Slashdot Mirror


Texas Site Pushes Back Known Settlement Date For North America

Velcroman1 writes "The discovery of ancient stone tools at an archaeological dig in Texas could push back the presence of humans in North America, perhaps by as much as 2,500 years. The find was located 5 feet below materials left by the well-known Clovis culture, which was once thought to have been the first American settlers around 13,000 years ago. It was 'like finding the Holy Grail,' Waters said in a telephone interview. To find what appears to be a large open-air campsite 'is really gratifying. Lucky and gratifying.'"

149 comments

  1. Too bad by spiffmastercow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Too bad the Texas text books state that this is 7000 years before God created the Earth.

    1. Re:Too bad by jovius · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps they found the tools of GOD?!

    2. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure God didn't just pitch a tent to test our faith? Oh wait, that was my priest, nvm...

    3. Re:Too bad by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Frankly, if the Texas Democratic Party can't take the buffoonery of the Texas Republican Party and make votes out of it, then they deserve what they get.

    4. Re:Too bad by zixxt · · Score: 1

      I for one like Texas text books at least the Texas history books are not racist anymore by way of exclusion. They made American History books include more early and essential Black and Native leaders and figureheads than in past textbooks.

      --
      ---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    5. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Also, it never ceases to amaze me that there are links to the fox news site for science-related articles. Yeah, the same fox news that panders to those who are most hostile to science/scientific discovery. Though, in Velcroman1's defense, peraps there weren't any other news outlets covering the story....

      http://tamunews.tamu.edu/2011/03/24/texas-am-led-study-shows-earliest-american-residents-came-at-least-15500-years-ago/
      http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-03/ancient-portable-tool-kit-shows-humans-settled-north-america-much-earlier-scientists-thought
      http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/clovis-culture-may-not-have-been-the-first-in-the-americas.ars
      http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110324/full/news.2011.185.html
      http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jS7j-m7_04PE5fOAuHy9dlAtvOhg?docId=86c69261c5d0400a8e2101b8d22df5aa
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-dig-solidifies-evidence-that-the-first-americans-were-here-15000-years-ago/2011/03/24/ABgKi4PB_story.html
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/science/25archeo.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

      yeah, mods, smell the sarcasm and go ahead and mod me into -1 hell

    6. Re:Too bad by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 0

      They will state that God created man out of the clay and dust found right here in Texas, which turns out to have been partially prefab.

      Also, "Tornadoes"? Or Breath of life!

    7. Re:Too bad by spiffmastercow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Frankly, if the Texas Democratic Party can't take the buffoonery of the Texas Republican Party and make votes out of it, then they deserve what they get.

      They have Democrats in Texas??

    8. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "If Kunte receives five lashes on Monday and two lashes on Wednesday, how many thanks does he give to his master?"

    9. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they are outnumbered by more than 2-1 in the legislature...of a state that elected that very baffoonery in the first place. That's a steep slope to climb

    10. Re:Too bad by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Funny

      People live in Austin, yes.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    11. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like they have republicans in Massachusetts...

    12. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "If Kunte receives five lashes on Monday and two lashes on Wednesday, how many thanks does he give to his master?"

      His name is "Toby"!

    13. Re:Too bad by bpfinn · · Score: 1

      I think I'm the only one. Every election is like a Washington Generals game.

    14. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they are all Conservative Democrats.

    15. Re:Too bad by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Aren't you forgetting about the buffoonery of the elecorate?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    16. Re:Too bad by Pawnn · · Score: 1

      Denny Crane at your service!

    17. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's 2 of us. I hate living in a "winner take all" state. Argh.

    18. Re:Too bad by brian1078 · · Score: 1

      People live in Austin, yes.

      you call that living?

    19. Re:Too bad by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Is there an actual Earth science textbook that puts forth a young Earth creationism theory? (ISBN please?)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    20. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So GCC stands for "God's Compiler Collection"?

    21. Re:Too bad by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they found the tools of GOD?!

      More like BP

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    22. Re:Too bad by OakDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too bad the Texas text books state that this is 7000 years before God created the Earth.

      Cite?

    23. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, it never ceases to amaze me that there are links to the fox news site for science-related articles. Yeah, the same fox news that panders to those who are most hostile to science/scientific discovery.

      The obvious conclusion to this apparent paradox is that your assumption is wrong.

      I doubt you'll admit it, however. :P

    24. Re:Too bad by Remloc · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Many parts of Dallas swing Democrat as well. (I live there).

      Of course, most TX Democrats would be considered Independents anywhere but TX or UT.

    25. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on your concept of a year. A galactic year is about 250M years, so those who think we've been here for 5000 years of that type would think that the universe was 1.25Tn Earth years old. According to Science, Earth is less than 20 years old, so there! :P

    26. Re:Too bad by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      at least the Texas history books are not racist anymore by way of exclusion

      Yep, now they include both kinds of music: country *and* western.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    27. Re:Too bad by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Ah shucks, teacher, that's a trick question. Kunte thanks him *every* day of the week.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    28. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People live in Austin, yes.

      you call that living?

      outstanding living, as a matter of fact.

      actually, it's the only place in Texas worth living.

    29. Re:Too bad by nopainogain · · Score: 0

      this is me clicking LIKE on your comment spiff. I was kinda hoping to be the first person to broach that one.

    30. Re:Too bad by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      mini-San Fran is home to many "star children" of Texas.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    31. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they are all Conservative Democrats.

      But you repeat yourself.

    32. Re:Too bad by blair1q · · Score: 1

      But that's a defining characteristic of electorates. It's why the word "idiot" has the etymology it does.

    33. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He can't ....yet. Texas hasn't finalized the textbooks. They're still deciding between a 6000, or 7000 yr. old timescale.

    34. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah they found the tools of the people who created god

    35. Re:Too bad by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      A friend and his wife moved to a town outside of Austin, in part because of the lower cost and because they were told by locals that the town had a liberal population, important since they were coming from San Francisco. Several friends and I (including some people who live in Texas) tried to explain that a Texas liberal and a California liberal (particularly a Bay Area liberal) were not even remotely the same thing. They moved back a year later after deciding that Texas wasn't for them.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    36. Re:Too bad by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Too bad the Texas text books state that this is 7000 years before God created the Earth.

      Cite?

      You want me to cite a joke?

    37. Re:Too bad by meerling · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I lived in Austin for a year. The stupidity level was worse than radiation at Chernobyl. Austin is not, in my opinion, a place worth living in.

    38. Re:Too bad by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2
      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    39. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "American settlers around 13,000 years ago. It was 'like finding the Holy Grail,'

      Too bad that scientists can only find good analogies through religious references.

    40. Re:Too bad by marblesbot · · Score: 2

      Anybody who uses a cable news channel as part of their argument in politics and religion must be a damn genius! Especially the FoxNews haters who think Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly don't have talk shows but actually report news. I actually get all my news on current events from John Stewart and Steven Colbert. Oh, and The View.

    41. Re:Too bad by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 0, Troll

      You want me to cite a joke?

      When it's a ethnic and culturalist slur, yes.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    42. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean my assumption that all cable "news" is horse shit, particulary the one that doesn't like science? you are correct, sir, I'll not admit that my assumption is wrong :-)

    43. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of all the links I posted, which ones are for sites that are openly hostile to science? yeah, I didn't think so.

      All cable news is horse shit. Why anyone would go to them for "information" is beyond me. I hate all of them, especially the one that openly refutes scientific fact. Perhaps now you'll understand my point: there are better sources for science-related news than the one linked in TFS. I don't know how you concluded that I was making a political or religious argument (though I did figure that if I didn't include the "all tv news is crap" disclaimer in my original post, some idiot would take issue with it).

      btw, John Stewart was at his funniest during the Clinton's-DNA-on-an-intern's-dress fiasco -- you remember that, don't ya? haven't watched his show in many years -- how is it these days? :-P

    44. Re:Too bad by marblesbot · · Score: 1

      You assumed I was talking about you. I was just making a broad statement. I think we have the same opinion of "news". If you fall into the category I described, that's unfortunate for you. If not, you shouldn't be so defensive. I actually haven't watched John Stewart in years, either. I haven't watched much of Steven Colbert's show, just some of the other ridiculous stuff he's done. I like that he remains in character ALL THE TIME. Of course, that could turn into something more than a joke eventually. I doubt I could ever actually make it through ANY of The View. I did watch when Bill O'Reilly made an appearance on that show, though.

    45. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, don't be so hard on CNN. At least they've added someone with a British accent that we can all bow down to.

    46. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The towns outside Austin are exactly where Austin liberals do *not* live.

    47. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good enough. You reminded me about something I forgot to post -- I "saw" The View once, but it was the Family Guy's hilarious interpretation: a bunch of hens sitting in a semi-circle, clucking away...

      regards,
      Mike

    48. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genesis 1:1 (Texas version): "In th' beginnin', GAWWWWD created th' heav'n an' th' urth..."

    49. Re:Too bad by Nyder · · Score: 1

      You want me to cite a joke?

      When it's a ethnic and culturalist slur, yes.

      Texas is a cultural slur against other Americans.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    50. Re:Too bad by MoeDumb · · Score: 1

      Or, too bad their dating methodology is flawed.

      --
      Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
    51. Re:Too bad by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Frankly, if the Texas Democratic Party can't take the buffoonery of the Texas Republican Party and make votes out of it, then they deserve what they get.

      The same can be same about national politics. But Democratic politicians are too stupid and/or gutless to make hay out of it.

      If the typical D politician had half the brains & balls of the typical R politician, this would be a very different country.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    52. Re:Too bad by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been to Texas? Our textbooks say no such thing.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    53. Re:Too bad by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I lived in Austin for a year. The stupidity level was worse than radiation at Chernobyl. Austin is not, in my opinion, a place worth living in.

      I lived in Austin for a year and a half. The weather was worse than living at Chernobyl, that's for sure. Other than that, Austin is pretty great if you live within the city limits, and are capable of not talking like a fag when you go outside of them. I'm a big white guy (in spite of having a Mexican surname and two saints for first names) and I can sound like anybody I like so I did just fine no matter where I went in Texas. Austin has numerous incredible advantages including a live music scene that is the envy of basically anywhere else in the world, and really amazing food everywhere. Unfortunately, it has really amazing food everywhere. I gained 130 lbs in that time. I was depressed over some shit that had nothing to do with TX most of that time, though.

      I stand by what I said about the weather, which is nice for about two months of the year, during the transition from too hot to too cold, and of course the other one, from too cold to too hot. Also, Texan drivers are asshole fuckwad dipshits. You think they're bad in Southern California? You have not seen shit yet. If there's a turn signal on it's because it's broken. If you put your signal on they will move to lock you out of the lane twice as fast as they will in Cali. They are basically the same anywhere you go in Texas, and I've been nominally everywhere (of any size, and through tons of towns of no size at all.)

      There are some great things about Texas, but basically all of them make you fat. I love the women of Texas, but I think that has to do with their reaction to a man with some culture someplace other than between his toes, who doesn't find jokes about beating people up to be funny, and so on.

      Here's a tiny, illustrative story about Texas to wet your whistle with. I was at a party in College Station where Texas A&M is located; UT students I was acquainted with tended to refer to it as "Sheepfucker U" but they have a famous rivalry between them. We decided to go eat at Denny's because we were classy like that. I was dressed fairly ordinarily in all black but I was with a pretty wild group including a girl in a kimono and guys wearing shiny shit, maybe even a guy in a skirt. Not the kind of group that is typically well-received in Texas, I will grant you, but here's the good part: As we walk into the restaurant three stereotypical cowboys are sitting near the door and as I go by (the last one in line of course) one of them sticks his head up and says "I'll suck your dick if you suck mine." And he's not offering, he's trying to start a fight.

      Now, I'm a pretty easygoing type in general. You can't tell from my posting style because I'm regularly taking a gigantic shit on someone for some perceived insult. You know what they say about nerd rage. In this case I retained my nature and I looked down and said to him "Sir, you are quite the comedian" and then went to my table and forgot all about them; I was facing another direction. We were there for about an hour and a half and apparently those guys were there for about an hour of it waiting for us to leave so they could start a fight. Our waitstaff told us this after they had departed because they were concerned about us, though they needn't have been. I can lift and throw idiots of their size.

      Now, in Austin they have a gay kicker bar called the Rainbow Cattle Club. Or they did, I dunno, I'm not that in touch with the gay scene anywhere, and especially not there. I'd bet money that more than one slashdotter is, though. I have a friend I could ask if it matters. :)

      Unless you are a white-skinned BBQ addict, avoid Texas.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. originals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    they better not open the Pandorica or the Daleks will really invade this time around.

  3. The real tragedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that Texas culture has regressed since then.

  4. Well, that's sad. by StefanJ · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I sign on to make a wise-ass comment about creationism and Texas and find two others beat me too it.

    Either /. commenter creativity has hit a new low, or Texas's reputation is so overpowering that such jokes are inevitable.

    1. Re:Well, that's sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am voting for option one.

    2. Re:Well, that's sad. by Rinnon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Either /. commenter creativity has hit a new low, or Texas's reputation is so overpowering that such jokes are inevitable.

      A little from column A, a little from column B.

    3. Re:Well, that's sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes

    4. Re:Well, that's sad. by H0p313ss · · Score: 2

      Either /. commenter creativity has hit a new low, or Texas's reputation is so overpowering that such jokes are inevitable.

      A little from column A, a little from column B.

      But does it run Linux?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    5. Re:Well, that's sad. by morgaen · · Score: 1

      That, my friend, is called an inverse whoosh.

    6. Re:Well, that's sad. by kehren77 · · Score: 0

      I sign on to make a wise-ass comment about creationism and Texas and find two others beat me too it.

      Either /. commenter creativity has hit a new low, or Texas's reputation is so overpowering that such jokes are inevitable.

      Don't mess with Texas. It's not nice to pick on the mentally challenged.

    7. Re:Well, that's sad. by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      Headline: Post Pushes Back Known Wise-Ass Comments About Texas Date For Slashdot Story

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    8. Re:Well, that's sad. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Its like trying to get first post but finding that someone has beat you to it. With an "In Soviet Russia..." line to boot.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:Well, that's sad. by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't an inverse woosh be a thud?

    10. Re:Well, that's sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto - it's a shame that so many people find trolling religion and republicans to be enjoyable. I guess if it makes them feel better about themselves, it might save a trip to the shrink.

    11. Re:Well, that's sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're helping prove option one.

    12. Re:Well, that's sad. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't an inverse woosh be a thud?

      No, it would be a "shoe".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  5. Clovis humor by snsh · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Clovis kids were probably just playing a practical joke 10,000 years ago, burying pottery five feet under, to confuse the archaeologists.

    1. Re:Clovis humor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did that once. Threw a brass Proto pipe down a crevasse at 9k foot glacier. Ya, it was plugged.

  6. Indiana Korg and the Charred Stick by blair1q · · Score: 2

    So the Clovis culture was one day's easy digging away from being the first archaeologists?

  7. Re:Until the next discovery by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you charging the archaeologists with falsifying data? Because it sure sounds like that's what you're doing, and if so, you'd better contact the Texas A&M ethics board with your allegations. If you're not willing to do that, and provide evidence, you should probably just STFU.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  8. Settlements by HikingStick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's nice to read about a settlement that has nothing to do with a lawsuit.

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    1. Re:Settlements by EkriirkE · · Score: 2

      With Texas in the same sentence, no less. I was trying to wrap my head around a publicized patent suit so famous it didn't need to be named in the headline.

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    2. Re:Settlements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was trying to figure out what web-site in Texas would have the power to push back the legal settlement date of something that affected the entirety of North America.

      God, I am really starting to hate living in this world of lawsuits.

    3. Re:Settlements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the West Bank.

  9. Interesting story, terrible headline by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    "Known settlement date"? What the hell does that even mean? Perhaps "date of first known settlement", but come on. Even if the story is filled with grammatical problems, at LEAST check the headlines before you hit submit.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Interesting story, terrible headline by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      "Known settlement date"? What the hell does that even mean? Perhaps "date of first known settlement", but come on. Even if the story is filled with grammatical problems, at LEAST check the headlines before you hit submit.

      Some site in Texas sued all of North America, and North America is settling. However, the settlement date is being pushed back from the known value.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Interesting story, terrible headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. the act or state of settling or the state of being settled.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/settlement the first listed definition.

      In the context of settlement as an action, the headlines grammar is fine.

    3. Re:Interesting story, terrible headline by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      I suppose you're right, the grammar is fine. But that doesn't mean it makes sense.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    4. Re:Interesting story, terrible headline by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The grammar, syntax, and semantics are all perfectly correct. It makes sense.

      It's possible you were confused by the existence of alternate definitions of some of the words. That is perfectly normal in English (completely unambiguous language is a rare exception) and indeed the majority of natural languages. Context is what makes distinguishing possible. I believe there was sufficient context in the headline to distinguish. Most other definitions of "settlement" make no sense in the context of "North America". However it is possible that you were still momentarily confused. This is not uncommon at all, does not indicate that the headline is wrong, or that you cannot read, and should just be taken in stride.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Interesting story, terrible headline by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      There are other ambiguities with the headline that makes it confusing.

      The site isn't what did the pushing. It was the discovery of it. The headline would have made a lot more sense if it had said:
      "Discovery of Texas site pushes back known settlement date for North America."

      "Known settlement date" could be today. There is a settlement in North America today, right? So it needs to specify that it was the FIRST known settlement. You could argue that since we're pushing it back, that must mean it's the first, but I don't think that's a good assumption.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    6. Re:Interesting story, terrible headline by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      The site isn't what did the pushing. It was the discovery of it.

      Everything is conditional on knowledge. The site's existence is what pushed the date back, but we only know of its existence because we discovered it. In that sense, "known" in the headline is implied and thus redundant. But okay.

      "Known settlement date" could be today. There is a settlement in North America today, right?

      The settlement date would be today if someone was settling today. And indeed, someone probably is settling in North America as we speak. For them, that would be their settlement date. It would not be the settlement date for North America, as North America is already settled.

      When talking about the settlement of a place, you only discuss it being settled if it was not already -- or at least wasn't settled by people you recognize as important if you're say Europeans settling America or other examples. But even in that case you wouldn't say Europeans settled America, after Europeans had already settled America. That makes no sense. The hypothetical people settling in North America today -- they settled in North America, they did not settle North America. Do you see?

      So it is a good assumption that "known settlement date" implies the first known settlement, because after that it was already settled. The date of the previous oldest known settlement in North America is no longer the settlement date of North America -- by the time that settlement came around, North America was already settled.

      Would it always be used that way? No, but such is language. But if you weren't using "settlement date" in that way, that's when you might want to take more care to make it clear what you meant.

      Like if you told me that you believed that North America was settled only 400 years ago, and then when I expressed incredulity you went "Ha! I meant settled by Dutch immigrants!", that would be a case of being misleading and I might have to cut off your hand (erm... that was supposed to be an xkcd link but I can't find the right one... nevermind about the hand thing I wouldn't do that).

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  10. Re:Science in Texas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone in Texas still believe in science?

    Lots of people in Texas believe in science.

    It's the ones who don't believe in science who make the front page on Slashdot.

  11. Misleading headline by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1

    I expected an article about some Texas-based website pushing back the settlement date for some kind of copyright violation class action lawsuit affecting North American users only (at least the known ones).

    --
    RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
  12. Re:Until the next discovery by compro01 · · Score: 2

    Well it's kinda impossible for new findings to push it forward. Any new findings will either be the same age or newer (and thus don't make the news) or they're older and push the date back.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  13. Re:Until the next discovery by rotide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just throwing this out there, but archaeologists are probably making discoveries _all_the_time_. You just hear about the ones that news sources pick up as, well, news worthy. Kinda like ones that show us we were here thousands of years before we previously thought. Nothing odd about that, in my opinion.

  14. Re:Until the next discovery by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    I'm certainly not one to begrudge someone their cynicism, but I fail to understand what you're finding "interesting" about that. Of course the discoveries that make the news are the ones that set the date back further.

    Finding tools from 1000BC might (or might not. IANAA) be a valuable find, but it's not news because we already KNOW there were people around earlier than that.

  15. Re:Until the next discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow!! Mental note to walk on egg shells when ever Daniel Dvorkin is around.

    Or better yet, as with any debate, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As the claimant, the burden of proof is on you to show that a professional is falsifying data. If you're unable to do so, withdraw your claims.

    I'm just saying that [logical fallacy]...

    What are your credentials and what professional experience do you have as an archaeologist that you're able to make informed observations on the age of the artifacts that are uncovered?

  16. Re:Science in Texas? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 0

    Does anyone in Texas still believe in science?

    Presumably some of those people in Mission Control still do...

  17. Fox News is source??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In search of a creditable source for this (a bit of internet archaeology), just below the layer of detritus of modern society, I stumbled upon this: http://www.livescience.com/13398-americans-predate-clovis-110324.html

  18. Re:Science in Texas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep.

    As a Texan that believes in science I can say that, yes, there are a few of us here.

  19. Re:Until the next discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someonegottold.exe

  20. Re:Until the next discovery by theunixbomber · · Score: 0

    These are all fair and probably correct statements. True that nobody reports on the the guy who discovered a previously unknown settlement from 9K years ago when the last discovery was from 10k. And no... I'm obviously not in the field. The only bases I have for my comments are my observations of the new stories that I see combined with my observations of human behavior through out the years.

  21. Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas? by serbanp · · Score: 1

    That theory has been long ago discredited. It's amazing that it still decorates US history books - is it because almost no one teaching this subject and the kids learning about it don't care at all?

    Anyway, this finding helps debunking the mantra...

    1. Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas? by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Yes, didn't some Europeans boat along the edge of the Atlantic pack ice during the last ice age (pre-Bering strait land bridge) and land in Eastern North America? I thought the found some ceremonial spear points somewhere that matched ones in France, but predated the land bridge migration.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a little common sense will tell you that people didn't just appear in texas, they had to migrate there from somewhere else in north america first.

    3. Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Please do enlighten us with more recent knowledge. I'm well away from archaeology; the last word I know is Jared Diamond's, which was: even if Clovis culture wasn't the first one in North America, it was the first widespread one, and so predecessors are merely interesting curiosities. Much like L'Anse aux Meadows: it's impressive that the Norse made it that far, but it didn't really go anywhere.

    4. Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas? by marblesbot · · Score: 1

      I wanted to tie in some sarcasm about them coming from the south and current US immigration fights, but I just couldn't piece anything together.

    5. Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      That theory has been long ago discredited.

      I don't think it has been as thoroughly discredited as you say. (Or maybe I should say, the discrediting isn't broadly enough accepted for you to state it as you did).

      However, a steady sequence of anomalies has popped up, mostly in the past decade or so, so that people who argue for an earlier settlement are no longer dismissed as a lunatic fringe. I suspect there will eventually be a consensus on an earlier settlement, though it's too soon to say what the new mainstream view will state.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Yes, didn't some Europeans boat along the edge of the Atlantic pack ice during the last ice age (pre-Bering strait land bridge) and land in Eastern North America? I thought the found some ceremonial spear points somewhere that matched ones in France, but predated the land bridge migration.

      I don't recall about the spear points, but there is an oddity regarding a population-tracking mutation that occurred in Europe showing up among the native American populations. And just those in the eastern part of North America, IIRC.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Please do enlighten us with more recent knowledge. I'm well away from archaeology; the last word I know is Jared Diamond's, which was: even if Clovis culture wasn't the first one in North America, it was the first widespread one, and so predecessors are merely interesting curiosities. Much like L'Anse aux Meadows: it's impressive that the Norse made it that far, but it didn't really go anywhere.

      The problem is, anomalous dates are found scattered all over the two continents, suggesting that the precursor population wasn't just a minor thing.

      Assuming the anomalous dates are actually correct...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    8. Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas? by serbanp · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I'm now reading a nice book named "1491" (see http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8). It has quite a few interesting bits of information about the Clovis precedence being challenged more and more, with some sites that seem to be older being located in the South America; if only one of these recent findings will become generally accepted, it will be enough to discard the Northern Passage theory of Siberia migration during the last ice age (which anyway sounds incredibly well timed to ring true).

  22. Not a big breakthrough by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is getting a lot more hype than it should: Several other sites, as well as genetic studies, have pointed to the existence of pre-Clovis human habitation in North America, and it had long been a working hypothesis for a lot of archaeologists who had been studying early American habitation.

    The only really interesting question is what these tools most resemble: If they look like they're related to a culture not from Siberia, that would be a much bigger deal, since it would suggest migration from Africa or Europe or Polynesia.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Not a big breakthrough by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you proved they'd come from Polynesia, that really would be a big breakthrough - pushing back Polynesian settlement by more than 10,000 years. Easter Island and Hawai'i were settled within the last 2000 years.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    2. Re:Not a big breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right, has anyone heard of the Meadowcroft Rockshelter? Check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadowcroft_Rockshelter . It is even older than this find.

  23. Good lord... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    They found ol' Dinosaur Dan!

    "When y'all gonna let me outta here?"

    1. Re:Good lord... by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1

      +1 for reference to such an old cartoon.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
  24. Re:Until the next discovery by theunixbomber · · Score: 1

    See.... observations on human behavior.

    In the name of open and honest discussion I just admitted that my view might need some adjustment. Not sure how the makes me a "faggot".

  25. Texas 13000BC, South India 1.5M BC! by billstewart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Texas find is interesting, because it's dealing with settlement of North America, but to me the India find in the same article was much more interesting. Acheulian stone tool designs in India at 1.5 million years BC, saying humans migrated out of Africa at least 100,000 years earlier than we thought! That difference is a lot longer than the time modern Cro-Magnons have been around.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Texas 13000BC, South India 1.5M BC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would explain the 200,000 year old evidence at site mesa verde in south america. It just isn't being released as yet as the scientific community would bury it.

    2. Re:Texas 13000BC, South India 1.5M BC! by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 2

      Those humans would have been Homo Erectus, not Homo Sapiens.

    3. Re:Texas 13000BC, South India 1.5M BC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those humans would have been Homo Erectus, not Homo Sapiens.

      Not necessarily.
      Our knowledge is severely limited. We can NOT say "Homo Erectus did not co-exist with Homo Sapien", all we can say is "we don't have any evidence that they did." Those are not even close to being the same thing, and it's possible that tomorrow we'll find Sapiens from much earlier or Erectus from much later. It's also likely that there were other species which we have not, and probably never will, find direct evidence that they existed.

    4. Re:Texas 13000BC, South India 1.5M BC! by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      we can say that the fossil record shows that homo Sapiens did not evolve until about 200K years ago.

      so yeah,.... unless you find some Modern human remains that are 1.5 million years old... I'd say that I am correct.

  26. *Western* Massachusetts by billstewart · · Score: 1

    The state doesn't all resemble Boston.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  27. Only problem is by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

    The tools are stamped "Made in China"

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    1. Re:Only problem is by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that. During the last Ice Age, humans did cross the land-bridge from Asia through Alaska back down through Canada, North and South America. I'm sure many Native American's mitochondrial DNA could be traced back to ancient Chinese decedents.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Only problem is by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that - maybe he was making a joke, based on exactly that information and the fact that a lot of the tools currently being used are also made in China?

      --
      This is blinging
    3. Re:Only problem is by marblesbot · · Score: 1

      They were just really cheap tools from China that looked like quality tools made in other places.

  28. In Texas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the Earth is only 6000 years old.

  29. Re:Until the next discovery by Nikker · · Score: 1

    Click, click.

    --
    A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  30. Re:Until the next discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Nevermind GP. If he had in his posession the "evidence" necessary to backup his claims and didn't feel the need to bring them to light, not only would that make him a homosexual, but it would also mean he's too stingy to seed his volumes of gay porn to the rest of the world.

    Lets not even touch how he feels he's capable of providing a "professional" opinion on the matter...

  31. Texas A&M is not known for its digging efforts by 517714 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bryan/College Station's worst disaster occurred when a small two-seater Cessna 150 plane, piloted by two Texas A&M students, crashed into a cemetery earlier today. Texas A&M volunteers have recovered 300 bodies so far and expect the number to climb as digging continues into the evening. The pilot and copilot survived and are helping in the recovery efforts.

    I know it's old, but it never fails to get the goat of my Aggie buddies.

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  32. The world's most trusted science reporting source! by Locke2005 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Note that this article was on Fox, along with news of a Bigfoot video from North Carolina and a story on an El Chupacabra found in Kentucky. You know that Rupert Murdock, he checks, rechecks, and checks again to make sure his stories are accurate!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  33. Dating methods? by Shaiku · · Score: 1

    I wish they'd post more information on how they dated the tools. It's not that I doubt the science, but the article makes it sounds like they dug 5 feet deeper and found tools, so they must be thousands of years older. I can almost hear Ray Comfort now saying "The Clovis people dug a 5-foot hole and buried their old tools. All these scientists found was an ancient landfill. Now look at this banana..."

    Why does the quality of news articles always have to be so low? Off-topic now but: It's an online publication for cryin' out loud! A few extra words won't cost anything and grammar/spell check is just a friggin' button.

    1. Re:Dating methods? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      New York Times explains: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/science/25archeo.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

      Given the lack of sufficient organic material buried around the tools, the radiocarbon dating method was useless. Instead, earth scientists at the University of Illinois, Chicago, used a newer technique known as optically stimulated luminescence. This measures light energy trapped in minerals to reveal how long ago the soil was last exposed to sunlight.

      Steven L. Forman, who directed the tests, said that 49 core samples were drilled from several sections of the sediments associated with the tools. When the data were analyzed, they consistently yielded the same ages. “This was unequivocal proof of pre-Clovis,” he said at the news conference.

      Other scientists examined the flood plain geology at the site and determined that the clay sediments showed virtually no sign of having been disturbed during or after the burying of the tools. Lee C. Nordt, a geology professor at Baylor University, said that the traces of previous cracks in the sediment were few and too narrow to have allowed more recent artifacts from above to have settled into the deeper pre-Clovis layers.

      Until recently, Dr. Waters said, archaeologists had probably overlooked earlier artifacts because the Clovis points are so distinctive and, in contrast, the pre-Clovis material has no hallmark style calling attention to itself.

      “Finally, we are able to put Clovis-first behind us and move on,” he said.

    2. Re:Dating methods? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you seriously asking Slashdotters for advice on dating?

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  34. Website pushing back settlement date? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    For a minute I thought this was about some official Texas educational website changing the dates of historical events. And my first reaction was "o, those idiots, are they at it again?".

  35. Re:Until the next discovery by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    And every time you find something you lost, it's always in the last place you look. It's not weird, it's just how it works.

  36. Re:Until the next discovery by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

    Not necessarily. There could be some discoveries that alter geologic timetable presumptions, and thus move dates forward. It doesn't happen as often as it used to, and certainly not as drastically as before, but there are still occasional changes.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  37. Re:Science is illegal in Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't buy glassware for chemistry here in Texas without a license, so you aren't far off, despite being a troll.

  38. The original Americans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real Americans, the Native ones, have been very friendly towards me. So the Blacks and Asian-Americans.
    Unlike some european-americans (NOT EVERYBODY); who called some hispanics wet backs, without looking into a person's talent or moral quality.
    Funny: an immigrant telling another immigrant is not good enough for not being blonde?
    (despite the pond between US and Europe is waaay bigger.)
    Disclosure: My beautiful wife is caucasian blonde/never been illegally in the US

  39. Kennewick Man, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess those 'native' Americans will have to find a way to steal THIS find too, so that it can't be DNA tested, and also make sure that no damn WHITE people can look at the site properly, lest we find that America was inhabited by whites long before the 'native' Americans came and murdered them all...

    Just like China was a white country, before the Mongol hoardes came and murdered all the white men, and raped all the white women, producing what is now known as the 'Chinese' race. Is it any surprise that China is a totalitarian country, with no regard for the suffering of animals or people? I wonder which side of the family tree made them like that?

  40. Re:The world's most trusted science reporting sour by Opyros · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of other articles on this story on the web; take your pick.

  41. Re:The world's most trusted science reporting sour by konohitowa · · Score: 2

    And to make matters worse, it was an AP story! ZOMG!

    Knee, meet Jerk.

  42. Ancient texas archeological site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they find any RV parts?

  43. Re:Texas A&M is not known for its digging effo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent is funny because Aggies really are that focused.

  44. Great. Now, can they explain Tiahuanaco? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... or Puma Puncu?

  45. Forget the Alamo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Texas is for all practical purposes no longer a civilized state (not the only one), they shouldnt get the credit for this. id rather Mexico have the honors, i suspect they are more respectful of archeology. So lets just say it was found in northern Mexico.