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.

 

12,000 Year Old Bones in Kansas

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com.../ap/20050215/ap_on_sc/ancient_bones

Mammoth and camels bones where found underground near what archaeologists believe to be human-made stone tools. If the finds were indeed stone tools, it would place humans on the great plains 1,300 years before previously thought by archaeologists. I think this is a great find for New World history, as there is very little about the existence of humans in the Americas.




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
From your link which is an interesting find.



Conventional wisdom has been that people came across the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago. But Mandel said the northwest Kansas dig means "we're rethinking not only when people arrived, but where they came from."


Mandel said material at the site indicates a small family of nomads likely used it as a campsite. Those people would have drifted across the land, following herds of animals, he said.




How much to you want to bet the Native Americans fight further exploration as they did when they found the Kennewick Man (sp?), it might prove they were not the first humans here?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Can't blame em really. Yes it sucks that repatriation and NAGPRA are ruining historical collections and further discoveries. But really, the land that they live on is based on the fact that they were the originial inhabitants of this land and we took it from them. Basically their existance is based on the sympathies of modern americans. They fear, rightly or not, that if it is discovered that they were not the first ones here, then it would swing modern opinion of "Native" Americans in a negative way, possibly even inciting the government to negate the treaties cedeing them reservations.

Personally I think this entirely unlikely, but like I said, I can't blame them.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by shotsHow much to you want to bet the Native Americans fight further exploration as they did when they found the Kennewick Man (sp?), it might prove they were not the first humans here?


They won't on this one. Where they set up a yell is if you find human burials. They have no problems with us digging up other artifacts.

BTW, this shows that there are still many holdouts in the archaeological community about the Folsom/Clovis Point Culture. There are sites that show Native Americans here as early as 20,000 years but they aren't completely accepted by everyone.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by shotsHow much to you want to bet the Native Americans fight further exploration as they did when they found the Kennewick Man (sp?), it might prove they were not the first humans here?


They won't on this one. Where they set up a yell is if you find human burials. They have no problems with us digging up other artifacts.


Yes they will, reports on one of the major news CNN I think, not sure though; stated they have found what may be human remains although they are not positive at this time.

If that is true you can bet the will jump and try to stop further discovery, they do not want anyone to find anything that may prove others were here before them.

[edit on 2/16/2005 by shots]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
BTW, this shows that there are still many holdouts in the archaeological community about the Folsom/Clovis Point Culture.

Hold outs? Its not really matter of bitterenders no? There isn't a consensus on the pre-clovis sites and materials right? So one needn't be irrationally denying the validity of pre-clovis americans no? What do you see as the good arguements against pre-clovis habitation?


shots
they do not want anyone to find anything that may prove others were here before them.

How much of it is that and how much is actual respect for what they perceive as their own people's burials? I mean, most americans would have a problem with, say, saudi invaders digging up their great grandparents bones to put in museums no?

Besides, why would 'non-asian' influence in north america matter? It wouldn't invalidate any native claims to reservations.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

shots
they do not want anyone to find anything that may prove others were here before them.


How much of it is that and how much is actual respect for what they perceive as their own people's burials? I mean, most americans would have a problem with, say, saudi invaders digging up their great grandparents bones to put in museums no?

Besides, why would 'non-asian' influence in north america matter?



First we are not talking about invaders doing the digging we are talking archaeologists, you know those are people trained in obtaining scientific evidence of our past.

As for the comment of non-asian; it could possibly prove they were not here first, it very well could have been a Caucasian or Black That being the case those that were here first could well have been wiped out by the first NAs that arrived. If that did happened one could say they were just as bad as the Europians right?

[edit on 2/16/2005 by shots]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
i find that very interesting..a camel..
now this ties into something i read about a while back...
in the grand canyon a cave was found in there..back in the late 1800s very early 1900s...there inside are large chambers and hundreds of little rooms..and egyptian hiroglypherics..sp.? writting in the walls.
it was capped off and the smithonian denies it.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenmansmind
i find that very interesting..a camel..
now this ties into something i read about a while back...
in the grand canyon a cave was found in there..back in the late 1800s very early 1900s...there inside are large chambers and hundreds of little rooms..and egyptian hiroglypherics..sp.? writting in the walls.
it was capped off and the smithonian denies it.


Intersting! Do you by chance have a link to that article so I can look at it?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
in all honesty i do not remember..maybe i can find it again..it was sometime ago..



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
i may have been studying pyramids around the world



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
the thing that amuses me is the respect the *new agers* have for the native american ecofriendly life style, and the way all the mega-mammals were wiped off the north american continent by the same native americans...



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
These same native americans might not have been the only cause for the animals extinction on the continent. One also has to think about environment changes, vegetation, and reproduction rates. There are so many other external factors that must come into play when making a statement of such. Unlike that of European explorers and settlers, native americans often used the whole of an animal, so that little or no remains were left unused.







 
0

log in

join