Human presence in Arctic

Reasonable, yes.
However still speculative.
Each site must stand on it's own.
From what I've read and seen:
I doubt the mammoth was butchered.
Finding some tools would be great.
Keep digging.
 
sculptor said:
Reasonable, yes.
However still speculative.
Each site must stand on it's own.
From what I've read and seen:
I doubt the mammoth was butchered.
Finding some tools would be great.
Keep digging.
Click to expand...
How do you explain the cut marks on the bones? Animals don't do that.
 
I've always wondered why humans ever would want to live in such hostile environments like the Artic. Humans migrated there but why. They had better chances of survival where the weather was warmer and they could grow stuff to eat. Anyone want to explain this type of behavior?
 
cosmictraveler said:
I've always wondered why humans ever would want to live in such hostile environments like the Artic. Humans migrated there but why. They had better chances of survival where the weather was warmer and they could grow stuff to eat. Anyone want to explain this type of behavior?
Click to expand...
No competition from other humans.
It's relatively easy to keep warm with furs and fire.
Food is surprisingly abundant if you know where to look for it.
 
spidergoat said:
No competition from other humans.
It's relatively easy to keep warm with furs and fire.
Food is surprisingly abundant if you know where to look for it.
Click to expand...

But to go there and be in freezing conditions and have no trees to cut for fires they would be in an intolerable place even with no competition from others but the weather conditions alone would kill many. Back then when the first humans went to the Artic they had to learn how to survive there. But also during that time period there weren't many humans living on this earth either. So if there was plenty of room in better weather conditions and few humans already living there why then move to such an uninhabitable place?
 
Climate changes. As climate changes, animals migrate.
The arctic experienced a rather rapid warming trend between 50 kybp and 45 kybp during part of which deep arctic waters were warmer than today.
As the prey animals migrated, so too did the predators, our ancestors included.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that hunters following the herd animals wounded the mammoth in question. There remains no evidenced that they butchered that animal.

Why go that far north? Hunters follow the tracks of their prey-------------hunting after a fresh snow makes it easier to see where the meat went.
 
cosmictraveler said:
But to go there and be in freezing conditions and have no trees to cut for fires they would be in an intolerable place even with no competition from others but the weather conditions alone would kill many. Back then when the first humans went to the Artic they had to learn how to survive there. But also during that time period there weren't many humans living on this earth either. So if there was plenty of room in better weather conditions and few humans already living there why then move to such an uninhabitable place?
Click to expand...
You can burn rendered fat and driftwood. It's not as intolerable as white people think. The arctic supports large mammals like polar bears, so it can support humans too. And even if there were relatively fewer people, native tribes did have enemies. They would raid other tribes for slaves and wives.
 
...hmmm...just the other day :
brucep said:
Phys.org. It would be great but I'm waiting for the official description. Kinda view Phys.org as the paparazzi of science. Without any pictures.
Click to expand...
paddoboy said:
It does give a good variation in the many disciplines of science: Their failing of course [as per the Hawking saying BH's do not exist headlines a while back] lay in the sensationalistic nature of their journalists and what they write.
In that respect "paparazzi" is a good description. :)

But yeah, it appears confirmation one way or the other is anxiously being waited on.
Click to expand...

...
 
dumbest man on earth said:
...hmmm...just the other day :
...
Click to expand...
Hmmm, just the other day.........
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...arctic-life-10000-years-earlier-than-thought/
Humans adapted to Arctic life 10,000 years earlier than thought

It’s a classic image of life in the ice age: a giant mammoth brought down by the sharp spears of a hunting party.

Now we’ve discovered a particular carcass – apparently killed and butchered with weapons – that is special. It was found in north-western Siberia and is 45,000 years old, which means that our species seems to have adapted to Arctic life 10,000 years earlier than we thought.
Together with a similarly ancient wolf bone with signs of weapon damage unearthed in eastern Siberia, this suggests humans were widespread in the region at the time.

sculptor said:
I have no explanations.
Just questions.
Click to expand...

As the article said, the cut marks on the bone.......
 
paddoboy said:
– apparently killed and butchered with weapons – that is special.
As the article said, the cut marks on the bone.......
Click to expand...

Forget the wolf.
Each dig's evidence must stand on it's own.

Cut marks on the rib bones could indeed have been from human weapons.
However: When stone spear points contact bone fragments are chipped off the stone--were any fragments fund?
Even if the bone damage was human caused, that does not mean the possible attack happened where the carcass was found.
We need a microscopic analysis of the cut marks by someone with a track record for accuracy.
----

"apparently killed and butchered with weapons – that is special."
Told third hand from articles about the find.
"special" indeed, but not for scientific accuracy.

conclusive?
huh?
izzat a joke?
 
sculptor said:
Forget the wolf.
Each dig's evidence must stand on it's own.

Cut marks on the rib bones could indeed have been from human weapons.
Which does not mean the possible attack happened where the carcass was found.
We need a microscopic analysis of the cut marks by someone with a track record for accuracy.
----

"apparently killed and butchered with weapons – that is special."
Told third hand from articles about the find.
"special" indeed, but not for scientific accuracy.

conclusive?
huh?
izzat a joke?
Click to expand...
Why would it be a joke? This is science. Oh and where did you find the word "conclusive"? Scientific theories are never certain, except of course the theory of Evolution.
The article by the way says the following: The relevant words you need to understand are in red.......
Now we’ve discovered a particular carcass – apparently killed and butchered with weapons – that is special. It was found in north-western Siberia and is 45,000 years old, which means that our species seems to have adapted to Arctic life 10,000 years earlier than we thought.
Together with a similarly ancient wolf bone with signs of weapon damage unearthed in eastern Siberia, this suggests humans were widespread in the region at the time.
No mention of conclusive.
As per the scientific method, it is evidence that the experts believe suggests human adaptation to the region earlier then previously thought.
At this time, until more evidence becomes available that either confirms or refutes the theory, the evidence suggests what the article infers.
And most certainly further investigation by the experts will be taking place.
Science is a continuing ongoing concern with no resting on their laurels.
 
sculptor said:
What "butchering marks"?
and
Why leave so much meat behind?
Click to expand...
It's in the NewScientist article. There are cut marks on the bones that only come from humans. I don't know why they left the meat behind, maybe they were in a hurry.
 
From responses, it seems that the consensus is that nothing about this claim is conclusive.
(except, of course that it is a mammoth and it was found in Siberia)

OK
good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top