Humans in the Americas 130,000 years ago?

  • Thread starter mfb
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Years
In summary: If this was a human settlement, there would be more evidence of that, like tools or bones of the people.In summary, the researchers found evidence of human activity in California 130,000 years ago. If true, this would suggest humans were in the Americas earlier than previously thought. There are many remains from the last 15,000 years, but just one discovery that points to a much older human presence.
  • #1
37,088
13,919
There has been a lot of discussion about the time when humans first arrived in the Americas, and also which way they took.
15,000 years ago? 20,000 years ago? 40,000 years ago, and with more immigration waves later?
Along the coasts? Through the interior? Or even via the open Pacific?

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html [Broken], published in Nature, offers a completely new time frame. The authors found evidence for human activities in California 130,000 years ago:
  • Mammoth bones that have been broken shortly after the animal died, probably with stone tools. The bones could be dated: 130.7 ± 9.4 thousand years old.
  • Stones that seem to belong to hammer and anvil combinations, with signs of use.
No human bones were found, so the evidence relies on the interpretation of the tool marks on the bones and the stones found. If it can be confirmed, it means humans arrived in the Americas way earlier than previously thought.

Even if humans were there 130,000 years ago, it does not imply they have been there all the time, or in large numbers. There are many remains from the last 15,000 years, but just one discovery that points to a much older human presence. Either they disappeared again, or at least they had a small population, otherwise we would have found many remains by now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Drakkith and Greg Bernhardt
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
I read the abstract and multiple critical essays.

The researchers analyzed fragmented mammoth bones, with radial fragmentation, the kind made by being struck by a rock or a tool. Humans routinely do this. So do bulldozers
.
The critics point to the fact that a bulldozer unearthed the bones when working on part of a highway project. The critics claim the fractures are from the bulldozer, not early man. The skeletal remains date to 130kya. Nobody disputes that part AFAIK.

I cannot tell really who is right or wrong. But I do know:
When you make unusual claims you need unusually good evidence.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and mfb
  • #3
mfb said:
Even if humans were there 130,000 years ago, it does not imply they have been there all the time, or in large numbers. There are many remains from the last 15,000 years, but just one discovery that points to a much older human presence. Either they disappeared again, or at least they had a small population, otherwise we would have found many remains by now.

I tend to be skeptical of arguments from absence.
 
  • #4
I would have thought it was easy to distinguish between damage which occurred very recently and damage which occurred thousands of years ago.
Recent damage would be rougher in texture and more clear, older damage eroded somewhat and less clear.
Possible there would be signs of some internal material only recently having been exposed to air.
 
  • #5
This is too far fetched for me. If we go by a principle of least astonishment, then it is more likely a site that California Sea Otters had been using for a generation or so to make and gather tools from a dead mastodon. They not only heavily populated the Pacific coast and this same area and same time frame, but are already known to use rocks and make tools from bones. We should expect to find sites like this. This would be the most plausible explanation. At least until there is more evidence to fill this enormous time gap. If true, then there should not be a problem gathering evidence to cover that period of 100,000 years. Genetic study of sea otters suggests very long history of tool use
 
  • #6
jim mcnamara said:
The critics point to the fact that a bulldozer unearthed the bones when working on part of a highway project. The critics claim the fractures are from the bulldozer, not early man.
rootone said:
I would have thought it was easy to distinguish between damage which occurred very recently and damage which occurred thousands of years ago.
The study authors claim to cover that. I'm not an expert, so I can just see what the experts say:
Study said:
The CM site contains spiral-fractured bone and molar fragments, indicating that breakage occurred while fresh. Several of these fragments also preserve evidence of percussion. The occurrence and distribution of bone, molar and stone refits suggest that breakage occurred at the site of burial.

I'm not sure if otters would surprise me less - or more.
 
  • #7
In heard a report about this on the radio or in a podcast recently.
The arguments against it were:
1) There were not cut marks on the bones which would be left from removing the meat from the dead animal. This is kind of normal when butchered (by early humans) animals are found. The proponents argument is that this was bone breaking to remove marrow (maybe the animals were long dead and the meat was already scavenged).
2) The bones had crush marks from being hit with rocks and there were some unusual(?) round rocks found there. it possible the dead (or maybe alive) animals were there and get caught in a landslide containing the round rocks which caused the damage to the bones.

#2 seems a feasible explanation to me, but more particulars from the case would be really helpful.
It might seem an unlikely occurrence, but then it also seems unlikely to some people that humans were in that area back then.
1) Were all the big bones in the animals crushed but not the little ones?
2) How unusual were the round rocks found there?
3) Was there a big hill (or maybe a rapid flowing river) nearby at the time?
 
  • #8
mfb said:
There are many remains from the last 15,000 years, but just one discovery that points to a much older human presence.
What ratio of artifacts would one expect to be discovered that are nearly ten times as old, and therefore to be found deeper, with more dispersal due to weathering and geologic action (including ice ages). Also add in the bias of those doing the digging, most of whom must be thinking Clovis, Clovis, Clovis.
 
  • #9
If the population would have been similar the whole time, I would expect a relatively smooth distribution that drops slower than exponentially. Certainly not a lot of recent samples, then 100,000 years of nothing and then one very old sample. Possible: sure. Likely? I don't think.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
  • #10
Fervent Freyja said:
This is too far fetched for me. If we go by a principle of least astonishment, then it is more likely a site that California Sea Otters had been using for a generation or so to make and gather tools from a dead mastodon. They not only heavily populated the Pacific coast and this same area and same time frame, but are already known to use rocks and make tools from bones. We should expect to find sites like this. This would be the most plausible explanation. At least until there is more evidence to fill this enormous time gap. If true, then there should not be a problem gathering evidence to cover that period of 100,000 years. Genetic study of sea otters suggests very long history of tool use
Sea Otters are marine mammals, and while rarely seen on shore, are very clumsy there. Their tool use is typically limited to trying to crack open food, and their food is derived from the ocean, so it seems highly unlikely that they would retrieve stones or bones from land to use in the water. The principle of least astonishment would instead lead us to consider other mastodons. These are far more likely as they were terrestrial, endemic to the area and time in question (we have the bones of one there, after all) - and of enormous size - enough mass to break bones. Their close relatives, the elephants, are known to use their trunks to pick up and even throw objects, and are also well known to be very curious about and to manipulate the bones of deceased members of their own species.
 
  • #11
I would say the simplest explanation is the most likely. Big, hulking mastodon, sheer cliffs, lots of landslides and avalanches in earthquake country. Over thousands of years those had to contribute to the mortality rate among large animals.

But the most damning evidence against the original assumption would be the lack of bone damage by cooking. If you have ever eaten elephant? To be polite, even cooked the meat is chewy!
 
  • #13
Cliffs, landslides and earthquakes shouldn’t have any relevant contribution to the mortality rate of animals. Look at the tiny contribution to humans fatalities, despite living in houses that can collapse.

Marks on bones was exactly what they found here.
 
  • #14
mfb, I was talking about events over thousands of years, contributing to the deaths of very, big, bulky animals, in areas I would consider risky to hike.

You are ignoring how many humans have died from earthquakes, rock slides, and falls from high places over thousands of years.

Also, you should visit the Brea Tarpit exhibits to see graphic examples of prehistoric "Whoops!"

As for marks on bones? After a hundred and thirty thousand years of churning ground in a geologically active terrain? The only evidence that would be conclusive would be signs of cooking.

Sometimes a rock is just a rock but BBQ is for the Ages!
 
  • #15
If recall - there was controversy about the excavation site. Large Earth moving equipment scraped around and unearthed the bones in the process of excavation.
So, tool marks they appear to be, but who "dunnit"? Us now or them way back? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And, so, excavation problems cast a cloud over the whole project.

Then after lots more research more claims and counter claims arose.
Example from one reviewer:
He finds it “curious” that the site yielded no other traces of human presence, such as the shaped stone tools that are typically found at much older animal-butchery sites in Africa.

This is the subsequent discussion: https://www.nature.com/news/controv...as-100-000-years-earlier-than-thought-1.21886

@r8chard - please stop synthesizing what may or may not be actual facts. Cite a paper or textbook instead - thanks. Read the link. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #16
r8chard said:
mfb, I was talking about events over thousands of years, contributing to the deaths of very, big, bulky animals, in areas I would consider risky to hike.
The timescale doesn't matter. Something that kills 0.0001% of all animals doesn't get more dangerous if we consider larger timescales.
r8chard said:
You are ignoring how many humans have died from earthquakes, rock slides, and falls from high places over thousands of years.
Relative to all deaths? Completely negligible. Despite building houses that can collapse, and our dependence on infrastructure that can get destroyed, problems other animals don't have.
r8chard said:
Also, you should visit the Brea Tarpit exhibits to see graphic examples of prehistoric "Whoops!"
How exactly would that be relevant? An example doesn't tell you anything about the frequency, and if you try to estimate the frequency from the places you have visited or from the number of news you read I can imagine how you got a wrong impression.
 

1. How did humans get to the Americas 130,000 years ago?

The exact means by which humans arrived in the Americas 130,000 years ago is still a topic of debate among scientists. One theory is that they crossed a land bridge that connected Asia and North America during an ice age. Another theory suggests that they may have arrived by boat along the coast.

2. What evidence supports the presence of humans in the Americas 130,000 years ago?

There have been several findings of archaeological evidence that suggest the presence of humans in the Americas 130,000 years ago. This includes artifacts such as stone tools and butchered animal remains, as well as genetic evidence from modern indigenous populations.

3. Were these humans related to modern Native American populations?

It is currently believed that the humans who inhabited the Americas 130,000 years ago were not direct ancestors of modern Native American populations. However, there is some evidence that suggests they may have contributed to the genetic makeup of some indigenous groups.

4. What challenges did humans face in the Americas 130,000 years ago?

The environment in the Americas 130,000 years ago would have been very different from what it is today. The climate was colder and there were large ice sheets covering much of the continent. These conditions would have presented challenges for early humans, such as finding food and shelter.

5. How did humans adapt to their new environment in the Americas?

It is believed that early humans in the Americas adapted to their new environment by developing specialized tools and techniques for hunting, fishing, and gathering food. They also likely developed ways to build shelters and keep warm in the cold climate. Over time, they would have also adapted genetically to better survive in their new surroundings.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Back
Top