4 ms·
Notice that the article states the bones themselves are from 130kya, not that they were discovered in a layer of sediment deposited 130kya. This means that the
by meri_dian 10y ago
Notice that the article states the bones themselves are from 130kya, not that they were discovered in a layer of sediment deposited 130kya. This means that the age of the bones says nothing about the tools scattered around them at the site, or the ancient users of those tools.
Taking this into account, I think a more plausible explanation is that ancient humans - Clovis ancient (13kya) or perhaps older (20kya) - discovered these bones and kept them, used them, then discarded them or lost them with the other stone tools from the site.
- icc97 10y agoThe video in the middle of the story [0] says that they were found in a silt layer (which I'm guessing is aged at 130kya) [0]: https://youtu.be/HyfSsgCrjb0?t=1m21s https://youtu.be/HyfSsgCrjb0?t=1m21s
- restalis 10y agoIt pains me to see these scientists handling those ancient bones with bare hands. That's not a good practice.