1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ANTHROPOLOGY.PALEO

  • New Mexico human footprints reaffirmed to 21 to 23 kya

    From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 6 23:31:33 2023
    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh5007
    5 Oct 2023
    Independent age estimates resolve the controversy of
    ancient human footprints at White Sands

    Abstract
    Human footprints at White Sands National Park, New
    Mexico, USA, reportedly date to between ~23,000 and
    21,000 years ago according to radiocarbon dating of
    seeds from the aquatic plant Ruppia cirrhosa. These
    ages remain controversial because of potential old
    carbon reservoir effects that could compromise their
    accuracy. We present new calibrated 14C ages of
    terrestrial pollen collected from the same
    stratigraphic horizons as those of the Ruppia seeds,
    along with optically stimulated luminescence ages of
    sediments from within the human footprint–bearing
    sequence, to evaluate the veracity of the seed ages.
    The results show that the chronologic framework
    originally established for the White Sands
    footprints is robust and reaffirm that humans were
    present in North America during the Last Glacial
    Maximum.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JTEM is so reasonable@21:1/5 to Primum Sapienti on Fri Oct 6 23:30:38 2023
    Primum Sapienti wrote:
    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh5007
    5 Oct 2023

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4650307.stm
    Last Updated: Tuesday, 5 July, 2005, 10:17 GMT 11:17 UK

    The good Doctor posted that.. 18 years ago.



    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/730359491090169856

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to JTEM is so reasonable on Sun Oct 8 20:38:42 2023
    JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
    Primum Sapienti wrote:
    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh5007
    5 Oct 2023

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4650307.stm
    Last Updated: Tuesday, 5 July, 2005, 10:17 GMT 11:17 UK

    The good Doctor posted that.. 18 years ago.

    No, the supposed doc didn't. Different site. In fact,
    different countries. I posted about White Sands, New
    Mexico. The BBC link is for a site near Puebla,
    Mexico (which the BBC link says is 80 miles south
    east of Mexico City. The two sites are around *1300
    miles* apart. That's one thousand three hundred miles.

    <https://www.google.com/search?q=distance+%22white+sands%22+%22new+mexico%22+puebla+mexico&sca_esv=571789629&source=hp&ei=nVAjZZyuD9Wb0PEP8KqtuAI&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZSNerf09ygaAgBgqEglirB5h6jzLwO3S&ved=0ahUKEwjc8M3m4eeBAxXVDTQIHXBVCycQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=
    distance+%22white+sands%22+%22new+mexico%22+puebla+mexico&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6GgIYAiIxZGlzdGFuY2UgIndoaXRlIHNhbmRzIiAibmV3IG1leGljbyIgcHVlYmxhIG1leGljbzIFECEYqwJIobYBUABYiLQBcAB4AJABAJgB6gGgAeEcqgEGMC4yMi4yuAEDyAEA-AEB-
    AECwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiKBRixAxiDAcICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGNEDwgILEAAYigUYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICDhAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGMkDwgIIEAAYigUYkgPCAhEQLhiDARjHARixAxjRAxiABMICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIGEAAYFhgewgIIEAAYigUY
    hgPCAggQIRigARiLA8ICCBAhGKsCGIsDwgILECEYFhgeGB0YiwPCAggQIRgWGB4YHcICBRAhGKAB&sclient=gws-wiz>

    Or use the search terms:

    distance "white sands" "new mexico" puebla mexico

    Now, for those of who for whom English is our first
    language, note that the subject line says "reaffirmed".

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh5007
    5 Oct 2023
    Independent age estimates resolve the controversy of
    ancient human footprints at White Sands

    Abstract
    Human footprints at White Sands National Park, New
    Mexico, USA, reportedly date to between ~23,000 and
    21,000 years ago according to radiocarbon dating of
    seeds from the aquatic plant Ruppia cirrhosa. These
    ages remain controversial because of potential old
    carbon reservoir effects that could compromise their
    accuracy. We present new calibrated 14C ages of
    terrestrial pollen collected from the same
    stratigraphic horizons as those of the Ruppia seeds,
    along with optically stimulated luminescence ages of
    sediments from within the human footprint–bearing
    sequence, to evaluate the veracity of the seed ages.
    The results show that the chronologic framework
    originally established for the White Sands
    footprints is robust and reaffirm that humans were
    present in North America during the Last Glacial
    Maximum.


    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/affirm

    IOW, the dating is solid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JTEM is so reasonable@21:1/5 to Primum Sapienti on Sun Oct 8 20:29:24 2023
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    No, the supposed doc didn't. Different site. In fact,
    different countries. I posted about White Sands, New
    Mexico.

    #1. They did not share your concept of borders.

    #2. Rudimentary math. Try to figure out which came
    first. The point is, and I understand it's wasted in you
    but, the point is that once something is established
    you move on.



    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/729273087843008512

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)