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

@rosborne979,

pretty much just the bone fractures and a few scratches, as well as the "nat" distribution of cracked bones along the in-situ skeleton.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

pretty much just the bone fractures and a few scratches, as well as the "nat" distribution of cracked bones along the in-situ skeleton.

One of the articles said that they made a solid case for their interpretations of the marks on bones and the nearby stones, but it's just going to leave us with a huge mystery if they don't find some DNA to go along with it.

Maybe this will help: https://www.seeker.com/culture/archaeology/researchers-find-dna-from-extinct-humans-in-cave-sediments

Also it occurs to me that just because they found this evidence in 130k year old deposits doesn't mean that's when the Homo xxx migrated there. Whatever these ancestors were could have been there for a long time before that, and indeed many hominid expansions may have occurred over land bridges whenever they arose. Small populations of rare animals are hard to find in the fossil record. Typically the fossil record represents larger populations of more common animals just due to probabilities of discovery. Our entire view of biological history as seen through the fossil record is probably distorted just the way today's media distorts our view of the current world.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

its been said that thiswas just a "feeding site for the enjoyment of bone marrow"
No matter what they may say about a fossil record in total, the USGS is quite confident that the dating on these particular bones is 130000 and the smashing is contemporary with the animals deposit there.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

its been said that thiswas just a "feeding site for the enjoyment of bone marrow"
No matter what they may say about a fossil record in total, the USGS is quite confident that the dating on these particular bones is 130000 and the smashing is contemporary with the animals deposit there.

I believe the dating of the site is correct. I'm comfortable with that part of their testing.

I'm less convinced that the bone fracturing and "tools" are indicative of hominids, but I freely admit that I have not reviewed their information in detail, nor do I have the necessary background to make a valid assessment of their findings. But I do feel confident that without more direct evidence of actual Hominid remains, they will have a hard time getting this assessment of the evidence accepted as the new standard.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

We usually say taht its an "out of Africa" theory

remember when this ^^^ was thought to be crazy talk?

I think we (humans, not a2k posters) are in for more surprises. That's why science is a joy and an annoyance.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

It was considered crazy mostly because of inbred racism. "africans" were considered subhumans

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rememember, there are still entire populations or anthropological sites where we have nothing but pieces of charcoal, a footprint, or several poorly knapped rock fragments and nothing more.

of course its still a hypothesis but someone will continue working the sites and probably this will redefine cultural possibilities for the entire san diego area

1 Reply

Somebody needs to redefine culture in San Diego.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

rememember, there are still entire populations or anthropological sites where we have nothing but pieces of charcoal, a footprint, or several poorly knapped rock fragments and nothing more.

I remember. But aren't those sites more in line with standard age analysis? This one, being off by a factor of 10 seems like it's going to need a bit more meat on the bones ( Smile

) doesn't it?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I really dont see that theres any real differences in approach if the methodologies for investigation are strictly QA'd.
The footprint artifacts are from Laeotoli and it took several years to determine that these were almost 3 million years old. The Taung baby cave took Raymond Dart till after his death to gt reasonable age estimates for the "matrix"

We still arent really sure about Kennewick man, (They settled on a date till better methods are available for stream deposited specimens.

0 Replies

Kennewick man proved to be quite the brouhaha. In the end, the concerned scientists had to sue the government. It took a while, but here's a rather long article from Smithsonian magazine, from 2014:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally-freed-share-his-secrets-180952462/

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Turned out that Kennewick Man, pushed by some as European, actually is closest to Polynesians. That leaves the matter of whether his tribe came from Asia and then moved up north and eventually crossed Berengia, or whether his ancestors were among those who left mainland Asia and ended up in Polynesia and other islands. If the latter is true-I believe the matter is still up in the air-then the Kon Tiki theory might have some substance.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Actually, RAsmussen et al (2015) have determined that the DNA is
1Closest to Native American
2MDNA is consistent with that of native Americans
3Y chromosome haplogroup is also consistent with native americans

Youre confusing th Owsley studies that first used old time "phrenology" qttributes to staate that the skull had "European" characteristics. It was Owlsey that forbad anyone outside his study group from reviewing their methodology

Quote:

In June 2015 the study team announced they had concluded their DNA analysis, finding that "Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide." They said that genetic comparisons show "continuity with Native North Americans"[50][51] The same study confirmed the mitochondrial haplogroup X2a and the Y-chromosome haplogroup Q-M3 of Kennewick Man, both lineages are found almost exclusively among modern Native Americans.[50]

This was from from Wikipedia. If you go to the site and click onto reference (50) it is the majority of the Rasmussen Study that concluded th Native American DNA affinities

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Hers the Rasmussen report in the 2015 NATURE article.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14625.html

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The newer techniques in DNA enhancing are pretty phenomenal. Ive been reading some stuff that is only on deep web reports about where we are now v where we were in 2002.
Also, RAsmussens study did some careful comparison and statistical analyses from DNA acquired from specific Native American tribal groups (Like the Coleville Reservation).
I think theyve put Kennewick nicely to bed wherein everybody got what they needed and the skull has been repatriated.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The problem is, what happens when new techniques are invented that will give us even more information? Now we will never be able to apply those future techniques to these bones.

And the scientists had to fight tooth and nail in court to even get what they did get. All signs are that the scientists will have to fight this very same fight all over again every single time ancient human remains are found on US soil. Quite possibly some of these court battles will be lost by the scientists.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

I venture that a stisfctory precedent has been established in this case. First determining that its DNA is assignable to some series of haplogroups may be all thats needed for now.

When some new technique that gives us the guys name and address shows up, I suppose theyll be back in court.
Theyve already established what Kennewick had eaten before his final planting. (Id really suggest tht you track down the Owlsley an the later reports(They differ mightily based not on "new technology" but more on the rejection of "old pqrqdigms" (like phrenological Bullshit).

I really think theyve mined whatever DNA can give us. The Dna track is very clear because of better cleanup techniques . Weve got Y DNA and mDNA and even epigenetics. (He smoked?).
I think the most revealing technique was the use of induced luminescence to determine where the guy may have died and whether he was moved to his final spot in the creek.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Now we will never be able to apply those future techniques to these bones.

S I understood, it wasnt the Coleville res folks who were the intractable ones. It was the several groups of "Celts and Druid believers " who were moreso.

The overall pissing contest is what makes this country great. You may not agree with me but youre gonna hear what I have to say and we will decide in concert (or court)

1 Reply

@Blickers,

The people we call Polynesians ultimately descend from Australasians, the people who colonized what we call the Philippines, Borneo and Indonesia, Malaya and New Guinea before setting out for Micronesia. Although coming from what we call China, they are ethnically, linguistically and (I believe) genetically distinct. But the islands south of the South China Sea, the island of Madagascar and the islands of Micronesia were all settled within the last few thousand years. Malaya, Formosa (Taiwan) and the Philippines were settled some time within the last ten thousand years, and probably very close to the ten thousand year mark. They had swine and dogs, but not chickens.

In that article, they compare the Kennewick Man to the Ainu of Japan. At least morphologically, probably not a bad comparison.

0 Replies

What, in my opinion, is the unanswerable, but most curious, is whether the bone marrow went to the alpha male and mate, or given to the pregnant females, or least likely, voted on by the group, as to who get the biggest portion of marrow.

1 Reply

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

Quick Links

My Account

able2know