Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Hanslune

Humans in Mexico: 33,000–31,000 years ago

127 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hanslune

I had held the speculative idea since the 70's that a small number of Homo Erectus or early archaic HSS or HSH made it to the Americas about 250,000-350,000 years ago. If they had remained in small roving HG bands they might never have developed into a large population and perhaps died out. If the above is verified it also might provide an answer to the 'site that must not be named'!

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the info, more fuel for my beliefs that far history is something much deeper and more complex than the Occam's Razor view I was given in school. 

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Thanks for the info, more fuel for my beliefs that far history is something much deeper and more complex than the Occam's Razor view I was given in school. 

Howdy PG

Yep it will be interesting. Since your schooling didn't have the evidence for this why would you be down on them for not telling you about it? LOL

The peopling of  the Americas earlier was always possible, plausible and probably and that's why teams like this one searched for and found the evidence. I started school a long time ago and things are always constantly changing.

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
34 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I had held the speculative idea since the 70's that a small number of Homo Erectus or early archaic HSS or HSH made it to the Americas about 250,000-350,000 years ago. If they had remained in small roving HG bands they might never have developed into a large population and perhaps died out. If the above is verified it also might provide an answer to the 'site that must not be named'!

I thought the same but then realized Asian H. Erectus was a warm climate critter. 

I think my coastal migration idea happened around 25,000-30,0000 years ago and my opinion is not changed. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Does the entire article rely solely on lithics or are there examples of human remains/human DNA to support the contention they were in the Americas earlier? 
 

cormac

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
15 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Does the entire article rely solely on lithics or are there examples of human remains/human DNA to support the contention they were in the Americas earlier? 

No, DNA evidence as of yet, but there were whole lineages wiped out after the Columbian Exchange and the Mormon Obama put in charge of Indian Affairs made testing remains even harder. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
52 minutes ago, Piney said:

No, DNA evidence as of yet, but there were whole lineages wiped out after the Columbian Exchange and the Mormon Obama put in charge of Indian Affairs made testing remains even harder. 

Doesn’t sound like there’s much to support the claim of artifacts versus, say, geofacts. I’ll put more stock in it when something definitively human is found in situ. 
 

cormac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 hours ago, Piney said:

I thought the same but then realized Asian H. Erectus was a warm climate critter. 

I think my coastal migration idea happened around 25,000-30,0000 years ago and my opinion is not changed. 

Definite maybe on those coast surfers

Cold weather yes - unless they figured out to how to make clothes

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Does the entire article rely solely on lithics or are there examples of human remains/human DNA to support the contention they were in the Americas earlier? 
 

cormac

Conclusion: Stone tools and chemical residue evidence suggest that humans were present in Chiquihuite Cave, at least between the LGM terminus and the onset of the Younger Dryas. LGM and pre-LGM human presence is supported by stone flaked artefacts in SC-C, below stratum 1212. Cultural evidence for this phase is comparatively scarce (possibly reflecting shorter and infrequent visits), but still suggests a much earlier human arrival on the continent than previously appreciated. Given the length of the sequence at Chiquihuite, it is likely that humans used the site on a relatively constant basis, perhaps in recurrent seasonal episodes that were part of larger migratory cycles. The high altitude of the cave makes it an atypical location for human occupation of the Americas in the Pleistocene epoch, breaking the pattern of megafauna kill sites, open sites and shallow rockshelters. The occupants of the cave were seemingly adapted to altitudes and mountain landscapes, showing a behavioural pattern that—to our knowledge—was previously unknown in the archaeological record of the Americas. Their lithic industry has no parallel in the continent and its qualitative traits suggest a mature technology, possibly brought in from elsewhere before the LGM. Further archaeological and environmental DNA work is required to better elucidate the origins of the inhabitants of Chiquihuite Cave, their bio-cultural relationship to other older-than-Clovis groups and the path that their ancestors followed to the Americas.

So no human remains (ie bones) but some cryptic comments in the last paragraph

Environmental DNA: We collected bulk sediment samples from 15 stratigraphic locations in which some layers were assumed to be exposed to human activity before becoming buried (Extended Data Figs. 2a, b, Supplementary Information 1.10, 2–4). The samples were transferred to clean either sterile 50-ml spin tubes or 0.5-l plastic containers using sterile disposable scalpels or cleaned metal spoons, while wearing a face mask, full-body suit and nitrile gloves.

Samples were sent to Copenhagen and stored at −20 °C until further subsampling and extraction. Subsamples (approximately 5 g) were collected from each of the sampled layers in laboratories exclusively dedicated to ancient DNA, at the Globe Institute (University of Copenhagen), removing gravel and stones. Subsamples from three layers of the first extraction batch were then subjected in parallel to two different lysis buffers; to the first was added 5 ml of 1M Tris-HCl and 230μg proteinase-K based buffer (‘Sergey Bulat buffer’)30, and to the second was added 5 ml sodium phosphate buffer with 500 μl MT buffers both from the FastDNA spin kit for soil from MPBio together with 230 μg proteinase K (‘Extraction buffer test’ in Supplementary Information 1.10.3). All samples were vigorously shaken to lyse and release DNA from tissue and minerals, using a FastPrep at 4.5 ms in 40 s and thereafter incubated gently rotating overnight at 37 °C. All samples were then spun at 4,000g in 15 min and the supernatant was transferred to a new sterile 15-ml spin filters.Ten millilitres UltraPure phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1) were added to the supernatant to denature and separate proteins and phenols, and incubated at room temperature for 10 min while gently rotating.

All samples were then spun down at 4,000g for 5 min and the supernatant transferred to 10-kDa Amicon Ultra-15 filters. The samples were then spun at 4,000g to a 200-μl volume and washed twice with 1.0 ml Qiagen EB buffer and spun to a 200-μl volume. The final retentate were then transferred to a sterile low-bind Eppendorf tube and stored at −20 °C until it was converted to a multiplexed dual-indexed Illumina library using standard protocol67. The libraries were then sequenced on Illumina HiSeq 2500, 4000, or the NocaSeq 6000 platform using 80-basepair single-read or 100-basepair paired-end for the NovaSeq, respectively. We generated a total of 3,736,476,081 raw reads after demultiplexing and adaptor removal. All single-end reads and collapsed reads from the NoveSeq were parsed through the pipeline ‘Holi’ for quality control30, removal of low-complexity reads, duplicates and reads below 30 bp in size (Supplementary Information 1.10). This resulted in a total of 1,500,645,904 reads being parsed for alignment against the full NCBI nt (release 228) as well as the complete non-redundant RefSeq database (downloaded November 2018), and eventually parsed through ngsLCA, a naive least common ancestor algorithm that parses only reads with 100% similarity to the reference for taxonomic assignment. This resulted in between 6,784 and 869,776 unique taxonomic identification distributed on each layer and 59,912 taxonomic identifications for all the controls. All taxa found in the controls with two or more reads were subtracted from the complete dataset.

The taxonomic unit with >1 read and were parsed to R and plotted in ordination space using packages ggplot2 and gplot. The dataset was divided into the kingdoms Amniota and Viridiplantae with the lowest taxonomic nodes at genus level applying a cut-off threshold for each taxonomic unit of 1% within each kingdom. All plant and animal genera found were screened for DNA damage using the reference genome from the most abundant species found by Holi for each genus68. We next parsed only reads uniquely classified within each genus and kept only taxa with DNA damage >0.10 C-T frequencies at the 3′ end (metadata file). The distribution of read lengths, the edit distance reference genome and the 3′ DNA damage were plotted in R (Supplementary Information 2, 3).

The final genus lists were then plotted using R packages, rioja, ggplot2 and gplot, combined and layout finalized in Illustrator (Extended Data Fig. 4, Supplementary Information 1.10). Further determination of the presence of ancient human DNA was carried out by mapping sequencing reads of each sample against two different reference indices: the human reference genome (build GRCh38Decoy); and all mitochondrial genomes from RefSeq (release 92). Reads were mapped using bowtie2 (version 2.3.2) in end-to-end mode, using the ‘very-sensitive’ preset and allowing for an additional mismatch for seed alignment (command line parameters -D 20 -R 3 -N 1 -L 20 -i S,1,0.50 --end-to-end). Final-analysis BAM files were obtained by applying mapping quality (MQ) filter MQ ≥ 25 following duplicate removal (Supplementary Information 1.10)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

Doesn’t sound like there’s much to support the claim of artifacts versus, say, geofacts. I’ll put more stock in it when something definitively human is found in situ. 
 

cormac

Two images of lithics showing the larger one

NF7b37m.jpg

Not very impressive, crude compared to Clovis

Edited by Hanslune
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

Two images of lithics showing the larger one

NF7b37m.jpg

Not very impressive, crude compared to Clovis

I appreciate your posts Hans but for me there’s still way too many assumptions being made of a human presence in the Americas PRIOR to the end of the LGM. 
 

cormac

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

Two images of lithics showing the larger one

NF7b37m.jpg

Not very impressive, crude compared to Clovis

Interesting. Some specimens appear to indicate core and blade technology. On the other hand, the specimens appear to present degrees of weathering not consistent with the depositional environment/conditions. Personally, so dislike working from photos.

Also, would you be so kind as to send me a copy of the PDF at my UM address? My thanks.

.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 hour ago, Swede said:

Interesting. Some specimens appear to indicate core and blade technology. On the other hand, the specimens appear to present degrees of weathering not consistent with the depositional environment/conditions. Personally, so dislike working from photos.

Also, would you be so kind as to send me a copy of the PDF at my UM address? My thanks.

.

Sorry I found tha UM has a limit on PM size and both files are well over it. So will send you a PM with my email and we can exchange that way

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Personally, I don't think you'd expect to find a cache of geofacts in a cave. An old riverbed maybe, possibly a construction site, but a cave is pretty sheltered for a bunch of gravel to get roughly washed into it in various different events.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
3 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

I appreciate your posts Hans but for me there’s still way too many assumptions being made of a human presence in the Americas PRIOR to the end of the LGM. 
 

cormac

We'll have to wait and see. It will get boring if we all agreed on everything. I also agree that the lack of human bones is a negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
24 minutes ago, Harte said:

Personally, I don't think you'd expect to find a cache of geofacts in a cave. An old riverbed maybe, possibly a construction site, but a cave is pretty sheltered for a bunch of gravel to get roughly washed into it in various different events.

Harte

You'd normally would find chipping residue from ST making at the entrance (better light) and whole ones farther back where they were stored and broken projectile points and 'cutters' around and in the fire pits. As they would fall out when the meat was consumed and the pieces fell out.

Its altitude is also odd. Will have to go back and make sure the geology/rocks of the cave are different from the stones used in the artifacts.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150

Monkey 'tools' raise questions over human archaeological record.

Quote

 

In January, archaeologist Tomos Proffitt was examining a set of stone artefacts brought to him by his colleague Michael Haslam. Some of the quartz pieces looked like sharpened stone tools made by human relatives in eastern Africa, some 2–3 million years ago.

But Haslam told Proffitt that the artefacts had been made in the previous two years by capuchin monkeys in Brazil. “I was pretty gobsmacked,” Proffitt says. “I did my PhD looking at hominin stone tools. I’ve learnt how to make these things. I was looking at this material, and it looked like it had been made by humans.”....

About half of the flakes made by the capuchins bore the hallmarks of Oldowan tools called choppers, says Proffitt. One set of flakes seemed to have been broken off of the same hammer stone in succession, “something that’s only ever been associated with humans”, says Proffit. Yet he emphasizes that the monkeys make the fragments unintentionally and “at no point do they use these flakes. They’re just hitting stones together”.

 

Chimps Learned Tool Use Long Ago Without Human Help.

Quote

 

The handheld hammers were found at a chimpanzee settlement in the Ivory Coast and date back 4,300 years. Chimpanzees have been observed using similar tools for the past few centuries, but scientists assumed the intelligent apes were simply copying local people cutting open fruit nearby....

Though there were no chimpanzee remains at the settlement, testing by archaeologists revealed the tool-laden camp was most likely used by the Great Ape. The stones were much bigger than anything a human could use comfortably and bore the residue of nuts that modern chimpanzees like to snack on.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
20 hours ago, Harte said:

Personally, I don't think you'd expect to find a cache of geofacts in a cave. An old riverbed maybe, possibly a construction site, but a cave is pretty sheltered for a bunch of gravel to get roughly washed into it in various different events.

Harte

Am in the process of getting the PDF from Hans. The geomorphological context will be a critical factor. Bear in mind that utilized or potentially utilized caves may have once been associated/formed by a formerly active flowage. Not an uncommon occurrence.

.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 7/21/2020 at 3:26 PM, cormac mac airt said:

I appreciate your posts Hans but for me there’s still way too many assumptions being made of a human presence in the Americas PRIOR to the end of the LGM. 
 

cormac

Those are definitely tools, and for human hands.

The spread of people throughout South America suggests a minimum of 40,000 years and maybe a bit longer to me.

I'll take H.sapiens for 45k.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
50 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Those are definitely tools, and for human hands.

The spread of people throughout South America suggests a minimum of 40,000 years and maybe a bit longer to me.

I'll take H.sapiens for 45k.

Then it shouldn’t be hard to show verifiable evidence of Hss remains/DNA specifically, or some other member of our genus in general, in association with alleged artifacts. I’ll wait until that happens before I’m persuaded. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
Posted (edited)
On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2020 at 11:26 AM, Hanslune said:

______________________________________________________________________

Edited to add:

Just received the Nature PDF's on this subject. If you want them (and Rupert doesn't have you on his 'eat' on sight list) will send them. PM me and I'll send them forward.

______________________________________________________________________

 

kHoN9TN.jpg

6P7dIWY.jpg

nX1rF1c.jpg

Yeah reading report now - looks solid, multiple dates, good looking stratigraphy, lithic industry, I looked up  a few of the scientists - they look like professionals.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ciprian_Ardelean2

 

 

A report at ATS from, JohnnyCanuck a fellow I know is a Canadian Anthropologist.

His post:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1268444/pg1#lastPost

 

 

 

 

what about human bones that are found in the America s  ? was it just based on that it was footprints were found ?there was a report of footprints found, but they were not human footprints  33, 000 years ago or -290-million-years-old

 

https://www.ancient-code.com/this-290-million-year-old-human-footprint-has-experts-baffled/

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph

Well, it’s been a while since docy threw down a link to something everyone else immediately recognized as fake. Thirty-five years ago. 

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/science/fossils-of-man-tracks-shown-to-be-dinosaurian.html

—Jaylemurph 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
3 hours ago, Swede said:

Am in the process of getting the PDF from Hans. The geomorphological context will be a critical factor. Bear in mind that utilized or potentially utilized caves may have once been associated/formed by a formerly active flowage. Not an uncommon occurrence.

.

I was aware of that from other caves. But I thought I'd read several different layers here

I find that unlikely - multiple layers of deposition all containing geofacts.

And these samples look far more like artifacts than the ones from the Topper site. Given the randomness of deposition, I find it hard to believe they aren't actual artifacts.

Of course, it's just photos.

Harte

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I'll take H.sapiens for 45k.

Like I said before, there are whole genetic lineages that are now extinct.......and there's that Mormon ass hat Larry Echo Hawk  c*** blocking testing thoughout the country.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.