proof for 130,000-year-old human in California

a reply to: anti72

So the question being begged: how would we know if this were human and not mousterian or something?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Still either one would be amazing.

The Middle Paleolithic (Middle Stone Age) marks the period of time subsequent to the Lower Paleolithic, characterized by the rise and decline of the Neanderthals and their culture. The predominant industry of this era is termed the Mousterian, named for its type-site Le Moustier, a rock shelter in Dordogne, France (Chase and Dibble, 1987). Though first known from Western Europe, the geographical expanse of the Mousterian ranged from Europe through the Middle East and even into Northern Africa. The temporal range of Levantine sites extend back 215+/-30 ka, according to recent ESR and oxygen isotope dating methods (Porat et al., 2002). The makers of the tools from each region can be roughly divided into which species existed in those areas at the time - Neanderthals in Europe, anatomically modern humans in Northern Africa. Neanderthals and modern humans, however, became overlapping both geographically and temporally during the later Middle Paleolithic in the Levant, during which time the attribution of said tools becomes muddled (Shea, 2003; Tyron et al., 2006). This transition from Neanderthal dominance to extinction and rise of modern humans makes the Middle Paleolithic a critical time period in hominid evolution, in terms of both technological and cultural innovation.

www.bradshawfoundation.com...

Neanderthals to my knowledge were't in NA either? Either a new homin or a neander would blow the doors right off existing anthropology.

a reply to: Caver78

to think that another homonid species was in America is more than fascinating.

There are native legends that talk about people who were large and here before humans. They are typically positioned in a way that they are seen as myth...but we know how that goes.

a reply to: Caver78

Are you so sure that HSN wasnt in the new world?, certain northern native americans(plains indians)have the highest levels of HSN DNA of all modern humans, there is a neanderthal dental trait(retro molar gap) found in certain plains indians mentioned before. native americans inherited their pre disposition to diabetes from neanderthal.
Paleolithic skulls from mexico shown the same pneunenazation( hollow air spaces) in their extra ordinarily large brow ridges.
Paleolithic skulls from brazil have teeth closer to neanderthal than modern human.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I feel the archaics were still here when the moderns got here and are the people refered to in the legends as "the old man" or "the old woman". They are usually associated with creation/migratory mythos, where the "old man/woman" imparts local knowledge of resources, ie where to find stone for tools or the "fire rocks" as one cal myth puts it, or to repopulate the earth after the great catastrophe that killed the "first indians".

a reply to: punkinworks10

LOL!!!
Of course I'm not sure, just that I haven't "yet" read anything that says they were.

San Diego pre-history. 130,000 years ago, the story might of also read... Sasquatch was responsible. Has to be since there were no known peoples in the area. The first were the Clovis I believe, and more east.... They were like 12,000 to 13,000 years ago. The Mormons claim civilizations, but I believe they were BC. time frames, much later than 'pre-history'

They may well establish 'butcher marks' on these bones.... Settling aggregate and soil could cause marks with movement of the soils. Lord knows there is ample ability for movement in the area...

a reply to: Caver78

yep beerthirty now,

there has been a great deal of info to come out in the last 3-5 years that shows, either the first native americans were very close to a hybridization event before they left asia or that event happened in the new world.

I would also put more faith in the last one. The Daily Mail, the Brit site.



Also..... lets see some of these 'stone tools' please..

www.npr.org...

"One question the team can't answer is who these people were. A genetic technique that uses mutations in a population's genome as a sort of "clock" says the first common ancestor of Native Americans lived about 20,000 years ago. So if there were indeed earlier settlers, it could be they made an arduous migration from Siberia, only to die out without leaving any descendants".

originally posted by: Plotus
San Diego pre-history. 130,000 years ago, the story might of also read... Sasquatch was responsible. Has to be since there were no known peoples in the area. The first were the Clovis I believe, and more east.... They were like 12,000 to 13,000 years ago. The Mormons claim civilizations, but I believe they were BC. time frames, much later than 'pre-history'

They may well establish 'butcher marks' on these bones.... Settling aggregate and soil could cause marks with movement of the soils. Lord knows there is ample ability for movement in the area...

No, Clovis doesnt show up in coastal southern california before 11,000kya, and that site is farpoint in malibu.
40 years ago Carter showed that the "indigenous" pebble tool using Dieguito cultural complex was intruded into by a blade making( now known to be clovis) culture, for about 400-600 years roughly 11,000 years ago. In the 40's-50's Carter excavated several sites in and around SD, and was coming up with dates in 80-100 kya range.

I just purchased the paper and am reading it, from a glance at the SI, their work is pretty solid.


Just as a teaser

a, Oblique view of concentration 1 in grid unit E3. Note the position of anvil CM-281, spirally-fractured femoral fragments CM-288 and CM-292 and molar fragment CM-286. b, Plan view of in situ femoral heads in grid units D3/E3. c, Plan view of vertical tusk in grid unit B2, showing cross-section of concentric dentin layers exposed by backhoe. d, Plan view of in situ caudal vertebra and rib in grid units D4 and E4. e, Plan view of portion of in situ rib (left) and hammerstone CM-383 (right) in grid unit H4. Note the carbonate ‘rind’ on CM-383. f, Oblique view of in situ hammerstone CM-423 in grid unit G5. Note the fine-grained aspect of Bed E containing CM-423.

note the upper right pic, in situ femur heads, separated from the rest of the femurs and placed together, 1 head up 1 head down. There is more placement that shows this isnt random.

originally posted by: Plotus
I would also put more faith in the last one. The Daily Mail, the Brit site.



Also..... lets see some of these 'stone tools' please..

.


hammer stones

a–d, Anvil (CM-281). a, Upper surface. Boxes indicate images magnified in b–d; dashed rectangle, magnified in b, small dashed square, magnified in c and solid square, magnified in d. b, Cortex removal and impact marks (arrows). c, Striations (arrows) on the highest upper cortical surface ridge. d, Striations (diagonal arrows) and impact marks with step terminations characteristic of hammer blows (vertical arrows). e–i, Hammerstone (CM-383). e, Impact marks. The box indicates the magnified images in g and h. f, Upper smoothed surface. g, Deep cracks and impact scars (arrows). h, Impact scars from g, showing results of three discrete hammerstone blows on an anvil (arrows). The large flake scar (central arrow) has a clear point of impact with radiating fissures. The small scar (right arrow) has a negative impact cone and associated scars and fissures preserved beneath a layer of caliche. i, Striations (arrows) and abrasive polish on upper cortical surface (near black North arrow in f). Scale bars, 5 cm (a), 2 cm (b, g, h), 1 mm (c, i), 2 mm (d), 10 cm (e, f).

a reply to: Plotus

You can see them but would you recognize them for what they are?

That's the problem in a nutshell, without specialized training in lithic's and residue from knapping most people, me included, just see some random rocks. I for one get pissed at my own ignorance in being able to identify legitimate stuff.

a reply to: rickymouse

The thing is, I am not so sure out of Africa is right anyway. I feel that South America would also be a viable human origin point, with some getting across the Ocean on the currents down there that lead to the Africa region the way they flow at some points..

South America?? that would be an extremely difficult paradigm shift to make, while science can make mistakes and is self correcting, way too much accumulated info would count against that premise, not just bones but genetic relatedness would have to be called into question and overturned.

Sounds like a Godzilla vs prequel to me

a reply to: Spider879

minor point....anthropology is a liberal art. Not a science.

Although it is pretty scientific. More than other liberal arts that try to be scientific, for sure. As you say: its self correcting, at least on the whole

This is a really cool find. They seem to be rewriting what we know as our history with each new archaeological find. I always wondered how far we really go back on this planet. Throughout history, they had many advanced societies that just disappeared due to whatever reasons. It makes me question if that is our destiny as well, in the far future. Could we have been here from day one? were we created or did we evolve. Have we been through this cycle of great civilizations to starting fresh?
Why did it take us so long to advance, but once we did its was like zip 190 years of the most advanced accomplishments. Did ancient civilizations know something we don't. Like too big and advanced is destructive to our planet. That it wouldn't have the ability to sustain life if they followed their course of actions. LoL Full of questions with absolutely no answers. I've awlays had this fictional thought that maybe we have done this before and it was hidden from us. They try to destroy and rewrite history all the time. Look at today's PC defunct individuals. If it hurts, will get rid of it. Just an open thought though! Kudos on the find!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Spider879

minor point....anthropology is a liberal art. Not a science.

Although it is pretty scientific. More than other liberal arts that try to be scientific, for sure. As you say: its self correcting, at least on the whole

Having gotten the degree in it, I can say with firm authority that IS indeed science and not "liberal art" or any form of art at all.

My snarky buds in Chemistry and Physics insist that it's a "soft science" as oppose to "hard science" and I tell them they ain't seen anything as difficult as human beings.

a reply to: Byrd

Byrd, have you read the actual paper yet?,
The best bits are in the SI.
The spatial distribution of bone fragments clustering around stones that show use wear consistent with that of an anvil stone.
The two femur heads next to each other one up one down and one tusk that was placed verticaly in the existing surface are pretty powerful signs it wasnt random natural movment.
A key element in their argument is that there is not sufficient hydrualic energy at the site to account for the damage to the bones and the 5 out of place cobbles. If there was enough energy available to do such damage to the bones, it would have swept away the debitage that was found clustering around the anvil stones or it would have washed away the rodent and semi articulated bird carcass as well.

im going to take their statements with a grain of salt at this point. for all we know those mastodons ran over a cliff smashing there bones when they hit the ground.

a reply to: TheScale

Plus they haven't (can't??) date it reliably!

Too much postulation to change the entirety of history to such a massive extent. Though, all the Native American oral histories that suggest the pre-existence of intelligent hominids can't be dismissed as metaphorical... so another site or two that corroborate this circumstantial evidence would be a real threat to the consensus!!