Human presence in Arctic

[dumbest man on earth]

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

I have to concur with you, sculptor!

Must also point out that the article : https://www.newscientist.com/articl...arctic-life-10000-years-earlier-than-thought/, does not "infer" anything at all - although at least one Member seems to (subjectively, possibly) "infer" information that is not in the article...

Indeed there is no mention of "conclusive" in the article...
However...there is also no mention of "experts", nor "believe"...let alone any mention "that the experts believe" anything at all.

As a matter of fact the article clearly states that "...it’s not clear who killed the mammoth." And has different people opining that it may have been by "Neanderthals or Denisovans" or by "Homo sapiens". :

Whodunnit?
However, no human remains were found with the carcass, so it’s not clear who killed the mammoth.
“Neanderthals or Denisovans could have dispatched the mammoth,” says Jon Erlandson at the University of Oregon in Eugene.
But Pitulko says the hunters were almost certainly Homo sapiens.

the ^^above quoted^^ from : https://www.newscientist.com/articl...arctic-life-10000-years-earlier-than-thought/
From reading the whole article completely, it is clear that the people investigating the "find" are are yet to be in agreement on quite a bit of the evidence, let alone in any kind of agreement on what they all "believe".

So... yes, sculptor, I concur..."it is a mammoth and it was found in Siberia".

 

[paddoboy]

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

As explained, no scientific theory [other than evolution] is conclusive:
Why would you think otherwise.
Still according to the evidence, it appears humans occupied the region further back than previously thought.
What you or any other non expert believes is neither here nor there.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

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

...Again, sculptor, I must concur with you, when you state : "it seems that the consensus is that nothing about this claim is conclusive.".

Also, in repeatedly re-reading your Posts in this Thread, sculptor,I can find nothing at all to even remotely suggest in any way that you "would...think" that any "scientific theory [other than evolution] is conclusive"...

...Meh...maybe that is what is referred to as a "Straw Men"...

 

[paddoboy]

The New Scientist link:
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...arctic-life-10000-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.

The mammoth carcass was excavated in 2012 from the eastern side of Yenisei Bay at a latitude of 72° north. Radiocarbon dating of one of its leg bones confirmed its antiquity.

Mammoth rib with injuries

The carcass carries injuries to its head, right tusk, left shoulder blade and ribs. Some are consistent with an attack with thrusting spears or similar weapons. There is also evidence that humans tried to remove long slivers of ivory from the tusk, probably to use as butchering tools

Although we know that Neanderthals could bring down mammoths – and were still present in Eurasia 45,000 years ago – there’s no evidence they ever made it above a latitude of 48° north, which is more than 2500 kilometres south of the mammoth site. “It is hard to expect [Neanderthals] to move that far north,” he says.

Pitulko agrees there isn’t yet any strong archaeological evidence that humans were present in North America earlier than 18,000 years ago – but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that such evidence will, eventually, come to light.

Willerslev also thinks it’s wise to retain an open mind. “One should never say never,” he says
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

And for anyone to claim that these remains and the evidence is/are being examined by any other person, other than experts is totally bizarre, and that what the same experts theorise is not what they believe is just as bizarre.
In essence, a reasonable formulated scientific theory.

 

[paddoboy]

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6270/260

Earliest human Arctic occupation
Paleolithic records of humans in the Eurasian Arctic (above 66°N) are scarce, stretching back to 30,000 to 35,000 years ago at most. Pitulko et al. have found evidence of human occupation 45,000 years ago at 72°N, well within the Siberian Arctic. The evidence is in the form of a frozen mammoth carcass bearing many signs of weapon-inflicted injuries, both pre- and postmortem. The remains of a hunted wolf from a widely separate location of similar age indicate that humans may have spread widely across northern Siberia at least 10 millennia earlier than previously thought.

Science, this issue p. 260

Abstract
Archaeological evidence for human dispersal through northern Eurasia before 40,000 years ago is rare. In west Siberia, the northernmost find of that age is located at 57°N. Elsewhere, the earliest presence of humans in the Arctic is commonly thought to be circa 35,000 to 30,000 years before the present. A mammoth kill site in the central Siberian Arctic, dated to 45,000 years before the present, expands the populated area to almost 72°N. The advancement of mammoth hunting probably allowed people to survive and spread widely across northernmost Arctic Siberia.

 

[paddoboy]

Detail of the mammoth's ribs with bits of tool embedded. Pitulko et al., Science (2016)

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...d-mammoths-arctic-10000-years-earlier-thought

 

[sculptor]

...Again, sculptor, I must concur with you, when you state : "it seems that the consensus is that nothing about this claim is conclusive.".

Also, in repeatedly re-reading your Posts in this Thread, sculptor,I can find nothing at all to even remotely suggest in any way that you "would...think" that any "scientific theory [other than evolution] is conclusive"...

...Meh...maybe that is what is referred to as a "Straw Men"...

I ain't quite that tight assed.
Many sites have enough evidence to convince me of the likelihood that the claims made were well justified.

Claim a kill made by man-----find a tool or fragment---find something indicating thorough butchering, find a fire, find anything that shows man at that site at that time.
Simple really.
Do a microscopic examination of the wounds. Look for healing after injury, look for stone blade fragments, etc......
No single archaeologist has mastered all means of gaining the very last and least amount of evidence from any one thing/bone/site.

I've long suspected that the range of our ancestors was much broader than the archaeological consensus circa 1980(when I earned the degree).
The great thing about science is the new discoveries which generate a rethinking of the consensus/paradigm.
I learned from and worked with a professor who was the then go to guy for microscopic analysis of cut-marks, and wear patterns on tools. He was damned arrogant, but it was a well deserved arrogance. Often, he could even tell you if the tool user was right or left handed.

As mentioned, the arctic waters were warmer 45kybp(only by a degree or 2). We may find that there was seasonally much open water in the arctic ocean at that time.
Which would likely mean a climate less severe than we might have thought.

The dig cited in this article falls a tad short.
Which does not mean that there were no ancient human hunters at those latitudes.
IMHO There just ain't enough evidence (presented so far) to substantiate all that was claimed.

 

[paddoboy]

The dig cited in this article falls a tad short.
Which does not mean that there were no ancient human hunters at those latitudes.
IMHO There just ain't enough evidence (presented so far) to substantiate all that was claimed.

Yes, in your opinion. But so far the evidence is reasonable that experts are of a different opinion.
Did you see this?

Detail of the mammoth's ribs with bits of tool embedded. Pitulko et al., Science
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
NOTE: Bits of tool embedded.

 

[sculptor]

Yes, in your opinion. But so far the evidence is reasonable that experts are of a different opinion.

More accurately:
Experts are of differing opinions.

Robert Park, an archaeologist at the University of Waterloo in Canada who has studied the bones of hunted animals in the far north, called the evidence for human hunting "pretty marginal." The beast had been found with remains of its fat hump, while hunters would be expected to take the fat for food and fuel, he said. And the skeleton shows far less butchering than one would expect,

 

[paddoboy]

More accurately:
Experts are of differing opinions.

I accept that. We also have differing expert opinions in many scientific theories.
But as you said earlier, there could be more data possibly coming that may confirm or invalidate the present theory.
[Although the ribs with bits of tool embedded seems reasonable to lead to theorise the current opinion]

 

[sculptor]

That would help.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I ain't quite that tight assed.
Many sites have enough evidence to convince me of the likelihood that the claims made were well justified.

Claim a kill made by man-----find a tool or fragment---find something indicating thorough butchering, find a fire, find anything that shows man at that site at that time.
Simple really.
Do a microscopic examination of the wounds. Look for healing after injury, look for stone blade fragments, etc......
No single archaeologist has mastered all means of gaining the very last and least amount of evidence from any one thing/bone/site.

I've long suspected that the range of our ancestors was much broader than the archaeological consensus circa 1980(when I earned the degree).
The great thing about science is the new discoveries which generate a rethinking of the consensus/paradigm.
I learned from and worked with a professor who was the then go to guy for microscopic analysis of cut-marks, and wear patterns on tools. He was damned arrogant, but it was a well deserved arrogance. Often, he could even tell you if the tool user was right or left handed.

As mentioned, the arctic waters were warmer 45kybp(only by a degree or 2). We may find that there was seasonally much open water in the arctic ocean at that time.
Which would likely mean a climate less severe than we might have thought.

The dig cited in this article falls a tad short.
Which does not mean that there were no ancient human hunters at those latitudes.
IMHO There just ain't enough evidence (presented so far) to substantiate all that was claimed.

Again, sculptor, I can do nothing but concur with everything that you Posted!

A colleague of mine here at OSU opined that the 3 marks in the Photos may indeed have been incurred by the Mammoth, "...in peak health and around 15 years old.", while fighting/competing for Females.
Note - ^^above in Quotes^^ from : http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...d-mammoths-arctic-10000-years-earlier-thought

BTW, the amount of remains/fossils that have been/will ever be found is very minuscule compared to the populations that have previously existed on this planet...
The conditions that all must 'fall perfectly into place' for any animal/artifact to be preserved in the first place are exceedingly rare - and then the odds of being discovered instead of being destroyed...!!!???

Like you stated, sculptor "Experts are of differing opinions."!

 

[sculptor]

Thank you.

 

[paddoboy]

That would help.

I'm sure it would. The bits of tool embedded, certainly seems to flatten any suggestions that the marks were caused by fighting over a female.

 

[sculptor]

I'm sure it would. The bits of tool embedded, certainly seems to flatten any suggestions that the marks were caused by fighting over a female.

certainly would seem?
Or do you know something about the subject at hand I don't?

 

[paddoboy]

certainly would seem?
Or do you know something I don't?

Detail of the mammoth's ribs with bits of tool embedded. Pitulko et al., Science
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
NOTE: Bits of tool embedded.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I know nothing more than what the article says.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I'm sure it would. The bits of tool embedded, certainly seems to flatten any suggestions that the marks were caused by fighting over a female.

Any "tool" from that time would have been made by the rocks/minerals available - those same rocks/minerals could have abraded the Mammoth during a skirmish or even a fall.
My colleague, a paleontologist, further opined that the injuries may even have been incurred while escaping from/engaging with a predator/predators that may not have even been Human.

Why so quick, paddoboy, to "flatten" any possible suggestions/explanations?

 

[sculptor]

Detail of the mammoth's ribs with bits of tool embedded. Pitulko et al., Science
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
NOTE: Bits of tool embedded.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I know nothing more than what the article says.

Who analysed the "bits of tool embedded"?
Link?

 

[paddoboy]

Any "tool" from that time would have been made by the rocks/minerals available - those same rocks/minerals could have abraded the Mammoth during a skirmish or even a fall.
My colleague, a paleontologist, further opined that the injuries may even have been incurred while escaping from/engaging with a predator/predators that may not have even been Human.

Why so quick, paddoboy, to "flatten" any possible suggestions/explanations?

Yes, emphasis on might: You may also cross the road and be hit by a bus tomorrow.
And I'm not flattening anything: It is a current theory and as I have already said, is certainly not conclusive. So perhaps you may have the problem???

Who analysed the "bits of tool embedded"?
Link?

Link? The same link given by our friend dmoe in post 32.....
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...d-mammoths-arctic-10000-years-earlier-thought

Detail of the mammoth's ribs with bits of tool embedded. Pitulko et al., Science (2016)

 

[paddoboy]

Why so quick, paddoboy, to "flatten" any possible suggestions/explanations?

In reality the only apparent efforts in anyone attempting to "flatten" any possible suggestions/explanations, originate at post 14. :shrug: