Footsteps in time that add 30,000 years to history of America

Times Online UK ^ | 7/4/05 | Lewis Smith

[freedom44]

THE discovery of human footprints, preserved by volcanic ash, have put back the likely date that the American continent was colonised by Man by almost 30,000 years, British scientists say.

The prints, found by the scientists at the edge of a lake in Mexico, are thought to be about 40,000 years old. Their discovery upsets the widely accepted theory that Man first reached America across a land bridge, now covered by the Bering Sea, 11,500 years ago. Casts of the footprints reveal that a community of Homo sapiens lived in the Valsequillo Basin, near Puebla in central Mexico. Their feet ranged in size from those of small children, aged about 5 or 6, to adults who would have fitted size eight shoes.

The prints were found at the bottom of an abandoned quarry and were preserved in volcanic rock. From the size of the prints, researchers from Liverpool John Moores University and Bournemouth University estimated that the adults ranged in height from 3ft 9ins to 6ft. Almost 270 prints were found at the site, two thirds of them human and the rest from animals including mammoths, an extinct species of camel, prehistoric cow and deer. The Liverpool and Bournemouth team discovered the footprints in September 2003 but have only recently had confirmation of their age from scientists at Oxford University. Dating techniques included radiocarbon dating and optical stimulated luminescence.

Until now it was widely believed that Clovis Man was the first human to set foot on the continent at the end of the last Ice Age. Previous academic research has suggested, however, that human occupation of the American continents may have begun several thousand years earlier.

The footprints are the first evidence of earlier colonisations and would suggest that the first settlers reached the West Coast from Japan or other Pacific Ocean communities.

Professor Matthew Bennett, of Bournemouth University, said yesterday: “Our evidence of humans in America 40,000 years ago is irrefutable.”

He accepted that there would be resistance to the theory that the original migration was not over the Bering Sea: “It is quite controversial. They are not very happy in North America. They are very wedded to the idea of colonisation 11,500 years ago.”

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I didn't say that a better diet is making us taller. I just said that a different diet is having that effect. Considering the obesity and heart issues so prevalent today that didn't exist 100 years ago, I seriously doubt that we have a better diet today.

[Question_Assumptions]

I didn't say that a better diet is making us taller. I just said that a different diet is having that effect. Considering the obesity and heart issues so prevalent today that didn't exist 100 years ago, I seriously doubt that we have a better diet today.

Well, if you want to debate whether our diet is "better" or just "different" in a broad sense, knock yourself out. But with respect to having enough calories and protein as children to reach our our biologically maximum height, our diets today are better. That the diets in many Western nations (and particularly the United States) far exceed the amount of calories and protein that we need to reach our biologically maximum height resulting in obesity is a different issue. My point is simply that many populations that were once considered genetically short were actually short because of nutritional problems, not biology, and given plenty of protein and calories, the children of people in those populations can grow quite tall. If you want to argue that we've exceeded the point of improvement and headed well into overconsumption causing a different set of problems, I'd probably agree with you.

[muir_redwoods]

Evolution doesn't make us taller, survival advantage makes us taller or shorter or wherever the advantage lies. Good nutrition will allow us to come up to our genetic height but we will, as a people tend toward the greatest advantage for survival in all of our traits unless we artificially interfere

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The diets in the U.S. from before the inception of the nation was more than sufficient to support what we needed as individuals and then some. That's not to say it was necessarily equally distributed (it rarely is). Nor does it say that there weren't cases of malnutrition.

I do agree with your point about peoples not reaching their full biological potential due to the lack of sufficient nutrients. I've noticed, however, that there is a tendency amongst some to put this down solely to natural selection rather than a change in diet.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I agree with you that it is not an evolutionary trait. But you might note that since it is a survival advantage, it does loosely fit the definition of "natural selection" - a prime argument used in evolutionary theses.

[Nucluside]

Check the Pendejo site near Las Cruces, NM. Scottie NcNeish, RIP!

[muir_redwoods]

How is it a survival advantage to be tall? A minimum height probably is but I fail to see the advantage of being 6'6" vs. 5'6". A larger person requires more food to maintain and as tool users we humans do pretty well even if we are small. Small populations exist and thrive around the globe. Tall ones do too. It's setting-dependent as to whether or not it's an advantage.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I'm 6'1" and 190lbs so my position is not partisan ;-)

[SuzyQue]

I had to go look this up because I couldn't remember the particulars:

Human Molecular Genetics, Vol 6, 41-46, Copyright © 1997 by Oxford University Press

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/41

Lack of founding Amerindian mitochondrial DNA lineages in extinct aborigines from Tierra del Fuego-Patagonia

C Lalueza, A Perez-Perez, E Prats, L Cornudella and D Turbon
Departament de Biologia Animal, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

Ancient DNA from bones and teeth of 60 individuals from four extinct human populations from Tierra del Fuego-Patagonia (Selknam, Yamana, Kaweskar and Aonikenk) has been extracted and the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) amplified by using the polymerase chain reaction. High- resolution analysis of endonuclease restriction site variation in the mtDNA and sequencing of its hypervariable non-coding control region, revealed complete absence of two of the four primary mitochondrial haplotype groups present in contemporary Amerinds, namely A and B. In contrast, haplogroups C and D were found in all but one sample with frequencies of approximately 38% and 60%. These results, together with the decreasing incidence of group A in more southerly latitudes in the American continent and the absence of cluster B above 55 degrees North in America and Asia, argue that the first settlers entering America 21000-14000 years ago already lacked both mtDNA lineages.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, in a physical confrontation-type of setting, bigger people who are in good physical condition have a decided advantage over smaller people who are in good physical condition. The Japanese recognized this in WWII, as our boys were generally able to plaster them in hand-to-hand combat.

Also in Vietnam, where the average male adult was somewhere around 90 lbs. vs the U.S. soldier weight of twice that shows what the weight and height advantage gives in terms of close physical confrontation.

Of course, when you throw out the obvious advantages gained for physical combat, then you are right. I don't see any particular advantages one way or another, as long as proper nutrition is observed.

[Question_Assumptions]

I think you need to bear in mind that before the advent of refrigeration and mass food transportation, the diets of people weren't nearly as varied or consistent as they are today and while it's obvious that people had enough to eat during many periods before today, the additional calories needed to support an active pre-modern lifestyle along with the inconsistent consumption of meat, changes in the quantity and variety of food as the seasons changed, food shortages caused by poor harvests, and the interruptions caused by war all took a toll on the diet of people, especially when they were children. Of course diseases and parasites could also take a toll on health and nutrition. You won't find many modern Americans with, say, scurvy or rickets.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ironically, we have a less-varied diet here in the states today than we did at the turn of the twentieth century. We had a far more varied diet in fruits, vegetables and meats than we do now. This is not to say that we have access to less now than we did then, it just means that people are eating less of a variety now than they did then.

Of course, what we do eat, we have far more of on a per capita basis. But I daresay that the average Tenochitlan marketplace (that so impressed Cortez and his men) had far more of a variety of produce than does the modern supercenter.

[blam]

"Erectus in the Americas: "

I guess you're correct on this one.

After the find of the 80,000 year old 'finely-made'and 'well-worn' shell necklace found on Flores with the Hobbits, we're gonna have to start viewing these guys as being smarter than we have in the past.

Also, there are 850,000 year old tools found on Flores, too.

[SunkenCiv]

see message 33.

[SunkenCiv]

Another victory for multiregionalism. ;') I'll be adding that to the keywords in a second.

[Question_Assumptions]

But I daresay that the average Tenochitlan marketplace (that so impressed Cortez and his men) had far more of a variety of produce than does the modern supercenter.

To be honest I'm skeptical of that claim and it's validity. You might want to take a look at what a modern supercenter in an ethnically diverse area has on it's shelves, even if most Americans don't eat much of it. No, you won't find insects or certain types of meat (e.g., dog) but you'll find food from around the globe and meats you wouldn't find in Tenochtitlan (e.g., deep sea fish, lobster, crab, lamb, beef, etc.)

Also bear in mind that you are comparing an entire capital city with a single store. Within about 15 minutes of my house, I can not only visit at least 4 different modern supercenters but (including a Wal-Mart that has foods not normally found in the Northeast) but I can also go to an Asian supermarkets filled with foods from East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam), Indo-Pak supermarkets filled with foods from India, Pakistan, and the Middle East, and a host of smaller ethnic food stores that cater to ethnicities just as various Hispanic groups, Hungarians, Jews (German and Polish), and others. And that's not even touching on restaurants. So I'd happily compare the diversity of food available in a similar area around my house to the variety of food found in Tenochtitlan, particularly if we compare any single day to any other single day. And I live in the suburbs, not even a city. In New York City, the diversity of foods available in some areas is probably even higher.

I think you are still missing a key part of my point is that the variety and quantity they had was seasonal and the availability of meat protein wasn't as high or consistent. There is almost no such things as foods being "in season" in the United States anymore. One can get tomatos, bananas, corn, or whatever year round, fresh, frozen, or preserved, and there is never a shortage of meat. I should also point out that Tenochtitlan was a capital city, and the availability and variety of food there may have been about as representative of all of Mexico as the availability of diverse foods where I live probably doesn't represent what you'll find in rural Iowa.

Again, I am not claiming that people were starving or even malnourished. I am claiming that the proteins in their diet fell below the quantity needed to allow the people eating those diets to reach their full growth potential as children. And I'm not just talking about Aztec Mexico but parts of Asia, Europe, and the Middle East where the diet was not nearly as diverse as the capital city of the Aztecs. Were there places where the people got more than enough protein in premodern times to get tall? Of course. But if the Aztecs were so well fed, why did them men rarely grown taller than 5' 6" and why were the woman "delicately built" (to quote one web page) with an average height of 4' 8"? Do you claim it was genetic? And if it wasn't genetic or dietary, then what caused it in your opinion?

[SunkenCiv]

Mexico offers up ancient footprints -- Maev Kennedy -- July 05, 2005 -- A group of British scientists claimed yesterday to have identified human footprints in central Mexico that are 40,000 years old, almost three times older than the most generally accepted evidence for human settlement in the Americas. The team from universities in Liverpool, Bournemouth, and Oxford are convinced that the footprints are human and represent several adults and children who walked in freshly fallen volcanic ash in the Valsequillo Basin, about 80 miles south-east of Mexico City. Working with international colleagues, they have applied dating techniques on the sediment itself and on finds including a land snail, a water snail and a mammoth tooth, all of which came back with an age of around 40,000 years.

Footsteps in time that add 30,000 years to history of America -- Lewis Smith -- July 05, 2005 -- The prints, found by the scientists at the edge of a lake in Mexico, are thought to be about 40,000 years old... Casts of the footprints reveal that a community of Homo sapiens lived in the Valsequillo Basin, near Puebla in central Mexico. Their feet ranged in size from those of small children, aged about 5 or 6, to adults who would have fitted size eight shoes. The prints were found at the bottom of an abandoned quarry and were preserved in volcanic rock... The Liverpool and Bournemouth team discovered the footprints in September 2003 but have only recently had confirmation of their age from scientists at Oxford University. Dating techniques included radiocarbon dating and optical stimulated luminescence.

40,000-year-old footprint of first Americans -- Roger Highfield -- July 05, 2005 -- The team, led by Dr Silvia Gonzalez from Liverpool John Moores University, has completed dating the footprints, which Dr Gonzalez found in an abandoned quarry with her Liverpool colleague Prof David Huddart and Prof Matthew Bennett, of Bournemouth University, in September 2003. The findings supported the theory that the first colonists might have been seafarers who took an "island hopping" route from Australia and Polynesia, when sea levels were lower, to the west coast, said Prof Bennett.

[SunkenCiv]

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[SunkenCiv]

Old topic, from the FRchives. Adding to the list, not pinging.

join or quit view topics view or post blog bookmark post new topic subscribe