POSSIBLE EVIDENCE THAT H.(??) LIVED IN CALIFORNIA 130,000 ybp

We've been following this through various CBC science programs. Amazing how the bones they found decades ago are revealing more information as investigative techniques get better.

I saw those reports. Was waiting to get more info. That's 10 times further back in time than previously estimated. That's a big jump in the data.

130,000 years old? Ive gotta read more about the dating techniques and the quality control.. i get allexcited about something and then later find that theres a huge error introduced >

ROS---Thats why Im not on any bandwagon yet because a 10X error is just about one that can be introduced in isotope dating especially K/Ar if an older ash bed intermixes. But the ash layers in California surround just a few volcanic events that deposited ash that can be dated by isotopes and layering.

Oh well, Something new to read.

The question isn't the age of the bones - it's about the interpretation of the findings. I'm waiting to hear what Bob McDonald of Quirks and Quarks thinks.

I really will wait for the interpretation, but I really wanna know how they did the age determination . That would be enough for me. Ill call you up and find out whaat they mean.

The story at this point is that these mastodon long bones wre found with marks that ar interpretable as smash marks from someone wielding a heavy rock in the way that out ancestors would have done in order to eke out a meal of marrow.

They found rounded tool rocks , (possible), and only certain areas of the bones were smashed. I love a good paleo -anthropological tale. And the real mystery is based upon the bones ages. 130000 years bp. Thats a real "holy hell"

They should have had guns...

I realize that no archaic human remains have ever been found in this hemisphere, and so it was assumed that none had ever migrated here. But why is it any more amazing than modern man making this migration? Modern man has followed the same migration routes as archaic humans out of Africa, across Europe, across Asia, and across Indonesia. Why not the Americas?

I agree, its just that our minds are always establishing the boundaries beyond which noone can traverse. Thats been the mantra of much paleoanthropology in the 20th century. Because the Pleistocene Ice sheets needed these "Ice free" zones to be passable (Thats almost doctrinal), weve discounted the inventiveness of our genus.
If it turns out that the argument for these artifcts are associated with some kind of Homo species , itll be at a level where these "cousins" were meat eaters and perhaps already "big brained"
and therefore capable tool makers and maybe even flotation device creators.
Neanderthals, weve been finding, were not brutes but were capable when it came to adaptation to cold and were skilled tool makers for close in driving of prey (the kind of hunting that can be done in deep snow or boreal forest.
Its also been shown thaat, much of habitation in the early North America was on the continental littoral zone. Long Line fisherman have dragged up artifacts and paleo tools from depths of 200+ feet deep.
Many archeologists (IMHO) are rather non creative when it comes to exploiting the information available about littoral zone dwelling in the mid/late pleistocene.

Were always fixated on caves nd rock overhangs. yet denisovan dwellings nd arctic H habilis made skin dwellings

Imagine what we might find if the US federal government did not destroy (at the insistence of Native Americans) any possibility of gathering scientific data from ancient human remains found on US soil.

I think the Kennewick fossil has been "repatriated" , not destroyed. If we recall, we DID conduct DNA sampling, because the Native Americans want to be certain of their claims.
PS the dna showed that Kennewick was a native American , not some Neanderthal or Gigantopithecus.

Whatever scientific data that we might have gotten from it in the future has been destroyed.



The Native Americans demanded that the remains be buried with no testing whatsoever. And the government was happy to go along with that.

What little testing was done, only happened because the scientific community fought tooth and nail against the Native Americans and the government to have it done.

When I did my courses in new world archaeology (late 80s) the reigning thesis was migration overland moving through a postulated series of ice-free refuges. It was an inelegant notion that made little sense to me in comparison to the possibility of coastal migration via boat. The findings at Monte Verde had just been published and though resisted (of course) was causing a stir. God knows what sites remain undiscovered off shore and under water.

But 130,000 years! If this stands up, I'll be surprised. I haven't kept up with findings but I don't know of any other evidence that lends support to migration that distant from Africa anywhere near so long ago. My guess would be that the markings on the "tools" are mis-identified.

actually its the patterns on bones that seem to be consistent with smashing of bone to extract marrow. rounded rocks were found around the smashed bones, and only the more robust long bones were smashed, (as if it were a conscious decision to try to get marrow from the bone segments that were most marrow rich.). Otherwise the fossil carcass ws not disturbed. (So it wasnt erosion or stream disarticulation)
So yep, the 130000 ybp date is THE key to this sites importance.

A skin dwelling is just a couple of creative steps from being a skin boat. I read somewhere that the seal hunting way of life of Arctic peoples goes way back into pre-history, and that is one way ancient modern man could have made it to North America. Not as a purposeful journey, but just by hunting further and further along the edges of the ice ( back during the ice age when the ice extended right across both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans) And so separate populations arrived on both coasts. Possibly this could have happened during the time of Homo Erectus as well. Maybe they weren't as successful as modern man and maybe their presence in North America was short or intermittent.
Rather than concentrate on cave or rock overhangs, where else do you think archeologists should look for H. Erectus encampments?

Ive always been a fan of littoral zone encampments. Itd take dragging and diving, but its a strong possibility in light of all the paleo artifacts found out there

You seem bent on insisting that Kennewick man was destroyed. IT WAS NOT. Also a series of druid and Viking orgnizations made the same claims as the western tribes of native Americans. Mybe you didnt know but you can read what we know of Kennewick man in a 605 page study done by the Smithsonian.
The ownership claim favored the Native Americns after all the study ws accomplished. They did rebury it in an undisclosed plot.

And no gunfire ensued.

"Whatever scientific data that we might have gotten from it in the future has been destroyed."

not really. After prep f the 680 page report by 20+ scientists its been coated with a shellac based cover, repatriated and reburied. Outside of any new chemical analyses, we still know where the thing is and really, I dont see what more we may ge that we dont already have although never say never.
We have context, stratigraphy, analyses, genetics, Flourine and C14. (I think we also have alpha track data).

There may be some new thing that comes up but I guess we can kick ourselves then.

Hqve you seen the 680 pager? Ill see if I cant find it. Its edited by Douglas Owsley of the Smithsonian.

Yes.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39747326