Slashdot Mirror
Humans in America 25,000 Years Ago?
Ephboy writes "A researcher in South Carolina has found stones that appear to be man-made stone tools that date from 25,000 years ago, about twice as old as the best documented evidence of human settlement in North America."
did the submitter RTFA? It clear states that the stones date from 50,000 years ago. 25,000 years earlier than previously thought.
fp?
If this is actually true, then it's really quite challenging to the accepted idea of how modern man spread throughout the earth. Twenty-five thousand years ago is quite close to when man is thought to have arrived in central Asia (from Africa).
Either modern humans developed somewhat earlier than we thought, or else they spread over the earth in a flash, like some extremely virulent form of kudzu or something.
There is.. go to your local Casino. They are called Tribes. They are independant nations inside the US numbering in the thousands.. they were nice systems that were too nice, and were thusly erraticated due to brilliant warfare waged by early US. (see first biological warfare- also: pox ridden blankets)
oh.. and I'm Chippewa, BTW.. card carrying, voting, and casino owning.
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
apparently so are the moderators.
perhaps we know they are dating the tool and not the stone because if they were dating the stone it would be a hell of a lot older than 25,000 years old.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Most anthropologists I've studied under, worked with, and recently read, will readily agree to a coastal migration route, either concurrent with the recession of the glacial mass (The Ice Free Corridor- Beringia isn't the time limiting factor with the land bridge model, the fact that Beringia ran straight into a glacier that didn't clear up a free corridor till 11,500ya is), or before it.
Most everyone accepts at least the reasonable possibility of a pre-clovis occupation.. I'd say most find it likely, but prefer to withold their theories till more evidence can be discovered.
However- One thing that most of the people I know will agree to: The European route isn't that likely. It's not a matter of denying it because of it's antiquity, nor is it denying that one COULD skirt the ice, had one a significant maritime adaptation- It's the fact that there's no evidence of any Solutrean (European, at this time) maritime adaptation whatsoever. No evidence of reliance on seafood, and very little coastal occupations in the first place.
>
You have to date stone by dating its context. The best way to do it is to sandwich the stones between clearly datable layers, but lots of times you have to just date stuff the stone is "associated with".
Also, as I understand things 50Kybp is just about at the limit of what you can reliably test with carbon dating.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And Secondly, Mormon theology says that the garden on eden was actually in the americas too, and somewhere between Adam and the flood, (inclusive I guess) Noah ended up in the old world.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
During the California gold rush, a few skeletons of modern looking humans were unearthed from rock that was millions of years old.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Uhh, even the old date was too far back. IIRC, Mormon scriptures claim the Nephites came here around 2500 years ago, or so. Of course, this same book claims that the Nephites (Semitic people) were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. This can clearly be seen by the abundance of Semitic DNA in Native Americans and the fact that they celebrate Chanukah. Oh wait. Nevermind.
Mod parent up, it is absolutely hilarious (btw. "courouge" comes from french words "cou" (neck) and "rouge" (red) ... homo-redneck :D ... brilliant, mr. pchan-.
By chance, you don't happen to live under a bridge...do you?
The grandparent poster is making reference to a sticker that one of the southern states (Texas? Alabama?) wants to put on high-school science texts which discuss evolution.
Presumably, the grandparent poster is underscoring the absurdity of such "governemnt warning labels" for unpopular thought, by demostrating that in any context other than a high-school text, such a warning is and should be treated, as the parent did, as ridiculous.
Yes, Virginia, it's (frequently) possible to be too subtle for Slashdot commenters. But we love them anyway.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
I mean, its one thing to accidentally expose a person to a disease that they had not been exposed to, but completely another to do it intentionally.
On July 16, 1763 General Amherst wrote in a letter to Colonel Bouquet;
"You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race."
There are several other confirmed examples as well. Have a look at The Staight Dope for more about this one. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Recently the PBS show "NOVA" had a whole show about the possiblity of people comming over earlier than first thought, and the possibility of them actually boating accross from Europe along the glacier that would of stretched from the north pole as frar down as Iceland.
There is RNA evidence that some native peoples here in the U.S. might have come from a population that was from the area that is now France.
link below to NOVA web site with the program
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stoneage/
The US wasn't the first to use disease infected blankets. Credit for that goes to the British.
BBC link
Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
Carbon dating only works on organic material, they aren't carbon dating the stone. The method employed only works in undisturbed finds, where they carefully remove the surrounding materials and carbon date organic materials found in the same strata as the tool.
A quote from that show:
One team even proposes that the first Americans came from Europe, not Asia
Troll, but I'll bite.
You've apparently forgotten that all recent genetic evidence shows that we are all descended from Africans. So not only could "negroids" leave their home continent of Africa, but they did so and reached every continent on earch, evolving as they went. BTW, you're one of "them", and so is everyone else.
This is the most uninformed post I have read all day.
Race is based in DNA.
By blood sample alone I can tell the race of the person it came from.
DNA is not just the common thread between us, it is the fiber of the individual as well.
In that sample will most likely be disease evidence or potential, eye color, and blood type distinctions that are all common to certain races. Few African origin races have blue eyes for instance.
It is actually quite easy to attain someone's race from a good DNA sample. (Easy to the qualified researcher that is)
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Holpfully, this dig will confirm that the first people in America were not the ancestors of the current Native Americans, but of another race, so to speak.
It appears that the first homo sapiens settlers of Asia and of North America were related to some of the Australian aborigines, specfically, the Murrayians, which were a mix that included a protocaucasoid type.
You can see a picture of what these amazing people may have looked like here.
THey are also related to the Ainu of Japan.
They conquered Asia, Indonesia, Australia and then the Americas long before the ancestors of the present Asians moved across the Bering Straits.
Traces of them have been found in the Americas, however. The Kennewick man was likely related to them. In the next year or two, new research out of mexico will likely confirm their presence. Some traces of the typical Murrayian skeletal features (but their genetics) have been seen in current (or recent) native Americans in Baja California and Tierra Del Fuego (see here for more.
THey may have been the first homo sapiens out of Africa. However the Negritos may have been before them.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Most of the Eastern tribes were nearly eradicated by European diseases before the arrival of the "Pilgrims."
Before departing England the Pilgrims actually offered thanks to God for the devistating plauge that had depopulated the New World, leaving it open for them.
Before departing England Squanto (yes, Squanto came from England to meet the Pilgrims, and spoke with them in perfect English) had intended to rejoin his native people, but upon his arrival found that they had been wiped out by disease, hence his hooking up with the Pilgrims in a sort of mutual survial pact in the first place.
I'm afraid that the US can't really take credit for any brilliance in military strategy here. It was mostly an accident and the later intentional germ warfare conducted against native tribes was informed by previous unintentional example.
For the most part you out strategied us every step of the way (except, perhaps, for being too nice) and we simply used a very crude, but very effective, method to deal with those of you that remained after the various plagues.
We swept over you like a flood.
The story isn't entirely unique I'm afraid. The Tartars did the same thing to my Causcasian ancestors, so thouroughly that the very word used to describe an endentured state is my people's name.
KFG
You don't date the rock. (At least, not with radio-carbon which depends on living processes to concentrate an isotope of carbon.) You date the organic stuff around it. That's why it's important to find an undisturbed strata with few gopher holes, or 22,000 year old archaeology sites. (And everyone knows that digging a flower bed will suck the rocks through the soil for quite a distance.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
- "Question 1: How Does Evolution Add Information? "How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA?"
Wrong on many levels. Point mutations obviously don't create new information. Consider duplications, deletions, etc. Chromosomes can duplicate, polyploidism is possible, etc. ect... Enough mechanisms to add new information.
"Question 2: How Can Evolution Be So Quick?"
Evolution of large structures does not work on the level of single genes, but rather on the level of blocks of genes, regulated by the so-called homeobox regulatory sequences. This homeobox genes are responsible for the development of large anatomical structures such as fingers, arms, etc. Mutations on the homeobox level have profound impact on the whole construction of organisms, enabling rather large developmental leaps
- "Question 3: Where Did the First Living Cell Come From?" "Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex.
E. coli is by no means the simplest possible living system. You give a list of requirements that a primordial cell has to develop spontaneously, that is blown way out of proportion.
The RNA theory of early evolution posits that primordial living systems were build just from RNA, which is able to carry genetic information and also able to act as a catalyst, and a lipid layer as a boundary to the environment. Much simpler. Below that are systems of self replicating molecules, which one would not consider alive per se, but which could be precursors to more complex systems. There is no need to assume the spontaneous emergence of a high level of complexity.
This comment does not exist.
Scalping WAS a bounty hunter thing. You see it started with you got $10.00 for every "Red Skin" (thus the term Red Skin) of a male you brought in and $5.00 for every female or child "Red Skin" you brought in. When these piles of skins started to stink and were also to hard to carry around and trade. They reduced it to scalps. so scalping started.
Point of intrest.... Isn't it great that our Nations Capital's football's team is named after this. see the Indian wars still do exist.
Yes we can be "savage" but all in all our cultures are peaceful. We were too nice and had bad immigration laws. One thing that is differant between the two cultures is we NEVER KILLED CHILDREN! and with that thought who really was the Savage????
Where have they all gone???? WE ARE STILL HERE!
Yes I am Cherokee and proud of it!
The Indians first encountered in North and South America by colonists were NOT tribal. The Aztec Empire, the Iroquois Five Nations and the Pohantan were powerful civilizations in their own rights.
The Aztec were bloody and brutal (the Spaniards conquered them so easily because lots of surrounding Indian nations pitched in their eager help). The Iroquois were master politicians who successfully played the British and French against each other for over a hundred years, and the Pohantan were trade warriors, exercising power by keeping secret their knowledge of the New England waterways (it was the main reason they were upset with John Smith; they were afraid he was discovering their water ways and would sell the information to the Iroquois.)
The "tribal" Indians were the nomadic peoples in the great plains and the desert southwest and the small communities of the Pacific Northwest.
Your condescending attitude aside, only one of us is speaking from ignorance it would appear, cloaking it in sophistry and rhetoric.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.