Talk:Ciampate del Diavolo: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:39, 31 December 2023

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Italy Start‑class

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Ciampate del Diavolo appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 October 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the oldest known human footprints in continental Europe (pictured) are called "devil's trails" by locals?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ciampate del Diavolo.

Wikipedia

Human?

The introduction says that these prints are the oldest human footprints, but anatomically modern humans aren't thought to have existed until 200,000 years ago. Should this be renamed oldest hominid footprints outside Africa? Or oldest footprints from the homo genus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemoscis (talk • contribs) 10:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to believe these are definitely "human" if they're footprints at all, and its astounding and frustrating to me that there's not a single word suggesting otherwise or trying to counter the frankly ridiculous assertion that "yep, these definitely must be human footprints". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.52.35 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Suggest rewording to better represent the uncertainty of the origin of the footprints. The provided external link leaves great doubt as to the provenance of the footprints. The text "In 2003 it was however discovered that they belong to Homo heidelbergensis, a hominid living in the area some 350,000 years ago." appears to overstep the bounds of reasonable representation of the evidence provided. Bowlingj (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just attributed them to an unspecified hominid. -- Avenue (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age and Origins

There's an apparent problem with the ordering in time described here:

"The pyroclastic deposits in which the footprints were imprinted were laid down around 349,000 years ago (±3,000 years), while the layer of volcanic ash which subsequently covered and preserved them was deposited around 350,000 years ago (±3,000 years)."

Obviously, the "deposits in which the footprints were imprinted" must have been laid down before the "ash which subsequently covered" them, yet the text says that the ash is 1,000 years older than the footprints! The 1,000 year difference quoted is smaller than the uncertainties on the individual dates, but that isn't going to be obvious to the reader. Either the two mean ages were swapped in the sentence, or some clarifcation should be added. --Kelseymh (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelseymh AD works the other way, you count down in years, so 350,000 was 1,000 year before 349,000. 199.6.37.69 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're exactly right: "350,000 [years ago] was 1,000 year before 349,000 [years ago]." That's exactly what I'm saying. If we assume (as the casual reader is likely to!) that those mean values are "exact", then what the sentence is saying is: The footprints were imprinted 1,000 years after the volcanic ash which covered them. That is trivially impossible. Presumably, the volcanic ash covering happened very soon (within 3,000 years, probably within 1,000 years) after the footprints were made.

My original comment stands. The sentence should have some clarification for the casual reader. Kelseymh (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 :@[[User:Kelseymh|Kelseymh]] AD works the other way, you count down in years, so 350,000 was 1,000 year before 349,000. [[Special:Contributions/199.6.37.69|199.6.37.69]] ([[User talk:199.6.37.69|talk]]) 06:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
+::Yes, you're exactly right: "350,000 [years ago] was 1,000 year before 349,000 [years ago]."  That's exactly what I'm saying.  If we assume (as the casual reader is likely to!) that those mean values are "exact", then what the sentence is saying is:  The footprints were imprinted 1,000 years ''after'' the volcanic ash which covered them.  That is trivially impossible.  Presumably, the volcanic ash covering happened very soon (within 3,000 years, probably within 1,000 years) after the footprints were made.
+::My original comment stands.  The sentence should have some clarification for the casual reader. [[User:Kelseymh|Kelseymh]] ([[User talk:Kelseymh|talk]]) 19:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)