Archaeology experts: how 10,000+ years Moa prints on clay under water?

Forums › Off topic › Archaeology experts: how 10,000+ years Moa prints on clay under water?

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#249528 15-May-2019 07:52

Sorry needed to trim some words ...

You may have read that a Central Otago man found Moa foot prints on a riverbed (yes, under water) made of clay ...

How is it possible to have footprints on clay under water for 10,000 years?

Someone please explain!

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2237127 15-May-2019 08:03

The clay turned to rock, as can happen over time, and the river turned up later?

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 167

#2237128 15-May-2019 08:05

They were buried under a bank, that got washed away after a flood last year, so have only been exposed for a little while.

wally22

504 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2237142 15-May-2019 08:20

The theory was that they were covered by a softer (clay?) and a recent storm/flood washed that away, exposing the prints in the harder clay below.

Dairyxox

1595 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 455

#2238156 15-May-2019 09:18

Because its fake?

There will probably be heaps of these discovered very soon.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2238169 15-May-2019 09:40

Dairyxox:

Because its fake?

There will probably be heaps of these discovered very soon.

Pretty sure I have some in my backyard.

gzt

18683 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#2238278 15-May-2019 11:30

Batman: How is it possible to have footprints on clay under water for 10,000 years?

The footprints were covered by a different layer very very soon after they were made by the moa.

Another example: human footprints on the island next to Rangitoto. Covered by an ash layer from the most recent eruption. Costal erosion washed away the softer top layer and they were found by another human 600 years later.

Pretty cool this is getting publicity because these examples are likely to be common if more people look into it and learn to recognise them in context. That guy that reported until successful was actually really on to it and knew there was an excellent chance this was the real thing if not for certain.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#2238573 15-May-2019 18:27

I understand about 10,000 years ago the sea level was about 150 metres lower (approx) than now - mainly because much of the water was taking a holiday on land in the form of ice.

If one puts it another way, said Moa was probably quite a few kilometres inland.

The stuff that covers them is called sediment - it can be washed away over time.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

labs23

35 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2

ID Verified

#2238584 15-May-2019 19:05

Sedimentation plays a big role in fossils like this. *And the footprint(s) could have been printed long before the place was under water, as it was pointed out before.

They may have been made on a warm season, thus drying the mud faster. And the mud doesn't have to be very soft as Moas weigh 200kg. Which leads back to the *.

SATTV

1670 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 658

ID Verified

#2238595 15-May-2019 19:49

Dairyxox:

Because its fake?

There will probably be heaps of these discovered very soon.

According to CAD there are no such things as fossils and Dinosaurs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZyIG_jZzBs

Sadly I think she is serious

I know enough to be dangerous

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2238607 15-May-2019 20:12

gzt:

Pretty cool this is getting publicity because these examples are likely to be common if more people look into it and learn to recognise them in context. That guy that reported until successful was actually really on to it and knew there was an excellent chance this was the real thing if not for certain.

Sad Te Papa said Meh when he tried to contact them.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

sleemanj

1514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 315

#2238627 15-May-2019 20:55

Batman:

How is it possible to have footprints on clay under water for 10,000 years?

Where do we get 10,000 years from, I doubt there has been any dating done on them yet.

Moa have not been extinct for THAT long in the scheme of things, a few hundred years is all that separates us from the (last of) Moa.

In any case, moa walks in clay, clay gets covered by various non-clay sediment quickly, prints are preserved, some couple hundred years later silt is washed away, prints are revealed.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2238639 15-May-2019 21:12

sorry you're right I recalled wrong, it's 4 miliions years

https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/central-otago/moa-footprints-sent-museum

sleemanj

1514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 315

#2238651 15-May-2019 21:34

Batman:

sorry you're right I recalled wrong, it's 4 miliions years

https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/central-otago/moa-footprints-sent-museum

I really wouldn't put too much stock into the dates bandied about by journalists who have probably half understood a quote.

I'm not a palaeontologist, but a quick google found this paper from 1991 which had the oldest specimen known at that time to be 2.5m years.

"There is still no significant record of the presumed long history (probably more than 20 million years, and perhaps more than 80 million years) of moas in New Zealand. "

And teara currently says "Only a few moa fossils up to 2 million years old have been found."

So if "3-4 million years" were accurate, then that would make this find even more exceptional (while obviously not a fossil it would be direct evidence older than any known fossil record of the species).

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2238681 15-May-2019 22:46

There's this from 2010, arguing that moa may have been around 19 - 16 million years ago.:
https://journals.australianmuseum.net.au/Uploads/Journals/18092/1546_complete.pdf

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#2239477 16-May-2019 19:02

The 10,000 years likely came from the fact that the moa habitat didnt exist before then.

...they/their/them...