1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    26 Apr '17 21:20
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/could-history-of-humans-in-north-america-be-rewritten-by-broken-mastodon-bones

    "Could history of humans in North America be rewritten by broken bones?
    Smashed mastodon bones show humans arrived over 100,000 years earlier than
    previously thought say researchers, although other experts are skeptical."

    "It will take more evidence to convince many scientists, however.
    “This is a really extraordinary claim. There are questions about everything,”
    said Jean-Jacques Hublin at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
    in Leipzig. “Let’s imagine it happened. We have humans in America 130,000 years ago.
    What happened to them? They disappeared? When humans arrived in Australia,
    they were immediately very successful because they had no competitors.
    In the Americas, there is a huge range of environments where humans could be very
    successful. But to this date we have nothing in America until modern humans arrive.”"
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    27 Apr '17 01:04
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/could-history-of-humans-in-north-america-be-rewritten-by-broken-mastodon-bones

    "Could history of humans in North America be rewritten by broken bones?
    Smashed mastodon bones show humans arrived over 100,000 years earlier than
    previously thought say researchers, although other experts are skeptical."

    " ...[text shortened]... d be very
    successful. But to this date we have nothing in America until modern humans arrive.”"
    I read that piece, my guess is it was a very small population that died out soon after, maybe coming over on rafts or some such, so the world waits for 130,000 year old human remains. That is the only thing that will clinch it.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    28 Apr '17 10:05
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I read that piece, my guess is it was a very small population that died out soon after, maybe coming over on rafts or some such, so the world waits for 130,000 year old human remains. That is the only thing that will clinch it.
    I believe the evidence that there were humans if simply not very strong. Better not to speculate until further evidence comes to light.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    29 Apr '17 13:01
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I believe the evidence that there were humans if simply not very strong. Better not to speculate until further evidence comes to light.
    At least there is this one site. They admitted they never did much looking at this age period so now there will be more searches. It seems clear to me though, that whatever they find, there won't be much of it, like the first failed colonies in America, a few sites but no expansion because they all died out in a few generations.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Apr '17 13:20
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    At least there is this one site.
    One site that has no conclusive evidence of humans. We need more than a few broken bones to be sure.
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    30 Apr '17 02:451 edit
    Certainly not H. sapiens which hadn't even left Africa at that point.
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 Apr '17 13:11
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/could-history-of-humans-in-north-america-be-rewritten-by-broken-mastodon-bones

    "Could history of humans in North America be rewritten by broken bones?
    Smashed mastodon bones show humans arrived over 100,000 years earlier than
    previously thought say researchers, although other experts are skeptical."

    " ...[text shortened]... d be very
    successful. But to this date we have nothing in America until modern humans arrive.”"
    Yes, before the white devils immigrated and took over.
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    30 Apr '17 13:47
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    One site that has no conclusive evidence of humans. We need more than a few broken bones to be sure.
    The analysis of the bones shows scratch marks consistent with being hit by sharp stones as well as the way the bones were broken. Can you think of a natural process that would have a large rock right in the middle of the bones, where the pieces flaked off fits the rock like puzzle pieces? Also, one of the mammoth tusks was mounted in the ground vertically oriented. Try explaining that one where nothing like that had been seen before, tusks before were always horizontal to the ground.

    It is not just one line of evidence on that site, there are at least three separate facts that so far cannot be explained by some natural process. For instance, the fact there was a rock there at all while all around it you get pebbles in the dig. That alone says someone transported it there from somewhere else, maybe kilometers from the site it was found.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Apr '17 21:32
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Certainly not H. sapiens which hadn't even left Africa at that point.
    "Traditionally, there are two competing views in paleoanthropology about the origin of
    H. sapiens: the recent African origin and the multiregional origin.
    Since 2010, genetic research has led to the emergence of an intermediate position,
    characterised by mostly recent African origin plus limited admixture with archaic humans."
    --Wikipedia
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 May '17 08:562 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The analysis of the bones shows scratch marks consistent with being hit by sharp stones as well as the way the bones were broken. Can you think of a natural process that would have a large rock right in the middle of the bones, where the pieces flaked off fits the rock like puzzle pieces?
    Yes, I can think of natural processes by which bones get broken by rocks. But I am not even convinced that breakage by rocks is the only explanation. The scientists were so unsure that they went all the way to Africa to try and replicate it on elephant bones. What other options did they try? Did they only test their preferred scenario?

    And why humans? Why not Neanderthals?

    Also, one of the mammoth tusks was mounted in the ground vertically oriented. Try explaining that one where nothing like that had been seen before, tusks before were always horizontal to the ground.
    Always? How many did they find?

    It is not just one line of evidence on that site, there are at least three separate facts that so far cannot be explained by some natural process.
    'Cannot be explained' is a bit of a reach.

    For instance, the fact there was a rock there at all while all around it you get pebbles in the dig.
    And if there were two rocks? What about three rocks? How many before you accept that maybe a rock could be there by natural processes?

    That alone says someone transported it there from somewhere else, maybe kilometers from the site it was found.
    So why don't we stop looking for broken bones, and just look for rocks, then we will know humans were there whenever we find a rock.

    And did they manage to date when the bones were broken? When was the tusk placed upright? When were the rocks supposedly moved?
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    01 May '17 14:361 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Yes, I can think of natural processes by which bones get broken by rocks. But I am not even convinced that breakage by rocks is the only explanation. The scientists were so unsure that they went all the way to Africa to try and replicate it on elephant bones. What other options did they try? Did they only test their preferred scenario?

    And why humans? ...[text shortened]... n the bones were broken? When was the tusk placed upright? When were the rocks supposedly moved?
    Those are valid questions for sure. And my guess is it WAS neanderals but clearly if that evidence was hominid origin, they must not have lasted long but that will be determined if and when they find further fossil evidence. A neandertal skull would certainly peg it. If one hypothesizes there were Neanderthals in San Diego, that is literally thousands of miles from where they would have presumably come from, out of Siberia across an ice bridge, most likely.

    Another possibility is some of them coming maybe accidentally on a raft maybe not even manufactured but a fluke of nature where a flood happened or some such and they drifted across the Pacific. The only other way would have been through Europe and across the Atlantic then in to maybe central America or thereabouts and across the continent to San Diego, maybe where they were stranded on an ice floe making its way across the Atlantic during an ice age.

    All those hypotheses suggests there would be more in the way of fossils, but like they guy said, they haven't even THOUGHT much about looking that far into the past and therefore at deeper remains. It certainly opens up an entirely new perspective on human/hominid kind of travel. I imagine it is an exciting time for archaeologists.
  12. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    01 May '17 19:43
    I believe Neandertals were only in Europe and neighboring regions.

    Erectus however did expand widely much earlier than sapiens.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    01 May '17 20:45
    Originally posted by twhitehead to Sonhouse
    Yes, I can think of natural processes by which bones get broken by rocks. But I am not even convinced that breakage by rocks is the only explanation. The scientists were so unsure that they went all the way to Africa to try and replicate it on elephant bones. What other options did they try? Did they only test their preferred scenario?

    And ...[text shortened]... n the bones were broken? When was the tusk placed upright? When were the rocks supposedly moved?
    "And why humans? Why not Neanderthals?"
    --Twhitehead

    The article's claim is that members of the genus Homo, *not necessarily* the species
    Homo sapiens, arrived in North America about 130,000 years ago.

    "Emboldened by claims that human ancestors reached Indonesian and Mediterranean islands
    by raft more than 100,000 years ago, the authors suggest that instead of walking to America,
    the humans, *perhaps* archaic Homo sapiens, arrived from east Asia on “watercraft'..."
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    02 May '17 06:111 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "And why humans? Why not Neanderthals?"
    --Twhitehead

    The article's claim is that members of the genus Homo, *not necessarily* the species
    Homo sapiens, arrived in North America about 130,000 years ago.

    "Emboldened by claims that human ancestors reached Indonesian and Mediterranean islands
    by raft more than 100,000 years ago, the authors suggest ...[text shortened]... merica,
    the humans, *perhaps* archaic Homo sapiens, arrived from east Asia on “watercraft'..."
    Which could include a large ice floe they were stranded on and landed in New Jersey🙂

    I would love to have had an invisible drone back then to record their language. Me and about 10,000 linguists no doubt🙂
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    02 May '17 06:50
    I still say that there are two key problems:
    1. The evidence does not conclusively point to humans or our relatives.
    2. The dating is based on the age of the bones, which does not conclusively date either the breakage date or the date of the other supposed activity such as moved rocks or a tusk stood upright.
    When they find a hearth, or stone age tools, then they might be on to something.
Back to Top