youtube.com
A new archeology site in California suggests that there might have been hominids in america 130000 years ago. A time when in current theory modern humans were just about to leave africa.
Bad Science? Hoax? Traces of unknown animals? Finno-Korean ancient super empire? Whats your take on it?
Other urls found in this thread:
arstechnica.com
news.nationalgeographic.com
en.wikipedia.org
4.bp.blogspot.com
twitter.com
Were there any primates there at any point after the current continents formed? Because the thought of hominids making it all the way over there seems preposterous
Probable the current scope of science being fucked.
I keep saying civillizations existed before the ice age, but people keep not believing me
How do you define "civilization"?
arstechnica.com
>The key question is, which hominin population had the ability to establish a sustained population in Beringia? We don’t even know how many populations were in mainland Asia at the time—certainly multiple, deeply divergent populations of Denisovans and Neanderthals, maybe others with even older origins. Maybe modern humans. From the biological side, we have no reason to think that any of them were incapable of entering the New World. We’ve just been stuck with the assumption that they didn’t cross into North America—because if they did, we should see a hundred millennia of discarded tools and butchered animal bones.
>There is also evidence that humans in Indonesia had boats over 180,000 years ago, because there are human remains from that time on Indonesian islands that could not have been reached any other way.
The boats are far more plausible. Fish everywhere you look, you can deplete an island of fruit/animals and just hop over to the next one.
Independent, culturally unique political entities exceeding two hundred people, with their own writing systems, and the social coordination to invest in public projects.
>culturally unique
>political entities
>own writing system
>social coordination
>public projects
>>>>>>> two hundred people
Wanna know how I know you're full of shit?
Yes, actually.
And I also stand by my belief that humanity, in one shape or another, has existed for so much longer than what modern science assumes.
Any proof or are you just "feeling" it?
First of all, these ruts go right down into the ocean, and continue underwater to the point where you need scuba gear to follow them. Geologists estimate that the last time the sea level of the mediterranean was low enough to permit something like that, was before the last ice age.
Ergo, these must have been made before the last ice age.
Second of all, these here 'cart' ruts cut through the hardest material on the island of Malta. Something harder must have been used to make them.
Ergo, the inhabitants of the island must have been able to travel to places with harder minerals, although I admit I do not know much about minerals.
Third of all, these things weave through the entire island, and more. They are completely nonsensical, and go over hills, off cliffs, through rivers, and as said, underwater. There must be a reason for them being made, and while I can't even guess for what reason they were made, it obviously must have taken a very centralized leadership to allow the entire island of Malta to have been covered in these ruts.
Ergo, there was a hierarchy complex enough to have rulers able to enforce public projects.
Eeeergo, Malta was home to a functioning state with a high level of social cohesian, and one that was capable of trade.. Before the last ice age.
>falling for von Däniken
what about that finding that the stone softens when wet?
any other explanations for the creation of the wheel karts? and he said nothing about gods doing it
Then no, people ignore you because you're an idiot.
>any other explanations for the creation of the wheel karts?
Simple: They're not cart tracks. They're probably just softer stone that got preferentially weathered out.
>not taking the ancient xenos pill
It's the art of living in cities.
That's it.
It's hard for me to make a judgement without reading the article (my institution is cheap so I don't have access), but I'm skeptical. It's a pretty huge claim that they're making, and they're argument are too speculative for those kinds of assertions. So far, it doesn't seem like they've done enough to prove that the "artifacts" they're looking at are definitely cultural, and that they have an explanation for them if they are. This article seems to be the best I've found at giving a balanced overview of it:
news.nationalgeographic.com
My first instinct was "it's bunk" because that date is so far outside anything else we have real evidence for it's just preposterous. Realistically what do they even have? Some fractured mastodon bones and some irregularly placed rocks. No tools, no signs of tools or tool-making, absolutely no traces of any human or hominid habitation in association with the site.
The only reason I don't dismiss this out of hand is that the accepted date for human settlement of the Americas has been pushed back before. The accepted theory for how humans came here was totally rewritten after pre-clovis sites were discovered in the Americas, and it could be that will happen again. But not until they find an actual settlement with actual proof of humans living here, not some mastodon bones that kinda look like they were deliberately smashed. Until we get more corroborating evidence this is just a freakish, inexplicable outlier.
Use sci-hub
I imagine the fertile bottomlands and marshes rich in marine life earlier populations inhabited are all underwater and likely buried under the sands.
The most realistic explanation I've heard for it so far is something like Homo Erectus or some Denisovans making it over during an earlier ice age. Though if there was any significant migration, I'd be surprised that we haven't found any other evidence of it.
there's already genetic and historical evidence of something-like-australasian inhabitance of the americas before the wave later that accounts for 99.9%< of native american genetic material. it's just poorly understood because there isn't much archaeological evidence, only scraps of genetic material in south america and historical accounts of people who seem peculiarly australasian-like in south america who were heavily contrasted against other populations by those that encountered them.
en.wikipedia.org
no evidence.
writing is a requirement for something to be considered "civilization".
...
Most populations with phenotypical changes outside the norms aren't related to Melanesians.
However Pericú seem to be in my eyes and according to a researcher in Mexico who claims to have done DNA testing to their ceremonalized remains.
Here is a photo of an older woman with her family, she claimed to be 3/4th Pericú.
Oops wrong Leon photo. This is the woman
4.bp.blogspot.com
Reaching the urban stage of development
Von Däniken is good at pointing this stuff out. Then he tends to make faulty conclusions.
Water follows the path of least resistance, and if they were creeks aand brooks, they wouldn't overlap like that. And if they were cart wheels, they wouldn't go off cliffs and similar. They'd also stick to something at least resembling a path. If it was caused by cart ruts, there wouldn't be nearly as many since the farmers would pull it over the already formed rut.
>no evidence
At least read posts before replying.
This is still conjectural. We'll see how the evidence stacks up.