Mammuti was looking, if you ask the authors of the latest study that made this claim. Don’t look for anything just because there weren’t many people around, say other, more cautious scientists. Forget about it, and we, instead of giving a magnificent name, like “a discovery that radically changes the history of mankind”, will limit ourselves to the most decent question… Ours came to America when the wolf was a puppy, or is it another girl? Actually, let’s explain in a few words what it is about!

Until 2000, it was believed that the first steps of anatomically modern man in North America took place no more than 13,000 years ago

The culture of that people was named Clovis. Hence the name of the hypothesis “King Clovis” in the sense that it seemed impossible to dethrone him. And you really had no way of dethroning it because there was no clear evidence that human foot had ever set foot on American soil before. The fact is that after 2000, such evidence began to appear. Since then, several dozens of archaeological sites have confirmed, without the force of denial, the existence of individuals of our species before the supposed 13,000-year “limit”.

The oldest such discovery in North America could be the footprints, which are about 21,000 to 23,000 years old, a discovery made no later than last year. So farewell, “King Clovis,” for there have been others before. How early did the ancestors come? Well, here’s the problem! Most of the sites are between 16,000 and, as I said, 23,000 years old. Hypothetically, anatomically modern humans would have arrived in the Americas about 30,000 years ago. Just don’t parachute from Siberia straight to New Mexico. They also had work to do, and it was not at all easy to do in a full glacier.

The climax was reached a few years ago when some obscure American archaeologists claimed to have found evidence of human presence around San Diego some 130,000 years ago

Well, ever since the Clovis hypothesis was dismissed, more and more confusing studies have started to appear that have declared that the Americas were colonized at least 50,000 years ago. The climax was reached a few years ago when in Nature magazine some obscure American archaeologists announced that they had found irrefutable evidence of human presence somewhere near San Diego about 130,000 years ago, and you wonder how they got there. Finally, they also have their dacologists. Their hypothesis fell apart rather quickly, as they had absolutely no evidence, and the interpretations were worthy of dilettantes. Who should they believe? And it wouldn’t be a problem for them to publish some nonsense. They were neither the first nor the last. The problem is that they published in Nature, which is the crème de la crème. This is the worst job.

Finally, in order not to delay, I propose to look at what is a new discovery published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. Briefly, we are talking about a place in New Mexico where the fragmented skeletons of two mammoths, one adult and one young, were discovered. And, as the researchers say, for good reason, there will be traces of anthropic intervention on them, that is, a primitive person worked on them. They would then be about 37,000 years old, about 15,000 years older than anything else known. So far so good.

The problem starts when these people start providing evidence. Firstly, the bones are piled on top of each other, they are not in an anatomical position. Yes, it can be a clue, but not decisive. There are many geological or non-geological processes that can change the position of some bones. Then, one of the ribs is said to have two slits similar to those that occur when tissue is removed from a bone with a sharp object. Other bones appear to have bumps or small holes, said to be for extracting marrow. Last but not least, some fossilized remains may have been deliberately sharpened to be used as weapons or tools.

The so-called notches or traces of a deliberate impact are not very clear and may be the result of natural processes

The researchers also say they also found about six stone pieces, flint from the processing of finished objects, and some traces of ash from what may have been a hearth. As it turns out, you have absolutely all the ingredients to prove the presence of a person. And to the untrained eye, such arguments seem win-win.

As I said, there is a problem. Or even more. Traces of human intervention are controversial. The so-called notches or traces of a deliberate impact are not very clear and may be the result of natural processes. Holes made at the ends of some bones are at least an unorthodox method of extracting bone marrow. You won’t really see anything like this in prehistoric sites. I mean, could you cut a hole in the base of the rib to take out the marrow? And which brain to take from the rib?

The same thing happens with the supposed bone tools. They are not exactly sharp tools. After all, there have been hundreds of such confusions over time. Last but not least, the number of stone fragments is extremely low for a site where two mammoths were cut. You won’t believe they ran with a bag of rocks in their hands without missing a single one! At least on a theoretical level, the lithic inventory should have been somewhat richer. You cannot define material culture by exactly six shards. And in this case, there is even no certainty that these will be artificial chips. In conclusion, frankly, other professionals need to see this “evidence” before a firm conclusion is issued.

Now no one disputes the possibility that Homo sapiens arrived in America at least 37,000 years ago, because analyzes show that this is the age of fossils. But it doesn’t seem like you can come to these conclusions only after some discoveries that elude many points of view. There are sites even older than this one, and with much clearer evidence, but which, lo and behold, have not yet been published. why Exactly because scientists need 100% reliable evidence before making claims. That’s why it’s science, not a conspiracy theory.

Please, the good part is that Nature refrains from publishing articles like this. As I said, if we were angry, we would comment that the study was published in a journal with a lower impact factor and not one of the infamous ones, as such an epoch-making discovery deserves. But we don’t, so we don’t comment. In conclusion, don’t break out the champagne, we still have time to find out if these authors have fooled us or if they were right.