It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

3.4-Million-Year-Old Animal Bones Appear to Have Been Butchered

page: 1
31
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Really, not sure where to put this, So Ancient/Lost Civ's it is! in case there really was an ancient lost civilization that did this.



ATLANTA, GEORGIA—Marks on a pair of 3.4-million-year-old animal bones found at the site of Dikka, Ethiopia, appear to have been caused by butchering with stone tools, argue Jessica Thompson of Emory University and her colleagues in the Journal of Human Evolution.

The new study uses statistical analysis of marks on more than 4000 bones found at the same site to refute a claim made by other scientists in 2011 that the marks were caused by incidental trampling. The bones date to long before the emergence of the genus Homo and appear to significantly push back the evidence for the earliest known instance of large animal butchering.




If these marks are more than a coincidence, and they really are the result of tools used for butchering, this discovery is absolutely massive! It's not really possible for Humans to date back this far, according to all the evidence that shows the emergence of the Homo genus appearing about The genus is about 2.8 million years old. a 600,000 year gap is quite large, even for a genus.



"Our analysis shows with statistical certainty that the marks on the two bones in question were not caused by trampling," Thompson said in a press release. "While there is abundant evidence that other bones at the site were damaged by trampling, these two bones are outliers. The marks on them still more closely resemble marks made by butchering."


Source

Press Release

So we have a few possibilities

1) Our knowledge of the emergence of the Homo genus is inaccurate, and it actually emerged far before our current estimates

2) The Cut Marks just appear to resemble butchering, but were actually caused by something else

3) Another species in pre-history had the ability to make tools

What do you think?




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
There was another thread that tells about evidence of the creation of human tools roughly around the same time period as this animal bone.

I'm guessing it's humans who butchered animals. Which made me think What if there is an ancient advanced human civilization that got bombed back to stone age a long time ago?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Most likely knowledge of the emergence of the Homo genus is inaccurate. I'm not surprised though.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
There was another thread that tells about evidence of the creation of human tools roughly around the same time period as this animal bone.

I'm guessing it's humans who butchered animals. Which made me think What if there is an ancient advanced human civilization that got bombed back to stone age a long time ago?


When PETA hears about this, they will be pi$$ed



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Most likely knowledge of the emergence of the Homo genus is inaccurate. I'm not surprised though.


Of course it's inaccurate.

Don't you know we can only account for 6,000 yrs and humans used to live with dinosaurs? That is of course if your religion allows for the existence of dinosaurs.

Jude



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
There was another thread that tells about evidence of the creation of human tools roughly around the same time period as this animal bone.

I'm guessing it's humans who butchered animals. Which made me think What if there is an ancient advanced human civilization that got bombed back to stone age a long time ago?


The issue with that is that Humans (Homo sapiens) only emerged 1.8-0.2 million years ago. So that would be a HUGE stretch to say it was Humans. The article suggests it could have been the early species within the Homo genus itself that was a likely cause.


originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Most likely knowledge of the emergence of the Homo genus is inaccurate. I'm not surprised though.


Considering nothing in science ever claims total accuracy, it is actually expected that the estimates be inaccurate. After all, we can only go by the earliest dating fossils as our guide. At any moment we can find a plethora of other fossil evidence that suggests an earlier date.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: jude11

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Most likely knowledge of the emergence of the Homo genus is inaccurate. I'm not surprised though.


Of course it's inaccurate.

Don't you know we can only account for 6,000 yrs and humans used to live with dinosaurs? That is of course if your religion allows for the existence of dinosaurs.

Jude


Stop it Jude not all of us Christians think like that......LoL ass....

This is a pretty cool find....you know ive often wondered just HOW many civilizations were before us? And even how much older this planet is even more so than claims of scientist......

We only have proof of existence from what we have been able to FIND.....

What of the things that have long been torn asunder by time and the elements......?

What lies beneath the sea at depths we can not reach that once was land?

What of plate shifts, pole shifts and the changes that happen there in that bury things beyond what we can find....

I do not think in this life we will ever know our true ancestry.....

Amazing find



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Perhaps......

But who says they were Homo anything? Perhaps they predate even our own genetic model.....

Maybe thats why they think civilization has is only that old.....

The genetic makeup could be totally different.......



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Ghost147

Perhaps......

But who says they were Homo anything? Perhaps they predate even our own genetic model.....


It's definitely a possibility.

However, Science doesn't make assumptions like that. It is more than likely a case of an earlier dated Homo genus; or complete coincidence of course. If there was evidence that another species/genus had produced stone tools, and they lived during this time, only then would scientists relate them as a possibility.

Thus far, however, there is nothing to suggest that being the case. So at the moment science can only go off of what it knows is more likely, rather than a fleeting thought of speculative possibilities.
edit on 14/8/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Or millions of years later animals were skinned as they thawed out of permafrost.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

With any artifacts' being possibly that old, the situation is wide open to any kind of conjecture. My knee-jerk reaction is that it might be the work of our own species (genus, at least) in the far distant past, who were struggling back after one of the mass extinctions. Possibly even a hitherto unknown one. Since we are so surely headed toward unintentional self-immolation at the current time, at least having the ability to do so, who is to say with any degree of credibility that it hasn't happened in the past? Also, it's a leap to decide on so little evidence that the cuts were from "stone" tools.




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

And yet science is not willing to acknowledge just how old intelligent life on this planet could possibly be

WE have seen over and over the use of the "control system" to keep information and "discoveries" within a predifined parameter......

Hence the reason I think they could be sings of something totally different.....

I dont disagree with you, just thinking outside the norm



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I think the most likely scenario is that they just look like butchering marks.

I'd have to see more evidence for why they're so certain that these are butchering marks and not simply an injury from falling on some rocks or something of that nature.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Statistical uncertainties still allow for teeth marks, claw marks, or marks from falling off a jagged rock cliff.

I hate the use of scientific statistical certainty. Seems like a statistical oxymoron for certain.
edit on 14-8-2015 by smirkley because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Stone 'cutting' tools would leave sharper grooves.

Perhaps some rocks rolled down a mountain and crushed the animals?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Ghost147

And yet science is not willing to acknowledge just how old intelligent life on this planet could possibly be


Not willing and not knowing are two completely different things. Firstly, Science or not, we don't have a surefire way to describe what Intelligence is, yet. At best we can trace Neurological properties to some intellectual traits - in which case we can determine, in very few cases, the basic intelligence of some fossilized remains. Again, it would be highly subjective and speculative.

The way you formed your sentence makes it seem like you know how old intelligent life is on this planet. Care to elaborate?


originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Ghost147

WE have seen over and over the use of the "control system" to keep information and "discoveries" within a predifined parameter......


Sources?


originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Ghost147

Hence the reason I think they could be sings of something totally different.....


No one was arguing that it wasn't a possibility. As for probability, it seems highly unlikely.


originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Ghost147
I dont disagree with you, just thinking outside the norm


I know you don't disagree with me, I stated in the original post the exact thing you're suggesting. Read #3 in the list of possibilities at the end of the post.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

wait wait........

You post something that is clearly OUTSIDE the realm of common thought for intelligent homosapien existence , IE tools.....

And then ask me for a source when I make the suggestion that perhaps the scientific community isnt honest it its presentation of how long an intelligent and semi advanced species has been around......


Thats like contradicting your own OP.......

Whats your angle?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Ghost147

wait wait........

You post something that is clearly OUTSIDE the realm of common thought for intelligent homosapien existence , IE tools.....

And then ask me for a source when I make the suggestion that perhaps the scientific community isnt honest it its presentation of how long an intelligent and semi advanced species has been around......

Thats like contradicting your own OP.......

Whats your angle?


My position only states that there is a possibility that it could have been some other tool-wielding species - and a low possibility at that. Why you claim that possibility equates a position of a deceiving scientific community is beyond my comprehension.

Again, Not willing to admit and not knowing the existence is not the same thing



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

How many species of animals do you know that cut their meat with sharp tools to get it off the bone..........

There is a difference between tool marks and teeth marks.......

Again , I challenge your premise to the thread while you backtrack on your first presentation........


edit on 8/14/2015 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Ghost147

Stone 'cutting' tools would leave sharper grooves.

Perhaps some rocks rolled down a mountain and crushed the animals?



those are pretty sharp for "rocks" or "teeth"

Both leave considerably different marks, even cursory google searches will show you the difference




top topics



 
31
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join