravel across the lowlands from around 11,000 years ago .I remember there being a discovery on the eastern side of the Irish Sea, a site dated to 11,000 BC which indicated people were in that area this would line up with 10,500 bc bear bone ?

Why would you find paloe clues to the same extent as the mesolithic ? That makes no sense . Paleo people in the area during that time would have been insignificantly small group of nomads.

OK, Google Raiding will only get you so far. You don't seem too familiar with the extent of the archaeology. Are you seriously denying that Woodgrange era Irish Elk were not found in Ballybetagh Bog, or plentiful Woodgrange era Elk around the Limerick area? Reindeer from this era turn up in deposits too, though not as many as the Elk.

One was found just a couple of years ago during the construction of the N11, here's a quote from the report:
"The lake clays beneath the peat from which most giant deer bones are recovered are between 12,100 and 10,900 years old and belong to a warm period towards the end of the Ice Age known as the Woodgrange Interstadial. Giant deer remains have also been found in caves, along with bones of reindeer, woolly mammoth and hyena."

http://www.wicklow.ie/sites/default/files/Ballynapark%20Co.%20Wicklow%20Giant%20Deer%20Report%20Mk3%20April%202015.pdf

Cianmcliam

Here's a map of surface finds of Irish Elk (after Mitchell and Ryan)

Fighting leprechaun 20

Cianmcliam wrote: »

OK, Google Raiding will only get you so far. You don't seem too familiar with the extent of the archaeology. Are you seriously denying that Woodgrange era Irish Elk were not found in Ballybetagh Bog, or plentiful Woodgrange era Elk around the Limerick area? Reindeer from this era turn up in deposits too, though not as many as the Elk.

One was found just a couple of years ago during the construction of the N11, here's a quote from the report:
"The lake clays beneath the peat from which most giant deer bones are recovered are between 12,100 and 10,900 years old and belong to a warm period towards the end of the Ice Age known as the Woodgrange Interstadial. Giant deer remains have also been found in caves, along with bones of reindeer, woolly mammoth and hyena."

http://www.wicklow.ie/sites/default/files/Ballynapark%20Co.%20Wicklow%20Giant%20Deer%20Report%20Mk3%20April%202015.pdf

no need to throw a tantrum what l said was no remains have been found from earlier Woodgrange Interstadial here during the period surely there is a reason for this . its a fact that glacier scraping and deposits made in those areas show drones of ice sheets and scraping some 11,000bp .some dispoists have survied from 12,000 years ago but these are clearly not continuous from 16,000 to 12,000 years. like you claimed . The oldest finds being only a mere 12,000 years old and clearly rare enough . Finding humans from that period would be very hard due to how scarce they would have been in the area .

*12,100 and 10,900 years
old and belong to a warm period towards the end of the Ice Age known as the
Woodgrange Interstadial. Giant deer remains have also been found in caves, along
with bones of reindeer, woolly mammoth and hyena from 40,000 bp.

12,100 years is a far cry from 16,000 years unless you can show me evidence for that claim you made . . I was correct no finds have ever been found on the surface diposists that are that old. All l was saying was that there was paleo man near the area which lines up with the paleo bear find .

Cianmcliam

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

no need to throw a tantrum what l said was no remains have been found here during the period of 13 bp surely there is a reason for this . its a fact that glacier scraping and deposits made in those areas show drones of ice sheets and scraping some 11,000bp .some dispoists all though rare may have survied from 12,000 bp but these are clearly rare and not not continuous from 16,000 gbp to 12,000 bp like you claimed . The oldest finds being only a mere 12,000 bp and clearly rare enough . Finding humans from that period would be very hard due to how scarce they would have been in the area .

*12,100 and 10,900 years
old and belong to a warm period towards the end of the Ice Age known as the
Woodgrange Interstadial. Giant deer remains have also been found in caves, along
with bones of reindeer, woolly mammoth and hyena from 40,000 bp.

12,100 bp is a far cry from 16,000 bp like you claimed . I was correct no finds have ever been found on the surface diposists this is from near the end . All l was saying was that there was paleo man near the area which lines up with the paleo bear find .

Your posting style in this and the previous threads is not exactly productive. I'm not sure what kind of response you really expect when your research doesn't live up to your patronising tone. You misrepresent my posts and even misrepresent your own when contradicted.

If you read my posts accurately you would see that what I said is that there was a period between 16,000 and 11,000 years ago when the ice had retreated from the lowlands completely and were never really glaciated again. That leaves a very long window for pre-Holocene paleolithic hunters to leave traces that glacier melts would not wash away.

Fighting leprechaun 20

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Your posting style in this and the previous threads is not exactly productive. I'm not sure what kind of response you really expect when your research doesn't live up to your patronising tone. You misrepresent my posts and even misrepresent your own when contradicted.

If you read my posts accurately you would see that what I said is that there was a period between 16,000 and 11,000 years ago when the ice had retreated from the lowlands completely and were never really glaciated again. That leaves a very long window for pre-Holocene paleolithic hunters to leave traces that glacier melts would not wash away.

no need to throw a tantrum ...

During the last ice age, over 13,000 years ago, great ice sheets moved over the Burren and over much of Ireland The ice sheets acted like huge bulldozers, eroding the surface of the land and transporting huge amounts of sand, gravel, and boulders over very large distances.
.


Im quoting Eamon Doyle, Geologist, Burren & Cliffs of Moher Geopark

You clearly dont even understand your own argument.. first off no disposits have ever been found that old on the surface You claimed if there was paleo people here we would see evidence from 16,000 years ago just like we do with irish elk . We clearly dont see evidence from 14,000 bc for irish elk though and paleo people would be much rarer and harder to find than elk . From 13,000 bp much of ireland was scraped by ice sheets You seem to be contradicting yourself alot . I will quote you if you like .

What about paleo find from eastern irish sea from around the same time as the butchered bear bone? Surely there is a correlation.

*You said *Plenty of Irish Elk and reindeer bones have been unearthed in and along former lake edges where they drowned in boggy water. None have shown any signs of butchery. This period would have been the most suitable for Palaeolithic hunters, 16,000-11,000 years ago*


You have yet to show any evidence for this claim . Backup your claim . Show me from 16,000 years ago The oldest finds are not even close to the dates you suggested... a mere 9,000 bc .ironically you said l was google diving yet you posted a link to a rag news site with a vague 'supposed' quote as evidence Your arguments are ignorant and outlandish . Your argument comes down to if no evidence has been found it must not exist no serious archaeologist or historian would take what you said seriously.

You claimed there was no big game for paleo man to hunt here besides irish elk . When the records show .bears . Wolfs . Horses . Ect. All lived here during that time .

You claimed there was such a huge level of research done on this island in caves over a century ago when they didnt even have anyway of dating their findings ... you claimed everything discovered in 1903 was later fully checked and catologed . When both the head of the national museum and many others have stated there is thousands of finds not been looked at in century .

Now Im simply asking you to Provide evidence for your claims ...

slowburner

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

Theres no need for that tone if you disagree present evidence and leave it at that .

no need to throw a tantrum ...

During the last ice age, over 13,000 years ago, great ice sheets moved over the Burren and over much of Ireland. The ice sheets acted like huge bulldozers, eroding the surface of the land and transporting huge amounts of sand, gravel, and boulders over very large distances.
.


Im quoting Eamon Doyle, Geologist, Burren & Cliffs of Moher Geopark

You clearly dont even understand your own argument.. first off no disposits have ever been found that old on the surface . You claimed if there was paleo people here we would see evidence from 16,000 years ago just like we do with irish elk . We clearly dont see evidence from 14,000 bc for irish elk though and paleo people would be mich rarer and harder to find than elk . From 13,000 bp much of ireland was scraped by ice sheets . You seem to be contradicting yourself alot . I will quote you if you like .

What about paleo find from eastern irish sea from around the same time as the butchered bear bone? Surely there is a correlation.

*You said *Plenty of Irish Elk and reindeer bones have been unearthed in and along former lake edges where they drowned in boggy water. None have shown any signs of butchery. This period would have been the most suitable for Palaeolithic hunters, 16,000-11,000 years ago*

You have yet to show any evidence for this claim . Backup your claim . Show me deposits from 16,000 years ago.

I closed one thread and warned you because your tone was repugnant to the ethos of this forum.
I tolerated your new thread because other posters were raising some serious, informed, and interesting issues.
Your posting on the other hand, is vulgar. There is no other word for it.
Either make an effort to be polite, comprehensible, and informed - like everyone else here who makes an effort to review what they have written - or I will have no option but to remove you from the forum.
This is your final warning.