Overclock.net banner

[Ars] Incredible discovery places humans in California 130,000 years ago

3K views 45 replies 28 participants last post by  Zen00 
#1 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ANNALEE NEWITZ
In 1992, a group of archaeologists found something extraordinary buried below a sound berm next to the San Diego freeway in Southern California. They had been called in during a freeway renovation to do some excavation because the fossil-laced earth of the California coast often yields scientific treasures. After digging about three meters below the construction area, Center for American Paleolithic Research archaeologist Steve Holen was deep into a pristine layer of soil that hadn't been disturbed for millennia. There, he found what appeared to be an abandoned campsite, where humans had left stone tools and hammered mastodon bones behind. This wasn't too unusual; it's fairly well-established that humans were hunting mastodons in the Americas as early as 15,000 years ago.

But when Holen's colleagues used several techniques to discover the age of the bones, the numbers sounded crazy. Test after test showed that the bones had been buried more than 100,000 years ago. The result flew in the face of everything we think we know about the spread of humanity across the globe. It took 24 years before Holen and his fellow researchers were certain enough to publish their findings in Nature. Now, based on a reliable dating method using Uranium decay rates and years of repeated tests, the researchers say that an unknown type of early human lived in California roughly 130,000 years ago. If true, it completely changes the story of how humans reached the Americas.
Incredible discovery places humans in California 130,000 years ago

What? What! This is amazing! Completely rewriting the history of human migration! However it should be pointed out that this group is thought to have gone "locally extinct" before the ancestors of the native americans showed up, so their genetic record was not passed on.

It's pretty neat stuff and they took 20 years validating their find before publishing, amazing work! That's real science folks, spending 20 years to verify that something works before publishing it, as opposed to some crackpots and their "free energy" machines.....
 
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightbird View Post

Interesting, wonder how they went extinct since NA is full of easy to kill animals apparently.
probably too small of groups to effectively reproduce quick enough to offset the number of deaths. also, 130,000 years NA was the australia of the world except instead of lots of tiny things trying to kill you, NA had lots of very big things trying to kill you (or thought you would be the perfect snack).
 
#5 ·
  • Rep+
Reactions: kyrie74
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by FTWRoguE View Post

Very cool.

This reminds me of these mind blowing Joe Rogan interviews I watched a little while back. His guests go into this same idea that modern humans have been around for way longer than mainstream history leads us to believe, and the scientific data they bring forth is very hard to dispute.
They are great listens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ&feature=youtu.be&t=1s
https://youtu.be/aDejwCGdUV8?t=1s
We knew already that **** Sapiens have been around for 100-150-200,000y from other archaeological findings.
We did not know those people, or some other **** relative were able to make their way into the Americas that early on, which is a insane migration feat in itself, but how is that related to "modern humans" again?

Or to self-titled "Geomancers" & Sacred Symbol analysts that talk about their beliefs of cataclysmic events that wiped out completely the traces of whole ancient "civilizations", while here we are talking about hunting mastodons and crushing their bones with simple stone tools...no "Deep History" that is forgotten here and in conflict with the mainstream History, just 130,000yo findings matching their contemporary findings elsewhere in the World.

The "scientific data" they bring forth might warrant a few episodes in "Ancient Aliens" but...yeah...
 
#7 ·
I guess Pangea happened way earlier so is likely not in this conversation.

Pangea = Supercontinent 250 million years ago supposedly where there was one large Global Continent prior to the separation of North and South America from Africa/Europe etc... Not sure if they have many guesses about life on the 1 continent back then and if humans were on all fours back then eating bananas...
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by FTWRoguE View Post

Very cool.

This reminds me of these mind blowing Joe Rogan interviews I watched a little while back. His guests go into this same idea that modern humans have been around for way longer than mainstream history leads us to believe, and the scientific data they bring forth is very hard to dispute.
They are great listens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ&feature=youtu.be&t=1s
https://youtu.be/aDejwCGdUV8?t=1s
Can't view at work, is that one where he interviews Graham Hancock? They are usually discussing this topic from a completely different angle.
 
#9 ·
just read the article.

There are a LOT of leaps of the imagination made in that summery.

1) there are rocks which the archaeologists claim to be human tools. However there is no conclusive proof of it.
2) there are bones of Mammoths (NOT HUMANS), which they claim show signs of human stone tools working on them. Again the number of Mammoth bones found couldn't even make 1 mammoth, and 2 the marks on the bones could have been teeth marks from sabertooth tigers, it's just too old to tell.
3) the site is not arranged like a "camp" it's a scattering of objects, there is no refuse pile (for example)

I don't doubt the claims of the scientists that this is a 150,000 year old site, What I do doubt is that it's a HUMAN camp, as there is scant evidence of man anywhere in that dig site. Granted they're archaeologists and I'm sure they wouldn't make the claim if it wasn't defendable, but it looks pretty thin to me when the number of items excavated from the site is less then 100, most of them being smaller then a hand.

Finally the genealogical record of modern man pretty difinitively points to the sources/tribes and ethnicities of all of the ancient world's people. The native americans almost completely come from a single migration of prehistoric tribesmen from siberia and mongolia (intermingling of both) about 15k years ago. it wasn't a gradual migration either, it apparently happened pretty quick, in a 1000 year window of time, probably only a hundred years or so (though there is no way to be certain) likely crossing from asia to n.america on boats along the edge of the icepack (not over the landbridge), settling in british columbia, then slowly migrating out across the 2 continents over the next 3 or 4 thousand years. their is some mixing with the polynesian people who settled the pac (in western indian tribes), otherwise the genological record is REALLY freaking straight as an arrow and untainted all the way back 15k years.

if there ever was any other humans (or human relatives) in n.america they weren't here when the first settlers made it during the last ice age (or they weren't genetically compatible enough to breed together, which would make them some sort older relative to **** sapiens.)
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen00 View Post

...That's real science folks, spending 20 years to verify that something works before publishing it, as opposed to some crackpots and their "free energy" machines.....
Or it's proof of the fear scientists have of arguing against the status quo.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by azanimefan View Post

just read the article.

There are a LOT of leaps of the imagination made in that summery.

1) there are rocks which the archaeologists claim to be human tools. However there is no conclusive proof of it.
2) there are bones of Mammoths (NOT HUMANS), which they claim show signs of human stone tools working on them. Again the number of Mammoth bones found couldn't even make 1 mammoth, and 2 the marks on the bones could have been teeth marks from sabertooth tigers, it's just too old to tell.
3) the site is not arranged like a "camp" it's a scattering of objects, there is no refuse pile (for example)

I don't doubt the claims of the scientists that this is a 150,000 year old site, What I do doubt is that it's a HUMAN camp, as there is scant evidence of man anywhere in that dig site. Granted they're archaeologists and I'm sure they wouldn't make the claim if it wasn't defendable, but it looks pretty thin to me when the number of items excavated from the site is less then 100, most of them being smaller then a hand.

Finally the genealogical record of modern man pretty difinitively points to the sources/tribes and ethnicities of all of the ancient world's people. The native americans almost completely come from a single migration of prehistoric tribesmen from siberia and mongolia (intermingling of both) about 15k years ago. it wasn't a gradual migration either, it apparently happened pretty quick, in a 1000 year window of time, probably only a hundred years or so (though there is no way to be certain) likely crossing from asia to n.america on boats along the edge of the icepack (not over the landbridge), settling in british columbia, then slowly migrating out across the 2 continents over the next 3 or 4 thousand years. their is some mixing with the polynesian people who settled the pac (in western indian tribes), otherwise the genological record is REALLY freaking straight as an arrow and untainted all the way back 15k years.

if there ever was any other humans (or human relatives) in n.america they weren't here when the first settlers made it during the last ice age (or they weren't genetically compatible enough to breed together, which would make them some sort older relative to **** sapiens.)
Did you not read the article where they give plain proof of human tool use?
Quote:
Stone "anvils," or flat rocks, are surrounded by a scattering of smaller "cobbles" used as hammers. Mixed in with these items are shattered mastodon bones and teeth, many of them crushed in a way that could only be done by a human with a stone tool.

.........

"The evidence at this site is remarkable," he said. When he first identified stone tools from the site, he didn't know their age. "They were pounding stones. All the materials indicated that they had been used for smashing up bones. You can see fragments of hammers and anvils that can be fitted back into the stones... It's rare that you get all that evidence at one site. It really does show humans have been there."
As for human bones, burial customs generally preclude finding bones at work sites, that's what burial sites are for, for all we know they burned their dead into ash.
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfoo View Post

We knew already that **** Sapiens have been around for 100-150-200,000y from other archaeological findings.
We did not know those people, or some other **** relative were able to make their way into the Americas that early on, which is a insane migration feat in itself, but how is that related to "modern humans" again?
You say "we knew" as if that has always been the mainstream thought, clearly it hasn't. I'd argue it still isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfoo View Post

Or to self-titled "Geomancers" & Sacred Symbol analysts that talk about their beliefs of cataclysmic events that wiped out completely the traces of whole ancient "civilizations", while here we are talking about hunting mastodons and crushing their bones with simple stone tools...no "Deep History" that is forgotten here and in conflict with the mainstream History, just 130,000yo findings matching their contemporary findings elsewhere in the World.
https://media.giphy.com/media/q9QwsOxoC2dOw/giphy.gif
Sounds like I struck a nerve. I said it reminded me, just thought I'd share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfoo View Post

The "scientific data" they bring forth might warrant a few episodes in "Ancient Aliens" but...yeah...
Lol yeah complete and utter gibberish, I don't know what I was thinking
rolleyes.gif
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen00 View Post

Incredible discovery places humans in California 130,000 years ago

What? What! This is amazing! Completely rewriting the history of human migration! However it should be pointed out that this group is thought to have gone "locally extinct" before the ancestors of the native americans showed up, so their genetic record was not passed on.

It's pretty neat stuff and they took 20 years validating their find before publishing, amazing work! That's real science folks, spending 20 years to verify that something works before publishing it, as opposed to some crackpots and their "free energy" machines.....
What's this?!?! Scientific consensus can actually be wrong??? Who'd have thunk it???
rolleyes.gif
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by caenlen View Post

Don't forget Shaquille O'Neal thinks the world is flat still too! We are such an advanced species! Woo!!

Flat Earth yolo!!!!!
drunken.gif
Wasn't that Kyrie Irving?
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen00 View Post

Did you not read the article where they give plain proof of human tool use?
As for human bones, burial customs generally preclude finding bones at work sites, that's what burial sites are for, for all we know they burned their dead into ash.
I couldn't even get through that person's whole post. The skepticism is strong with that one.

If I were to kill an animal for food I wouldn't be leaving every single bone in place exactly where it was killed. Parts get ripped off and scavenged by the killer and then even more by other animals. Complete skeletons are probably hard to come by unless it was buried and preserved in the right fashion.
 
#21 ·
Pretty awesome to hear this kind of stuff come up from time to time. Makes you think if you really know anything at all.

Now, on a side note:

*waits patiently as creationists try to destroy scientific proof*
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlawleZ View Post

Well people really need to start accepting the reality that there's a lot more that we don't know than what we do know.
Yup.

The next great big news will be when they announce that life as we known it to have started didn't start here on Earth, and was likely Panspermia from Mars. Which is a very likely possibility with the way things are looking.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie View Post

Yup.

The next great big news will be when they announce that life as we known it to have started didn't start here on Earth, and was likely Panspermia from Mars. Which is a very likely possibility with the way things are looking.
That only moves the problem of how life originated to somewhere else. Kicking the can down the road...
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie View Post

Yup.

The next great big news will be when they announce that life as we known it to have started didn't start here on Earth, and was likely Panspermia from Mars. Which is a very likely possibility with the way things are looking.
I get really pissed off by people who try to promote this idea for the same reason as the poster above said. The odds are equal that any life on Mars came from Earth!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top