Human presence in Arctic
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
As I said, I'm just going by the article in question.
More detail, yep certainly a reasonable request: Perhaps E-Mail Professor Pitulko?
Vladimir V. Pitulko
Vladimir V. Pitulko
Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, 18 Dvortsovaya Naberezhnaya, St. Petersburg 191186, Russia.
E-Mail address is here.......
http://www.colorado.edu/INSTAAR/ArcticWS/get_abstr.html?id=75
Vladimir V. Pitulko
Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, 18 Dvortsovaya Naberezhnaya, St. Petersburg 191186, Russia.
E-Mail address is here.......
http://www.colorado.edu/INSTAAR/ArcticWS/get_abstr.html?id=75
Last edited:
Here's another
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/humans-visited-arctic-earlier-thought
Marks on one of the animal’s tusks and slices on many of its bones were similar to patterns on mammoth bones from a younger Siberian archaeological site where humans hunted mammoths, the researchers found. Human weapons such as spears probably caused the damage that killed the mammoth.
Humans entering the Arctic by 45,000 years ago is “a mighty, impressive achievement,” Dennell says. “What we don't know is whether this was a successful long-term adaptation or a short-lived heroic failure.”
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/humans-visited-arctic-earlier-thought
Marks on one of the animal’s tusks and slices on many of its bones were similar to patterns on mammoth bones from a younger Siberian archaeological site where humans hunted mammoths, the researchers found. Human weapons such as spears probably caused the damage that killed the mammoth.
Humans entering the Arctic by 45,000 years ago is “a mighty, impressive achievement,” Dennell says. “What we don't know is whether this was a successful long-term adaptation or a short-lived heroic failure.”
"emphasis on might" ? Who has mentioned "might"?Yes, emphasis on might: You may also cross the road and be hit by a bus tomorrow.
And why, paddoboy, would you state that I "may also cross the road and be hit by a bus tomorrow."?
"So perhaps" I "may have the problem???"
Who mentioned "the problem"?
What "problem" is that, paddoboy?
??? ...that Link was first Posted by you, paddoboy, in your Post #26 (you do remember Posting that Link, do you not?), although when you Copy/Pasted the Pictures again in your Post #28, you failed to Cite the Source of those Pictures in that Post.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)
...so..."In reality the only apparent efforts in anyone attempting to "flatten" any possible suggestions/explanations, originate" with brucep and yourself discussing the "failing" and "sensationalistic nature" of Phys.org. - the Source of your "Copy and Paste" in the OP : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/human-presence-in-arctic.154946/ ???
...
The article in question.......
Might equates to "could have" and "may even"
The same reason that your colleague inferred "could have" or "may even"
You suggested the posibility of a problem with the following little jibe
And I pointed out that it seemed to be you with an issue and your "flattening" jibe at post 14: Simple as that.
Yep I first linked to it, than you followed: Quite a good link obviously with two bright sparks like yourself and I linking to it.
Have fun dmoe!
There are only 2 letters in common in the words "Might" and "could have/may even"- "h" and "e" ???
Why would or should you attempt to change my Posted words?
My colleague "inferred" nothing!
I clearly stated that he opined what could have or may even have happened to the Mammoth that was found!!
My colleague opined nothing about what could have or may even happen to me!
That was all you, paddoboy!
That was no "jibe" on my part, paddoboy!
That was merely a question directly put to you concerning the odd remark you Posted in your Post #34, to wit :
...
My Post #14 did not contain the words "flatten", nor "flattening"!And I pointed out that it seemed to be you with an issue and your "flattening" jibe at post 14: Simple as that.
And, paddoboy, it was not a"jibe".
If you re-read Post #14, it seems that it was brucep and yourself discussing your own apparent "failing" and "sensationalistic nature" type "issues" with the website Phys.org!
You may choose to refer to yourself as a "bright spark"(sic), but I did not find the Link as anywhere near "Quite a good link", which you should have "inferred" if you were to fully read and seriously attempt to comprehend what I actually write/wrote in my Posts.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Nice link
"foreshaft" put the rusty old gears in motion.
What a marvelous invention!
Wow!
Instead of carrying around a bunch of long, heavy, cumbersome spears: You carry one or 2 spear shafts just as long as you could handle, and several points attached to foreshafts. Run up and stab the beasty(if you are really really brave or extremely stupid) or hurl the spear at your intended target.
Let the spear fall away as the point(if it missed a surface bone) stays in the beasty. Reload another foreshaft into/onto the spear shaft, and hurl again...and again...etc. (it seems into for solutrean, onto for clovis)
The interesting thing is: Foreshafts were common in solutrean(western europe), clovis(usa), folsum(usa) cultures and , it seems in Siberia.
How much credence do we give to separately invented vs trade shared ancient technologies?
(my bias would be toward communication and trade)
............................
Speaking of bias:
I most likely have one:
When I earned the anthropology/archaeology degree, the common lithic tool bias in the archaeological community was:
"If there is any possible explanation for how the lithic was formed aside from man made....go with that explanation."
The arrogant professor mentioned above referred to the folks digging the calico hills as "the lunatic fringe of archaeology" when they made statements like: " The last stand of Lake Manix was around 18,000 years ago, and Calico may date to that time".
We read Vladimir Pitulko's words while Alexei Tikhonov actually did the dig.
Did Tikhonov claim man made stone fragments embedded in the wounds?
Ignoring the trollish incomprehensible inane posts from that well known incomprehensible poster, with never much to offer as is evidenced from his past posts and threads, and run ins with not only myself, but a couple of mods also[mostly moved to cesspool]
We can accept that the gist of the three different links and reports, that this is a reasonable theory, and if as detailed in one particular article, they found part of the tool embedded in one of the marks, Then I would say far more than reasonable.
...
paddoboy, why must you Post Ad Hominems and cast aspersions...on a Science Forum?
Not to mention slander...?
Is that what a self proclaimed "bright spark" aspires to?
BTW: which "couple of mods" were "[mostly moved to cesspool]"...?
Last edited:
We?
sculptor, found this sciencemag.org article by Ann Gibbons, Link : http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/grisly-find-suggests-humans-inhabited-arctic-45000-years-ago
A brief extract :
the ^^above quoted^^ from, and more at : http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/grisly-find-suggests-humans-inhabited-arctic-45000-years-agoAnn Gibbons said:
sculptor, after reading the article a few times - I am still not sure if, when Curtis Marean, "who was not involved with the study", stated : “The impact wounds on the bones with embedded stone fragments is conclusive evidence that people slayed this mammoth.”...whether or not the "this mammoth" that he was speaking of was the mammoth “Zhenya” or the "another butchered mammoth in Yana, also in Siberia"...
At any rate, sculptor, there is more at the Link : http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/grisly-find-suggests-humans-inhabited-arctic-45000-years-ago ...
However, it does not seem to directly answer your query : "Did Tikhonov claim man made stone fragments embedded in the wounds?"
Last edited:
...
paddoboy, your Trolling Posts are not adding anything to this discussion...
Neither are yours.
Now would you like to get back on track?
oh, and of course, remember, both you and I will be judged by our peers on this forum, OK?