Slashdot Mirror


Grisly Find Suggests Humans Inhabited Arctic 45,000 Years Ago (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit points out this story which may rewrite the early history of humans in North America. From the Sciencemag story: "In August of 2012, an 11-year-old boy made a gruesome discovery in a frozen bluff overlooking the Arctic Ocean. While exploring the foggy coast of Yenisei Bay, about 2000 kilometers south of the North Pole, he came upon the leg bones of a woolly mammoth eroding out of frozen sediments. Scientists excavating the well-preserved creature determined that it had been killed by humans: Its eye sockets, ribs, and jaw had been battered, apparently by spears, and one spear-point had left a dent in its cheekbone—perhaps a missed blow aimed at the base of its trunk. When they dated the remains, the researchers got another surprise: The mammoth died 45,000 years ago. That means that humans lived in the Arctic more than 10,000 years earlier than scientists believed, according to a new study. The find suggests that even at this early stage, humans were traversing the most frigid parts of the globe and had the adaptive ability to migrate almost everywhere."

138 comments

  1. how frigid was it? by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    old Johnny Carson joke

    1. Re: how frigid was it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was so frigid my fell off.

      Old Gene Rayburn reference.

    2. Re:how frigid was it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not frigid enough to stop humans from living or hunting there. Or wooly mammoths.

      Which suggests that maybe it wasn't as cold there then as it is now.

  2. The history of mankind writ large by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nature tells us no and we do it anyway.

  3. 2000km or 200km? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2000km south of the North Pole sounds like you'd be in a fairly warm area....

    1. Re:2000km or 200km? by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      2000km south of the North Pole sounds like you'd be in a fairly warm area....

      Around 71 degrees north (latitude).
      So... northern alaska, greenland, northern tips of scandinavia, siberia... are all around 2000 km from the pole.

      All of Iceland is further south.

      The world is a big.

    2. Re:2000km or 200km? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iceland is a pretty green place though...

    3. Re:2000km or 200km? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's closer to 3000 km south of the North Pole
      http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+from+the+north+pole+to+iceland

    4. Re:2000km or 200km? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world is a big.

      Yes, yes it is a big. Such a big, in fact, that.

    5. Re:2000km or 200km? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iceland is a pretty green place though...

      Greenland however has plenty of ice all the time. Maybe they should switch names.

    6. Re:2000km or 200km? by truck_soccer · · Score: 2

      The world is a big.

      - It's a me, Mario!

    7. Re:2000km or 200km? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world is a big.

      Yes, yes it is a big. Such a big, in fact, that.

      The world is a bitch.

    8. Re:2000km or 200km? by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2

      That Eric the Red guy was a real estate speculator; yes, it was a lot warmer in the green land 1100 years ago (they had dairy farms on the coast!) but they still needed to convince people from Iceland to come over!

    9. Re:2000km or 200km? by THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER · · Score: 1

      I went through the hassle of logging into slashdot (finding my password), just to tell you that while reading your comment, I was brushing my teeth and spit out a large mouthful of water and toothpaste all over the bathroom mirror. Thanks for the laugh.

  4. 20000 km from the pole by raymorris · · Score: 0

    I'm betting it was about 20,000 km from the (south) pole. :)

  5. Grisly find? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like they found a Mammoth, not a Grisly Bear...

    1. Re: Grisly find? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Grisly. Grizzly. Two different words.

    2. Re: Grisly find? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's called a pun, son. You're supposed to grin and bear it.

    3. Re: Grisly find? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      (facepalm) I hate you.

    4. Re: Grisly find? by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      Commenting to undo a ham-fingered mouse-click moderation.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    5. Re: Grisly find? by Kyont · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he was just panda-ing to the masses. (That's ursine to stop reading comments).

      --
      You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
    6. Re: Grisly find? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, don't be so ursinine.

  6. Warmer. by wulfmans · · Score: 1

    It was warmer back then, so i suppose the hunting was great. We could use some warming other than the hot air we get from Washington.

    1. Re:Warmer. by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The timing puts it in the last ice age. In 45,000 years ice does not stay still but moves about a bit and the end of the last ice age many interesting things would have been happening with regard to mass flooding, break down of debris and methane generation. Most of civilised human ice age history would be logically under water. The more ice melts, the more water rises and the more readily coastal civilisations are inundated. Do you want to invest in underwater front, go right ahead but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when you investment quite literally goes under water. If you can hold your breath for long enough, don't worry the next ice age will dry out you land but damn, it wont be water front any more but a few kilometres away from the new shore line. You can waffle shit all you want but when we build cities on the coast we have to protect them and do what ever it takes to do so.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Warmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Assuming no sarcasm, nobody is saying the planet has never been warmer than it is today. That's a straw man tossed about by morons.

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

      Why All the AGW people are saying that today is the HOTTEST on record! Are they lying?

      Nope, we don't even have to argue about what anybody ever actually said because it turns out records only go back about 100 years or so.

      Thus whatever happened thousands and thousands of years ago, not being on record, will not matter.

    4. Re:Warmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, right but everyone knows that climate change from this point forward is caused by people. All that other historic global warming is over now. *Now* it's our fault. Or rather, industrialized, first-worlder's fault. /sarc

    5. Re:Warmer. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Cities are disposable. Build a city, use it so long as it remains convenient to use, and when the water rolls over it, just abandon it.

      WTF makes people think we need to defend cities? You've forgotten your nomad roots?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:Warmer. by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "The more ice melts, the more water rises and the more readily coastal civilisations are inundated."

      Well, not exactly, specifically here, since we are talking about Northern Eurasia.

      When ice melts water rises, true, but there's also the fact that the melted ice adds weight no more to the land it sat on, so land also rises. It's then a matter of what rises more/faster: sea level or land and in Northern Europe (i.e. Scandinavia) it's land the one winning the race.

    7. Re: Warmer. by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      WTF makes people think we need to defend cities? You've forgotten your nomad roots?

      Where where you when the US Gov't built all those Levies to 'defend' the city of New Orleans? We've fought very hard to defend the underwater city of New Orleans...

    8. Re: Warmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism is a relatively recent and despicable invention.

    9. Re:Warmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor old Mike is really losing it now.

    10. Re:Warmer. by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      They got used to the high-speed internet connection.

    11. Re:Warmer. by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Cities are where people stop being nomads and start building civilisation. It's clear where your priorities lie.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    12. Re:Warmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world has become crowded. There are no longer big, empty habitable spaces to move into.

      Also, every migration of that type has been accompanied by casualties in the order of a significant (double-digit) percentage of the total numbers of people migrating. Next time it happens, we should expect those casualties to be in the tens if not hundreds of millions.

    13. Re:Warmer. by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Your argument, as stated, also applies to getting rid of fire departments. After all, why do people think they should defend houses?

      It even applies to basic home maintenance and upkeep. Why reroof a home? You can always just move once the ceiling starts to leak and rot sets in.

      A more nuanced view would look at the costs. What's the cost of defending cities versus the costs of relocating cities. What's the value of all the low-lying cities threatened by global warming? How much would it cost to move, rebuilding all of that infrastructure, versus the cost of mitigation?

    14. Re: Warmer. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Freedom too.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    15. Re:Warmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world has become crowded. There are no longer big, empty habitable spaces to move into.

      Also, every migration of that type has been accompanied by casualties in the order of a significant (double-digit) percentage of the total numbers of people migrating. Next time it happens, we should expect those casualties to be in the tens if not hundreds of millions.

      Canadian here - there are huge amounts of habitable spaces to live in. You may find them a little colder than you like, but my province alone (Nova Scotia) is virtually covered by trees.

    16. Re:Warmer. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You start off with absurdities, but you finish with good questions. I'll answer those latter with, "Well, maybe this time around, we can build sensibly!" Take Philadelphia, for instance. Or, Chicago. The nation's infrastructure stipulates that streets should be accessible to over-the-road trucks, about 72 feet long, about 10' 6" wide, and 13' 6" high. And, the streets should support those trucks weighing 80,000 pounds. However, both of the cities I've named have huge amounts of places where such trucks cannot go.

      Maybe if we scrapped some of those ancient cities and towns, we could actually plan the new cities. Plans that not only accomodate those trucks that are required to navigate the cities, but plan in a lot of green spaces. Playgrounds, parks, nice wide boulevards, etc. Maybe we could have cities in which all structures are built to modern codes. Face it, 100 to 200 years ago, a lot of homes were little more than hovels. Those ancient homes are often times "valuable" today, simply because they have survived, and there are so many people needing homes.

      How many structures in your favorite town are still wired with "widow maker" bare wires running through the attic, or behind the walls? How many should be condemned for the lead in the piping? How many have absolutely no fire safety built into them?

      Maybe I shouldn't say that some of our cities NEED TO DIE, but there would be some pretty big benefits to be reaped from just starting over.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    17. Re:Warmer. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      WTF makes people think we need to defend cities? You've forgotten your nomad roots?

      Most cultures moved past being nomads .. they became agrarian, established and then industrialized.

      Things like roads and running water and libraries and burial grounds and temples ... all of those things which helped us build modern society ... they eventually anchored us to cities.

      Humans have fundamentally changed the landscape of the world, and there's far too many of us to try to pretend that our nomadic roots have any applicability to our modern lives.

      You think the populace of New York or LA could suddenly become nomadic? No way in hell.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    18. Re:Warmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way! It was warmer back then?

      Why All the AGW people are saying that today is the HOTTEST on record! Are they lying?

      I think it's fairly easy to understand that 50.000 years ago the world was ending a warm period and entering the last ice age [which lasted some 40.000 years]. So, warmer climate at polar latitudes, yes sir.

    19. Re:Warmer. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      It was sarcasm. And yet, also true. AGW people have said "its never been hotter". Because if it has been hotter, and cooler, then AGW and GW in General is not really a problem. Humans will survive. I'm more concerned with nutjobs with Nuclear weapons, which is much more immediate threat.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    20. Re:Warmer. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      So, you're admitting AGW are using geologically short sighted view of climate. Got it .

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    21. Re:Warmer. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      No. Climate change is happening continuously, for all sorts of reasons - we understand them pretty well, and can map climate changes through recorded history - right up to about 70 years ago when an abnormal heating began, which just happens to coincide with what is expected from the rapidly accelerating rate at which humans are releasing geologic carbon into the atmosphere.

      It's not like the process is unheard of - it just usually happens because of world-spanning high volcanic activity. None of that's happening now though - current volcanic carbon emissions amount to a rounding error compared to what humans are releasing. And regardless of the source, the resulting atmospheric carbon dioxide is predictably causing dramatic heating - to the point that if we don't rapidly reign in our fossil fuel consumption there is considerable risk that the worlds bistable climate system will switch from the current "cold/ice age" state to the much warmer "tropics and desert" state - something that only happens every several million years (i.e nothing like modern humans existed the last time the planet was in its warm state). And while the end result may actually end up being more hospitable to humans, the several centuries of transition are going to make things like modern-scale agriculture extremely difficult, if not impossible. As well as flooding coastal areas of course, but while that will be an incredibly expensive issue to deal with it won't be life-threatening the way agricultural breakdown would be. As it is, even the small changes we've seen so far have been making weather more extreme and less predictable, with results that you can see in higher prices at the grocery store.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    22. Re: Warmer. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I have always wondered why we rebuilt New Orleans after Katrina. Those who rebuilt below sea level should have been told that they are no longer covered by insurance and that they should move to higher ground.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    23. Re:Warmer. by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The key part of that is on record. Records haven't been around very long compared to people. And they almost went away though vinyl is making a big comeback.

    24. Re:Warmer. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It was warmer back then,

      Why do you think that?

      For mammoths - and many other grazing animals, the problem is not temperature, but whether or not they can get at food under the snow.

      When the Arctic was colder, the moisture would have frozen out of the air further out in the margins (Scandanavia, Korea, Kamchatka) leaving Central Siberia very cold, but dry. At which point, the long daylight hours of the summer can produce relatively large amounts of growth which can be eaten in the winter - if it's not buried under the snow.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    25. Re:Warmer. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      AGW people have said "its never been hotter"

      If you're hearing that said, then you need to get a less-biased quote mine. In the last several thousand years, averaged over the planet, it has not been hotter. But in the longer term (looking back to e.g. the PETM), it has been hotter, consequent on dumping carbon into the atmosphere at rates that we are exceeding these days. Those climate excursions took in excess of 100,000 years to turn around, which is why they mark a mass extinction.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. 45,000 Years? by hawleyg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But, but, they told me that the earth was only 6000 years old?!

    --
    Cheers, Glen
    1. Re:45,000 Years? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes, and AGW people say today is hotter than it was back then, when clearly this indicates otherwise!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:45,000 Years? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Which is more or less 45,000 in dog years, so there ya go.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:45,000 Years? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Yes, today the earth is quite a bit warmer than 45,000 years ago, considering the ice ago that was going on at the time.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    4. Re:45,000 Years? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I could be reading this article wrong - I'm only looking at one of the graphs but I'm reading the temperature as warmer today than 50,000 years ago. By my reading you need to go back about 125,000 years to get a warmer temp. https://www.aip.org/history/cl... - graph link http://www.aip.org/history/cli...

    5. Re:45,000 Years? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yes, and AGW people say today is hotter than it was back then, when clearly this indicates otherwise!

      Citations? Everyone I know seems to think that there were times when the earth was a lot warmer than it is now, an interesting tidbit since the sun was dimmer. Like the Paleozoic period, when there were no continual glaciers at all.

      You might try not getting your science information off of conservative politicians.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:45,000 Years? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I think you mean it was entering an ice age then. The peak of the previous ice age and glaciation here in North America was ~30k-25k years ago.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:45,000 Years? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      You might try not getting your science information off of conservative politicians

      You might try getting your science information from Science, not "consensus". Science doesn't require consensus. Yet that is the ONLY argument AGW people can actually use. "We believe global warming, because 85% of scientists believe it"

      Please remember, Piltdown Man was consensus "science" ;)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:45,000 Years? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Based on this source, it sounds more like we were right near the middle of the last glacial period: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/pale...

      "The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago"

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    9. Re:45,000 Years? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You might try not getting your science information off of conservative politicians

      You might try getting your science information from Science, not "consensus". Science doesn't require consensus. Yet that is the ONLY argument AGW people can actually use.

      Bullshit. If you actually believe in science you are lying on purpose.

      Here we go you are challenged - Let's work through this.

      TEll me do you deny the accepted fact (confidence to the exclusion of any other explanation) that the constituent gases of an atmosphere have an effect upon the energy retention of that atmosphere? If yes continue No? Explain the easily reprovable experiments that indicate that this is the case, and why those experiments show incorrect results.

      If yes, continue - if No explain the consistent repeatability of experiments that show this to be the case, and why everyone apparently gets the exact incorrect results. You can even do these experiments yourself.

      Okay, here we have a very reproducible, no consensus needed very basic physics result, proven by science, and thousands of elementary school science fairs over and over again. This is the bedrock of the Greenhouse effect, without which there would be either no life on earth, or certainly not us, because the greenhouse effect allows our world ot have much more consistent weather.

      So now we move on to matters that aren't grade school level matters.

      There are, in addition to the earthly examples, Venus and Mars, both in the so called Cinderella zone for life, yet one exceptionally hot, the much colder than expected, and largely based on greenhouse warming.

      There is also many issues related to weather, such as volcanic activity. El Niño and La Niña which have effects upon the weather. And of course the longer term effects which are long enough to have effects of long enough scale to actually be called climate changes.

      So here we are at the next stage.

      What happens to the greenhouse effct that makes it disappear at global scales? Give a good explanation of why the greenhouse effect on Venus and Mars is not real (hint - on Venus it isn't all CO2)

      Show why, if you claim that the greenhouse effect fails on global scales, how Earth is warm enough to sustain life.

      Either the effect exists, or it does not. Give the proof. Proof, BTW, does not consist of cherry picked anomalies. For just like in the creationists denying evolution, all that does is sic the scientists on finding the answer to that question. It's not an either or issue.

      "We believe global warming, because 85% of scientists believe it"

      Please remember, Piltdown Man was consensus "science" ;)

      Ah yes, Piltdown Man. From the outset, the reconstruction was challenged as unrealistic. Sir Arthur Keith noted that the molars on the reconstruction would not be useable because the canine teeth made side to side chewing impossible. Th/at's pretty damning evidence against it.

      G.S. Miller, had also touched upon the reconstructed skull being a hoax in 1915. Even before it was exposed, scientists considered it at best as a complete aberration, as it did not fit any of the other evidence for early humans as found in every orher site.

      In 1953, using antropologial and zoological evidence, K. P. Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proved by comparative anatomy that Piltdown man was a combination of a Medieval human cranium, a lower jaw of an orangutan, and the teeth of a chimpanzee. A deliberate hoax, very purposely fabricated by one Charles Dawson.

      So The hoax was suspected by many from the beginning, and anthropologists had long ignored the Piltdown reconstruction because it made no sense.

      Science had found and exposed the fraud. Just like science doing what science does.

      But here's the kicker. I believe that your accepta

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  8. wonder what we'll find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now that the permafrost is melting

    picture of the area for visually oriented ppl

    perhaps we'll find that Atlantis really did exist, somewhere in the artictic, and our civilization actually came from there, and much later conquered the desert dwellers in egypt. :-)

    1. Re:wonder what we'll find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, we'll just wait until the massive methane releases from rotted/rotting vegetation in the melting permafrost to speed up the atmospheric warming another notch.

      Sometimes I wish I didn't have this Biology / Ecology degree...

    2. Re:wonder what we'll find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the headline, I thought they found Dan Haggerty and a bear...

  9. Stupid Question... maybe? by n0creativity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am a sys admin and while I love learning about history, I definitely didn't pay much attention to it during my education days, so excuse my ignorance if this is a dumb question. How do they know that humans didn't just find the frozen, preserved carcass later on like this kid did, say 35,000 years ago. They find it and figure it's an easy way to harvest some tools which would explain the tool marks. Any science\archeology nerds care to shed any light on this for me?

    1. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the marks left by hunting differ from butchering.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      From the article - “The impact wounds on the bones with embedded stone fragments is conclusive evidence that people slayed this mammoth.”

      They can often determine cause of death from skeletons long after any flesh has rotted or been removed. Impact strikes or piercing weapons leave imprints on the skeleton that are different to those of removing meat from a carcass. They can even tell which side a woman tended to carry her handbag from the dints left in her skeleton.

    3. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live bone and dead bones react differently to being hit - even if there are hit in the same manner. For example, do a search on youtube for micro-fracture surgery and you'll see what happens when you damage live bone. The healing process starts almost immediately after the injury. That doesn't happen with dead tissue.

    4. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From the article - “The impact wounds on the bones with embedded stone fragments is conclusive evidence that people slayed this mammoth.”

      They can often determine cause of death from skeletons long after any flesh has rotted or been removed. Impact strikes or piercing weapons leave imprints on the skeleton that are different to those of removing meat from a carcass. They can even tell which side a woman tended to carry her handbag from the dints left in her skeleton.

      Note - the following is not a diss against n0creativity - he asked an intelligent question and was wishing to learn - so good on you n0creativity.

      This is one of those things that some folks will never get. Because they cannot comprehend that some folks can know more than they do. It's why we have TV shows like "Ancient Aliens" where anything that humans have accoomplished is credited to aliens. Nikola Tesla? He got his ideas from Aliens, So did Einstein, Space flight, Pyramids, Nuclear weapons, Nuclear power generation. None of it by us stoopid hoomins. I listened to a guy this past week who denied the existence of dinosaurs. His proof? "That's just crazy", interspersed with "how did they know how old thes things were", "How did they know how to put the bones back together?" "That's just crazy!"

      Is it any wonder that many of these same people cannot comprehend basic science? How could scientists know things like this stuff,? Must be fake. Arguments from personal incredulity. Which guarantees that the dumbest person in the room wins.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, aliens only like cows of the southwestern US.

      And if anything nowadays is alien, it's Donald Trump's hairpiece.

    6. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by phorm · · Score: 1

      But it's not to say it was from anything quite like a modern human. Maybe our more primitive ancestors were better with tools. Heck, maybe they were more like chimps.

    7. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know you were talking to to another guy? That's just crazy. You're just a figment of my imagination.

    8. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to the markings on the bones that indicate hunting and butchery, they state that the dating of the layers of sediment above the skeleton dated it to 40k+ years ago. So it was buried under an undisturbed layer of mud for a long, long time by then.

    9. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      I think you're suggesting if maybe they just hammered away to butcher a dead animal?

      No one in this thread really addressed it clearly, so I'll explain. They can tell if a wound/break to the skeletal structure happened before or after death. Its similar in nature to breaking a branch off a living tree vs breaking a branch off a dead tree. The breaks are completely different.

      http://www.academia.edu/236437...

    10. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by phorm · · Score: 1

      What I meant is that calling them "humans" means to many "Homo Sapien" or a close ancestor, but it's possible that it was a further branch of the species or an alternate branch which has died out. I suppose it depends on what you define as "human" though.

    11. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by camazotz · · Score: 1

      The damage to the carcass would be distinctly different if the wounds were received perimortem vs. postmortem...and much more so if it was 10, 000 years later to a frozen carcass. Basic forensic anthropology; I haven't RTFA but it would be really, really difficult from an archaeological perspective to confuse damage to a frozen mummy with perimortem injuries. (Not a practicing archaeologist, but I did get my degree in the subject).

    12. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by camazotz · · Score: 1

      Not 45,000 years ago in this location. They most definitely would have been anatomically modern homo sapiens.

    13. Re:Stupid Question... maybe? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Bone that is alive - or recently dead - cuts under the knife in a different way to bone that has been dead for days or longer. It's a basic of the study of bones and wounds, which has obvious interest to the police. Not just your "is this that missing hooker?" local Police Department, but also those looking at (alleged) mass graves from the Bosnian/ Somali/ Sudanese ... conflicts.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  10. Humans by youngone · · Score: 1
    Every discovery like this pushes the arrival of humans in various places further and further back in time. Until recently it was thought Australia was settled about 30,000 years ago, but there is evidence now for up to 55,000 ya.

    These sorts of finds are wonderful (IMHO) and the more we learn about our distant ancestors, the more they turn out to have been resourceful and clever.

    1. Re:Humans by quenda · · Score: 1

      the more we learn about our distant ancestors, the more they turn out to have been resourceful and clever.

      Hardly. The 30,000y figure was simply the oldest known evidence. And people back then were extremely brutish compared to modern humans.
      While new discoveries push back the date of migration, there have been no surprises - no evidence of navigation, pottery or agriculture, just primitive stone tools.
      Compare even to the Polynesian expansion in the Pacific in recent millennia and there is a world of difference.

    2. Re:Humans by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "the more we learn about our distant ancestors, the more they turn out to have been resourceful and clever."

      I get the point that putting back far away colonization from 30K to 45K years ago have an interesting impact on population demography or even sociology but "resourcefulness or cleverness"? The article also goes that line: "The find suggests that even at this early stage, humans were traversing the most frigid parts of the globe and had the adaptive ability to migrate almost everywhere."

      What else would you expect? We have been basically the same for the last 100K years, so reaching far north or east or west 30K or 45K years ago says nothing about human evolution.

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

      What are you on about? It's coming up to 300.

    4. Re:Humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even today, nomads do not use any pottery. They use leather bags. There was simply no use case for pottery before agriculture and the sedentary lifestyle, and stone is at least as heavy as pottery and has very limited utility in general beyond the axe and drill bit. Finding human activity that far north does suggest a lot about a possibly advanced material culture. These people were probably not naked. To survive that far north, you would expect leggings, a coat, and a cap, perhaps tents, and people capable of doing needlework, owning tools carved from bone. In Europe, people were still widely using tools carved from bone in medieval times for needlework, fishing, etc. Today's Khoisan in Africa are infamous for throwing away well-intended high tech gifts because they judge them to heavy to carry.

      Stone and metal tools are conserved well, and therefore interesting to archeologists, but one should not overestimate their importance in classifying material culture.

    5. Re:Humans by camazotz · · Score: 1

      The interesting part is that it means you had migration patterns 15 thousand years earlier than prior evidence suggests. It doesn't sound at all unrealistic to me, but it's nice to see good, hard evidence popping up to support the idea.

  11. Siberia is 65 degrees, 2,700 km by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article mentions Siberia. Siberia is roughly 65 degrees north latitude, or 2,700 km from the pole. So they probably DID mean 2,000 km , which would be northern Siberia (not a warm place).

    The three countries who claim territory at 2,000 km from the pole Russia, Canada and Greenland.

    1. Re:Siberia is 65 degrees, 2,700 km by kaur · · Score: 1

      1) Greenland is not a country.
      2) Yenisei is the largest river in Siberia. Yenisey bay/gulf is where the river meets the ocean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The place is reallt not hospitable at all - permafrost, no vegetation. However climate must have been milder at the times, otherwise it could not have had mammoths.

    2. Re:Siberia is 65 degrees, 2,700 km by jrumney · · Score: 4, Funny

      The article mentions Siberia.

      Which would be why the summary mentions North America.

    3. Re:Siberia is 65 degrees, 2,700 km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Southern Siberia is 55 degrees - same latitude as Scotland, and similarly has plenty of towns and cities. The continental climate is of course much different though, with sunny and warm (70s) though changeable summers, and extremely cold (-20s) snowy winters. Northern Siberia? Brrrrrrr.

    4. Re:Siberia is 65 degrees, 2,700 km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Greenland (Greenlandic: Kalaallit Nunaat [kalait nunat]; Danish: Grønland [nlan]) is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, located between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, east of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

      I mean, really, you cite Wikipedia yourself, you could check their entry on Greenland.

    5. Re:Siberia is 65 degrees, 2,700 km by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      I think you meant Denmark.

  12. Grisly? by chispito · · Score: 1

    Is my ham sandwich a "Grisly find?"

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:Grisly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends. Was it in a pic-a-nic basket?

    2. Re:Grisly? by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably more like gristly if it's cheap ham.

    3. Re:Grisly? by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      For the pig it came from, for sure. : \

  13. the adaptive ability to migrate almost everywhere by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Yeah, only now we spend 90% of our energy trying to prevent it... Oy, the bureaucrats' burden is a heavy one.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  14. Ice Age Question by lazy+genes · · Score: 1

    Can the arctic ocean be open during an ice age? It seems that if the arctic ocean stays open during the winter, the polar vortex would seek the path of least resistance and settle over a continent. The jet stream would change also. This could explain why palm pollen from the Caribien was found in core samples in northwestern Canada. It's kinda like what's going on now with our weather.

  15. BS emminent front by nicoleb_x · · Score: 1

    So all the liberal, alarmist, media that live and work in NYC are waffling? When NBC closes their Rockefeller center studio and moves it to Denver I'll take notice. You know because a lot of New York City is less than 16 feet above mean sea level!

  16. They should have said guessed 45000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Considering carbon dating has been shown to be about as accurate as a politicians promises, they should have just said they were guessing at how long it had been there.

    1. Re:They should have said guessed 45000 years. by Dutchmaan · · Score: 0

      Considering carbon dating has been shown to be about as accurate as a politicians promises, they should have just said they were guessing at how long it had been there.

      (sniff) (sniff) .. I smell a creationist...

    2. Re:They should have said guessed 45000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering it's STILL more accurate than any scientific method that you have sitting around in YOUR personal lab, I think I'm going to side with those guys.

    3. Re:They should have said guessed 45000 years. by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Considering carbon dating has been shown to be about as accurate as a politicians promises, they should have just said they were guessing at how long it had been there.

      (sniff) (sniff) .. I smell a creationist...

      Or possibly a scientist, since a scientists point out that Radioactive Carbon Dating is only reasonably accurate for up to about 40,000 years.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  17. Re:old Johnny Carson joke by RenderSeven · · Score: 1, Funny

    how frigid was it?

    +3 Hillary's?

  18. What's so grisly about this? by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

    "Humans using primitive tools killed and we assume ate a giant fucking hairy elephant"

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    1. Re:What's so grisly about this? by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      But were they human... or something ELSE!

    2. Re:What's so grisly about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Humans using primitive tools killed and we assume ate a giant fucking hairy elephant"

      Mammoths are full of gristle... really, they are a bitch to eat.

  19. Re:Global Warming by riverat1 · · Score: 0

    How so?

  20. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn straight it is!

  21. Re:the adaptive ability to migrate almost everywhe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have my suspicions that cavemen didn't suck on the tit of social services when they migrated somewhere, making the situation quite different indeed.

  22. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming the dating system works. hard to believe in something that can't be proven.

  23. The Original SEAL Team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    couldn't resist

  24. 2000 kilometers *south* of the North Pole? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pedantic point: It's redundant to say "2000 kilometers south of the North Pole". Any point on the Earth's surface that's 2000 kilometers from the North Pole is automatically 2000 km south of the North Pole. There is no way for something to be west or east of the North Pole, and definitely not north, so naming the cardinal direction is pointless. It's south by necessity.

    1. Re:2000 kilometers *south* of the North Pole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedant, Doctor, AND spork.

      Now THAT'S something you don't see every day...

    2. Re:2000 kilometers *south* of the North Pole? by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 2

      Yeah, why not something like 'northern Russia'?

      But I guess that would conflict with the mention of North America in the write-up, which makes no sense.

    3. Re:2000 kilometers *south* of the North Pole? by wherrera · · Score: 1

      Here's the google map of the Yenisei Gulf in Russia:

      https://www.google.com/maps/@7...

      If you use the Google Maps measure distance feature to measure distance to 90,0 on the map you get about 2000 km.

    4. Re:2000 kilometers *south* of the North Pole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no 90.0 on Google Maps. It uses Mercator projection, which puts the poles infinitely far away, thus they limit the display to approximately +/- 85 degrees.

    5. Re:2000 kilometers *south* of the North Pole? by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Pedantic point: It's redundant to say "2000 kilometers south of the North Pole". Any point on the Earth's surface that's 2000 kilometers from the North Pole is automatically 2000 km south of the North Pole. There is no way for something to be west or east of the North Pole, and definitely not north, so naming the cardinal direction is pointless. It's south by necessity.

      Not to mention, which pole was north back then, and where were the geographic and magnetic north poles back then? Was that area tropical back then? Did the mammoth merely wander that far north after an encounter with man?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:2000 kilometers *south* of the North Pole? by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      heh - thanks for the map, that's where the link I posted goes to as well. ;)

  25. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree! Thank you for helping me resolve my uncertainty about this issue!

  26. Iceland is a pretty green place though. by rossdee · · Score: 2

    Thats because it has so much geothermal energy, you don't need to burn any fossil fuels, or nuclear or even wind turbines that might kill birds...

  27. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, just proof you're an ignorant dumbfuck.

  28. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, mod him down for that, must be the AC troll poster, too gutless to give his login, what an asshole.

  29. Food supply by phorm · · Score: 2

    Food supply is a big reason, and infrastructure. Now if you want to completely revert to a hunter-gatherer society, where do you think we're going to find enough food for everyone?
    Neither hunting nor scavenging is going to do it. Mass-production is where it's at.

    Oh, and shelter? Sorry, but a tarp hanging off a tree probably ain't gonna cut it for most people. Especially if it's cold and winter'ish.

    Cities are generally built around resources. This can include minerals, water, food sources, or access. Even the stuff we can make ourselves doesn't spring up overnight, and things like water aren't as readily available everywhere as you seem to think, or at least not in quantities needed for any modern sized civilization.

    1. Re:Food supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there is a nugget of sense in just abandoning cities, though. Not all cities, but particular cities that the environment has rendered unpractical. It's probably more economical to build redundancy into other cities, and relocate industry and infrastructure than to fight an unwinnable war against rising tides, sinking shores, volcanic atrocities or other such disasters.

    2. Re:Food supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weak are meat and the strong do eat!

    3. Re:Food supply by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      But phorm, food production isn't done in the city. Its done in small scraps of land outside of the cities. And depending on how the modern times changes the entry of the inland, a lot of food production might be somewhere far inlands in the mountains.
      In the large picture, the city is just a place to stay, where some infastructure is. Most of that infrastructure depends on infrastructure that isn't in the city, such as transportation(boats), farmland, mining, wood cutting, etc.

  30. I have a bridge to sell you, says Mr. Oliphant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is difficult to believe caveman hunted wholly-wooly mammoths with just stone tipped spears. The beast grew larger than modern asian elephants, about as big as the largest african elephant bulls and its body was covered in half a meter thick long, heavy greasy hair, almost like felt that easily stops thrown projectiles. The turnk would catapult people into LEO. More or less the biological equivalent of the AT-AT. Furthermore, it's a mammal with a large brain, not a bug with 2-bit DAC ladder neural system.

    Trying to attack elephantoids in the eye is not exactly wise. They have tiny eyes and are almost completely blind by default, relying on smells and sounds for perception. In the antique age, war elephants dispersed armies clad in armour, so let me say I wouldn't bet money on the 45k BC era neanderthals versus Hairy Jumbo. I don't think the small number of humans alive at that time could afford exchanging a dozen or two of their warriors (male posse) for each mammoth felled, because that way homo-allegedly-sapiens would have gone extinct well BEFORE the mammoths.

    1. Re:I have a bridge to sell you, says Mr. Oliphant by Jesrad · · Score: 2

      That's OK, you have a right to feel entitled to your own ignorance.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    2. Re:I have a bridge to sell you, says Mr. Oliphant by wherrera · · Score: 2

      That those prehistoric people were probably at least as intelligent as the average slashdotter, and they likely spent decades testing, reviewing, debating, and verbally sharing various hunting skills. It's likely that they had many ways of crippling or killing large game other than the ones we can see by marks left on old bones.

    3. Re:I have a bridge to sell you, says Mr. Oliphant by camazotz · · Score: 1

      So what you're admitting is that our ancient ancestors could definitely show you a thing or two about hunting mammoths.

  31. Grizly find? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They didn't even RTFA; they didn't find a grizzly, but a mammoth!

  32. Bogus Headline by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    I've read TFS several times and not one mention of an inquisitive bear! Come on, editors; up your game!

  33. Or Mammoths are migratory by tompaulco · · Score: 2

    Or someone from further south tried and failed to kill a mammoth and mammoths are migratory, as some of the great Pixar documentaries claim.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Or Mammoths are migratory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know they weren't carried by African swallows? The article doesn't mention if they found any coconuts nearby.

  34. Further Evidence of GaiCentic crimate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mother Earth 45000 years ago was pissed off because there were all these humans up north, so she turned down the climate a notch and caused all these bitches to move to the middle where they are supposed to be. Then evil white republicans started spewing a lot of C02 into the air to heat things up again so they can build a tropical resort in Nunavut.

    Stop anthropogenic climate change now. It will create more useable land for people. We don't want that. We want all our land to be barren, cold, and owned by the federal government.

  35. Yenisei Bay, Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Google search yields Yenisei Bay, Russia. I'm not sure why this find rewrites the history of "North America". The quality of reporting has fallen.

    1. Re: Yenisei Bay, Russia by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The report isn't very clear on this, but the connection is this :

      It isn't known when the first humans got to America (nor is it known if they left any descendents), but it was before about 13000 years before present. The record of human fossils in the parts of NE Asia near to North America is very, very sparse. This find shows that humans of about 45000 years ago had the behaviours and technologies necessary to survive at least part of the year at 72 degrees north, and if they could do it at the Yenisei, there's nothing in particular to stop them from doing it further East, towards America.

      Oh, it's an AC - they can't comment back. But I hope this clarifies things a bit.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  36. Re:the adaptive ability to migrate almost everywhe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or they were clubbed to death and eaten by the aboriginals. *Be a dear and pass the salt, would you, darling?*

    You never even called me by my name...

  37. Re:old Johnny Carson joke by pupsocket · · Score: 1

    This is disgusting and anyone who uprates it should have all rating privileges rescinded.