02 May '17 17:51>
Originally posted by twhiteheadI generally agree with you that the evidence of humans is scant, considering the time frame and lack of other artifacts. But to your point #2, the study authors claim:
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.
The CM site contains spiral-fractured bone and molar fragments, indicating that breakage occured while fresh. Several of these fragments also preserve evidence of percussion. The occurrence and distribution of bone, molar and stone refits suggest that breakage occurred at the site of burial. Five large cobbles (hammerstones and anvils) in the CM bone bed display use-wear and impact marks, and are hydraulically anomalous relative to the low-energy context of the enclosing sandy silt stratum.