Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

More death of Clovis Only: 27-30kya site in Uruguay

49 views
Skip to first unread message

RichTravsky

unread,
Nov 24, 2013, 5:03:43 PM11/24/13
to

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-ancient-giant-sloth-bones-humans.html

A team of Uruguayan researchers working at the Arroyo del Vizca�no site
near Sauce, in Uruguay has found evidence in ancient sloth bones that
suggests humans were in the area as far back as 30,000 years ago. The
team describes their evidence and findings in a paper they've had
published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
...
In this new effort, the researchers found over a thousand bones at the
Arroyo del Vizca�no site, (from approximately 27 different animals) most
of which once belonged to the now extinct giant sloth. What was most
remarkable however, were the deep slash markings on some of the
bones�indicative of human stone tools. Also interesting was that the bones
were all from the remains of large, full grown sloths�all in a single
place where they wouldn't have died in other ways such as from falling off
a cliff. Taken together, it appears the sloths were killed individually,
as needed, and eaten, most likely, by humans as no other known animal
could have pulled off such a feat. The team also found a stone that
appears to have been fashioned to serve as a scraping tool.
...


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1774/20132211
Arroyo del Vizca�no, Uruguay: a fossil-rich 30-ka-old megafaunal
locality with cut-marked bones


Abstract

Human�megafauna interaction in the Americas has great scientific and
ethical interest because of its implications on Pleistocene extinction.
The Arroyo del Vizca�no site near Sauce, Uruguay has already yielded
over 1000 bones belonging to at least 27 individuals, mostly of the
giant sloth Lestodon. The assemblage shows some taphonomic features
suggestive of human presence, such as a mortality profile dominated by
prime adults and little evidence of major fluvial transport. In addition,
several bones present deep, asymmetrical, microstriated, sharp and
shouldered marks similar to those produced by human stone tools. A few
possible lithic elements have also been collected, one of which has the
shape of a scraper and micropolish consistent with usage on dry hide.
However, the radiocarbon age of the site is unexpectedly old (between
27 and 30 thousand years ago), and thus may be important for
understanding the timing of the peopling of America.

note

unread,
Dec 6, 2013, 3:58:55 PM12/6/13
to
Is their a clear difference between the "deep slash markings on some of the
bones" found and the results of saber-tooth cats, jaguars, sloths?

see: LARGE COMPLETE PARAMYLODON GIANT GROUND SLOTH CANINE TOOTH
Leisey Shell Pit - Florida, U.S.A.
http://www.paleodirect.com/lm13-008.htm

see: Scientific name: Smilodon populator
Age: Pleistocene
Discovered in Uruguay.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/cats.html

My guess: no humans there until 15ka or later



On Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:03:43 PM UTC-5, RichTravsky wrote:
> http://phys.org/news/2013-11-ancient-giant-sloth-bones-humans.html
>
>
>
> A team of Uruguayan researchers working at the Arroyo del Vizca�no site
>
> near Sauce, in Uruguay has found evidence in ancient sloth bones that
>
> suggests humans were in the area as far back as 30,000 years ago. The
>
> team describes their evidence and findings in a paper they've had
>
> published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
>
> ...
>
> In this new effort, the researchers found over a thousand bones at the
>
> Arroyo del Vizca�no site, (from approximately 27 different animals) most
>
> of which once belonged to the now extinct giant sloth. What was most
>
> remarkable however, were the deep slash markings on some of the
>
> bones�indicative of human stone tools. Also interesting was that the bones
>
> were all from the remains of large, full grown sloths�all in a single
>
> place where they wouldn't have died in other ways such as from falling off
>
> a cliff. Taken together, it appears the sloths were killed individually,
>
> as needed, and eaten, most likely, by humans as no other known animal
>
> could have pulled off such a feat. The team also found a stone that
>
> appears to have been fashioned to serve as a scraping tool.
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1774/20132211
>
> Arroyo del Vizca�no, Uruguay: a fossil-rich 30-ka-old megafaunal
>
> locality with cut-marked bones
>
>
>
>
>
> Abstract
>
>
>
> Human�megafauna interaction in the Americas has great scientific and
>
> ethical interest because of its implications on Pleistocene extinction.
>
> The Arroyo del Vizca�no site near Sauce, Uruguay has already yielded

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 8, 2013, 3:17:53 PM12/8/13
to
On Friday, December 6, 2013 3:58:55 PM UTC-5, note wrote:
> Is their a clear difference between the "deep slash markings on some of the
>
> bones" found and the results of saber-tooth cats, jaguars, sloths?


Of course.

note

unread,
Dec 9, 2013, 1:18:49 PM12/9/13
to
On Sunday, December 8, 2013 3:17:53 PM UTC-5, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Friday, December 6, 2013 3:58:55 PM UTC-5, note wrote:
>
> > Is their a clear difference between the "deep slash markings on some of the
>
> >
>
> > bones" found and the results of saber-tooth cats, jaguars, sloths?


>
> Of course.

Please demonstrate.

RichTravsky

unread,
Dec 22, 2013, 11:07:35 PM12/22/13
to
"J.LyonLayden" wrote:
>
> On Friday, December 6, 2013 3:58:55 PM UTC-5, note wrote:
> > Is their a clear difference between the "deep slash markings on some of the
> >
> > bones" found and the results of saber-tooth cats, jaguars, sloths?
>
> Of course.

In general, yes. Microscopic examination, comparision with known samples, etc

RichTravsky

unread,
Dec 22, 2013, 11:20:47 PM12/22/13
to
note wrote:
>
> On Sunday, December 8, 2013 3:17:53 PM UTC-5, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Friday, December 6, 2013 3:58:55 PM UTC-5, note wrote:
> >
> > > Is their a clear difference between the "deep slash markings on some of the
> >
> > >
> >
> > > bones" found and the results of saber-tooth cats, jaguars, sloths?
>
>
> >
> > Of course.
>
> Please demonstrate.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7308/abs/nature09248.html
Evidence for stone-tool-assisted consumption of animal tissues before
3.39 million years ago at Dikika, Ethiopia

...
On the basis of low-power microscopic and environmental scanning electron
microscope observations, these bones show unambiguous stone-tool cut marks
for flesh removal and percussion marks for marrow access.
...

note

unread,
Jan 28, 2014, 1:02:59 PM1/28/14
to
Rich, that is very ancient evidence at Dikika, Ethiopia.

I am asking, 'is there equally-as-good evidence at Uruguay?'. I haven't seen it. I recall an article in Nat'l Geographic on the Rift Valley that mentioned scratches on the inside of a lower jaw of an antelope, excellent evidence of stone tool use. I maintain that the bones in Uruguay were damaged naturally (predation, competition, geofact-contact) rather than intentionally human worked 30ka.

DDeden

RichTravsky

unread,
Jan 30, 2014, 3:41:15 PM1/30/14
to
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-ancient-giant-sloth-bones-humans.html

A team of Uruguayan researchers working at the Arroyo del Vizcaíno site
near Sauce, in Uruguay has found evidence in ancient sloth bones that
suggests humans were in the area as far back as 30,000 years ago. The
team describes their evidence and findings in a paper they've had
published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
...
In this new effort, the researchers found over a thousand bones at the
Arroyo del Vizcaíno site, (from approximately 27 different animals) most
of which once belonged to the now extinct giant sloth. What was most
remarkable however, were the deep slash markings on some of the
bones-indicative of human stone tools. Also interesting was that the bones
were all from the remains of large, full grown sloths-all in a single
place where they wouldn't have died in other ways such as from falling off
a cliff. Taken together, it appears the sloths were killed individually,
as needed, and eaten, most likely, by humans as no other known animal
could have pulled off such a feat. The team also found a stone that
appears to have been fashioned to serve as a scraping tool.
...



http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1774/20132211
Arroyo del Vizcaíno, Uruguay: a fossil-rich 30-ka-old megafaunal
locality with cut-marked bones

Abstract

Human-megafauna interaction in the Americas has great scientific and
ethical interest because of its implications on Pleistocene extinction.
The Arroyo del Vizcaíno site near Sauce, Uruguay has already yielded
over 1000 bones belonging to at least 27 individuals, mostly of the
giant sloth Lestodon. The assemblage shows some taphonomic features
suggestive of human presence, such as a mortality profile dominated by
prime adults and little evidence of major fluvial transport. In addition,
several bones present deep, asymmetrical, microstriated, sharp and
shouldered marks similar to those produced by human stone tools. A few
possible lithic elements have also been collected, one of which has the
shape of a scraper and micropolish consistent with usage on dry hide.
However, the radiocarbon age of the site is unexpectedly old (between
27 and 30 thousand years ago), and thus may be important for
understanding the timing of the peopling of America.


Predators would have left more marks one would expect.

note

unread,
Feb 5, 2014, 1:08:18 PM2/5/14
to
I remain wary...remove 'some..', 'possible..', 'suggestive..' and there isn't enough beyond hopeful interpretation & story telling. Note that in parts of Africa and Sinai, young male antelopes were targeted, rather than large full-grown adults. I'd like to believe the story, especially of coracles with tipi-like sails being blown to Uruguay 30ka, since I'm near certain that Cambodia isles 33ka had woven coracles with tripods and dogs.




RichTravsky

unread,
Feb 7, 2014, 4:22:54 PM2/7/14
to
It's the combination of things considered in their totality that makes this
site interesting. How humans would have gotten there is a separate question
then.

note

unread,
Mar 1, 2014, 3:39:25 PM3/1/14
to
Well, "More Death of Clovis Only" sounds hardcore, the Dikika evidence sounds hardcore "these bones show unambiguous stone-tool cut marks for flesh removal and percussion marks for marrow access" but the Uruguay evidence sounds wishful.

note

unread,
Mar 29, 2014, 1:55:26 PM3/29/14
to
22ka Brazil 'human artifacts'?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?_r=0

show me a tooth that dates pre-15ka...

RichTravsky

unread,
Apr 7, 2014, 10:33:33 AM4/7/14
to
note wrote:
>
> 22ka Brazil 'human artifacts'?
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?_r=0
>
> show me a tooth that dates pre-15ka...

Why? Artifacts require a maker...
0 new messages