Jump to content

BBC News - Earliest Footprints Outside Africa Discovered In Norfolk


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
The sea has now washed away the prints - but not before they were recorded

How.. exactly? How could they have survived > 800,000 years, only to be coincidentally washed away the moment they are found?

The cynic in me is sceptical of this.

Edited by Garacesh
I cannot words
Posted

It's pretty simple really, they'll have been full of compressed sediment or something for the thousands of years and only spotted due to the discolouration during excavation, and now they've removed that blockage in order to examine them, the tide will have washed over and worn away the indendations which have been protected for thousands of years.

 

I'm sure I saw something similar on Time Team not so long ago.

Posted
How.. exactly? How could they have survived > 800,000 years, only to be coincidentally washed away the moment they are found?

The cynic in my is sceptical of this.

 

I read it this way: The recent storms moved the layers of sand that had protected the impressions for so many years. More storms caused erosion of the soft rock where the impressions had been preserved.

Posted
How.. exactly? How could they have survived > 800,000 years, only to be coincidentally washed away the moment they are found?

The cynic in my is sceptical of this.

 

I thought the exact same thing. The sea has been erroding the coast quiet badly in that area for years, how come they weren't washed away at any other point in the past 800,000 years? And how did they date the foot prints? Beeb suggests they didn't have a lot of time before the sea reclaimed them.

Posted
How.. exactly? How could they have survived > 800,000 years, only to be coincidentally washed away the moment they are found?

The cynic in my is sceptical of this.

 

This is Happisburgh beach ( for those of you who are not local it is pronounced Hays-borough ) the area is under threat from coastal erosion and was hit very badly in the November spring tides/storm surge. It is likely they were uncovered then.

Posted
I read it this way: The recent storms moved the layers of sand that had protected the impressions for so many years. More storms caused erosion of the soft rock where the impressions had been preserved.

 

Hm. Could be.

I wouldn't expect the rock underneath to be so soft, though.

Posted
Hm. Could be.

I wouldn't expect the rock underneath to be so soft, though.

 

Comparatively soft or a compressed sediment or something like clay perhaps.

Posted
Other than how to make a teacher a reasonable person to work with (and yes I am tarring with the same brush/blanketing/saying with tongue firmly in cheek!) is there anything the EduGeek community doesn't know?
Posted
I wouldn't expect the rock underneath to be so soft, though.

 

We don't do rock in e-Stanglia; mostly it is un-consolidated glacial material (it is not stuck tightly together) is very easily eroded hence the rapid rate of retreat of the coastline of this region.

 

I've fished the coast here for many years and every time I go there's another bit missing!

 

Something about the slow pace of life round here makes geological time just fly past ;)

Posted
Looking at the video it looks as if the storm has stripped the sand from that part of the beach and that it has subsequently been replaced by normal wave action.
Posted

I've heard of it, but never watched it. Sorry to disappoint.

Also your username.. I know a J. Heaton that lives around the Bury area (presuming you're not one of those St. Edmunds copycats!).. That's a little un-nerving :p

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...