Human presence in Arctic

sculptor, your Posts have been quite insightful.
I have earned 10 Warning Points because I did not react subserviently to some Harassment inflicted upon me in this Thread.

Again, sculptor, I concur completely with all of your Posts. It has been refreshing to converse with you about Real Science.

If I come across any more information, other than the usual regurgitated "Pop Science", about this particular Mammoth find...would it be alright if I simply send it to you in a PM?
Certainly.
 
Quite a number of well informed links, all supporting the reasonable theoretical thoughts of possible human occupation long before it was previously theorised.
As I said in the previous post, Again, as most agree with, further confirmation is desirable one way or the other......That's how science works!
Great stuff fellas!;)
 
https://notendur.hi.is/~oi/AG-326 2006 readings/Russian Arctic/Svendsen_MAMMOTH2003.pdf
extract:

This is the oldest documented evidence for human presence at this high latitude and raises the question whether the first pioneers who lived in these northern landscapes were Neandertals or fully developed modern humans.
:::
The finds from Mamontovaya Kurya indicate that humans crossed the Polar Circle in the European part of the Russian Arctic as early as 35-40 000 years ago, much earlier than previously thought. A pressing question is whether the pioneers who lived in these northern landscapes were Neandertals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or fully developed modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens). If they were Neandertals then this human type expanded much further north than hitherto assumed, implying that their cultural development was not a hindrance for colonization of the Arctic habitat. Based on our current knowledge about the Neandertals and their distribution on the Eurasian continent during the last Ice Age we doubt that they were living this far north. However, we cannot exclude this possibility and/or that they evolved into modern humans. In this connection, it remains an unsolved puzzle that the early Upper Paleolithic Szeletian industry in Eastern Europe resembles artifacts related to the foregoing Mousterian complex, including the bifacial stone technology (Allsworth-Jones, 1986).
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Similar to the other excellent links, with of course that final proviso, as is the case with most scientific theories, further confirmation is desirable one way or the other......That's how science works!
 
Great stuff fellas!;)

Again paddoboy, with the WINK...
You know that there is absolutely no need for it and that I have asked you at least twice before to cease and desist with it in your Posts that are in any way directed at me.

Again, paddoboy, I find the WINK neither welcome nor proper...so you are merely continuing your childish Harassment by Posting them...

OK?
 
The "out of asia" hypothesis could use an alaskan site that pre-dates monte verde by a couple thousand years(or more---more would be better).
Keep digging.
Like you said, keep digging is all that they can do......
Evolution may be certain, but the origin, and details are still somewhat sketchy.
http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspresse/en41a3.html
http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/human-skull-challenges-out-africa-theory-001283

BTW, thanks for jolting an Interest in this Archeology/Paleontology stuff.:smile:
I originally thought the article was of some solid interest, and the amount of stuff on the net proves that interest.
 
Finding some tools would be great.
This was the Paleolithic Era, the "early stone age." The only hunting tools were wooden spears, which unfortunately are biodegradable. Fortunately they made stone tools for cutting, and apparently the bones show signs of the meat being cut off with these tools.
As explained, no scientific theory [other than evolution] is conclusive.
Huh??? What makes evolution any more conclusive than gravity or electricity? All three of them can be easily demonstrated. Bacteria breed so quickly that we can get hundreds of generations in a couple of years, giving us a fast-forward view of evolution.
Mammoths were grazers. There ain't nothing worth grazing on the ice. Why do idiots continue to associate "science" articles with such nonsensical pictures?
On the principle that a picture is worth 1,000 words. :) Only semi-aquatic predators like polar bears spend very much time on ice.
Picture the prey animals grazing in lush meadows full of edible plants.
"Lush" might be an exaggeration, but there is usually enough plant life sticking up through a snowy meadow to feed a modest size group of herbivores. Obviously their predatory enemies would have grown thick enough fur to be able to follow them into the meadow, but I'm not sure that a sabertooth was big enough and strong enough to take down a mammoth, any more often than a modern tiger can take down an African elephant.

If there were wolverines in that ecosystem, well then all bets are off. Just one of those guys can take down a moose!
 
Back
Top