Could these be the oldest human footprints in North America?

Again...not an ancient civilisation per se, but an ancient cultural relic, for sure! And in British Columbia.

Time Travelers Could these be the oldest human footprints in North America?
...Just when ancient coastal dwellers made these tracks is now the big question. A tiny piece of charcoal found in the first footprint yielded a radiocarbon date of 13,200 years before present, suggesting that humans walked the shore of Calvert Island not long after the last Ice Age ended along the coast. But other stratigraphic evidence indicates that the footprints could be more recent, dating to about 2,000 years ago. Fedje and McLaren are now trying to hone the chronology. But if the impressions are conclusively dated to 13,200 years ago, they will be the oldest known human footprints in North America. Link

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Depends on what you call North America, does the ocean on either side count, and where does it end? There are footprints somewhere that will never be seen that are more than likely several million years older.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Depends on what you call North America, does the ocean on either side count, and where does it end? There are footprints somewhere that will never be seen that are more than likely several million years older.

I think the article and short film sum that up nicely.
'Somewhere' you say? Certainly in the Old World...which is kinda the point of the thread, eh?

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
There are footprints somewhere that will never be seen that are more than likely several million years older.

Undoubtedly, but they aren't human footprints, since modern humans haven't been around near that long. I'm sure there are plenty of dinosaur prints left undiscovered, though.

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
There are footprints somewhere that will never be seen that are more than likely several million years older.

Undoubtedly, but they aren't human footprints, since modern humans haven't been around near that long. I'm sure there are plenty of dinosaur prints left undiscovered, though.

Yah...but sometime ya just wanna limit the buzz-kill factor and stick with the thread. Thanks for adding that, though.

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
There are footprints somewhere that will never be seen that are more than likely several million years older.

Undoubtedly, but they aren't human footprints, since modern humans haven't been around near that long. I'm sure there are plenty of dinosaur prints left undiscovered, though.

amazing that you seem so sure of this....maybe if you had said, "up to this point, there has been no evidence that modern humans lived that long ago"....a true scientist never makes a "ALWAYS" OR "NEVER" statement.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Makes you wonder what the person was like? their dreams and fears was he/she happy?.
Nice find dude love reading aboot this stuff .

Man has been in the America's for at least 50,00 years and there are sites under wraps that may push that back to 200,000 years. Clovis first is itself a relic at this point. There is even a skeleton that has significant Neanderthal characteristics.
So the history of the Americas and hominid settlement and migration is far from a known known at this point.
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Nice JohnnyC,
I just finished reading "Lost World" by Tom Koppel,
It's mostly about the archeology of the Prince Charlotte islands, with a focus on "On your Knees Cave", these footprints would be contemporaneous with the sites talked about in the book.
It is a fantastice read, and one of the things that struck me, was the difference in attitude between the Canadian first nations and the tribal confederations involved in the Kennewick debacle.

originally posted by: starswift
Man has been in the America's for at least 50,00 years and there are sites under wraps that may push that back to 200,000 years. Clovis first is itself a relic at this point. There is even a skeleton that has significant Neanderthal characteristics.
So the history of the Americas and hominid settlement and migration is far from a known known at this point.
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Sources, or it didn't happen.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I'd be interested to sit and have a meal with someone from 13k years ago. It would certainly be an experience.

It's things like this that make me wonder if we aren't underestimating the number of humans that were actually walking around the earth way back when....

I mean, what are the odds of finding things like this if there were so few humans spread out around the planet, supposedly ?

I guess I could spend a lot of my time going back to look for the original sources.
Or I can go to bed and get some sleep | )

originally posted by: CranialSponge
It's things like this that make me wonder if we aren't underestimating the number of humans that were actually walking around the earth way back when....
I mean, what are the odds of finding things like this if there were so few humans spread out around the planet, supposedly ?

Part of the deal in research archaeology is in trying to anticipate where human activity might have occurred. Mind you, this case was serendipitous, to say the least!

originally posted by: starswift
I guess I could spend a lot of my time going back to look for the original sources.
Or I can go to bed and get some sleep | )

Well, Bonne nuit, but please bear in mind that if you make extraordinary claims, it's up to you to back them up.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

What a stroke of luck that the uplifting of the crust on which Calvert sits nearly matched the speed/level of sea rise giving them a unique opportunity to work on a coastline that would have been submerged at the end of the LGM nearly anywhere else in the world! Between that and the brass to initiate digs where you literally have to race the incoming tides, this is one of the more interesting sites and approaches to digging I've seen in quite some time. Thanks for posting this. This is definitely worth keeping an eye on to see which date pans out in the end.

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
There are footprints somewhere that will never be seen that are more than likely several million years older.

Undoubtedly, but they aren't human footprints, since modern humans haven't been around near that long. I'm sure there are plenty of dinosaur prints left undiscovered, though.

Sorry, but we are talking about human footprints, Human is defined by science as any species in the homo line. It isn't just applied to Moderns. Add to that the fact that the basic design of human feet hasn't changed at all since Homo habilis about 2.8 million years ago, so its perfectly acceptable to call millon year old footprints human,
and indeed, it frequently happens
heres an article which details the find of 1.5 million year old feet from Kenya
www.theguardian.com...
Heres another detailing human footprints from 1 million years ago found in Britain
www.independent.co.uk... -africa-9114151.html

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Nice JohnnyC,
I just finished reading "Lost World" by Tom Koppel,
It's mostly about the archeology of the Prince Charlotte islands, with a focus on "On your Knees Cave", these footprints would be contemporaneous with the sites talked about in the book.
It is a fantastice read, and one of the things that struck me, was the difference in attitude between the Canadian first nations and the tribal confederations involved in the Kennewick debacle.

I will look for that book. Things change quick, eh?
Interesting comment about the FN...in Canada, the (Queen) Charlotte Islands have been officially renamed 'Haida Gwaii'. As to Kennewick, if you dig (pun kinda intended) you'll find that much of that controversy was fueled by the US Army Corps of Engineers being in hot water with the local FN because of negotiations over a nuclear waste dump on their territory.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: starswift
Man has been in the America's for at least 50,00 years and there are sites under wraps that may push that back to 200,000 years. Clovis first is itself a relic at this point. There is even a skeleton that has significant Neanderthal characteristics.
So the history of the Americas and hominid settlement and migration is far from a known known at this point.
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Sources, or it didn't happen.

With respect to a very contentious old site, Calico Hills, here is a newer look at the surface geology of the site, and its age.

depth profile ages have similar ages to the boulders. The
youngest depth profile age is for Master Pit 3 (~43 ka) located at the
lowest position and on the flank of a spur. This surface might have
experienced more erosion than the other locations. The other depth
profiles are significantly older (83 ka, 135 ka and 139 ka) and suggest
an early Late Pleistocene or latest Middle Pleistocene age for the
surfaces, and places a minimum age on the Yermo Deposits of latest
Middle Pleistocene (~138 ka based on the oldest depth profile).
Debenham (1998, 1999) provided a thermoluminescence age
~135 ka for the Yermo deposits, but this had extremely large
associated errors. Furthermore, Bischoff et al. (1981) used uranium-
thorium dating to provide an age of ~200 ka for the deposits and an
age of ~100 ka for a relict soil profile within the Yermo Deposits
(Bischoff et al., 1981). Our TCN ages support the view that the Yermo
Deposits likely formed during the latter part of theMiddle Pleistocene
or earliest Late Pleistocene.

Sur face ages and rates of erosion at the Calico Archaeological Site in the Mojave
Desert, Southern California

So the minimum age for a surface find is ~43k thats pretty close to 50k, but the artifacts have been recovered from a cemented deposit, several meters below the surface, so they are older, yes?

In fact much older, as we see in the above statement three different dating techniques give dates in the 100-138k range, which would make these items more than 100k years old.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Nice JohnnyC,
I just finished reading "Lost World" by Tom Koppel,
It's mostly about the archeology of the Prince Charlotte islands, with a focus on "On your Knees Cave", these footprints would be contemporaneous with the sites talked about in the book.
It is a fantastice read, and one of the things that struck me, was the difference in attitude between the Canadian first nations and the tribal confederations involved in the Kennewick debacle.

I will look for that book. Things change quick, eh?
Interesting comment about the FN...in Canada, the (Queen) Charlotte Islands have been officially renamed 'Haida Gwaii'. As to Kennewick, if you dig (pun kinda intended) you'll find that much of that controversy was fueled by the US Army Corps of Engineers being in hot water with the local FN because of negotiations over a nuclear waste dump on their territory.

Yes, in another book "Bones" by Elaine Dewar, she goes in depth into Kennewick episode, and that brings to why I chose Calico for my previous reply, I have recently discovered that calico hills was the first site chosen by the NRC(Nuclear Regulatory Commision) for a waste disposal site, in the late sixties through the seventies, before Yucca mtn.

I can see a pattern here.

Not at all, it's up you to do the research if the subject interests you and you wish to be knowledgeable.
I don't consider it extraordinary as I gained it from scientific sources, mostly from a book written thirty years ago which was oddly prescient. Just shows the information was out there 30 years ago and is gradually making itself into the mainstream.
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck