Study suggests humans were in North America 100,000 years earlier than believed Researchers base opinion on tools found next to mastodon site in San Diego
From CBC
A team of scientists believe they have found evidence of human activity in North America that dates back 130,000 years — more than 100,000 years earlier than believed.Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/humans-north-america-130000-1.4086109The evidence comes from an archeological site in San Diego County, Calif. In 1992, a site was uncovered containing mastodon bones, along with stone anvils and hammerstones. Dating the tools proved to be challenging. However, using recent technology, including uranium dating, the team believes they have firm evidence that humans were using tools to break apart the bones and make other tools.
"When you look at the evidence — the material, the nature of the wear pattern on the bones, the actual mapping of the site — the evidence is absolutely incontrovertible," Richard Fullagar, co-author of the paper that appeared in Nature said during a teleconference.
'I was skeptical when I first looked at the material myself, but it's definitely an archeological site.'
- Steve Holen, researcher
The find is controversial, as there has been a consensus among paleontologists and anthropologists that humans made the journey to North America roughly 15,000 years ago.
The bones of the mastodon were arranged at the site — known as the Cerutti Mastodon site — in such a way that suggests it wasn't done naturally. It's not believed that the humans killed the animal, however. Instead, it's likely they were breaking up the limb bones, removing parts of the bones and probably making tools with them. They also may have extracted marrow from the bones for nutrition.
The bones also displayed spiral fractures, which suggests that they were broken while fresh and not some years later. Five large hammerstones and anvils also show wear and tear that didn't occur through geological processes, the researchers said.
Isn't one hundred and fifty thousand years ago BEFORE the last ice age? Isn't it in the last interglacial warm period?
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of Apr 27. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $2.36 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Apr 27 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.