PDA

View Full Version : Archeology Turned upside down!



jwaldin
11-18-2004, 09:07 AM
It appears that humans lived in the region now called the southern states as far back as 50,000 years ago. Human artifacts have now been carbon dated to prove this.
Up till now it was believed that humans were not living in N. America earlier than 13,000 years ago.
The theory that humans appeared in Africa and then spread throughout the world now has been disproved.
This is amazing news!

km gresham
11-18-2004, 09:08 AM
Scientists were wrong?! :eek: ;) tongue.gif smile.gif

LeeG
11-18-2004, 09:14 AM
you guys are a bit confused on the difference between theory, conjecture and certainty.

jwaldin
11-18-2004, 09:18 AM
Your point is Lee?

Keith Wilson
11-18-2004, 09:21 AM
Source, please?

And FWIW, the conventional wisdom is that modern humans migrated out of Africa something more the 100,000 years ago.

[ 11-18-2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

George.
11-18-2004, 09:24 AM
Every once in a while there is one of these "finds," and it is always the same thing. Some stones that may or may not be man-made, near some charcoal that is dated to be older than 13000 years. The discoverer goes on to claim that the charcoal is from camp fires, and not natural fires, and that the artifacts are human and are as old as the charcoal.

And then the whole thing ends up debunked.

But rest assured that your ancestors came from Africa, even if people did arrive in the New World 50,000 years ago, as they did to Australia. Modern humans in Africa date from 100,000 years ago. So give it up, your great-great-great grandmother was African, and probably black!

Ian McColgin
11-18-2004, 09:30 AM
It's a very exciting possibility but, as the story below shows, there is much to figure out before we know where this is going. Real scientists love it when change is in the wind and real scientists test those changes rigorously. In matters of physical science, it remains inexpedient to reason too far in front of the data.

South Carolina Find May Show Human Habitation 50,000 Years Ago
Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Scientists have found evidence along a South Carolina riverbank suggesting that humans lived in North America 50,000 years ago, more than twice as long as any research has yet shown.

Radiocarbon dating of burned plant remains at a site near Allendale, South Carolina, along the Savannah River shows the excavated sediments, bearing possible stone tool artifacts, are at least that age, the University of South Carolina said today in a statement.

The findings, which have not yet been verified by other researchers, are ``a potentially explosive revelation in American archeology,'' the university said.

A longer human presence in North America raises questions about how and when people came to the continent. The discovery of tools in the 1990s at sites in Virginia and at Allendale that date to before the accepted migration from Asia across the ice age Bering land bridge prompted the search for older signs.

In May, University of South Carolina archaeologist Albert Goodyear was further excavating the so-called Topper site near Allendale, where in 1998 he found stone tools that proved humans lived on the continent as far back as 16,000 years ago.

Goodyear dug below the site of his previous discovery and, four meters (13 feet) below ground level, found artifacts similar to the ones he unearthed earlier. On the last day of the weeklong project, Goodyear and his team found charcoal samples in the soil where the artifacts were discovered, allowing for radiocarbon dating, the university said.

Charcoal Samples

Tests done at the University of California at Irvine on charcoal samples from Topper showed the material was about 50,300 years old. The dating may yet be challenged.

One archeologist said Goodyear was working in an ``ambiguous area'' where it wasn't clear whether items arousing interest were made by human hands or by natural processes, such as erosion and the breaking of rocks over thousands of years.

``It's kind of shaky in some ways, it doesn't contain what we'd want in a perfect site, a lot of activity areas, a campsite, things like that,'' said Gary Haynes, a professor of anthropology at the University of Nevada-Reno, in a telephone interview.

The site, on the bank of the Savannah across from Georgia, is on land owned by Clariant AG, a Swiss chemical maker.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Todd Zeranski in New York at tzeranski@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Edward DeMarco at edemarco1@bloomberg.net.

LeeG
11-18-2004, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by jwaldin:

Up till now it was believed that humans were not living in N. America earlier than 13,000 years ago.
The theory that humans appeared in Africa and then spread throughout the world now has been disproved.
This is amazing news!There are competing theories,,that one theory has general acceptance doesn't confer certainty. The theory that humans "appeared" in Africa (from Mars?) then spread throughout the world has not been disproved,,the time line may have been shifted or a generally accepted timeline may have been disproved.
But it is cool news. I'm still trying to figure out if there was an overlap between Neanderthals and modern humans.

martin schulz
11-18-2004, 09:46 AM
Don't forget the mitochondrion!

Jack Heinlen
11-18-2004, 09:46 AM
I'm still trying to figure out if there was an overlap between Neanderthals and modern humans. It's been pretty well established that the two species overlapped in time. As to their socio-sexual interactions, I believe most anthropologists currently believe the two didn't interbreed. I find it difficult to believe such an exchange didn't happen.

Loren Eiseley wrote one of his wonderful essays about finding what he deemed throwbacks to Neanderthal characteristics in his observations of modern humans. I can't recall the title. Perhaps genetics work will answer some questions.

Current theory is just that, and if you look at the evidence it is rather scant. So, scientists make their best inferences. Often they become too attached to them, which is unfortunate if understandable given the current state of the academy.

I would not be at all suprized if species sapien evolved in more than one place, rather than just in Africa. The diaspora out of Africa seems to have happened, but we simply don't know what else was happening. We sift through the consuming fires of time and base our conclusions on: a few fragments of bone, a few chips of worked stone, and our own prejudices.

km gresham
11-18-2004, 09:55 AM
I think scientists come up with a theory and then collect evidence to support their theory. Any evidence that doesn't fit the theory they discard or discount.

Just my observation. I guess that's why you can have so much disagreement among scientists. smile.gif

LeeG
11-18-2004, 09:58 AM
you mean they get a divine inspiration for "the way things work" then close their minds to conflicting data?

Keith Wilson
11-18-2004, 10:03 AM
It's interesting, but it's WAY too early to shout "Archaeology turned upside down!" The actual article stresses the preliminary and ambiguous nature of the discovery in several places. It may be confirmed; it may not.

And Karen, scientists are wrong all the time. They are as human as the rest of us. The great strength of science is that it seeks out and corrects its own mistakes; that a young ambitious scientist can win fame and fortune (well, modest fame, tenure, and a couple of research grants) by proving a generally accepted theory wrong.

km gresham
11-18-2004, 10:12 AM
And make a lot of other scientists mad as well! smile.gif

[ 11-18-2004, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

LeeG
11-18-2004, 10:14 AM
Not really :D you see, they learn that way ;)
it's a part of the reality based community tongue.gif

km gresham
11-18-2004, 10:41 AM
Right. The reality just keeps changing.

brad9798
11-18-2004, 10:54 AM
Great, there goes my African-American status!

Meerkat
11-18-2004, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by km gresham:
Right. The reality just keeps changing.By Jove, I think she's got it! :D

LeeG
11-18-2004, 11:00 AM
the map is not the terrain, the map is not the terrain. Sing it Karen,,the map is not the terrain.

km gresham
11-18-2004, 11:01 AM
The reality is they don't know. smile.gif

TimH
11-18-2004, 11:26 AM
If you look at black peoples skeletal structures, its pretty obvious that they are a link to our past.

George.
11-18-2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by km gresham:
I think scientists come up with a theory and then collect evidence to support their theory. Any evidence that doesn't fit the theory they discard or discount.
I think that would be the Bush administration, Karen. Most scientists live in the real world.

But you just keep pretending that because scientists don't know everything, the don't know anything, if it makes you feel better. ;)

Larry P.
11-18-2004, 11:34 AM
If you look at black peoples skeletal structures, its pretty obvious that they are a link to our past.
Could you please clarify that statement

Popeye
11-18-2004, 11:38 AM
-----------------------

Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.

-- Niels Bohr

LeeG
11-18-2004, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by km gresham:
The reality is they don't know. smile.gif know what? It's one thing to know knowns, acknowledge unknowns, consider knowing unknowns, being willing to unknow knowns,,,but to think that existance is negotiable,,well that's just silly.

Keith Wilson
11-18-2004, 11:47 AM
If you look at black peoples skeletal structures, its pretty obvious that they are a link to our past. What is it today, something in the water? First jwaldin goes off on an anti-catholic bender, and now it looks like we have 19th century pseudoscientific racist theories of "Africans being closer to the apes" dusted off and dragged out into the light. Leave 'em in the attic, Tim. All of the evidence is against it.

[ 11-18-2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

Joe (SoCal)
11-18-2004, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by km gresham:
I think scientists come up with a theory and then collect evidence to support their theory. Any evidence that doesn't fit the theory they discard or discount.

Just my observation. I guess that's why you can have so much disagreement among scientists. smile.gif Laddy dotty dede dotty do do dotty do :rolleyes:

Has about as much credibility and insight as Karens post ;)

Popeye
11-18-2004, 11:57 AM
Karen knows as much about Science as i knows about American pol'tics. smile.gif

imported_Steven Bauer
11-18-2004, 12:16 PM
Popeye, you must know more about politics than that! :D

Steven

Popeye
11-18-2004, 12:19 PM
Well i know that fella Gerry Bush is from Texas.

km gresham
11-18-2004, 12:20 PM
What I've learned from scientists:

We're in the midst of global warming.
We're headed for another ice age.

Eggs are good for you.
Eggs are bad for you.
Eggs are good for you.

Low fat diets are best.
High fat diets are best.

Birth control pills prevent breast cancer.
Birth control pills cause cancer.

and so on and so on.

Keith Wilson
11-18-2004, 12:37 PM
No, Karen, that's what you learned from news reports about scientific work. I'd bet a fair amount you didn't read any of the original work that your list was based on. Are you surpised that the news sometimes gets it wrong, or makes it simpler than it really is, or more definite than it really is?

I'll give you another list, limited only by how much time I have:

Smoking causes lung cancer.
Tetraethyl lead in gasoline isn't good for people.
DDT accumulates in the food chain and is very bad for hawks and eagles.
Thalidomide causes birth defects.
Vaccines can prevent smallpox, polio, measles, chicken pox, diptheria, typhiod, and rubella.
Asbestos, although useful, is really bad if you breathe it.
Niacin prevent pellagra.
Vitamin C prevents scurvy.
Antibiotics kill infectious bacteria.
The earth is really really old.
Slightly impure silicon has very useful electrical properties.

Shall I continue?

[ 11-18-2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

Popeye
11-18-2004, 12:42 PM
Might as well toss out the Bible too, it's loaded with imprecision, contradiction, and vague weird goings on to boot.

[ 11-18-2004, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: popeye ]

George.
11-18-2004, 12:43 PM
Karen, you should have been born in the Middle Ages. You would have loved it! Very little science, lots of religion, and none of all that useless stuff like antibiotics, automobiles, TV, refrigeration, sanitation, cheap and plentiful food, etc., that those always-mistaken scientists invented so you could live your sheltered life. tongue.gif

km gresham
11-18-2004, 12:44 PM
Oh, yeh, antibiotics are bad for you now, too. tongue.gif

Scott Rosen
11-18-2004, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by TimH:
If you look at black peoples skeletal structures, its pretty obvious that they are a link to our past.If you apply the "pretty obvious" and "looks kinda like" tests to archeology, you get this:

If you look at the facial features of Semitic people, it's pretty obvious that they descended from camels.

If you look at the features of Africans, it's pretty obvious that they descended from apes.

If you look at the features of anglos and teutonics, it's pretty obvious that they descended from God, because they look just like all of the sculptures and pictures I've ever seen of Jesus.

km gresham
11-18-2004, 12:51 PM
:D Too funny!

George.
11-18-2004, 12:59 PM
:D :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
11-18-2004, 01:07 PM
I think scientists come up with a theory and then collect evidence to support their theory As opposed to people who come up with theories and have no evidence collected at all. :rolleyes:

Popeye
11-18-2004, 01:21 PM
Yeah, that's a keeper. :D

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

"Smoking kills, and if you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life."

-- Anti-smoking spokesperson, Brooke Shields.

km gresham
11-18-2004, 01:29 PM
Peter, if you've already decided what answer (theory) you're going to come up with, then your tendency will be to skew the evidence.

5 scientists can look at the same evidence and come up with 5 different answers. It's the nature of the work. Then if you're being paid by a group who has an interest in a particular result, then results skew exponentially.

Then you have scientists basing their work off of someone else's conclusions, so there is the possibility of 2 people being totally wrong.

Anyway, we all came from somewhere, sometime and we're all going to die sooner or later. All the rest is just details. smile.gif

[ 11-18-2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

LeeG
11-18-2004, 02:13 PM
Karen,,,scientist don't just "look at" new data anymore than you can get an understanding of an article by reading headlines.
As long as you wish to ignore details you won't see where five different "answers" could be valid with variables between them. It's like knowing that you have to buy different pants to get them for Charles and John,,just saying "pants" doesn't get the right ones.
Science doesn't provide useful answers if you chose to remain ignorant of the details. That would be like wanting to know how plants grow,,but refusing the answer given by a biologist because you don't "do biology".