Can we have a thread about the Late Pleistocene age? I think it's really interesting...

Repulsive and disgusting, and I say that as someone who studies ecology

>sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/were-humans-americas-100000-years-earlier-scientists-thought
American Indians BTFO! Give back the land you stole!

That's literally european tier occupation argument. Give back europe, indoeurochimps.

This.

That's just like your opinion dude. Your major is dumb study some math and cs.

Fuck off. The good humanities will be represented here.

Neanderthal reporting in, I have something to say about your """sapiens""" sub race...

I think that we should outright stop looking for anything pre-Clovis for the next 50 years or until the Natives have bred and drank themselves out of meaningful existence. Otherwise, anything we find will get NAGPRA-d and stuck back in the ground.

Best to just leave it where it's safe until the savages all die off.

Yeah that will show them, and the people who are over 40 and want to wrap this thing up before they die.

I'm over 40 and I'd rather we left artifacts in the ground for a century so my great-grandchildren can study them in peace if the only other alternative is to have some drunken, meth-addled trailer dweller scream "Muh ancestors!" and wage a legal jihad against anyone studying them.

Native Americans are insufferable cunts who would gladly destroy any scientific evidence that in any way challenges the muddled, Disney-style narrative they have concocted about themselves. I'd rather not give them the chance to do that. We should instead just wait a generation or two more until they've reduced themselves to a legally irrelevant footnote incapable of causing any real damage.

I agree it isn't technically history but it has been accepted right from the start of this board that threads cover prehistory are just fine.

Is there any accounts of native Americans actually doing this? I'm an Australian so I have no idea. And I mean reputable representative organisations/groups - not just nutjobs who nobody listens to anyway.

Meanwhile, Eske Willerslev worked respectfully with Native American tribes, acquired their DNA samples and compared to them to Kennewick man.
Nobody was being a bunch of cunts.

> nps.gov/nagpra/

They have an entire law.

Essentially, if anyone finds any artifact that can even be remotely construed in court to have come from any group even remotely related to any extant Native American tribe, that artifact must be returned to the soil. They pulled this shit with a 9,000 year old skeleton once.

Anything made or even obviously touched by humans in America prior to 1492 is subject to NAGPRA. Even if it's 100,000 years old, Natives will claim it and the the discoverers up in court for so long that the only choice they have is to bury the shit and cut their losses.

We should have exterminated those vermin.

Actually, the Natives sued everyone involved for a decade and eventually got their way. That skeleton is currently turning to dust under six feet of soil in an undisclosed location.

Fuck Natives. I've worked for them and with them and they are scum.

Kennewick man's skeleton has no particular value beyond it's DNA.

I had a quick read of the law and the case concerning Kennewick man. It sounds like, if these remains are as old as they're supposed to be, you couldn't prove the necessary link to an extant tribe in court?

If I remember correctly from the paper on Kennewick, he was genetically related to both Great Lakes and NW tribes but more to the former.
However for spatial reasons he was more likely to be an ancestor of the latter.
Anyway, only his DNA really matters for science so who cares what happens to the bones.

Nope. And they couldn't. But they still got their way in the end.

Here's the problem with Natives and archeology. When white people hear about some groundbreaking discovery that changes the way their own history is interpreted, they embrace it. Related to Neanderthals, you say? That's pretty cool. But Natives already have their own narrative. According to that, they are all buckskin-wearing protohippies living in peace and balance with nature before Whitey showed up and forced smallpox and firewater upon them. According to Natives, there was never any war or cannibalism or bad vibes of any kind amongst them prior to 1492 Anno Domini. And that's the problem. Because when some researcher digs up evidence that they were mostly starving to fucking death when they weren't eating or enslaving each other, The Official Native American Narrative takes a huge science cock right up the ass. And they hate that shit. They have their own narrative, thank you very much. And they're more than willing to permanently retard any scientific advancement they have to in order to protect it.

> nobody will ever invent any new technology

Goddamnit.

>When white people hear about some groundbreaking discovery that changes the way their own history is interpreted, they embrace it

That's not really true though.
Nobody in real life has embraced the idea of WHG from Balkans with genetic links to Far East and Near East largely taking out the Aurignacian descended Cro-Magnon in the year 13000 BC in Western Europe.
Nor has anyone embraced the idea of Neolithic farmers from Anatolia taking out the vast majority of the WHG across Europe in 7000-3000 BC.
Also, nobody has embraced the idea of Indo-Europeans from the Pontic-Caspian steppe spreading their seed westwards replacing at least half of the previous inhabitants genetics.

All of these discoveries have been met with ambivalence and a general lack of interest by the mainstream. Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes haven't written any books about it because it's not interesting as it doesn't give British people any special origin unlike debunked Vasconism.

The peaceful narrative is obviously false. Maybe the impression americans have of this retardation is obvious.

On Peru the access to the reports and writtings are restricted to most people, and the factual and archeological revisionism is pretty much taken down any time it could rise an "indigenous nationalism" movement, which is irrelevant to the truth.

Nowadays that's nothing compared of 10 years ago, yet the changes are pretty slow.

For example, in the 60s the findings and recopilation of a historian restarted a trend that existed centuries before about the precolumbian naval technology and the Inca colonization of Pacific Ocean isles. In 2006 the trend was remembered with a book. Yet the government restrictions and the academia biases are a bitch to overcome.

Did people actually live in caves, or did they just occasionally stay in caves, like during storms?
We got plenty of proof of them being in caves, but that would be because caves are good at preserving such proof for many thousands of years.

I don't know but primal tribes nowadays live in huts. Plus nomadism is the norm if you don't master agriculture, but it depends on the environment. I think they could have had seasonal camps in caves, and also sacred caves, but in general I bet they mostly lived in temporary camps.

Is anyone lobbying the Trump administration for changes? He's got enough on his plate right now but if we get anti-Trust action against the msm the situation will change.

Right now it'd just be an unnecessary risk.

>Late Pleistocene age
I always think of Plasticine when I see this, kind of apt comparison to me, a time when live was like a child still learning.

Caves were probably a bretty gud place to live by their standards. If you don't have more than stone tools, building in timber will be very laborious and probably isn't going to work well. Wattle and daub will be easier to build but still takes a lot of labor and requires sedentary lifestyle because you can't move it around. Skin tents or lean-tos are more conducive to hunter-gatherer nomadism but still require a good bit of labor to set up -- the former front-loads complex labor, the latter require labor every night. If you were stuck with a few other people and without tools or clothes in a wilderness and knew no one was searching for you, wouldn't you take shelter in a cave if you could find one? It's not just because of storms that you need to do so, there's also climate (try sleeping outdoors scantily clad in northern European winter and you'll see the advantages of caves), potential of encountering hostile people or animals, and the quality of having a landmark to focus activity on.

Getting rid of NAGPRA is a useless endeavor. There is literally zero political motivation for that.

It's better to just stop digging for a generation or two and let the featherheads die off rather than let them fuck over science.

With that line of thinking we would still be thinking that Kennewick man was an Ainu from Japan than a Native American.

They want to change elephant genes by adding mammoth variants into it and create an embryo in 2 years. But it will take like 10 years before they can grow the embryo into a living mammoth in an artificial womb.

Possibly a race of homo erectus if there were humans before the native Americans.

It says in the sticky that archaeology (which the Palaeolithic is) is fine. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk about the Neolithic on here

How about bringing back, say, Neanderthals?

It would be very feasible since we are closer to them than the elephant is to the mammoth.
And please don't talk about ethics, we legally kill and torture our own kind on a daily basis. Make the science great again!

their traits are already present in Eurasian men. there is no point to doing that.

Kennewick Man was unavoidable. That skeleton was accidentally discovered.

What I'm saying is that we should stop all intentional digs that could possibly unearth pre-Clovis artifacts because we don't want the Natives laying claim to those and fucking up more research with constant frivolous lawsuits.

Its so deppresing to think that since the natural global warming and cooling of earth happens that every animal will have to either adapt to the new habitat or die. Humans being no different even though we think that nature doesnt effect use as if we arent animals so we dont believe that natural selection or geographic isolation dont exist for humans so we refuse to say that there a diffrent species of humans.

>this so much

I mean, with dinosaurs there was never really a chance of us seeing them, but these guys were so close and we just missed them. Hell our ancestors even got to see them.

Clovis-first is bullshit tho.

There's another thing no one really cares about: By the time Europeans stopped being literal African immigrants genetically, they were all dark skinned, though some had blue eyes and possibly red hair. Funnily enough, the first light skinned Europeans looked more like Asians.

It is. It is also a good point to draw a line where we can stop natives from declaring ownership over American history. If we don't draw that line, they'll claim divine right over every archeological find they can.

I'm studying this exact topic now.
>you will never eat a sabertooth salmon
Kind of selfish. Mammoths need many mammoths for socialization. We'd need to make a hundred of them just for them to have normal behavior.
>troops of chimps murder chimps who are not in their tribe
>have fierce territorial wars
>oldest depiction of a human being killed by a human is 30,000 years old
Humans were never peaceful.
Neanderthal Civil Rights soon