16,000-year-old Pa. rock shelter dwelling still divides archaeologists after 40 years

www.foxnews.com... +%28Internal+-+SciTech+-+Mixed%29

As a young archaeologist, Jim Adovasio found radiocarbon evidence that humans had visited the Meadowcroft site 16,000 years ago. To archaeologists it was a stunning discovery that contradicted the so-called Clovis first theory, which dated the first settlement in the Americas to New Mexico about 13,000 years ago.

This is not conclusive and there are other sights to be investigated yet I thought some of you might be interested in some of these latest findings.

16,000 years is nothing.

There is substantial evidence discovered by reputable archaeologists back in the 60's and 70's of North American settlement by Humans going back as far as 400,000 years!

This is obviously not only highly controversial and causes the complete re-evaluation of our historical perspectives on Human habitation in N. America, but also of Human history generally, since Humanity has conventionally been thought of as only becoming 'proper humans' at around 200,000 - 300,000 years ago.

Evidence and sophisticated non-Clovis tools, flint spear points, flint arrow heads and flint knives found below a undisturbed, heavily compacted deposits 400,000 (+) YA volcanic ash layer proves the age of Human settlement in the region.

Of course, even though hoards of highly respected historians and archaeologists of the time had reviewed and confirmed the finds as genuine and found in situ UNDER this ancient volcanic ash layer...this still has not been accepted by mainstream science as being possible.

Careers are made and lost on such astonishing discoveries...most though are maintained by ignoring the reasons for persuing such careers in the first place - archaeological truth and the scientific methods used for discovering that truth, and stick rigedly to the accepted timelines...to do or say otherwise would mean the vast majority of respected and very long careers have been labouring in fallacy and not truth...that doesn't usually go down well with old guard academia, whatever the discipline.

However, the old guard are obviously dying out slowly and surely and little by little the 'outrageous' dates being discovered for Human existence is becoming revealed and discussed in a more profession manner by the newer generations of scientists.

Another recent find in the Mid-East, a cave in Israel territory is yeilding it's ancient secrets laid buried for over 400,000 years (same as the finds found in America decades ago, but popularly ignored) they are Human remains, Homo Sapiens or Modern Humans, the teeth found are of Modern Human type and have been dated to 300,000 to over 400,000 years old.

Again for the sake of clarity, that's anatomically modern Humans over 400,000 years old!

This more than doubles the previous given age of modern Humans, and where our ancient ancestry was thought to have developed in Africa and gradually spread out from there 200,000 years ago, it may well turn out that modern Humans actually moved BACK INTO africa around that time, having developed somewhere else, perhaps even in multiple locations more or less simultaneously.

S. Africa has also recently discovered vast, sprawling and surprisingly technological (comparatively) towns (for want of a better term) complete with long roadways, tools, weapons, building techniques and evidence of ceremonial burial of the dead...all dated to over 200,000 years ago.

Our Human history appears to have a much longer and complicated story behind it than has ever been taught to any student before. The discoveries being made, and more importantly, the discoveries being shared and examined with a professional eye instead of ignored and rubbished as was previously the case, are truely astounding.

16,000 year old finds are interesting, but as you can see from my post (and from research you can do on the subject) are really only a fairly recent drop in the Ocean of what is there to discover about our Human ancestry and the astonishing but fascinating amounts of time involved in our development.

reply to post by MysterX


Interesting; do you have a link or source for the 400,000 settlement find?....I would like to read it if you do..Thanks

reply to post by 727Sky


I'll do better than that, i'll dig up a link to a video describing it in detail.

For the Israeli cave finds, here's the link for that;

Israeli cave 400k old Homo-Sapien remains

Similar story from Huffington post article;

Huff post on 400k YO Human remains

Many more links can be found by searching '400,000 year old Human remains'.

Give me a few minutes to dig out the name of the video and it's links for you.

Originally posted by MysterX
There is substantial evidence discovered by reputable archaeologists back in the 60's and 70's of North American settlement by Humans going back as far as 400,000 years!

Please provide a link to this data.

I like the article. It clearly states that new discoveries should adjust the consciousness of the Archeological community. This is true but some do not want their consciousness altered, they want to believe what they know is true. This attitude is not science, it is protecting ones beliefs. I agree evidence that is appropriately applied is necessary to the advancement of this science but see that many of the members feel threatened to find their beliefs are not real. This faith in ones knowledge response is not science but is also necessary sometimes to keep ill based evidence from taking over. I just wish that so much evidence was not discounted in the past because of these ill beliefs, we might know a lot more already if people's pride had not gotten in the way of their curiosity of the truth.

Here you go guys, here's a YT link to a UFOTV production regarding the topic at hand.

Don't let the 'UFOTV' monika fool you, it has absolutely nothing to do with UFO's.

This version has advertising embedded, not my doing, but the OP of the video - apologies about that.

reply to post by rickymouse


You could have been reading my mind Ricky.

Agree 100% with what you said above...if only ego could be surgically removed from science eh?

reply to post by MysterX

Researchers from Israel, the United States, and Spain analyzed the shape of eight teeth recovered from Qesem Cave. Using CT scans and X-rays, they found that the teeth are very similar to the teeth of today’s people.

The researchers think that the site was occupied from 420,000 years ago to 200,000 years ago, and five of the eight teeth examined were dated to at least 300,000 years ago.

From your first link..Interesting to say the least when most say our modern form only goes back about 40,000 years. I really do believe at the end of the last ice age a huge ice and earthen dam broke up north maybe in Canada and flooded much of the lower 48. If that had not happened no telling what could be found?

The old countries should have the evidence as your link shows...Thanks I will see what else I can find
Oldest Bones from Modern Humans in Asia Discovered August 20, 2012 03:01pm ET
QUOTE:
Newfound pieces of human skull from "the Cave of the Monkeys" in Laos are the earliest skeletal evidence yet that humans once had an ancient, rapid migration to Asia.

Anatomically modern humans first arose about 200,000 years ago in Africa. When and how our lineage then dispersed out of Africa has long proven controversial.

Archaeological evidence and genetic data suggest that modern humans rapidly migrated out of Africa and into Southeast Asia by at least 60,000 years ago. However, complicating this notion is the notable absence of fossil evidence for modern human occupation in mainland Southeast Asia, likely because those bones do not survive well in the warm, tropical region END QUOTE:

www.livescience.com...

It doesn't actually surprise me about man being possibly 400,000 years old and settlements being found that do not fit the current accepted model of our development, neither am I surprised that there is no academic will for correction and bringing our history up to date with our knowledge and verifiable findings.

We have been stuck with the biblical presentation of man and his history which we know from a Christian point of view has been redacted to suit Christianity and those who manipulate it's interests.

Archaelogists, palaentologists and geologists etc all give their various 'parts' of information but it never occurs to any of our academics to simply look at the Sumerian tablets and stones that give us a history that has not be redacted and is the source of much included in the bible. It can't be that difficult to get hold of translations. The library at Lagash was found pretty much intact and although the tablets were spread out to various museums around the world, there are other Sumerian library's which concur with the Lagash tablets especially about the Garden of Eden etc.

We also have people who have looked at the original translations concerning Genesis etc and give a slightly, but far more likely interpretation of original texts which, when initially translated seem to have rarely been checked for accuracy, consequently we have a buildup of history which doesn't fit what we are discovering and people are still refusing to literally countenance what we actually know today simply because it doesn't suit their scholarship.

Even if modern man were only 50,000 years old he could have had numerous civilisations, countless settlements and whipped around the globe with technology we could only dream of today.

reply to post by Shiloh7


Do you have any links or info on the Sumarian tables you talk about? Also the explanation of Genesis? I'm really interested in studying these!

reply to post by rickymouse


So Rickymouse should 'beliefs be changed' on the announcement of an unconfirmed report and one that states further research is necessary?

---------------------------------------------------------

For those interested in the details here are a number of links to and about Qesem cave

Qesem cave paper

Chronology of the late Lower Paleolithic

Qasem cave: An Amudian Site in Central Israel

Cooperative hunting at Qesem cave

Originally posted by Shiloh7
It doesn't actually surprise me about man being possibly 400,000 years old and settlements being found that do not fit the current accepted model of our development, neither am I surprised that there is no academic will for correction and bringing our history up to date with our knowledge and verifiable findings.

The question is whether this is a HSS or one of his predecessors

Archaelogists, palaentologists and geologists etc all give their various 'parts' of information but it never occurs to any of our academics to simply look at the Sumerian tablets and stones that give us a history that has not be redacted and is the source of much included in the bible. It can't be that difficult to get hold of translations. The library at Lagash was found pretty much intact and although the tablets were spread out to various museums around the world, there are other Sumerian library's which concur with the Lagash tablets especially about the Garden of Eden etc.

Every hear of people called Assyriologists? They been doing that for a century + and the majority of the known Sumerian tablets are on line - which I believe you already knew - so what is your point?

Sumerin literature on line

We also have people who have looked at the original translations concerning Genesis etc and give a slightly, but far more likely interpretation of original texts which, when initially translated seem to have rarely been checked for accuracy, consequently we have a buildup of history which doesn't fit what we are discovering and people are still refusing to literally countenance what we actually know today simply because it doesn't suit their scholarship.

I hate to ask but to whom are you referring to?

Even if modern man were only 50,000 years old he could have had numerous civilisations, countless settlements and whipped around the globe with technology we could only dream of today.

Except for a complete lack of archaeological evidence for such and a great deal of evidence against it.

reply to post by tluna1


For the Sumerian texts I suggest you google and Wiki. The info is good and great to read. The pictures of the reliefs etc are fascinating. Also although controversial ares the Sitchin books. He has translated a lot of the tablets and has written books such as Genesis Revisited where he gives his translations and opinion on the information the Sumerians left us. Some people like to debunk him, however he is a scholar and although not main-stream his books are interesting and give a lot of information about this very strange civilisation which literally popped up out of the indigenous people with no explanation. When you see the ruins of the city of Sumer, you would never believe that first city would be so sophisticated. The small buildings are reminiscent of the ancient Indian City Mohenjo D.... which also has the entrance into the houses from the roof. The temples, water ways etc are magnificent once artistically brought back to how they looked originally.

Regarding the translations I mentioned for Genesis, a very good book is the Christian O"Brien Book The Genius of the Few.ISBN 0-946604-17-7 He worked in Iran and found one of the ruined Sumerian cities. He explains how the three basic ancient Middle Eastern Languages have proved so difficult to translate (Hebrew, Sumerian and Babylonian). Again its fascinating information.

To give you an example of the misstranslations according to O'Brien : The Hebrew for God is Elohim which is plural! which is a problem in monotheism. However in three civilisations the singular 'God' and its translation is explained:
The Sumerian word EL which is the singular version means Bright or Shining.
The Akkadian ILU - The Bright One, The Babylonian ELLU - The Shining One. so,

Gen 1:1 In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. O'Brien - In the beginning, the Shining Ones created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 2:8 Yahweh God planted a Garden in Eden which is in the East. O'Brien - Yahweh (the Leader of) the Shining Ones planted a Garden in Eden which is in the East. Hope you enjoy it because O"Brien's information mankes sense.

Originally posted by Shiloh7
reply to post by tluna1

 

For the Sumerian texts I suggest you google and Wiki. The info is good and great to read. The pictures of the reliefs etc are fascinating. Also although controversial ares the Sitchin books. He has translated a lot of the tablets and has written books such as Genesis Revisited where he gives his translations and opinion on the information the Sumerians left us.

He translated nothing he was unable to read the language and just made stuff using all ready translated materials

Some people like to debunk him, however he is a scholar and although not main-stream his books are interesting and give a lot of information about this very strange civilisation which literally popped up out of the indigenous people with no explanation.

A scholar of economics not assyriology or archaeology, he was rather good at making stuff but terrible at research or documenting his finds - for good reason....and no it didn't just 'pop up' that idea was simply made up to make Sumer seem more mysterious.

When you see the ruins of the city of Sumer, you would never believe that first city would be so sophisticated. The small buildings are reminiscent of the ancient Indian City Mohenjo D.... which also has the entrance into the houses from the roof. The temples, water ways etc are magnificent once artistically brought back to how they looked originally.

Except we know that a culture called the Ubaidian were there when the Sumerian's showed up and they built villages first then cities.

To give you an example of the misstranslations according to O'Brien : The Hebrew for God is Elohim which is plural! which is a problem in monotheism. However in three civilisations the singular 'God' and its translation is explained:
The Sumerian word EL which is the singular version means Bright or Shining.
The Akkadian ILU - The Bright One, The Babylonian ELLU - The Shining One. so,

Not according to others - why do you consider O'Brien correct and the others, experts in the field wrong, based on what criteria?

Gen 1:1 In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. O'Brien - In the beginning, the Shining Ones created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 2:8 Yahweh God planted a Garden in Eden which is in the East. O'Brien - Yahweh (the Leader of) the Shining Ones planted a Garden in Eden which is in the East. Hope you enjoy it because O"Brien's information mankes sense.

O'Brian is an interesting fellow and a geologist but why do you feel his hunches are correct, his archaeology knowledge was abysmal?

By the way we seem to be going off topic, why not make a new thread on O'Briens books and ideas?

reply to post by Hanslune


One only has to google Sumeria and after selecting various entries, there is a considerable amount on the web which is highly informative, easy to use and search through. I did look at your reference, but it was more a complicated academic referencing system one had to manoeuvre through to reach the translations themselves.

I did think I had made my point. ( People use the information in the bible as historical fact. it was used to advise people that man was only 6000 odd years old and the earth was the centre of the universe and the sun went around the earth. This thread is about people being considerably older than 6000 years and in fact having an ancestory going further back to 16,000 and possibly as far back as 400,000. With rising sea levels inundating land and a northern hemisphere covered in ice for hundreds of years etc its not surprising that very little evidence is either on the surface or has been dug up from shallow digs or under the sea. No one to my knowledge has actually looked for signs of human occupation dating that far back, however we do have Neanderthal remains dated 40,000 years ago, so we are pushing the boundary back continually).

Regardless of the above, its seems forgotten it was written by the Hebrews over a long period of time and was taken by an Emporer Constantine and his scribe Eusabius, and redacted to the needs of a Christian religion under the rule of a Christian Emporer. It has since evolved into a tool for obedience to several ruler's who claims to be the heads of Christianity. It isn't the same version as the original Hebrew Bible/Torah and was rewritten again by King James and has suffered a great deal of interpolation and mistranslation.

We have the Sumerian tablets that due to their nature cannot be interpolated, redacted etc and the information we have from them about our historical beginnings is a far better source than the bible. We also have the ancient Indian literature which has never been allowed to the altered and that gives us another perspective on our ancient history.

Despite your dislike of asking I referred to the Christian O"Brien Book The Genius of the Few. Like any book that questions the Bible and especially the identification of God as either El or Elohim and puts forward a logical explanation, it is not an easy book to get hold of, but well worth the read and information.

Originally posted by Shiloh7
reply to post by Hanslune

 

One only has to google Sumeria and after selecting various entries, there is a considerable amount on the web which is highly informative, easy to use and search through. I did look at your reference, but it was more a complicated academic referencing system one had to manoeuvre through to reach the translations themselves.

Yes you have to do a search, mind bloggingly difficult, eh lol

I did think I had made my point. No one to my knowledge has actually looked for signs of human occupation dating that far back, however we do have Neanderthal remains dated 40,000 years ago, so we are pushing the boundary back continually).

There are these people called archaeologists they do that all the time so not sure what your attempting to say. There are people who specialise in finding early human remains and sites.

There are scores of Neanderthal sites

Neanderthal sites

Neanderthals are known from sites dated from 550,000 to 250,000 years ago

It isn't the same version as the original Hebrew Bible/Torah and was rewritten again by King James and has suffered a great deal of interpolation and mistranslation.

ah you may wish to look at the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls

We have the Sumerian tablets that due to their nature cannot be interpolated, redacted etc and the information we have from them about our historical beginnings is a far better source than the bible. We also have the ancient Indian literature which has never been allowed to the altered and that gives us another perspective on our ancient history.

If you mean that Sumerian and later Mesopotamian stories made it into the Bible then you are correct but I sense you are trying to imply something else, please explain

Despite your dislike of asking I referred to the Christian O"Brien Book The Genius of the Few. Like any book that questions the Bible and especially the identification of God as either El or Elohim and puts forward a logical explanation, it is not an easy book to get hold of, but well worth the read and information.

You can find at other sources that this Hebrew that word is both a singular and plural usage. Take a look at Gesenius, A Grammar of the Hebrew Language for an explanation of how that works.

O'Brien is not considered a viable source for valid information, which is why I suggested you start a thread on him

reply to post by Hanslune


No, science is not based on beliefs yet beliefs in one knowledge plague science. Science is a learning adventure. Once you close your mind to new possibilities you are done.

No, you do not change the knowledge base just because evidence is found but you do not deny the possibility either just because it is not what you believe. Science is about evidence and hypothesis, it is not about beliefs anyway. To put a date of when humans came to this continent based on the earliest evidence found is wrong, all that evidence means is that they were here already before that time.. It does not mean that humans were not here five thousand years before just because you do not have evidence to prove it...it just means there is no evidence yet.

It is as bad as everyone thinking the earth was only six thousand years old maximum because Genesis said so. Genesis was written to try to satisfy people's curiosity on how the earth was formed, and the problems in the early times of mankind.

Originally posted by rickymouse
To put a date of when humans came to this continent based on the earliest evidence found is wrong, all that evidence means is that they were here already before that time..

You'll note that the dates keep on being pushed back, though...and it is constant scientific inquiry doing so. Yes, there was an arbitrary date of about 13.5 KYA, based upon the inter-glacial corridor. That has been put to rest, and statements about the peopling of the Americas are now being based upon earliest proven dates. They, too, are up for challenge, but those challenges require proof. As they should.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Why does new evidence have to challenge the old. I think the system is set up wrong. sure evidence is needed to introduce it into the theory, but I think people are preferably allowing things in that reinforce consensus of the time. Stuff that challenges consensus has to be proven at great costs with little return on money invested.

I am not even interested in getting in that game. I'll just dig up my rocks and hope one has some chicken scratches on it that I can try to decipher.