I'm skeptical. From https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/9i7sta/til_paleontologists_have_dug_up_a_130000yearold/e6hpd5b/ https://np.reddit.com/r/toda

I'm skeptical. From https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/9i7sta/til_paleontologists_have_dug_up_a_130000yearold/e6hpd5b/ https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/9i7sta/til_pa...: Professional archaeologist checking in. I hate to spoil the party, but the argument this represents evidence of human occupation of North America 130 thousand years ago doesn't hold water. First, there isn't even consensus that Homo sapiens left Africa by that time. Additionally, the preponderance of evidence shows humans didnt occupy fully glacial environments until 80+ thousand years later, which would be necessary to make it to NE Asia and North America. The claim they were in North America by 130 thousand years ago is inconsistent with all available archaeological and genetic evidence (a whole other topic). Second, the argument that the "tools" and bone modification seen at this site were made by people doesn't hold up either. There are many natural processes that can mimic these types of breakage. There are diagnostic features of stone tools and broken bones produced by humans, but none of them are present on the objects Holen et al. point to. Holen has a long history of making similar claims with no real evidence. He consistently fails to rule out obvious natural processes at sites he works at. I have personally seen him pick up a piece of naturally fractured fossil bone from a flood deposit and say "see, people." This is science by press release at it's worst, and there is good reason no other archaeologists accept his arguments. Unfortunately flashy headlines with extraordinary claims grab the press. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE for this to be true. Finding evidence for a much earlier occupation of North America would be super exciting. But as a responsible scientist, I have to go with the evidence.