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."

Comments

Where have they gone?

[Hot Summer Nights]

Why is there no intelligent life in America today?

Re:Where have they gone?

[peculiarmethod]

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.

Re:Where have they gone?

[Breakfast Pants]

"(see first biological warfare- also: pox ridden blankets)" No. At least as early as the middle ages people used to load dead, disease ridden bodies into catapults and hurl them into catles they were seiging.

Re:Where have they gone?

[Vellmont]

Yah, and I'm still pissed at the Romans for enslaving my ancestors and feeding them to lions. Get over it buddy, the issue is buried and long dead. You're just another American just like me.

Re:Where have they gone?

[ozmanjusri]

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

Re:Where have they gone?

[Draveed]

The US wasn't the first to use disease infected blankets. Credit for that goes to the British.
BBC link

Re:Where have they gone?

[kfg]

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

Re:Where have they gone?

[Mattcelt]

I don't mean to be inflammatory - I'm part Native American myself - but AFAIK it wasn't the Europeans who invented scalping. Many (though certainly not all) of the Native American tribes were ruthless warriors who did all they could to eradicate each other. War was not unknown to this people; I hesitate to agree that it was their 'niceness' that failed them.

That's not to say that the Europeans (and later the U.S.) did not do some atrocious things. Some of what was done was unforgiveable. Thank goodness we as a society have come a long way since then.

Re:Where have they gone?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Oh my god. All those poor people living tens of thousands of years ago, who are going to Hell because they never accepted Jesus.

Re:Where have they gone?

[b-baggins]

Anyone who thinks the American Indians were a universally "nice" people living in some sort of "one with nature" utopia needs to lay off the kool-aid.

They were and are humans just like everyone else and suffered from the same vices, power struggles, warfare and savagery as every other example of humanity throughout history.

Re:Where have they gone?

[plog]

the issue is buried and long dead

No it isn't. It's an ongoing problem that's tied up in courts, classrooms, bars, highways, and the wilderness. Genocide takes a while to fade.

Spoken like a true settler, though.

Re:Where have they gone?

[plog]

" this idea of all native tribes being peaceful and cooperative"

Well, only doe-eyed new age pseudoliberals really express that sentiment.

The Iriquois Confederacy, or the Haudenosaunee, consists of six nations, the Mohawk merely being one of the more publicised. The US Constitution borrows heavily from their political organization, which was extremely sophisticated for the 1700's.

The Ojibway (chippewa, pick yer anglicization), one of the largest indigenous nations on the planet geographically, were, like nearly all other nations, at war at various times with their neighbours over territory. War is never pretty.

I think the crucial difference is between the war-of-honour typically waged by tribal societies and the total war of civilization, which dispenses with honour in favour of expediency and victory.

I strongly object to your assertion that the locals on this continent never "learned the principles of advanced agriculture."
Do a survey of your kitchen and pantry, and tally the percentage of foodstuffs that were developed in the Americas by the locals-- you'll find it's disproportionately American. For example, the Incas had over 5000 varieties of potato when they were invaded, cunningly used to stagger plantings, adapt to many microclimates, survive pests, provide variety in nutrition, texture, and storage capablilities, etc. Where I live now is near the former site of an enormous corn plantation, collectively run with many smallholder parcels, hugely and sustainably productive and both biologically and socially complex, well before "contact." There are endless examples of staple cultivars: squashes, pineapples, beans galore (incl. soy), corn/maize, 'taters, sweet potatos, tomatoes, peppers, avocados, squashes, sunflower, cucumber, etc. etc., and of course, cocoa and cotton.

Also, examine the early sketches and engravings of unconquered settlements in east N.A. -- they look pretty darn advanced, to a subsistence farmer's eye.

Your guage of intelligence is extremely instrumentalist, which is one of the root causes of the problems we find ourselves in now.

Re:Where have they gone?

[b-baggins]

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.

I've been there....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh yes, South Carolina. I remember it well. That's where I buried all those stone tools I bought at the open-air market in Lambeth.

Re:I've been there....

[l810c]

Actually, NOVA on PBS had a similar story that aired on Nov. 9th

A quote from that show:

One team even proposes that the first Americans came from Europe, not Asia

did the submitter...

[Anonymous Coward]

did the submitter RTFA? It clear states that the stones date from 50,000 years ago. 25,000 years earlier than previously thought.

fp?

Re:did the submitter...

[Scaba]

It doesn't matter. Now that the religious right has taken over, America no longer believes in 25,000 years ago. We only believe back to 23 October 4004 BC, when God intelligently designed the world. To claim otherwise is heresy, and will only result in you being interned at a Bob Jones Biblical Prison Camp.

Re:did the submitter...

[A nonymous Coward]

So many people bash Christianity and God based on what crackpots and holly-rollers say.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the crackpots and holy-rollers seem to be in charge of christian PR these days. If you want us non-cristians to have more respect for christianity, you'd best clean your own house.

Seldom a day goes by without some christian trying to reform government around his own peculiar ideas, putting ten commandments in courthouses, dropping opening prayers at government meetings as soon as some non-christian signs up to deliver it, dropping even the word evolution from science textbooks, the list goes on and on.

They are winning the PR battle to represent christianity. You need to clean your own house before trying to clean the world.

Creationism and Darwinism

[Scorillo47]

Hmmm... which one of these currents can use this as a proof?

Used for voting

[plierhead]

Those are neolithic tools that were used for voting. Early Americans used them to punch out the chads on the stone tablets used in elections to select their leaders. Of course things have moved on somewhat since then...

Re:Used for voting

[Lurker McLurker]

Stone tablets were often used in voting in ancient times. It's not generally known that the Ten Commandments were actually a voting slip, nad the Israelites were only supposed to pick one, not keep the lot.

Re:Used for voting

[pchan-]

these early south-carolinians, homo-courouge as they were dubbed by researchers, exhibit some peculiar behaviour not found in other native tribes. several skulls have been found that seem to have an imprint of a cylinder which was crushed on their foreheads. archeologists have also found early versions of spear-racks, presumably for mules or horses, large rusty ornamental iron works (perhaps religious icons) which were stored on blocks in front of their dwellings, as well as cave painting of an early strom thurmand election poster. we may never know how they lived, but their remains leave us with fascinating clues into the ways of a civilization now gone forever.

How much you're willing to bet...

[WegianWarrior]

...that the loudest arguments will not be over how old these remains are, but there they came from, and if they are indian (native american) or not in origin...

Re:How much you're willing to bet...

[Mant]

I did hear some interesting theories, apparently based on DNA studies of indigenous people on islands of the cost of South America and some archeological finds, that the first peoples to settle in the americas were not the people now know as native amaericans.

They were nergoid rather then mogoloid, and thought to have come across the sea rather than the land bridge. The theory went that the Native American's ancestors had gone south and driven out and killed the first wave on inhabitants, a few of whom survied on the islands.

I don't know enough about archeology to have an informed opinion on how likely it is, but it was interesting. Certainly more plausable than the supposed wacky white "mound builder" culture ideas.

Re:How much you're willing to bet...

[Hognoxious]

They were nergoid rather then mogoloid, and thought to have come across the sea rather than the land bridge. The theory went that the Native American's ancestors had gone south and driven out and killed the first wave on inhabitants, a few of whom survied on the islands.

I saw a documantary many moons ago which suggested, IIRC, that they were related to the Australian aboriginals (who are black, but not negroid). There are isolated pockets of people with genetic markers supporting this, which get more common as you approach Patagonia.

Re:How much you're willing to bet...

[The Limp Devil]

Actually, so far the debate centers on whether these are actually stone tools as claimed or just naturally chipped stones.

Re:How much you're willing to bet...

[Raffaello]

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 an interesting finding

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is an interesting finding

[darkewolf]

25k years ago for man arriving in central asia can't be entirely right. The australian aboriginals have been around in this country for 40-60k years, and its theorized they came via an asian landbridge.. Unless of course the SE Asian humans were around before the Central asian.

Re:This is an interesting finding

[Arker]

Twenty-five thousand years ago is quite close to when man is thought to have arrived in central Asia (from Africa).

Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

First off, try reading the article. The slashdot blurb is so wrong it isn't even funny. The tools appear to be 25,000 years than the previous earliest known in the new world - which was NOT Clovis. These things are from about 50,000 years ago. Humans in the new world 25,000 years ago has been known for many years. The population just seems to have been tiny, prior to the asian immigrations starting ancestral to Clovis - but there were people here. Just not very many.

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.

Wrong again, even the 50,000 years ago figure is in no way threatening to Old World chronologies, and there have been humans in central Asia for FAR more than 50,000 years. The article itself says this, but it is laughably wrong - the journalist in this case clearly misunderstood his source. Human inhabitation of central asia goes back at least twice that far.

Re:This is an interesting finding

[Raffaello]

Spencer Wells' work on male genetic markers suggests that there were two routes out of Africa - one along the coast of south asia, the other through SW asia (a.k.a., the Midde East) and into Central Asia. The South asian coastal route led to Australia. It is perfectly possible that people first reached both places (Central Asia and Australia) at around the same time. They just moved first along the coastal route probably because they were not slowed by the need to create a whole new set of material adaptations as they went. Lving in Central Asia requires a completely different set of tools, clothing and skills than living in coastal Northeastern Africa (the point of departure). Living in coastal South Asia and Coastal NW Australia does not.

Wells believes that the wave of migration leading to Australia began some 60,000 years ago. The wave leading to Central Asia dates to significantly later, probably 45,000 - 40,000 years ago.

To bring this fully on topic, genetic evidence indicates that people could not have reached North America much earlier than 15,000 - 20,000 years ago, so I'm inclined to believe that the article's suggested 50,000 year date for a hearth is simply wrong. It is probably just a natural feature (remains of a naturally ocurring fire) and the purported "tools" are probably just naturally fractured rocks. You'd be amazed at the broken rocks that some archaeologists (I'm an archaeologist by training) will call "tools." Only microscopic wear pattern analysis of sample edges can begin to establish that some randomly fractured hunk of rock is really a tool. I didn't see any mention that this has been done in the article. Another possibility is stratigraphic mixing (different levels of the site have been disturbed or moved by the activities of burrowing animals).

Re:This is an interesting finding

[Raffaello]

I know this won't put this to rest, because people love to believe in flaky sillyness rather than the relatively boring facts but here goes.

Have you ever excavated a Native American "pyramid?" I have. They bear no resemblance to Egyptian pyramids:

Egyptian Pyramids:
1. pointed on top.
2. built entirely of solid stone.
3. No structures on top.
4. Chambers always inside pyramid.

American "Pyramids"
1. Flat on top (that's why I put "pyramid" in quotes).
2. Built mostly of rubble (i.e., dirt and garbage). Sometimes, though by no means usually, faced with stone. Most often faced with plaster of Lime or clay.
3. Structures always on top.
4. Chambers inside rare.

They show no real signs of having a common cultural origin. Any superficial similiarities are explained, as a previous poster noted, by the fact that building tall structures without the benefit of modern physics and civil engineering techniques is most easily accomplished by making your structure wider at the base than at the top.

Re:This is an interesting finding

[SaV]

Nice to see another archaeologist around (though I'm still a student) :) But seriously, there's some evidence that when the Toba volcano on Sumatra blew around 70kya it would have wiped out any of the Asian branch of Homo erectus still hanging out. By the time Homo sapiens could get out of their refugium in Africa, it was easy as pie to go through these areas with no one there to bother them. It was still chilly, but they didn't encounter any hostile natives. Steven Ambrose wrote a really good paper on this event and the human genetic bottleneck that resulted. It's a great read if you haven't seen it already!

Re:This is an interesting finding

[rusty0101]

To be a bit more accurate, whether there was a population in North America earlier than 15-20,000 years ago, there is no genetic markers to support it.

Saying that there were no people in North America before this, is akin to claiming a mathematical proof by absense of a counter example is valid. It isn't a proof, it is a lack of a counter example.

Likewise there appear to be situations where there are genetic markers which do not match the 15-20,000 year window, and appear to be branches frome Europe, rather than Asia. There are questions as to exactly where and when these markers actually come from as there are very few Europeans who have enough of these genetic markers to do an accurate assesment of when the branch happened, or even to confirm it is a good match. Note that since I am neither an Archaeologist, nor a geneticist, I am not a solid source for this information.

-Rusty

Old joke

[SuneSpeg]

Old joke, the ./ way:

German scientists dug 50 meters down and discovered small pieces of copper.
After studying these pieces for a long time, Germany announced that the ancient Germans 15,000 years ago had DSL.

Naturally, the Russian government was not that easily impressed. They ordered their own scientists to dig even deeper.
100 meters down they found small pieces of glass and they soon announced that the ancient Russians 20,000 years ago already had a nation-wide fiber net.

American scientists were outraged by this. They dug 200 meters down & found absolutely nothing.
They happily concluded that the ancient Americans 25,000 years ago had wireless network.

Man did *not* descend from apes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why must I be forced to send my children to schools where the teachers insist that we are descended from apes?

The very idea is utterly ridiculous. A cursory glance at ape anatomy shows that it is impossible for man to have 'evolved' from one. It is just a rubbish idea. Everyone with any education at all knows that man actually comes from australopithecus.

Re:Man did *not* descend from apes.

[commodoresloat]

Australopithecus was created by God. Intelligent design at work. Humans are actually an evolutionary step backwards.

Re:Man did *not* descend from apes.

[eddeye]

A cursory glance at ape anatomy shows that it is impossible for man to have 'evolved' from one.

From my observations of both ape and human behavior, the only reasonable conclusion is that apes evolved from us. :)

Re:Man did *not* descend from apes.

[wayward_son]

Of course man did not descend from apes.

Man descended from lemmings. Or perhaps sheep.

Creationism

[Anonymous Coward]

This only goes to further the proof of Creationism!

Clearly this "evidence" of humans in America 25,000 years ago was only created when the world was created 6,000 years ago. QED.

Uh-oh

[SbooX]

Anyone else suspicious about anything regarding evolution that comes out of South Carolina?

ok, so

[the_2nd_coming]

a proto-native american man picks up a nice looking stone in asia, on his way across the land bridge. when he dies, his son takes it as he migrates south. over the years it ends up in the location it was found.

there mystery solved.

Mormon twist?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I know it's obviously going to modded down as flame bait, but my first response to this was, "What's the mormon response going to be?"

Being here THOUSANDS of years before they claim the nephites showed up, that's gotta hurt the ol' church.

Re: Mormon twist?

[Black Parrot]

> Being here THOUSANDS of years before they claim the nephites showed up, that's gotta hurt the ol' church.

Since when have contrary facts hurt religions?

Re:Mormon twist?

[Buzh]

Many of the monotheistic sects like mormons, jehovas witnesses and others of the evangelical (in the menaing of "interpreting the bible literally") persuasion claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old and "prove" this by tracing the genealogy of the bible from a person that can be more or less accurately placed on the timeline and all the way to Adam&Eve. 6000 years is a number that keeps turning up.

Discoveries like this and others facts that disprove their theories are not going to change their views, as they claim that god created the world at $time with everything, including fossils, geological features and other dateable items intact.

I can however assure you that they are NOT correct, as I know that the giant creator-wombat created the world out of a can of spam and some duct tape, with people, rocks, birds, the thoughts in your head, absolutely everything intact only 5 minutes ago. Go on, try to disprove it.

Re:Mormon twist?

[tehdaemon]

You obviously don't know much about mormon theology then. According to the Book of Mormon (the book about, and written by the Nephites) a group of people came to the americas direct from the tower of babel, and destroyed themselves between 600 and 200 BC. (Nephites arrived a little after 600 BC)

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.

Re:Mormon twist?

[suresk]

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.

Re:Mormon twist?

[darkstream]

First of all, Mormons would hold out panicking about this until the scientists all agreed on the age of the artifacts (as the article shows that they don't agree). Then Mormons would argue that Adam and his people began here in the Americas anyway so this isn't much of a surprise. They would also point out that the Nephites weren't the first people to settle back in the Americas since the Jaredite civilization had wiped itself out just as the Nephites discovered them and that there is no reason to believe that the Lord didn't bring other people here before the Jaredites, nevermind mentioning that there was a great antediluvian civilization here in the Americas before it was wiped out.

Civilizations rising and falling throughout the history of mankind is a common theme in Mormon literature. In fact, the lost book of Enoch has fragments that have survived to this day that detail the knowledge these civilizations had. Some of the apocryphal ones hint at ancient civilizations with strange technologies and polutions. Although that is fanciful even to Mormons, it is common belief that in almost every dispensation a prophet was shown all of the Lord's creations and how the worlds were made, thereby teaching the Lord's people about astronomy and the place the Earth has in the cosmos. This knowledge is lost when the Lord's people wane into carnality and reject the teachings of the prophets. Then they are wiped out by another, usually barbarous, civilization.

So discovering ancient people's in the Americas before the time of the Nephites really wouldn't hurt "the ol' church". However, they would take issue with the dating.

Re:Mormon twist?

[bertas28]

Giant Creator-Wombat: "I refuse to prove that I exist, because proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
Man: "Ah, but the Babel fish is so incredibly useful that it absolutely proves you exist. Thereby, according to your own argument, you don't."
Giant Creator-Wombat: "Oops, I hadn't thought of that."

Whereupon Giant Creator-Wombat disappears in a puff of logic. Man goes on to prove that up is down, black is white, and promptly gets himself killed at the next traffic crossing.

QED

Re:Mormon twist?

[Anders Andersson]

I can however assure you that they are NOT correct, as I know that the giant creator-wombat created the world out of a can of spam and some duct tape, with people, rocks, birds, the thoughts in your head, absolutely everything intact only 5 minutes ago. Go on, try to disprove it.

Well, in fact the world won't be created until next year, and what we experience here is a mere computer simulation of ourselves and our future "past" as we are about to enter "recorded" history in preparation for that major event. The Editors are being extremely careful not to reveal Themselves to their creation this time, so much that they won't even touch explicit references to Them that have come about by means of the simulation.

Re:Mormon twist?

[TheLink]

He could even have paused the Universe Simulator 3.2 and spent some "time" (whatever that is) tweaking a few parameters. Not that I'm saying he did that or anything similar.

Those who believe they can take the Bible 100% literally are _sheep_ just as literally. There are some advantages to being as dumb as sheep, still it would be for the best if they kept quiet and stuck to following their Shepherd.

Re:Mormon twist?

[Suidae]

The existance of god cannot be argued

You can stop right there and have a true statement. God is pretty much unprovable by definition. Most athiest and thiest I know agree on this point.

Science cannot remove a possible theory [...]

Science is not an actor, it doesn't do anything and has no agenda.

Those who understand scientific practices know this, and wouldn't try. Science is the process of finding explainations that fit what has been observed, and that have predictive power. Thats it, there isn't anything more than that.

I have not seen any evidence that does not fit in the 6000 year old earth model.

Nor will you, because such evidence is impossible. You will also not see any evidence that the world is not 5 minutes old. However, these theories provide no predictive powers, and so are uninteresting to people who want to learn more about how the world works through observation, prediciton and empirical results(we usually call these people 'scientists').

Religious theories are uninteresting to these people because the are generally not predictive, and not replicable.

[...]I could probably show you a number of assumptions that have no basis in observation that would cast sufficient doubt on the "facts" of the evidence.

All knowledge rests on some set of assumptions. This is well known and is not in dispute. Most scientists are well aware of the fact that our theories are just approximations of the 'Truth' of how things actually work. But most also know that this knowledge is the best we have, and that there is no other known way to actually find the 'Truth'.

The practice of scientific methods of gaining knowledge and religious beliefs are not, and never have been, at odds. From your comments, it seems that you know this.

Personally, I choose to not believe in those things for which I cannot have, at least in principle, empirical evidence. There are too many things that are possible, but for which I cannot have evidence, and many of them conflict. Thats not to say I deny their existence, I don't claim that gods cannot exist, just that I have no evidence that they do, so until such time that I can have a rational test for their existance, that fits within my current body of knowledge, I will assume that they do not.

Re:Can't Be True

[kevinatilusa]

The science may not be settled yet, but the burden of proof here still lies on the researcher.

Whenever a scientist gets experimental results that are far outside what was previously known and expected, the proper response is to either wait for independent verification (in this case, similar dating results from digs elsewhere in North America at the same depth) or subject the experimental procedure to intense scrutiny. Here, I would expect him to be able to justify

1) That the artifacts really came from the time he claims them to be from (probably easily doable via an independent dating test)
2) That the artifacts really came from the place he claims them to be from
3) That the artifacts are manmade.

Until each of these points is well supported, and barring the independent verification mentioned above, I'd hold out on adjusting the history textbooks.

The finding has been disputed

[jd]

Apparently, not everyone is convinced. Some geologists believe the stones to be naturally weathered and not artificially carved. (Did you seriously expect the scientific community to agree on anything?)

More data is needed, no matter who is right. I do believe American civilization is a lot older than the previously-accepted figure, but 25,000 years means people discovered America about the same time they discovered northern Europe. Assuming that date is accurate, and there are some good reasons for questioning that, too.

Part of the problem is that archaeology is seriously underfunded. Where I grew up, they are currently conducting an excavation of a large Iron Age settlement (4000+ inhabitants) with evidence it was first built 12,000 years ago. The site seems to have been the center of commerce for the whole of the North of Britain from the end of the Ice Age through to the Roman Occupation. That's one big, important site. Total funding: $44,000 a year, to cover site surveying equiptment, excavation equiptment, preservation efforts, education of the locals, pay for the full-time archaeologists on-site, paying the farmers whose fields are getting dug up...

In South Carolina (where I lived for a while), things are a whole lot worse. The self-proclaimed "Holy City" of Charleston is definitely unlikely to fund work that contradicts the idea the world was created in 4004 BC. And that's one of the more liberal areas!

Nor is South Carolina a place filled with philanthopists. Charleston, Mount Pleasent and West Ashley are all fighting bitterly over who gets to keep the Civil War submarine "The Hunley". None of them want to pay for it, they just want to have it.

If they're not willing to pay for a serious conservation + museum for a part of history they are tightly intertwined with, they're certainly not going to pay some archaeologist to traipse across the countryside digging up fossil remains that largely serve to remind them that they are just a bunch of tourists in comparison to the settlers who were there first.

I've wondered at this myself

[Capt'n Hector]

In "Guns, Germs and Steel", Jarod Diamond details how the pacific rim was populated very early on in human history: every single island larger than a beached whale was touched by nomadic seafarers in fishing boats, they even got to Hawaii. So why exactly did we think the population of the new wold required the land bridge to be exposed between Siberia and Alaska? Did we think it too hard to island hop along the Aleutians? Apparently it wasn't... alternatively, as I recently saw on Nova, these first explorers came from France, the same people who painted the fameous Lascaux caves. Go figure, just don't underestimate our ancestors.

Re:I've wondered at this myself

[Tarrek]

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.

Re:I've wondered at this myself

[AndroidCat]

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.)

Re:Sorry, I'm stupid, but...

[kevinatilusa]

My guess would be that they're performing the dating on once-living objects found in the same strata as the "tools". Since objects in the same strata are approximately the same age, carbon-dating those objects would provide an estimate to when the tools were first in existence.

I'm ignorant

[gowen]

... but I thought carbon dating only worked on organic matter (since its the death of the matter that stops the carbon cycle refreshing the C14 percentage in the tissue). How does this work on stone tools?

(As to the creationism / darwin debate, people forget that the fact that new evidence can make us throw away previous scientific belief is what's good about science, not what's bad)

Re: I'm ignorant

[Black Parrot]

> ... but I thought carbon dating only worked on organic matter (since its the death of the matter that stops the carbon cycle refreshing the C14 percentage in the tissue). How does this work on stone tools?

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.

Warning Label

[harriet nyborg]

This article contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered....

Re:Warning Label

[orthogonal]

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.

Re:Warning Label

[Dr. GeneMachine]

Well, here are some answers you should consider:

- "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.

$5 says they found...

[leroybrown]

Strom Thurmond

Reperations

[deft]

wow, they find the decendants of this one and i know where all those native american casino profits are going.

damn, trying to keep the cave man down.

I am a little skeptical.

[Anonymous Coward]

50,000 years is stretching carbon dating. That's a whole lot of half lives. Identifying it as a tool is also a stretch. Tools that old look a lot like cracked rocks. I have doubts about searfaring being that old. Where are the older cites closer to a land route?

Re:Speaking of Chippewa,

[killjoe]

"'"Cut off my ears so I can't hear it anymore" crazy?"

All country music does that to me. I call it bumper sticker music. Every song is can be summed up on a bumper sticker.

1999 BBC Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

I first read references about a 50,000 year old "New World" culture in a 1999 BBC documentary. They claim that the closest surviving relatives of these original inhabitants are Australian Aborigines.

The dates listed in this documentary match up to the correct dates from the CNN story (as opposed to the incorrect dates in the story summary).

Here is a link a BBC article about the documentary.

Re:1999 BBC Documentary

[Evil Pete]

Yes I saw that. The doco argued that humans had ocean going navigation a long time ago ... not surprising considering even homo floriensis had to do something like that 500,000 years ago. Anyway the doco argued that north and south America were occupied by these people but that the people from Mongolia i.e. the current Native Americans came in and made short work of them. Look it wouldn't surprise me. These days we really underestimate how much nomadic peoples move .. even on a continental scale. For instance, people suspiciously like the Celts (as in red hair) lived in Western China 2,000 years ago ... and the Celts came from the East. My point is many people have not occupied their current 'homeland' indefinitely, some have been there a very long time (to the point where it doesn't matter) but lots of othe peoples move about with a passion. Don't be surprised if the skeletons you find from 10,000 or 20,000 or more years ago have nothing to do with the current indigenous peoples.

Re:1999 BBC Documentary

[Paradise Pete]

At school we were taught the Aborigines were in Australia up to 40000 years ago, by the time I got to the sixth grade, we were being taught 80000 years.

That's what happens when you get held back 39,994 times.

Older evidence exists

[Lord Kano]

During the California gold rush, a few skeletons of modern looking humans were unearthed from rock that was millions of years old.

LK

Oldie but Goodie

[taj]

Genus: Stupidious Maximus

The story behind the letter below is that there is this nutball in Newport, RI named Scott Williams who digs things out of his backyard and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labeling them with scientific names, insisting that they are actual archaeological finds. This guy really exists and does this in his spare time! Anyway...here's the actual response from the Smithsonian Institution. Bear this in mind next time you think you are challenged in your duty to respond to a difficult situation in writing.

Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Mr. Williams:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "93211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post...Hominid skull." ...

http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humorm20.htm

Also note...

[Dimensio]

Gravity is also a theory, not a fact, regarding the attraction of masses. The belief that you will not suddenly go flying off of the earth for no discernable reason should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Uh huh

[eddeye]

So people came to South Carolina 25,000 years ago and left no traces on the rest of the continent for 12,000 years? Yeah right. Off the top of my head, here are several more likely explanations:

• Are the stones really man-made or just geofacts (naturally occuring rocks that almost sorta look like primitive stone tools if you squint your eyes really hard. After botched Lasik surgery.)? Sounds likely from the CNN writeup.
• Did they date enough samples? You need several samples that return the same age to be reliable.
• If so, were the samples contaminated? Carbon isn't exactly rare, particularly if it was in the Appalachians (coal deposits).

INAABMFWIARDL (I'm not an archaeologist but my friend works in a radio-carbon dating lab). People have been scouring the continents for over 50 years and found nothing earlier than ~13,000 BP and suddenly these guys stumble across something twice as old? Even if the site is legit it's gonna take a lot more finds to convince archaeologists people were here that early. People don't exactly confine themselves to small areas and leave no traces for thousands of years.

Sounds to me like more bogus science "journalism". Write about the crazy new theory to draw eyeballs and devote two paragraphs to the established consensus that this guy's a nut. The author oughta be run out of town on a rail.

Re:Uh huh

[Rinikusu]

Most archaeologists don't bother digging below the Clovis strata in the earth, so they don't actually get to the layers that would contain Pre-Clovis artifacts (from the article). While I won't comment on the specifics of this particular "find", I did some recon/survey of several potential sites for an archaeology class. On one side of a creek was a typical "modern" settle, from around the mid-1600s based upon the various items we found (chucky stones, various points, pestle, etc). On the other side of the creek was another site, much much much older. It's extremely interesting how various peoples pick the same spots over and over for habitation, eh? Even sites such as that one, which didn't seem particularly close to any major body of water, didn't offer any real discernible advantages. Neither settlement was very big...

Maybe the key is, we should start digging deeper and see what we come up with.

Re:Uh huh

[pipingguy]

So people came to South Carolina 25,000 years ago and left no traces on the rest of the continent for 12,000 years? Yeah right. Off the top of my head, here are several more likely explanations:

[I didn't write this, it is an email classic]

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078


Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin:

# 1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.

# 2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.

# 3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

# A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.

# B. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,

Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities

Nova Episode

[oskard]

I just saw this on an episode of Nova. (Its what I watch at 5am in the morning)

They also linked the stones to European tool-making, and believe they may have used boats to travel to North America. Yeah, so maybe its a stretch, but still a possibility.

The evidence was really believable, but its was ONLY based on the tools. The artwork and other survival methods did not make the trip, so who knows.

Very interesting special episode though, and being half Native American, I'd like to think there's at least some cultural link between my parents

NOVA on PBS had a special about this field

[Danathar]

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/

You mean creationist claims #CC111?

[geekotourist]

While claims have been made about skeletons in older rock, or of human and dinosour interactions, these claims aren't corroborated- they are disproved.

Finding new skeletons in older rock can be easy. Finding fossilized skeletons- the same age as the rock- that would be interesting.

For more reading, check out the whole index of standard creationist claims, as well as their good set of FAQS, including How do we know the age of the earth?, and fossil hominids.

As to humans making it out to the New World that much earlier than previously known, I'm not surprised... we're a wandering species (and genus), going way back. Modern Homo sapiens was poking about in odd places by 100k years ago, so there isn't any inherent reason why we shouldn't have been there. However, generally when humans arrive in force we tend to leave evidence (like stone age habitats or megafauna extinctions), so these potential first North Americans were keeping fairly quiet, archeologically-wise.

Not only funny but accurate

[Evil Pete]

Humans of course are not descended from apes but from a common ancestor ... which was not an ape.

Re:Not only funny but accurate

[Arker]

Depending on the exact definition of 'ape.' A case can be made that humans are most properly considered a species of great apes ourselves, after all.

Re:Not only funny but accurate

[operagost]

Even though male gorillas outweigh the average man by over 200 pounds, we have bigger weiners. Now THAT'S an advancement.

Re:Not only funny but accurate

[B3ryllium]

We're not that great. Get over yourself. ;-)

Seriously, who cares about them....

[hajihill]

Who listens to creationists anyways?

The only way I even hear about them is in reference to their ridiculous assertions, usually by something along the lines of a slashdot post. No one takes them seriously, and really we should just stop discussing them altogether.

If they want to go start a neo-scientific coven in a mountain cave somewhere that is fine. Let them leave us scientific types to use our fancy nukes and blow ourselves to hell. They can come out then and take over, but no sooner.

Re:Sorry, I'm stupid, but...

[plnrtrvlr]

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.

Re:Old joke

[Anonymous Coward]

The ancient Americans did have a wireless network... smoke signals! :)

Murrayian Protocaucasoid was first in America?

[Cryofan]

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.

the certain evidence will be bones

[peter303]

Scientists will argue endlessly whether a charcoal deposit is a hearth or natural fire, rock chips are artifacts or flood debris. There is a similar debate in Australia where some potential sites are nearly double the age of the oldest bones.

Who listens? Congress, of course (RANT!)

[phyruxus]

Congress listens to the freaky freakies on the radical right.

Here's the problem as I see it: (short version) Theists want everyone to believe they know the One Absolute Truth Praise God. Scientists actively research That Which Exists And How It Works. Occasionally, science discovers something that doesn't fit with the posited "One Absolute Truth". I'm just going to step over how the hyper-religious react, because I could rant all day about that. The problem we face isn't so much in that they attack us for the discovery; that washes out with time. No matter how pissed off the religious are, they don't dare say that the sun orbits the earth. They'd like to, but they know that 95% of the world would laugh at them. The problem is that with each discovery, they retrofit their dogma, with God still the omnipotent creator, and gloss over the fact that they were wrong.

1000 years from now if this continues, the conversation about evolution/artifacts could potentially be unchanged; We could know an overwhelming amount of detail about what happened and when, and how; and the religious people, after being soundly beaten, will just respond "Oh, but that's how God wants it to be. He made it that way when he created the world because he wanted to test our faith/remain mysterious/because god is unfathomable". This is the argument that needs to be attacked. David Hume showed that all the proofs of God beg the question of God's existence. As long as they cheat and we play by the rules, ignorance will win out over wisdom, because ignorance will wear any mask, even pretending to be wisdom itself.

When the religious right attacks science, the debate needs to be held in a forum where proper rhetorical practices are observed, otherwise they'll always appeal to emotion, and we'll always have to back down so we don't get labeled.

Unfortunately, even if we beat them in debate, they'll still pretend they're right. We need to frame this issue in the popular mind, because there's no arguing with angry people. They ignore, then they attack. And at the extremes they cheat too: If you win, they get teary and ask why you hate the baby jesus, why you serve the devil, why you won't let them have their beliefs. In fact, none of that is true; they can still have their beliefs. But they make it look like you're attacking them, and so draw sympathy for their side. If you lose (as in, if they get public sympathy against you) then they attack you as a "sinner", and an "atheist", and insult and slander you for not being one of them. In other words, they try to force you to give up your beliefs (which is absurd when you've seen the evidence yourself, viz Galileo).

The reason I dislike the western church so much (the organization, not the teachings) is that the western church is basically a political organization predicated on greed, hate, fear, and studied ignorance. And personally, my personal opinion that God is more likely a verbal construct than a literal being comes from the continued bad behavior of the church; If God existed, "He" wouldn't let the church get away with all that crap in His name. When people tell me I "have to" believe in God, because He *is* real yadda yadda yadda, I want to hit back with "Oh yeah, well, ERIS is REALLY real, and predates your religion by 1000 years! so HAH!" But I haven't had a good opportunity. One time I told some evangelists that "I already have a deity", though :)

HEATHEN AND LOVING IT! :P

Boy are you wrong

[heybo]

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!