Slashdot Mirror


New Study Suggests Humans Lived In North America 130,000 Years Ago (npr.org)

An anonymous reader writes: In 1992, archaeologists working a highway construction site in San Diego County found the partial skeleton of a mastodon, an elephant-like animal now extinct. Mastodon skeletons aren't so unusual, but there was other strange stuff with it. "The remains were in association with a number of sharply broken rocks and broken bones," says Tom Demere, a paleontologist at the San Diego Natural History Museum. He says the rocks showed clear marks of having been used as hammers and an anvil. And some of the mastodon bones as well as a tooth showed fractures characteristic of being whacked, apparently with those stones. It looked like the work of humans. Yet there were no cut marks on the bones showing that the animal was butchered for meat. Demere thinks these people were after something else. "The suggestion is that this site is strictly for breaking bone," Demere says, "to produce blank material, raw material to make bone tools or to extract marrow." Marrow is a rich source of fatty calories. The scientists knew they'd uncovered something rare. But they didn't realize just how rare for years, until they got a reliable date on how old the bones were by using a uranium-thorium dating technology that didn't exist in the 1990s. The bones were 130,000 years old. That's a jaw-dropping date, as other evidence shows that the earliest humans got to the Americas about 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. The study has been published in the journal Nature.

239 comments

  1. Unlikely by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Chances are the dating method is incorrect. They aren't as precise as scientists pretend they are.

    1. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Obviously Bigfoot did it.

    2. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the dating is all but certain... they didn't use carbon dating, they used many more accurate methods, that all came to the same conclusion.

      the real question is when were the bones butchered? did the mastadon die 130,000 years ago, freeze whole in a glacier, and then found 100,000 years later during a warming cycle? what about an amateur archaeologist 30,000 years ago found it and wanted to take the bones apart the only way they know how?

      what about jesus.

    3. Re:Unlikely by 110010001000 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nah. These new methods aren't accurate either. Everyone said carbon dating was accurate for decades, but it really wasn't. Don't believe everything you read.

    4. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't believe everything you read.

      Especially if it is written in a thousands-years-old text of uncertain authorship, and makes important claims about reality without providing evidence.

    5. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Everyone said carbon dating was accurate for decades, but it really wasn't."

      Actually it was, just "science" as it were involves a few setbacks, obstacles, mishaps, errors, errata, etc, and you failed to define "accurate" - it's damn accurate! It's way better than your guesswork and 99% of other possible methodologies. Is it perfect? Nope. That doesn't make it useless.

    6. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus turned water into wine but I'm only capable of turning wine into piss

    7. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      the dating is all but certain... they didn't use carbon dating, they used many more accurate methods, that all came to the same conclusion.

      We heard the same sort of claims made about climate 'science'. We were told that 'the science was settled'. Then it turns out that it actually wasn't settled at all. There was much to be doubtful about. The accuracy of measurement techniques became doubted. Questionable assumptions were made. Data had to be 'adjusted' to fit models. All in all, it left a bad taste in the mouths of people who strive to apply the scientific method rigorously and properly.

      Whenever somebody claims that 'the science has been settled' or 'the conclusion is certain', it should immediately raise red flags. Science is never 'settled' and it is never 'certain'.

    8. Re:Unlikely by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Another problem is the new date is almost an order of magnitude older than all prior evidence. One isolated sample set is not sufficient evidence to revise the estimate that much. We'd need more samples from the likes of say 40k and 90k to give more credence to the 130k date.

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

      the real question is when were the bones butchered? did the mastadon die 130,000 years ago, freeze whole in a glacier, and then found 100,000 years later during a warming cycle? what about an amateur archaeologist 30,000 years ago found it and wanted to take the bones apart the only way they know how?

      I wondered the same thing, but from the third sentence of the journal Nature link:
      "The CM site contains spiral-fractured bone and molar fragments, indicating that breakage occured while fresh."

      And further down in the same paragraph:
      "Systematic proboscidean bone reduction, evident at the CM site, fits within a broader pattern of Palaeolithic bone percussion technology in Africa, Eurasia and North America."

    10. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo. And guess what it's probably fake. Already getting debunked.

    11. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't believe everything you read.

      A good place to start would be pseudoanonymous internet postings that lack any citations, details, or really any reasoning of any kind beyond, "Nope, it's wrong."

    12. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The consensus so far seems to be a big no from paleontologists. Comparison to neighboring rocks and sediment weren't very accurate. They found it accidentally with a backhoe, that's not exactly precise.

    13. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      low-background steel exists because it was forged before atomic testing left telltale radionuclides everywhere... including your body.

      it is settled. it is certain. you're an idiot.

    14. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The text you're probably referencing is not thousands of years old. Not completely. Some sections are alleged to be 3500 years old but it's a collection of writings spanning thousands of years and large sections of it are probably filler written when it was stitched together about 800 years ago.

    15. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fresh can't be freshly unfrozen?

    16. Re: Unlikely by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

      I think you got that backwards. I can turn water into wine, I just need some grapes and yeast.

    17. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The text was the Bible. The bits of it that would suggest that the Earth is young, and hence that would be challenged by findings like this one....those bits are thousands of years old by our best reckoning.

    18. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it all falls into place with the fact that humans originated in Asia and then spread out across the world.

    19. Re:Unlikely by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      Chances are the dating method is incorrect. They aren't as precise as scientists pretend they are.

      It's obvious they aren't because the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    20. Re: Unlikely by mrvan · · Score: 1

      Grapes actually have the required yeast on their skins, so essentially all you need is sunshine and some catalysts like grape seed...

    21. Re:Unlikely by clovis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is near San Diego, California, and well south of the glaciers' maximum extent.
      Furthermore, 130,000 years ago was around the beginning of the Eemian interglacial period, so they would not have been frozen around San Diego, and if it had been frozen sometime earlier, then it would have unfrozen 130,000 years ago.
      Note: the starting dates of the Eemian vary depending upon who the author is, but in any case it happened around or after when these bones were broken.

    22. Re:Unlikely by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Nah. These new methods aren't accurate either. Everyone said carbon dating was accurate for decades, but it really wasn't. Don't believe everything you read.

      Where are you getting this guff from? Carbon dating is precisely as reliable as it always has been, within one standard deviation. We've always known that, and the accuracy can be derived a-priori from fundamental physics.

      There are more accurate methods, but all are basically derived from the fundamental determinism that radioactive decay occurs at a predictable rate.

      Source: I dont read creationist propaganda.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    23. Re:Unlikely by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Another problem is the new date is almost an order of magnitude older than all prior evidence. One isolated sample set is not sufficient evidence to revise the estimate that much. We'd need more samples from the likes of say 40k and 90k to give more credence to the 130k date.

      Needing samples from other dates is unnecessary. A quick search of the journals will show thousands of samples from various time periods tested with the method. Its a solved problem.

      More samples from the *same* source however will reduce the error margins

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    24. Re: Unlikely by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      We heard the same sort of claims made about climate 'science'. We were told that 'the science was settled'. Then it turns out that it actually wasn't settled at all. There was much to be doubtful about. The accuracy of measurement techniques became doubted. Questionable assumptions were made. Data had to be 'adjusted' to fit models. All in all, it left a bad taste in the mouths of people who strive to apply the scientific method rigorously and properly.

      Anthropic climate change is very much "settled", except in the minds of conservative conspiracy theorists who's opinions don't count towards "the scientific consensus" (Principally because they are wrong).

      Where was the data "adjusted". Time and time again when these claims where made, when people look into it, the evidence disapears. And "the measurements" are the same.

      The whole "urban heat island" thing was unscientific nonsense thats been debunked time and time again. And that whole "hide the decline" nonsense was a specific case where a known deviation from observations regarding arctic tree ring samples in the 50s (Likely from nuclear testing pounding the trees in the area with radiation) was removed from a dataset to make the data *MORE* accurate.

      But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

      As for dating, we're talking Thorium/Uranium dating here, which is very robust to the time span we're refering to with an accuracy to within 1% (Much better than the 1std-deviation of carbon).

      All of these figures fall out the apriori calculations that derive from fundamental physics and observation.

      Much like modern climate modelling, actually.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    25. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where you there? It snows in Texas sometimes ...

    26. Re:Unlikely by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Uh, what's wrong with carbon dating?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We've always known that, and the accuracy can be derived a-priori from fundamental physics

      No, for example for carbon dating the accuracy comes from careful examination of variations in C14/C12 ratios relative to other dating sources. If you just use first principles, you would be off by 20% easily. This accuracy has improved with time, so that now dating in many ranges with C14 can give you errors on the order of a couple percent, while other improvements in techniques can push the maximum date back by several times the halflife. The accuracy of other isotope dating methods have also improved, as often they depend on some knowledge of chemistry of the parent isotopes and daughter isotopes in different situations.

      The GP is an idiot, as these errors are still relatively small. But it is still wrong to say the accuracy is the same as it has always been and derivable from fundamental physics.

    28. Re:Unlikely by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      They're at least 1,500 years old, that is, we have complete manuscripts that old. We have manuscripts of some parts (like the Isaiah scroll) that date to ~400 BCE.

      That's kind of topic, but now you can get your dates right.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:Unlikely by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Worth mentioning that this needn't be homo sapien, at that early date it would probably be some other type of humanoid, since we had barely crawled out of Africa at that point.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it has snowed in San Diego not all that long ago. What's your point?

    31. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you tried sleeping with carbon, she always leaves the bed dirty in the morning.

    32. Re:Unlikely by rkordmaa · · Score: 1

      Oh the measurement is exactly as precise as scientists think it is, little doubt about that. However, sometimes what we think we measure is not quite the same as what we actually measure. Perhaps the mastodon ate something particularly rich in thorium, perhaps the animal froze in a glacier and was cut up hundred thousand years later as someone already suggested or what looked like work of humans wasn't really, plenty of ways to throw off the measurement. Normally you would just accept the measurement as valid, but this one is just way out of line with what is expected that more evidence is certainly needed to take it seriously.

    33. Re:Unlikely by Troed · · Score: 1

      40k and 90k would be in the middle of a glaciation stage. 130k however seems to be within the Eemian, the warmer interglacial before ours. Humanoids would likely have been expanding their reach during that time.

    34. Re:Unlikely by quenda · · Score: 1

      Definitely not Homo Sapien. They only arrived in E Asia 40k years ago. Unless they managed to cross the Atlantic!

      But it seems too long ago to be homo Erectus, as they disappeared from Asia long before this time.
      What makes them so sure the bones were broken by Homo? Any signs of fire being used? No, or they'd be able to date the coals.
          Maybe some prehistoric monkeys had a taste for marrow.

    35. Re:Unlikely by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, too.......something picked up a rock and broke bones with it, but other than that, we don't know what something is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    36. Re:Unlikely by RockDoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you had read the paper (I know, this is a post truth world, so there is never any reason to return to original sources), you'd have read the bit where they say

      Initial attempts to date the CM site using radiocarbon analysis at two independent laboratories failed, because the samples lacked sufficient collagen(13). Several attempts to date the site with optically stimulated luminescence indicated that samples were near or beyond the upper limits of dose saturation, and that the depositional age of the sediment is greater than 60â"70 thousand years (kyr) (Supplementary Information 7). Subsequently, multiple bone fragments (Extended Data Fig. 9eâ"g) were analysed by uranium-series disequilibrium methods (Methods and Supplementary Information 8). (Ref 13. Deméré, T. A., Cerutti, R. A. & Majors, C. P. State Route 54 Paleontological Mitigation Program: Final Report (San Diego Natural History Museum, 1995).

      There is a heretical idea that people might like to WRITE THINGS down in a PAPER, which reasonable people (your question is perfectly reasonable) might want to know, BEFORE the question is asked. This idea has only been in common use for 350 years, so should be considered provisional, though it has actually proved useful in some cases.

      You might care to look at the dates there too. They completed their attempts at carbon dating in 1995, but waited until now to publish this analysis, because without the dating, it isn't particularly interesting. The technique they eventually got a date from (uranium-thorium disequilibrium diffusion-adsorbtion dating) is new enough that I am going to have to, uh, read the fucking paper's dozen pages of Supplementary Information to form a worthwhile opinion on it's validity. Though it is, of course, the obvious point of uncertainty.

      There was also some damned fine trowel-work in the original excavation. I take my handlens and knee-pads off to the archaeologist who did that salvage excavation and recording.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    37. Re:Unlikely by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

      More samples from the *same* source however will reduce the error margins

      The site was destroyed in some construction project. Before 1995.

      There will be no new samples from this site ever. The site does not exist any more. That is why the field is called "salvage" archaeology. Whatever you get (including records) is all there will ever be.

      I have to read the paper's dozen pages of SI (supplementary information), tonight, and follow those references, but since I know of U-Th series dating going back decades, I suspect that the technique of looking at diffusion profiles of U and the Th products of those is the new bit here. The last U-Th paper I read closely was about 5 years ago, so I'm guessing that this technique has been developed in about the last 5 years, and then applied to the 20-year old salvaged samples and records. And now published.

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

      No, or they'd be able to date the coals.

      Another person who hasn't read the fucking paper. Hint : before typing, read the fucking paper and see if they have answered your questions before you asked them. It's not difficult.

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

      Another person who could have really benefited from reading the paper before making what seem like reasonable comments.

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

      "Everyone said carbon dating was accurate for decades, but it really wasn't."

      Actually it was, just "science" as it were involves a few setbacks, obstacles, mishaps, errors, errata, etc, and you failed to define "accurate" - it's damn accurate! It's way better than your guesswork and 99% of other possible methodologies. Is it perfect? Nope. That doesn't make it useless.

      qft

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    41. Re:Unlikely by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      you are expecting far too much from all the armchair experts to actually read something that might expand their knowledge.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    42. Re:Unlikely by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You should watch the anime Date A Live, you'll learn all about how to date them.

    43. Re:Unlikely by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      There was also some damned fine trowel-work in the original excavation. I take my handlens and knee-pads off to the archaeologist who did that salvage excavation and recording.

      Part of the criticism of the paper is that the excavation was time-pressured, impossible to reconstruct and also had to leave out a few things that would have helped answer some questions.

      Like: is there no possibility at all that the mammoth died in an accident? What was the exact geology of the area? And other questions raised in the comments above. As one scientist replied: "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and we don't see that here."

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    44. Re:Unlikely by quenda · · Score: 1

      Another person who hasn't read the fucking paper.

      You must be new here. Welcome to slashdot.

    45. Re:Unlikely by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It was written roughly in the same period when people believed that the brain is an organ for either cooling the blood or for producing mucus. I'd consider that a warning sign for any writings on cosmogony.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    46. Re:Unlikely by quenda · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, too.......something picked up a rock and broke bones with it, but other than that, we don't know what something is.

      I'm not saying it was aliens ...

    47. Re:Unlikely by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Carbon dating IS accurate relative to many applicable methods in archaeology. It provides tight enough error bars that for many artifacts, it's the best option.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    48. Re:Unlikely by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Carbon is moody, date silicon instead!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    49. Re: Unlikely by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      To rephrase what you just said: "We haven't explained dark matter yet, therefore all of astronomy is useless and not to be trusted until we do."

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    50. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo!

    51. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think science can be either settled or certain, then you don't know what science is.

    52. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbfuck.

    53. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      authorship is known and there is lots of evidence.

    54. Re:Unlikely by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Welllll..... My guess is that the problem is with the interpretation of the evidence. Say the Mastodons died 130,000 years ago and their bones were broken 10,000-15,000 years ago...what evidence would contradict that theory? That would probably imply that the bones weren't processed for meat (or marrow, either), but rather for useful bone fragments. Useful in what way? That's hard for me to say, possibly decoration. I'm not sure how good an arrow head or spear point a piece of bone that old would be, but it could easily be distinctive.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    55. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He ain't new to Slashdot with that UID unless Slashdot is recycling UIDs.

    56. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL and no doubt the Bible nails things perfectly. haha

    57. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Clearly, from a position of scientific education, an event as simple as a shale (or similar) tumble onto a rotted mastodon carcass could produce the same results.

      Scattering of different shaped stones with chips present.
      High-impact stone strikes on bone creating spiral breakage
      Limited small bones in the area (any scavengers would carry them off or eat them)
      No sign of using what they are claiming to be stone tools for butchering the animal.

      What is more likely, a paradigm shifting migration from 130,000 years ago where the people tore apart a mastodon's soft flesh by hand, or found it already rotted away, then created tools on-site only to then leave those same tools there along with large amounts of bone and the tusks that were commonly used for tools, decoration, and dwellings for as far back as we have records. Or they found a mastodon carcass that was shattered by some rocks in an area known for landslides.

      Everyone outside of the scientific community is defending the first hypothesis and denouncing the non-believers. It's like that silly science march the other day. The real scientists were in their labs. I know. I was in one all damn day. It's the end of the semester. No real scientist has time to do anything else right now. People are treating scientists like the new clergy and using science for their political views instead of knowledge. It's sickening.

    58. Re:Unlikely by erapert · · Score: 1

      "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and we don't see that here."

      1. By definition any kind of discovery is extraordinary.
      2. The extraordinary is precisely what any kind of science is about.
      3. If you think there's such a thing as absolute proof of anything then I'll refer you to Descartes and other philosophers. If you think there's such a thing as reasonableness or "proof" in the common sense of the word then you should also agree that "extraordinary evidence" isn't a thing-- there's only evidence and denying it is being unreasonable if you don't have an alternative hypothesis + evidence of your own.
      4. I fully encourage you to be skeptical and unreasonable and go construct your own hypothesis and see if you can get some counter evidence.
      5. Who gets to decide what evidence is extraordinary enough? Oh, I get it now, this "extraordinary evidence" thing is just bullshit and moving of the goal posts.

    59. Re:Unlikely by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      A quick search of the journals will show thousands of samples from various time periods tested with the method.

      Example near the ranges I mentioned?

    60. Re:Unlikely by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Part of the criticism of the paper is that the excavation was time-pressured,

      Which part of "salvage archaeology" do you misunderstand? Literally, the bulldozers are hovering over the site, wanting to get on with paying work.

      impossible to reconstruct

      Which part of "salvage archaeology" do you misunderstand? Literally, the bulldozers are hovering over the site, wanting to get on with paying work.

      and also had to leave out a few things that would have helped answer some questions.

      Which part of "salvage archaeology" do you misunderstand? Literally, the bulldozers are hovering over the site, wanting to get on with paying work.

      You have a choice in salvage work. Either get the best results you can now, with the personnel and techniques you have, now, and keep the best records you can, now. Or you get nothing. Big. Fat.Zero.

      (You might be able to extend "now" by court action, but while the landsharks are in the shark pool, you need to be nose-down bum-up in the trench because the suit could go either way.

      Your other questions are covered in the paper. I don't need to answer them a second time. Get a copy and read it - neither is difficult, and Slashdot does like to claim an intellectually capable readership.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    61. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok but - doesn't this suggest that 70ky ago hominids found an ancient skeleton and then made use of it?

    62. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Slashdot does like to claim an intellectually capable readership.

      I appreciate your efficiency of troll smackdown. The copy paste, to avoid getting mired, was excellent.

    63. Re:Unlikely by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      The site was destroyed in some construction project. Before 1995.

      There will be no new samples from this site ever. The site does not exist any more. That is why the field is called "salvage" archaeology. Whatever you get (including records) is all there will ever be.

      Well, maybe. The freeway berm hadn't been completely uncovered before the main part of the freeway needed to go in.

      More to the point: Have you ever been to San Diego? We have huge canyons, valleys, and hills all over the place even just within the official city (proper) limits. I guarantee with more ground penetrating radar or other scanning techniques there are other samples waiting to be found.

    64. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot

    65. Re: Unlikely by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you think science can be either settled or certain, then you don't know what science is.

      You are claiming as scientific certainty that science cannot be certain.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    66. Re:Unlikely by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Just as speculation, one possibility is that some sort of humans were in the Americas 130,000 years ago but died out. There would be no human artifacts from 40,000 and 90,000 years ago to be found.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    67. Re:Unlikely by syntotic · · Score: 1

      One point of view is that Jesus shows up when the previous Jesus is forgotten... But it is highly improbable that some anthropoid would decide to work on bones found as fossils rather than on more available materials... (though it would help explain the finding was actually found). One hypothesis does not preclude the other one. Hammer and anvil is already a very advanced tool usage compared to chipped stones and raw jaw bones with some teeth on it. I see it easier to admit Humans in America way beyond Clovis than to make other assumptions, it only moves the time horizon according to new findings even when theoretically we can think developed Humans many, many, many more thousands of years before than American dates. Until we find them...

    68. Re:Unlikely by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Nope, never been to San Diego. And while America is producing things like Trump and thinking them "normal", I don't think I'll be going.

      We have huge canyons, valleys, and hills

      Canyons : sites of erosion at tihs time, destroying (after exposing) the rocks and any fossils they contain. Hills similarly are sites of erosion. Valleys : sometime erosion, sometimes deposition as they transport sediment down-valley to temporary or less-temporary storage on their way to the sea. but definitely the valleys are the best chances for finding sites of deposition.

      I guarantee with more ground penetrating radar or other scanning techniques there are other samples waiting to be found.

      GPR - I've only used GPR down to about 40ft below sediment surface, and we couldn't get a good enough reading to be sure which structures were inclined bedding or void. not the easiest of things to interpret, as you'll know from your own work.

      "Other scanning techniques?" Such as?

      Still, being able to detect structure down to 40ft below surface doesn't give you permission to dig there, or the funding for the dig. Or the personnel. All the joys of trying to do science in a word of constrained funding and a population who, on average, don't give a flying fuck.

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

      You said: 99%. Are you saying that carbon dating is 99% accurate? So you must know of at least one method that is better and a minimum of 98 methods which are not so good. Please list these method. No? Then why not say "most" or "closer" or something which is not a factual number when speaking about something you apparently know very much about.

  2. Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are Americans so desperate to prove that everything happened there first.

    It is the whole who invented flight thing over again, they will just keep on redefining what flight is until they are first.

    1. Re:Why?? by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

      Who cares about the fact that Americans invented flight first?

      I think we are most concerned about who who invented the radio first? Oh yeah, it was the pre-cursor to the modern transceiver and the modem which makes digital life possible.

      Also, I went to American school and my textbooks told me America invented everything first:
      The Car
      The Lightbulb
      The Phone
      The Computer
      The Steam Engine
      and of course, Al Gore got us the Internet

      America first in everything. Also, is the best country to play in CIV 5, you invent everything first.

    2. Re:Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about the fact that Americans invented flight first?

      I think we are most concerned about who who invented the radio first? Oh yeah, it was the pre-cursor to the modern transceiver and the modem which makes digital life possible.

      Also, I went to American school and my textbooks told me America invented everything first:
      The Car
      The Lightbulb
      The Phone
      The Computer
      The Steam Engine
      and of course, Al Gore got us the Internet

      America first in everything. Also, is the best country to play in CIV 5, you invent everything first.

      I'm sorry, but your memory has failed you. There are no textbooks that give credit for all the things on your list to Americans.

    3. Re:Why?? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Why are Americans so desperate to prove that everything happened there first...[such as] who invented flight...

      What is "first" in this bone case in terms of competitor nations? I don't see any relationship between that and planes. If the claim were that Americans reached America before Europeans did, then it may be comparable, but then its meaningless. I-dont-geddit

    4. Re:Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re: Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't a text book it's a link. Fucktard..

    6. Re:Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are Americans so desperate to prove that everything happened there first.

      Are you suggesting the "first people to settle in America" was done somewhere other than America first? This story is about trying to establish a timeline for humans moving into and through North America. But no, someone has to get upset and sound silly, "But there totally was someone in Europe that settled America first, centuries before any human set foot in America..."

    7. Re: Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, American foosball, where big girly men play in helmets and padding. :)

    8. Re: Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yah but then there is soccer where people throw urine bags on the field after a 1-1 tie, holy shit

    9. Re:Why?? by msauve · · Score: 1

      It's widely taught in the US that human flight was first done by the Montgolfliers, in France (unless you believe in Icarus). Americans only claim the first sustained, controlled, powered heavier-than-air manned flight (and the Federation Aeronautique Internationale agrees). You know, like the vast majority of modern day flights.

      Why are you so insecure?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    10. Re:Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Moron. We all know that Americans did not invent ALL those things, so don't give me links showing who did invent whatever.
      That's not the question here.
      Proudrooster's assertion was that his TEXTBOOK listed all those things as being invented by an American.
      He's mistaken. There is no such textbook.

      Absolutely NO ONE EVER gave credit for inventing steam engine to an American.
      No textbook gives credit for the invention of the car to an American.

    11. Re:Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's mistaken. There is no such textbook.

      [citation needed]

    12. Re:Why?? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      YAY, PISSING CONTEST!

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    13. Re:Why?? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I went to American public school and I was taught about Icarus in 4th grade, and the Wright Brothers in 5th grade. We were not taught about Montgolfier or other balloons; we had units on ancient mythology, and useful inventions. The discovery of how to harness lift and create functional artificial wings sufficient to loft a human was taught; other forms of flight were only covered in blooper reels.

    14. Re:Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want a citation for proof? It's right here on the Internet.
      Just check this out:
      https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10539521&cid=54310769

  3. rofl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump won't be happy.

    1. Re:rofl by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Trump won't be happy.

      Wait until he finds out these first humans in North America probably weren't white Europeans.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:rofl by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      why? they found his family

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  4. source by planckscale · · Score: 5, Informative

    Paper here http://nature.com/articles/doi... also, would not be surprised if humanoids made it to North America several times prior to 130,000 years considering they've been around since about a million years - that's a lot of time to find your way out of Africa to a different continent by one means or another.

    --
    Namaste
    1. Re:source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who is to say that humans visited but died out? Vikings didn't make it when they tried, and horses and camels died out in the Americas thousands of years ago as well, before being reintroduced.

    2. Re:source by CindyFahnestock-Scha · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Totally interesting and I thank you. I'm off to read it now. Wouldn't this be a blow to what we assumed we knew, and what really happened. I often wondered if people weren't here before Columbus. Technically if per say, the earth was all connected at one time, and the cities of Amatrice and Rome in Italy have dated back to ancient times, why wouldn't the USA have ancient people as well? I'm sure we did. Just undocumented. Wow.

      --
      Cindy Fahnestock-Schafer
    3. Re:source by aliquis · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Says 2 million years ago.

      Also what about these "species", are they different species for real or are they just different looking humanoid apes they have found over time?

      They haven't tested whatever they can mate with each other?

      Someone recently was like bla bla left Africa 70 000 years ago, "I'm black" so to say. SJW.

      But are we just even the latest model and that came exclusively from Africa or is it just that we've evolved over time and when they have found something different they have made up a name for it even though it may not be a different species? And aren't we supposed to have some DNA from other humanoid "species" too as in cross-breeding even with those supposedly different "species"?

      Not that this "Since my ancestors come from Africa 70 000 years ago everyone need to be welcomed here and be free to live of us" make any sense regardless.

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

      Denisovans might had the time, stamina and technology to cross water way between the Alaska and Siberia, but probably not in sufficiently large numbers to create a sustainable population. My money is on the Denisovans also because they already lived in the nearby areas.

    5. Re: source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who use the term SJW are 99.9% gay. Discuss.

    6. Re: source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, "native" American Indians... are called native for thus reason. They were here before that guy.

    7. Re: source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank fuck 0.1% of me won't have AIDS!

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

      Maybe Cindy doesn't consider them to be people.

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

      Humans originated in persia, not africa.

    10. Re:source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Iranians think that.

    11. Re:source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, "Human" doesn't just mean Homo Sapiens. Keep going back with that "million years" figure, though!

      Neandertal (between 440000-800000 ybp), Homo Erectus (~1.9 million ybp) and Homo Habilis (~2.9-3 million ybp) were also humans. Amongst a number of other subspecies.

      Some other numbers to blow your minds:

      - Civilisation and city building: mounting evidence indicates well over 12000 ybp
      - Oldest discovered geometric symbolic representation: between 430,000 and 540,000 ybp
      - Claymaking and firing: ~1.4 million ybp
      - Cooking: at least 1.5 million ybp (possibly 1.8-2.3 million, according to phylogeny)
      - Development of form without function (stylized Acheulean handaxes): ~ 1.75 million ybp
      - Language development: according to skull morphology, at least 2 million ybp, that date keeps getting pushed back every few years.

      There are more surprises still in the labs, too.

      So yeah, I'm sure walking around the planet was more than possible for people in the time period specified.

    12. Re: source by fintux · · Score: 1

      I can't believe your post has 0 points and the GP has +2. I've never understood really why it's taught in the schools that Columbus discovered America. But I guess it's just another case of history being written by the winners.

    13. Re: source by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, that it is just a poorly written sentence. But it did make my jaw drop at first.

      Either that or "she" caught a few.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    14. Re: source by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      It's ironic that the last part of his post is "make any sense regardless".

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    15. Re:source by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      When I was in Okinawa I was told that humans originated in Okinawa.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    16. Re:source by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Paper here http://nature.com/articles/doi... [nature.com] also,

      here, if you don't have access to Nature (which I don't).

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

      +1 funny because its true

    18. Re:source by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Humans originated in persia, not africa.

      Only Iranians think that.

      (YouTube) S.P.O.C.K. - They are not humans

    19. Re: source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who use the term Snowflake are 96.7223% gay.
      No discussion required.

    20. Re:source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I often wondered if people weren't here before Columbus."

      I hope that your sentence is just poorly worded. Otherwise you have just declared that Native Americans are not people.

    21. Re: source by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Columbus *did* discover America. He just wasn't the only one to do so. His discovery was enabled by his ignorance of prior discoveries.

      FWIW, he wasn't even the first European to discover America. Nor, probably, were the Vikings. E.g., there were Irish sailors who had legends about a land across the sea. They sound like elaborations on something quite believable. Buckminister Fuller suggested that the Phoenicians circumnavigated the world. I didn't find the evidence convincing, but it was a plausible theory. Certainly the Chinese visited, though the evidence that I know of is only in South America.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    22. Re:source by HiThere · · Score: 1

      IIUC, at certain of those periods there was an ice bridge between the continents. Such a crossing wouldn't have been very comfortable, but it might have been possible. And are there any plausible prey species (caribou?) that could have been being chased, and if so, what does their genotype show? When did horses cross from the Americas to Asia? If the timing works out, a herd of them could have been pursued back.

      OTOH, all early human species were already quite inbred, so I doubt that population size was the kind of restriction it would currently be. (Lethal double alleles had probably already been eliminated.) So I'd favor their die-out being based around either bad luck (some lethal disease that when through their largely genetically identical population) or competition, either direct or indirect, with later immigrants who had better tools and social organization. Which could just have taken the form of being better hunters, so the game became both leery of humans and scarcer on the ground.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    23. Re:source by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I buy skull morphology as being evidence of grammar. OTOH, there's evidence that chimpanzees have a rudimentary grammar sense, and they split off quite awhile ago.

      If you want to say there isn't any better evidence offered for the development of language, that's plausible (though I'm not sure), but I don't find it really convincing. Particularly as it appears that chimpanzees can be taught language (rudimentary), they just don't teach it to their offspring. This might be related to the FOXp2 gene (a family that lost the human variant also lost language), but that's hard to pick out that far back...but I haven't heard that it influences skull shape.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    24. Re: source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And today I discovered slashdot.
      Hey, what's up with all these people here? I just discovered it!!!

    25. Re:source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " certain of those periods there was an ice bridge between the continents"

      More important, and the thing that people keep forgetting, is the COASTLINE.
      There was a coastline between the continents. They did not have to travel long distances in water, nor over ice.
      They could walk on sand and/or use small boats/rafts
      http://www.livescience.com/7042-ancient-people-kelp-highway-america-researcher.html
      http://natural-history.uoregon.edu/research/paleocoastal-research-project/kelp-highway-hypothesis

      This is not only a historical argument.
      Fun fact, some of the first non-native settlers to CA and the west coast... Were Japanese fisherman.
      They had, for thousands of years, traveled along the coastline up almost to Alaska and back.. After the 'new world' and Japan opening up some fisherman decided to keep going.

      This easily could have happened many times before.

      The history of humanity is actually until recently one of a COASTAL species. One that exploited both land and sea. Our population distribution still shows this to this day. The portuguese and polynesians were recent seafarers by historical standards.

    26. Re: source by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    27. Re: source by fintux · · Score: 1

      According to dictionary.com, to discover means "to see, get knowledge of, learn of, find, or find out; gain sight or knowledge of (something previously unseen or unknown): to discover America; to discover electricity." As if America was earlier unknown to the mankind. But Native Americans had been living there tens of thousands of years. (Incidentally, discovering America is used as an example, but there's not enough surrounding data to say in what sense the example is meant - unlike on the history lessons in school).

      One could say that from the Europeans' point of view, it was a discovery. But for the history of the world, or the history of mankind, it wasn't a discovery any more than me seeing atoms and claiming that I've been discovering new particles. There is a difference between "Today I discovered a new continent beyond the Atlantic Ocean" (as in, I found something that had not been found earlier) and "Today I discovered that there's a continent beyond the Atlantic Ocean" (as in, I learned something that I didn't know before).

    28. Re: source by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It was previously unknown to Columbus and his crew, therefore he was able to discover it. There were Europeans who knew about it, or at least had plausible reasons to believe in its presence, but Columbus wasn't among them. (He was expecting to reach India, remember.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    29. Re:source by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yes, but at the time being discussed I'm not sure there is any evidence for the existence of ocean-viable boats. We're talking well back in the old stone age, and the Pacific near the Aleutians isn't peaceful. At later periods this would be a quite important point, and I'm rather sure that the inhabitants of the Kuril and Aleutian islands would prove to be related well back in time, but probably not far before the invention of the proto-kayak. (They might even not have gotten to the islands before then.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    30. Re: source by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      FWIW, he wasn't even the first European to discover America

      Basque fishermen did a brisk business in Grand Banks cod throughout the Medieval period. Salt cod was a European staple, and it came from the North American coast. It's highly unlikely they were unaware of the landmass near their fishing grounds, probably in the general area of Newfoundland.[1]

      The European merchant class had been well aware of the existence of the Americas for centuries before 1492. They were just trying to keep it a secret from the aristocracy and the Church. Columbus / Colón / Colombo was a small-time trader with ambitions and a collection of grossly erroneous ideas who Dunning-Kruger'd his way into spilling the beans.

      [1] Which should really be known as Refoundland.

    31. Re: source by fintux · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in the context of history text books, this gives a wrong impression. Think about a physics text book where it says that atoms were discovered by me in the 1980s. As I learned about atoms during the '80s, technically that is true. But it certainly gives a wrong impression, and nobody in their right mind would print a textbook with such a text.

      The whole point of what I am saying is what kind of impression the text books give to the students, not if such interpretation of the text exists that makes the text factually correct.

  5. Fingerprints of the Gods by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    I'm about a quarter of the way through the book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Interesting in the same way as Worlds in Collision (Velikovsky): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Maybe history isn't what we think it is.

    1. Re:Fingerprints of the Gods by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      Interesting like a thoroughly terrible
        Hollywood summer blockbuster, completely devoid of any connection to real-world physics, mathematics, history, or even simple logic and basic causality?

      Sure, why not? I mean, the Da Vinci Code was also pretty popular.

    2. Re:Fingerprints of the Gods by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Interesting in the same way as Worlds in Collision (Velikovsky):

      And by interesting, you mean, "totally fucking bonkers".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Fingerprints of the Gods by msauve · · Score: 2

      Haven't you been following the news? "Totally fucking bonkers" IS the new reality.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:Fingerprints of the Gods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mounting evidence for a comet hitting the arctic circle in the Younger Dryas and un-imaginable flooding as a 2 mile thick ice sheet melts all at once and obliterates the entire continental US is getting harder to refute.

      I don't think it is unreasonable to protect our civilization from being hit by an asteroid. It's not as if we know what is going on in the Oort cloud and if this newly proposed orbital body actually exists with an orbital period of 8000+ years we can't say for sure what is heading our way.

      If anyone is interested in the details you can check out the Comet Research Group.

    5. Re:Fingerprints of the Gods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should check it out before dismissing it. The geological evidence, alone, is compelling.

    6. Re:Fingerprints of the Gods by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      completely devoid of any connection to real-world physics, mathematics, history, or even simple logic and basic causality?

      That would depend on if you know how old the human race actually is instead of assuming you do.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    7. Re:Fingerprints of the Gods by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      did you read this part of the link for Fingerprints of the Gods ... "Members of the scholarly and scientific community have described the proposals put forward in the book as pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology"

      And Carl Sagan didn't have much positive to say about the second one

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    8. Re:Fingerprints of the Gods by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      When I heard the announcement I thought of "Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race" by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson (Amazon Link, Condensed Version on Amazon, Wiki Article). The book basically says the same thing: there has been some weak archeological evidence to support the theory that humans (or hominoids) have been around for a lot longer than currently recognized, and in places where people didn't think they were. Obviously the book is controversial and much of the argument is dependent upon scattered artifacts and their interpenetration. A finding like this could booster the books argument though, some interesting stuff to keep an eye on at least.

    9. Re:Fingerprints of the Gods by mykepredko · · Score: 1

      Nice to see somebody got what I was trying to say.

    10. Re:Fingerprints of the Gods by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      "Members of the scholarly and scientific community have described the proposals put forward in the book as pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology"

      Quackademics have years invested in their thesis, they don't want their investments disturbed by new evidence.

      And Carl Sagan didn't have much positive to say about the second one

      Well he was dead for 15 years before it was published, so maybe he hasn't had a chance.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  6. "...this site is strictly for breaking bone." by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    MMA is old, too.

  7. Smithsonian Barbie by pipingguy · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
    2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.
    3. The dentition pattern evident on the “skull” is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the “ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams” you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

    A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.
    B. Clams don’t have teeth.

    1. Re:Smithsonian Barbie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

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

      Yours in Science,

      Harvey Rowe
      Curator, Antiquities

    2. Re:Smithsonian Barbie by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Funny, this weekend I'm going out foraging for the recently-named Boletus rex-veris.

  8. Drawing a long bow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "found the partial skeleton of A MASTODON" (my caps)

    Basing a theory of this amount of evidence, given the masses of evidence that supports a much later date ... well, seems a tad optimistic to me.

    Also, I'm guessing there are any number of reasons for bone fragmentation characteristics like that (rock falls after death, crushed bones due to a fall etc etc) that make the theory similarly optimistic.

    And the fact that there's no evidence of butchery of said mastodon ... well, it looks like a long bow is being drawn from little or no evidence.

    1. Re:Drawing a long bow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "found the partial skeleton of A MASTODON" (my caps)

      Basing a theory of this amount of evidence, given the masses of evidence that supports a much later date ... well, seems a tad optimistic to me.

      Also, I'm guessing there are any number of reasons for bone fragmentation characteristics like that (rock falls after death, crushed bones due to a fall etc etc) that make the theory similarly optimistic.

      And the fact that there's no evidence of butchery of said mastodon ... well, it looks like a long bow is being drawn from little or no evidence.

      I wondered the same thing, but from the third sentence of the journal Nature link:
      "The CM site contains spiral-fractured bone and molar fragments, indicating that breakage occured while fresh."

      And further down in the same paragraph:
      "Systematic proboscidean bone reduction, evident at the CM site, fits within a broader pattern of Palaeolithic bone percussion technology in Africa, Eurasia and North America."

    2. Re:Drawing a long bow ... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'd be reluctant to form that conclusion with the known (to me) evidence. How much of the bone fracture seems to have happened while the bone was fresh? If all, or most, then that's a reasonable point. If only a bit, then I suspect a sabretooth of the original fracture, and humans of much later work.

      FWIW, I don't have access to Nature, and haven't looked at the article, so perhaps they explain this. And "fits within a broader pattern of Palaeolithic bone percussion technology in Africa, Eurasia and North America." seems to be including prior known North American patterns.

      Certainly it's possible that the evidence is much better than I am assuming, but I'll wait for a consensus before assuming that. I sometimes for solid opinions on matters as much out of my field as this is, but I try to have solidly known evidence with agreed upon interpretations to base them on.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  9. Seas were much lower by mi · · Score: 3, Informative

    The stupid humans crossed (what is now) Bering's Straits, started too many fires and melted too much ice. The ocean-levels rose and there was no way for them to walk back... The Shamanry was settled — it was all their fault.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  10. This is why we can't have nice things by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Like mastodons.

    If human beings, or our earlier ancestors, were killing mastodons 130,000 year ago without eating the meat, then it seems awfully likely that human/hominid hunting was an important factor in the eventual extinction of mastodons and other North American megafauna. Killing a big mammal like that for the bones/marrow implies a very effective predation capability and possible big environmental impact.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re: This is why we can't have nice things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it didn't taste good. How do you know it was nice?

    2. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe something else killed the mastodons and ate the meat. Perhaps the humans scavenged what was left.

    3. Re: This is why we can't have nice things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they were killing them to have something big enough to feed to their domesticated dinosaurs. Why shop at Mammouth* when you can just catch a mammoth?

      * ancient French hypermarket store chain, once widely distributed across the prehistoric world but finally went extinct in 2009.

      CAPTCHA: caring. Like the prehistoric humans were doing for their pet dinosaurs.

    4. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing mastodons and mammoths is fun. But you know what's almost as much fun? Smashing up the corpses.

    5. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by mutantSushi · · Score: 2

      IMHO the lack of cut marks would most logically suggest the people involved found the bones after the animal was killed by a predator species. This is exactly in line with early human ecology, being able to harvest marrow of large species killed by other predators.

    6. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by Raenex · · Score: 1

      it seems awfully likely that human/hominid hunting was an important factor in the eventual extinction of mastodons and other North American megafauna

      I think the comet impact theory is more likely than nomadic tribes of ancient humans causing mass extinctions.

    7. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by RockDoctor · · Score: 2
      Cutting the meat off bone leaves distinctive "tool marks" - either of teeth/ claws or of the implements used by human(s) to "butcher" the carcass.

      The bones did not show butchery marks (RTFP, read my link up-thread), so most likely were defleshed by non-humans before the humans "processed" the bones (for marrow, or tool-making material?). That could have been just a few days after the mammoth was killed.

      Are you going to try to chase a pack of sabre-tooth tigers away from their kill?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    8. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by c · · Score: 2

      If human beings, or our earlier ancestors, were killing mastodons 130,000 year ago without eating the meat

      The evidence is that they don't appear to have been cutting the meat from the bones with sharp tools.

      That's not the same thing as "killed a mastadon" or even "didn't eat any of the meat".

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    9. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Nonsense given the effort it would have been to hunt a mastodon to just eat marrow. The return on the investment is too low. I believe the hypothesis of this study rests on very weak facts.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    10. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's considerable evidence that early humans routinely engaged in mass slaughter - start a stampede, guide it toward the top of a cliff, and harvest the meat and other useful parts from the bottom. Far easier than trying to kill animals much larger and faster than you directly.

      The downside is that you end up killing a LOT more animals than you can use, but the problems with that aren't going to be noticeable in any one person's lifetime - at least not until the species is almost extinct. And even if people eventually noticed the problem, and their own culpability, cultural inertia is likely to have kept things going anyway. Just as it did when the Easter Islanders cut down the last of the trees their society depended on, or when modern humans keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  11. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    They don't get special privileges for being first. They get it because European Americans more or less stole their land. It's a form of compensation colonial governments such as the US government voluntarily gave them. Also most tribes and the US BIA regulate based on quantum of blood for enrollment, I.e. too little native and you're out of the tribe because morons like you say these things.

  12. Re:Political implications for "Native Americans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, actually arguing that people have lived here for longer does not help the argument that the effects of colonialism and responsibility of genocide can be ignored because "it was a long time ago". If you look at pretty much any poverty statistic, native americans will always be at the top. So yes, I'm sure the non-natives will be eagerly lining up to get their own "special treatment".

  13. Everyone knows . . . by Latent+Heat · · Score: 3, Funny

    The car was co-invented by the German Mr. Daimler and the American Mr. Chrysler.

    The light bulb -- that's easy, that was invented by Henry Ford, the founder of the Ford Motor Company, where it was incorporated into their advertising as representative of "Ford has a better idea!", such as their innovative double-clutch transmissions conveying the necessary impression of cheapness for their small cars to encourage the sale of their Lincoln Navigator as being "more solid."

    Samsung in Korea invented the phone.

    The computer was invented in England by a guy we don't want to talk about.

    The steam engine? That's easy -- it was invented by Montgomery Scott, supported by his Irish-Jewish friend Cap'n Kirk.

    1. Re:Everyone knows . . . by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The car was co-invented by the German Mr. Daimler and the American Mr. Chrysler.

      There's a Cornishman, Mr Trevithick, waiting for you with his steam-powered road vehicle and a large spanner in about 1802.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:Everyone knows . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      The car was co-invented by the German Mr. Daimler and the American Mr. Chrysler.

      Co-invented? Who cares about invention? Another German, Karl Benz, was the first to patent the automobile, and thus is revered by Slashdot folks for giving us the topic of IP to squawk about incessantly.

      The light bulb -- that's easy, that was invented by Henry Ford

      Unfortunately, Mr. Ford's light bulb never gained any traction with consumers, because electricity had not been invented yet, and thus, the light bulb remained a "dark" bulb. However, astrophysicists honored Mr. Ford's "dark" bulb by naming wacky inexplicable outer space shenanigans after his invention: "dark" matter, and "dark" energy.

      Nikola Tesla invented electricity as a puerile party gag, where he would charge himself up to 10,000 volts, and invite party guests to, "Pull my finger!" Unfortunately the resulting spark ignited his flatulence and Dr. Tesla and his party guests were turned into foul-smelling toast.

      All-around hard guy Elon Musk-for-Men named his flatulence-powered car after Dr. Telsa.

      Samsung in Korea invented the phone.

      But Samsung's phone only spoke Korean, which made it useless for the rest of the world. Apple's Steve Job had the revelation to produce American speaking phones during a nightmarish bad trip on dangerously potent psychoactive mushrooms.

      The computer was invented in England by a guy we don't want to talk about.

      Actually, the Germans will complain that their Konrad Zuse invented the computer during WWII, where it was used to design modern weaponry used today in armed conflicts, like the B2 Flying Wing Bomber, which the Germans called the Horton "Ho" 229. The "Ho" was never finished, because the engineers kept making jokes about the name: "Who you callin' a Ho?" Zuse's calculating critter also designed the V-1 Cruise Missile, which was a commercial failure because the Germans named it "Marschflugkörper". The Americans renamed this as the "Cruise" Missile, which sounds much better, as in Caribbean "Cruise" and Tom "Cruise". And, of course, only Zuse's machine could calculate that Niel Armstrong must have been out of his tiny little mind to climb into the souped-up V-2 rocket for a raucous romp to the moon.

      Dr. Zuse had more financial success with his series of children's books, written under his pen name of Dr. Seuss, like, "The Cat in the Marschflugkörper", "Green Eggs and a Death Camp" and "Horton hears a Ho 229."

      Being that the Germans invent weapons that finally see action 50 years later, it would be interesting to see what they are working on today. What is the real military value of those toxic belching turbo diesel injection cars? We will probably never know, since Germany's official position on military conflict is, "We only participate in wars that we start ourselves."

      The steam engine? That's easy -- it was invented by Montgomery Scott, supported by his Irish-Jewish friend Cap'n Kirk.

      I'm not a gamer, but I believe that Steam is programmed in Rust, to differentiate it from other platforms implemented in other too-young-to-be-trusted languages, like the Ingrown Toenail Fungus Framework.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Everyone knows . . . by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

      The steam engine? That's easy -- it was invented by Montgomery Scott, supported by his Irish-Jewish friend Cap'n Kirk.

      This sir, deserves +Hilarous Mod-Points.

      And let us not forget that same brilliant engineer invented transparent aluminium.

    4. Re:Everyone knows . . . by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      The steam engine? That's easy -- it was invented by Montgomery Scott, supported by his Irish-Jewish friend Cap'n Kirk.

      This sir, deserves +Hilarous Mod-Points.

      Your sense of humor is so low, it was probably excavated together with that poor mammoth...

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    5. Re:Everyone knows . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we go that way, let's mention the French inventor Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot and his "fardier" in 1769, the first "automobile"...

    6. Re:Everyone knows . . . by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Which steam engine? There's no "the steam engine". Hero of Alexandria had a steam engine, which was used as a toy by wealthy churchmen through most of the middle ages. I don't recall ever hearing of it being adapted to doing work, but it could have been, just like the Stirling (steam) engine is (was?) quite common as a desk ornament among a certain class of techish administrators. But it's rarely used for actual work.

      Often there are reasons why a certain tool wasn't developed usefully, but these are often hard to determine from a distance.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  14. In the last 6,000 years by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    It is amazing that a whole class of humanoids came to America from the middle east and became extinct as the article suggest, then the Natives came and colonized. Amazing how fast things change

  15. Funniest comment by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    I have read after many years on Slashdot.

    1. Re:Funniest comment by bongey · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's actually old and pirated off the internet.Funny the original author was making fun of himself. http://emganin.tripod.com/home...

    2. Re:Funniest comment by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      What? You didn't read about the Hippo Butt Leeches?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Funniest comment by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It was pretty funny 20-odd years ago on CompuServe SciMath forum.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  16. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, water is wet. Cue the right wing religious lunatics who insist Earth is 3,000 years old, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas and all of the science that clearly points out their idiocy is the work of "Satan". GFY!!!!

    1. Re:In other news by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      In other news, water is wet. Cue the right wing religious lunatics who insist Earth is 3,000 years old ...

      Cue them? Seeing a lot of these posts here on Slashdot, are you?

    2. Re:In other news by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

      Far more than there should be.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  17. Plane Truth [Re:Why??] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    who invented flight thing over again, they will just keep on redefining what flight is until they are first.

    Not comparable to this situation per sister message, but as far as the first manned plane flight, the definition matters because it was relatively trivial to attach a motor to a propeller and then to a thing with wings and lunge sky-ward for a short period of time. After all, gliders, as in hang-gliders, were already common by then.

    One could argue it was really an evolution, but the Wright Brothers were way ahead of the others in terms of control for several years regardless of who made the first lunge into the air. They were doing figure-8's when others could barely turn.

    They finally lost that distinction when others moved and perfected the "tail" on the back instead of the front, which made planes safer.

    1. Re:Plane Truth [Re:Why??] by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Not comparable to this situation per sister message, but as far as the first manned plane flight, the definition matters because it was relatively trivial to attach a motor to a propeller and then to a thing with wings and lunge sky-ward for a short period of time. "

      What everybody else at the time kept missing is that wing dihedral, angling the wings into the slipstream, was inadequate to attain level powered flight. What made heavier-than-air flight possible was curving the upper wing surface, exploiting the Bernoulli effect.

    2. Re: Plane Truth [Re:Why??] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're thinking angle-of-attack, not Dihedral. And curving the wing isn't THE big "made it possible" discovery...

    3. Re:Plane Truth [Re:Why??] by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but by "dihedral", do you mean "angle of attack"?

      Dihedral: Tips of wings are higher than the roots of the wings. If you look at an airplane from the front or back, the two wings make a shallow 'v' shape.

      Angle of attack: Measure of the vertical angle of the chord of the wing to the direction of travel. If you look at an airplane from the side, the front edge of the wing is higher than the back edge of the wing.

  18. Except, we haven't been around that long by Texmaize · · Score: 1

    Homo Sapiens have been around between 100,000-200,000 years. We still have that new species smell about us.

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evi...

    Just sayin'

    --
    "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
  19. The world is only 6000 years old by Suiggy · · Score: 1

    If you disagree, you're an antisemitic piece of garbage. Anything purporting to be older than 6000 years is fake news and needs to be memory holed.

    1. Re: The world is only 6000 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The religious beliefs of the leftards that we owe something to the savages because they were here first was scientifically proven wrong.

    2. Re:The world is only 6000 years old by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      As a co-worker once explained to me, it isn't that the scientists are lying about the fossils. It is that Satan planted them there with misleading amounts of carbon, and the scientists just credulously believe whatever Satan wants them to. Because they're naive, and trusting.

  20. Sagan on Velikovsky by Latent+Heat · · Score: 2

    I think it was Sagan who remarked that astronomers and physicists regarded Velikovsky's theories of recent Solar System catastrophes as pseudoscience but that the man had some interesting insights into the ancient world. Scholars of the antiquities, however, thought that his theories of catastrophes in the recent Solar System made for interesting reading, but that his chronologies and interpretations of ancient writings were stark-raving bonkers.

    Velikovsky's bizarre account of the planet Venus ejected from Jupiter, whizzing around for some time as a comet, and then settling down as the Second Planet gets the most press, but his equally bizarre pronouncements about the ancient world are "inside baseball", accessible to only a select few who even care when the Egyptian Dynasties started and ended.

    The 12'th century BCE, give or take, collapse of Mediterranean civilization, the start of the "Greek Dark Ages" separating the events of the Trojan War from the retelling by Homer hundreds of years later, is both kind of cool as well as sobering. There is a Web site "The Greek Dark Ages Never Happened" that takes inspiration from Velikovsky's claim that every other scholar apart from he has the ancient-world chronology all wrong as a consequence of double-counting Egyptian Pharohs or some such thing. This blends with the (mainly) Russians claiming that the chronology of the 2000+ years CE is all messed up and that all of the big historical events in the textbooks happened in a more recent past.

    1. Re:Sagan on Velikovsky by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      One thing that I got out of WIC was the imagining of how major celestial events would appear to ancient people. How they might look and be interpreted.

      FWIW it might be that kind of thinking was more common in the appropriate circles back then, but, in my case, reading the book is when I first started wondering about it. And then I started seeing more and more hypotheses and theories on how the Earth-Moon system was formed, f'rinstance, and used for other catastrophic and/or chaotic events.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  21. I don't believe it by fox171171 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is no way humans were living in California 130,000 years ago without draconian intellectual property laws and copyright. They would never have survived.

    1. Re:I don't believe it by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      There is no way humans were living in California 130,000 years ago without draconian intellectual property laws and copyright. They would never have survived.

      They did, and they didn't.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:I don't believe it by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      The mammoth was actually slain because it had infringed on a copyright agreement.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    3. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoot dawg, this is a recent event on zerohedge's "long enough time-line"
      it's just like the art bell catvox nars photos

      It could be, after eons of coincidental compulsive worshiping little rat tooth sharpening scratches. Creating a set of little alien spy "Rat Runes" not human ones. This explains velacousky's and other's observe of the burnt layer on most of north america in US where something big burned, long after the master RAT race died off.

      so no more dirty rats practicing spy magic today, even after 100k years ago way up on the mountaintop dirty rats worshiped and threw other rats into the volcano to balance the budget and stock market. Still in the end it was GDP vs DEBT and exponents that made the toast (which you shouldn't eat.)

  22. Re:Political implications for "Native Americans" by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Another problem is that due to interbreeding between "Native Americans" and Europeans who arrived within the past 500 or so years, many of today's "Native Americans" actually have significant European ancestry. "

    But just try to find a Native American who brags about being one-sixteenth Belgian.

  23. Clearly the mastodon skeleton by tgibson · · Score: 1

    was contemporaneous with this ancient race.

  24. Contradictory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... were killing mastodons 130,000 years ago ...

    It contradicts the idea that humans left Africa around 60,000 to 80,000 years ago.

    Modern humans are about 165,000 to 180,000 years old: This claim suggests that human society, believed to number in the hundreds, fragmented soon after the species arose and long before it had invented religion, government or the printed word.

    1. Re:Contradictory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We haven't learned to get on with each other now, do you really think we were much better then?

  25. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    At what point does the gravy train end? Every other civilization from that era isn't getting paid. Moreover, they stole it from these other guys that were here before them.

  26. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right. There were three distinct migrations. The first has all died out and no one in north America has been proven to have their genetic markers. The "First Nations" truly did commit genocide, wiping out an ethnicity permanently all for their own exclusive benefit that they are riding to this day.

  27. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At what point does the gravy train end? Every other civilization from that era isn't getting paid. Moreover, they stole it from these other guys that were here before them.

    Certainly since none alive today had their land stolen. I don't go crying about shit that happened to my ancestors in europe- because it wasn't me.

  28. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Many of the treaties basically say forever (as long as the Sun shines kind of time frames) and the American Constitution puts treaties pretty high in the law. A deal is a deal and the people who traded a few beads for most of the natives land have done pretty good.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  29. Show me the human bones by TheSync · · Score: 1

    I'll believe this when I see the human bones...

  30. Bigfoot by Yergle143 · · Score: 1

    Nuff Said

  31. Re:Political implications for "Native Americans" by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1

    Here, in Eurasia, there is no "native population", there are just descendants of previous conquerors.
    It seems that it is the same in New World.

  32. Re:Political implications for "Native Americans" by Raenex · · Score: 1

    Politics start to get involved because so-called "Native Americans" receive preferential treatment

    Why are you disparaging Elizabeth Warren?

  33. Of course, of course... by ls671 · · Score: 1
    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  34. First Genocide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was caused by the so called 'Native Americans' who masqueraded and raped this more native american hominid after they crossed the land bridge. Take that liberals

  35. Absence of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A one-off example isn't going to persuade any but the true believers and the gullible. There's consensus that we have clear evidence for human habitation of the America's by 14,000 ybp. There's significant evidence for 20,000; 25,000 and even 30, 35, 40 and 45,000 years ago. But it's not very persuasive. Yet. A picnic on the beach is not a historically significant event (unless it is). The question is human habitation. There's always going to be outliers that can't be easily (or fully) explained. Nothing is fool proof, fools are far too clever. Anyway, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Except if you're a moron journalist. We know some of our predecessors were using tools 1 million years ago, so the fact that something was using stone tools 130,000 yrs ago isn't a stretch. But just because they found a glove near OJs home, doesn't mean it was his glove. Just because they found some bones near some stone chips, doesn't mean they're from the same event or even from the same time. That is really hard to prove, and there's always an alternate explanation. The more archeologist dig, the more often they'll "discover" false positives. The real question is: if we (or our relatives) were here 130k ypb, then what were we doing in the 100,000 years between then and when the clear archeological record starts? Only thing I can think of is video games. Because unless they had lots of video games to play, they'd be doing the dirty in the bushes and the population would have soared. Gotta explain the very limited population growth, and for 100,000 years. And in areas which weren't glaciated. Good luck with that. But it'll be interesting to see if they can find other evidence, can't say they can't until they've tried - exhaustively. And that'll never happen. (budget cuts, you know)

  36. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by sysrammer · · Score: 0

    They don't get special privileges for being first. They get it because European Americans more or less stole their land. It's a form of compensation colonial governments such as the US government voluntarily gave them. Also most tribes and the US BIA regulate based on quantum of blood for enrollment, I.e. too little native and you're out of the tribe because morons like you say these things.

    Thanks. Good retort. Quick and simple.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  37. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    Hear Hear!

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  38. Re:Political implications for "Native Americans" by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    "But just try to find a Native American who brags about being one-sixteenth Belgian."

    Ha!

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  39. Re:Political implications for "Native Americans" by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    We are all descendants of conquerors and slaves.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  40. One very quick thought ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 2
    ... because I have to go and do Real World stuff.

    IF you accept the dating (see my posts up-thread - I'm by no means convinced by the dating, but need to read the other dozen pages of published material as well as the main paper), then this puts ONE or more H.sapiens (or close relative) in California 130kyr ago. That does not mean a breeding population. That could be one ship-wrecked (is "raft-wrecked" a word?) storm-tossed East Asian who arrived with a fish hook and is starting to re-build his tool kit. This could have happened thousands of times without a breeding population being established.

    Off to the Real World.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    1. Re:One very quick thought ... by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      So you think it more likely that somehow a single guy made it across the pacific on a raft, survived, and then managed to leave behind evidence that itself also survived?

    2. Re:One very quick thought ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      No, I think it's more likely that the single man scenario could have happened a thousand times - once every century - and left less evidence than the first breeding pair did in the two centuries after their arrival.

      More practically, since it is certain that humans had made it from Africa to at least Indonesia by the time under discussion (a journey necessitating the use of some sort of watercraft for several steps of the journey), then it is not a huge leap to put a population of humans on the Korean/ Kamchatkan coast, living a hunting/ gathering/ fishing lifestyle, and to have them lose boats to a storm from the west on a regular basis (not enough to threaten the populations survival, just part of the regular attrition of death in fishing communities ; my Best Man's home town lost three generations of one family in one boat only about 30 years ago). The few boatmen who survived the ride along the pre-Aleutian chain, past the coastal glaciers of pre-Canada and pre-Cascadia ... eventually might arrive at pre-California and choose to stop. "Here, we can repair, re-equip, collect stores, and figure out how the fuck to get back home." And leave no population behind, because they don't put their valuable women onto the dangerous boats until they're damned sure they know where they're going.

      Up-thread some people mention the Vikings going across the North Atlantic, island hopping. They don't mention the well-attested history of pre-Viking voyages (e.g. the "St Brendan" legend) that probably indicate the distorted tails of the few storm-tossed fishermen who did finally make thir way back home ... to start a legend, and to give their descendants the idea that there might be something worth going over the horizon for. Generations later, Erik Thorvaldsson and Ingolfr Arnarson knew damned well there was land "out there" when they set off to settle Greenland and Iceland respectively.

      I've never believed that the only population who settled in the Americas were the ones who followed the mid-Canadian ice-free corridor. Not when the coastal route was also available. Unfortunately, archaeological evidence for the coastal route is typically at an elevation of -50 to -100m, making it challenging to identify and dig sites. In that context, this is a very interesting report. Even if I do have doubts about the final numbers for the dating.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:One very quick thought ... by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      That could be one ship-wrecked (is "raft-wrecked" a word?) storm-tossed East Asian who arrived with a fish hook and is starting to re-build his tool kit.

      Not my field by any means, but that sounds plausible to me. Harvesting marrow from the large (and thus unlikely to be cracked by predators) bones of carrion is a good choice for someone stranded on their own - a good food source at very little risk, obtained because stone tools give humans an advantage in extracting it.

      Archaeologists have found plenty of marrow extraction sites; it's not like this was a rare practice.

      And anyone who's knapped flint tools (I've done a few) knows that you generally end up making several before you get just the ones you want, even if you're experienced. Stone stock often has faults that are invisible to the naked eye which can spoil a piece at any point during working, and sometimes you just don't get the shape you're after even if it doesn't break (particularly with percussion knapping). So at a stone-working site you'll often find a bunch of discarded pieces.

      That doesn't mean it wasn't a thriving community either, of course. It could have faded away ten thousand years later and not left much for us to stumble across. Look at Cahokia - in 1100 it likely had a larger population than London (did then), but if they hadn't built the mounds we might not know it was ever there.

    4. Re:One very quick thought ... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "...the distorted *tails* of the few storm-tossed fishermen..." --this is what happens when you're too long out with the mermaids!

      I've started to think we've underestimated when civilization started... earlier today I was looking at pics of GÃbekli Tepe, and I'm thinkin' ... this is no hunter-gatherer tribe; this is the work of settled people who are not beginners at it and don't have to follow migratory herds, either.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:One very quick thought ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Useful points (sorry!) on knapping etc.

      I was just trying to find some usabel bathymetry data for the San Diego area, and while I'm not exactly sure, at about the time of this site (accepting the dating ; I don't see any major holes in it), it was 10 to 20km in from the coast. More strictly, from the 100m isobath, as an estimate of the sealevel at 130kyr. (No, I haven't even looked for an isostatic curve for the area. Though posing the question does suggest where to start looking.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    6. Re:One very quick thought ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Gobekli Tepe (thank you, Slashdot's non-Latin incompetence) is truly fascinating, but would only push the origin of "civilisation" back by 3 or 4 thousand years from early Egyptian and Mesopotamian cities (and since it's late at night, I can't remember the oldest of the Chinese or (Latin)American cities). A step back, but not exactly a surprising one.

      But Gobekli Tepe does raise a real question. Where the fsck did the workforce who built it live while building it, and what did they eat? We may have an answer for Stonehenge (NB: "may") ; for Stonehenge's predecessors like Brodgar, we just don't know. People are looking, but ... there is no guarantee that the evidence hasn't been ploughed up in the Dark Ages. And in the Roman era. And in the mid-Iron Age.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    7. Re:One very quick thought ... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yep... when cutting stone was all day for one stone, you instead hauled off the stone some distant ancestor had conveniently cut. Who knows how much got plowed up, carried off, or just buried? That was exactly my thought about Gobekli Tepe -- this wasn't one dude with nothing better to do for 50 years. There had to be a whole civilization here to support what from a survival standpoint, is wasted effort. So they were well past where everyday survival was an issue, and to where they could afford to support a class that produced nothing necessary for everyday life. (Eg. all those placed and carven rocks.)

      And did they in turn build on top of someone else's dead civilization? We don't really know. We can't know much more than we do without scouring the habitable earth down to bedrock, which isn't terribly practical when we've probably built cities atop the best and deepest sites.

      Was watching some video on Neanderthal tools, and how they didn't change over 300k years... and my thought was: what if they used a lot of wooden tools? could be fairly sophisticated, and yet nothing would survive. Had this thought after noticing that the odd symbols (patterns of dots, squiggles, etc.) found inside many paleo caves ... occur only in the Neanderthal range, and look suspiciously like a numbering system and/or proto-alphabet.

      Where did I park my time machine? I want to go look. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  41. Re:Political implications for "Native Americans" by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    we're all descendants of Africa

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  42. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Some of the Alaskan and Canadian native groups had taken their large land holdings from others so recently when Europeans arrived that there were still small refugee camps of people who had escaped the slaughter.

    I've yet to see the observation benefit any of the related policy discussions, though.

  43. Hunting license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they have a license to hunt the mastodon?

  44. In the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the future, archaeologists will dig up these bones among our most advanced scientific instruments in the remains of our civilization and conclude humans had advanced technology 130,000 before it was thought we did based on dating of the bones...

  45. 130000 years is a long time ago... by suss · · Score: 1

    We've developed electronics in a relatively short time.
    Who's to say they didn't develop space-or interdimensional travel and went somewhere else? (And neatly cleaned up after themselves, for the most part).

    It's not like sci-fi hasn't dealt with this concept before.

  46. If only they had dug deeper... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They would have found the Raptor the colonials landed in and we would not be on our way to being FTL-capable.

  47. Old bones, new humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the bones were old and the humans were more recent. The humans could have found the ancient bones and processed them for use. Just as we do today with mastodon tusks.

  48. Re:Political implications for "Native Americans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're descended from microbes and mud.

  49. It must have been Texans by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Since this was obviously a BBQ site.

  50. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    A deal is a deal and the people who traded a few beads for most of the natives land have done pretty good.

    That's nice for the guys who profited but lame for the vast majority of the US which pays for this ... forever while receiving none of the benefit. This is one of the earliest cases of privatise the gains socialise the losses.

  51. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    And you probably won't. If anyone else does it it's ok. If a European country does it then and only then is it bad and deserving of some form of reparations.

  52. Re:Political implications for "Native Americans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bannon is that you?

  53. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Your attitude, sarcastic or not, is a good example of why factual observations are of low utility in dealing with these issues. All you do is make the conversation worse for everybody, and make solutions more difficult. That's true regardless of what policies or solutions you support!

  54. Reasonable Thought by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    As long as there have been creatures that we would call human they surely showed up all over the world rather quickly. Whether it is a deliberate migration, a sort of automatic migration while looking for more food, or people trying to keep from drowning by hanging on to a floating log, people simply spread out and tend to get everywhere. I do wonder how many times a migration turned out to be stopping in a more miserable place than the place from which they started.

  55. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly.

    many idiots speak to the 'Native Americans" as perfect people, never having wars, only looking out for the welfare of their citizens, living in complete harmony with the earth.

    This is simply all rubbish. Native Americans deforested large areas of North America, had wars, fought and killed one another just like the Europeans did, only with more primitive weapons.

  56. Re:Political implications for "Native Americans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you speaking about the next Democrat Presidential candidate?

  57. Evidence? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Actually, you not only need to provide some evidence to be considered, but also a bit of definition.

    P.S.: I don't need to find the evidence believable to consider it evidence, but it sure needs to be more than a blank assertion.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  58. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by Immerman · · Score: 1

    The fact that the genetic markers of earlier migrations seem to have vanished entirely is actually an argument *against* genocide. In any violent conflict there's almost always quite a lot of women claimed as prizes by the conquerors, and their genetics enter the new culture that way.

    To complete absence of the earlier markers suggests either intentional genocide, which is very rare and unlikely to have swept across the entirety of two continents - a process that would almost certainly have taken many centuries, or more likely that the earlier immigrants had already died out before the new ones arrived.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  59. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Treaties in general may be put pretty high in the law, but there seems to be a special exception for Native Americans - the US has completely violated virtually every treaty ever made with them.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  60. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but Native Americans are just East Asians and Western Europeans that went to North America 15-20 thousand years ago.

  61. We need to find 130 k year human bones by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    If you want to prove the Americas were settled 130,000 years ago you need to find human bones buried in the Americas that are reliably dated to be that old. Otherwise, any indirect evidence is very suspicious.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  62. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Well, if you don't think there is any benefit to living on the lands that were previously owned by the Natives, you could always go back to Europe or wherever.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  63. Re: Political implications for "Native Americans" by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Not quite completely, which is why posters such as the above want to violate the last few that are still standing.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  64. Their discoveries are fabricated lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These reports are part of Fake news and they are constantly trying to perpetuate the evolution lies. Their stories are falsified. Humans have only been alive on earth since only 7000 years ago. Their way of determining age is also falsified. The only fossils found beyond 7000 years are only of animals. Any so called discovery of humans before that time is completely falsified information and can be proven that its falsified.
    Only a fool says in his heart there is no God...
      Psalm 14King James Version (KJV)
    14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

    April fools day is their holiday

  65. Re:Another Group! by syntotic · · Score: 1

    I think American natives before Columbus are the result of clashing simultaneous migrations from Europe and Polynesia. Polynesia won. But the drive was Europeans, Caucasians, as we now call them. And the same happened in India, driving the big migration we now call Indoeuropean. Krishnas followed and fought by Rakshasas, Rakshasas eventually predominating, etc.

  66. 50000 Years of history by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    Most archeologists agree that Humans have been in North America for around 15000 years.

    HOWEVER, Both the Navajo and Hopi nations claim 50000 years of history in their ancestral lands.

    MAYBE they're right and the archeologists are wrong.