130,000 years ago???

[gregszybala]

Humans in California ?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/26/525628056/new-evidence-suggests-humans-arrived-in-the-americas-far-earlier-than-thought?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

[2ndoldman]

Possible, but is it probable.

[CMD]

Published in Nature no less. This is the full article, from Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/natu...www.nature.com

Nature synopsis:

http://www.nature.com/news/controver...hought-1.21886

[SDhunter]

I'm probably one of the skeptical ones. Looks like the evidence is thin.

[CMD]

I'm a little less skeptical. Evidence is always thin when it stems from only one site. They are looking for more. New ideas always start somewhere. This would not surprise me one bit. We know nothing, and will likely always be surprised when we discover we know so much less then we thought. Just saying, this would not surprise me, but of course it's thin until more sites and similar evidence is found. But the idea itself is not a surprise to me personally. I've always suspected this was indeed the case.

[CMD]

If you scroll down this Facebook page, there is a 5 minute video describing the site. If this story holds any interest for you, don't miss that video clip.....

Also video links to the press conference involving the Nature paper. Of course, it's Facebook, so as time passes, scroll more, lol....

https://www.facebook.com/SanDiegoNat...ternal&fref=nf

[Kyflintguy]

Wow! Im surprised! Lol.
30 k sounded reasonable to me before this but 130k. That's extreme.
Sounds like they have really been diligent with interpreting the site so maybe this opens up a door to understanding more than we ever imagined. I would like to understand more about how they could have took down such an animal, I know Neanderthals could accomplish the task but it still fascinates me. And if the Tusk was removed then shouldn't there be unquestionable signs of that extensive work. I read the links Charlie provide but that's a tusk I would love to see closely.

Im just waiting for a site like La Brea Tar pits to yield something solid that is unquestionable and undeniable. Could you imagine the excitement of finding a neanderthal skeleton intact in North America... Or even modern Man but with undeniable 130, 000 yr old dates... That would astonishing.

[gregszybala]

It does make you wonder. This discovery has been around since 1992, that is 25 years of study and research on this! I know I'm far from an expert but the pictures of the bones and stones and their hypothesis based on what they see, I'm not. Seems a stretch. Would like to believe but like Charlie said more sites and evidence.

[CMD]

I just listened to the evidence as presented at the news conference. Wow is what I'm feeling right now. Just wow. It's extremely compelling. Especially the guy who has examined fracture patterns on mammoth bones split by humans at sites as old as 40,000 years in the US, as well as in Siberia. But, if we thought Monte Verde was a tough sell, we're about to see a hornet's nest tossed into American prehistory studies. Of course, I've been waiting decades to see this kind of thing. I'm blown away. Too old to see this debate resolved, but I do believe this study will be proven to be correct.

They have really done their homework here, and considered many alternative theories. The study of human induced bone fracturing is extremely compelling at this site. These insights, human induced bone fracturing, are not simply based on this one site, and the work done to demonstrate only a hominid could have produced this type of evidence is about as compelling as it gets. That's what makes this archaeological site compelling, but it was not until 2011 that the bones were able to be accurately dated. As one of the authors in the press conference stated, science has to follow where the evidence leads, and this paper appears in a journal as prestigious as Nature precisely because the science they've done here did just that, it followed the evidence where it lead, and it got published in Nature because they really have something here. When you see how they put together the evidence as it emerged from the site, it is damn impressive....

If you have any interest at all, watch that press conference. And here is more info:

http://www.sdnhm.org/consulting-serv...utti-mastodon/

[BabaORiley]

I am about halfway through the Nat Geo article on this topic. Wow that is quite a time jump from 14,000 years ago. This will be a good one to follow...

[CMD]

In listening to yesterday's press conference, I was particularly impressed by the research done by one of the lead authors on the mammoth and mastodon sites in both the US and Siberia. And in particular, I was impressed by the work involved demonstrating that human induced bone fracture patterns are unique from other ways bones can fracture, and how those studies pertain to this particular site. Everything seems to hinge on that study of human induced fracture patterns in bone, and the degree to which the authors eliminated other ways the bones could have displayed the pattern they do. That's what the study hinges on, as well as the in-situ arrangement of the hammerstones found at the site. This study did not get published in Nature because they did shoddy work. From the looks of it, that bone fracturing evidence comes from many sites around the world, and I suspect, in the long run, not my lifetime, but, in the long run, those bone studies will only point to this study having drawn the correct conclusions. It's all very exciting and only just the beginning now. Maybe those other very early date sites, long banished as "impossible" by American scientists, will be reexamined. There are several such sites, long ridiculed and the scientists involved ostracized.

Boy, what a fierce debate is about to ensue. Looking forward to it, and I am very grateful to these study authors I regard as actually being very brave researchers. They are inviting ridicule, though making it into Nature might reduce ridicule-based retorts. Maybe, lol. Maybe not, lol. I'll predict, I have no reputation to lose, that this study will eventually be seen to be correct, changing our understanding forever....

[CMD]

I thnk I have identified the 2 main bones of contention(of course pun intended, lol). One, are the tools in fact tools. Two, could the bones have been crushed by construction equipment. I fully expect lead author Holen, and his co-authors to have anticipated and dealt with these possibilities prior to publication in Nature. Holen sounds confident, and, I suspect, he's likely one of the only authorities actually proficient in distinguishing causes of bone fracturing. Be that as it may, these are likely the 2 elements of the study that will be subject to the most scrutiny....

[CMD]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HyfSsgCrjb0

The authors of the article and San Diego museum might be criticized for themselves making a big deal of it to the media. Coming out by press conference, even though it is in Nature, might seem presumptuous where their own study is concerned. It is exciting. But speaking of it as proven won't go down well even if it were irrefutable at first glance, which it won't be to most. Both from the point of view of reflexively defending that level of orthodoxy that resists "impossible" dates tooth and nail, and simply because it is only one site, the news should have been presented more cautiously. The way it was presented, I think, is an end run around the opinions of their peers. The team and museum had to know it would be highly controversial by its very nature, without making it sound like a foregone conclusion that changes everything.

Of course, it might. Eventually. But it's a confrontational stance almost, if you're an archaeologist elsewhere working in the peopling of the Americas, and here this small team telling the world they've made a discovery, and this is the brand new narrative. The archaeological community knows press conferences and single sites don't constitute new regimes generally. Science doesn't advance by decree.

So I guess I could view it as I've described, and maybe that's fair. The reaction will be stronger by reason of the aggressive presentation alone. I guess if that's what you want. It might bespeak of one hell of a confident position, in the long run, by the authors. They do have balls. They're confident in their case, and understand the implications would overturn the narrative still again. Hopefully, they're not just caught up in themselves, and actually not only have something with this site, but can advance their theory by finding more sites.

[Von]

I read a story about this yesterday. The tools are crude kind of like the stuff under Clovis at the Topper site in SC that is estimated to go back 50,000 years.

Von

[Ron Kelley]

One thing really stands out to me as I sift through the evidence. Skeptics are going to say that none of the Native Americans alive today have ancestors who arrived here 130,000 years ago. Who's to say that the first people to arrive in North America populated the continent? There could have been many arrivals that were not successful and died out. There is the problem: They would have left scant evidence.

[CMD]

I'm not equipped to keep up with genetic studies. I know the assumption now is that all Native Americans are descended from a single wave, and that actual physical evolution took place here, as remains like Kennewick Man are clearly related to modern First Nations, yet differed enough in appearance to suggest at first that it was not the case at all.. Then there is the limited suggestion of a genetic link between an Amazonian tribe and Australasians of all people:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33612869

And, as the new study suggests, if the site is what they claim it is, it might be evidence of groups of Neanderthal humans or Denisovan humans, perhaps limited in number, and present here before the arrival of Homo sapiens. I believe Denisovan genetics is reflected in Tibetan people, the Denisovans contributed tolerance for high altitudes to Tibetans if I recall correctly, and I believe Denisovan genetics are present in Melanesia and Australasia? Not clear on that, just seems to me I've read something along those lines. Most of us European folks have some Neanderthal genetics, but none from the Denisovans.

In any event, what you say seems sensible, especially assuming the people possibly present at this site in San Diego were in fact a different hominid then modern humans....