A manatee rib-NOT-too much marrow

[jamesp]

Mound sites are fairly common.Many were not preserved.Cahokia is a famous one.In Florida they were often piled up shells/snails.A 20 mile stretch of HWY 19 in Salt Springs Florida is underlayed with shells from the giant Silver Glen mound site.The state dug it and spread it in the 40's.Crazy huh?

[helens]

Wouldn't Indians bury all their dead in mounds? They didn't leave them on the ground like the animals that fossilized...

So wouldn't all human fossils be in 'burial mounds'?

[jamesp]

Mound culture is recent era for american indian.Probably less than 1000 years.The age classes are
Paleo 12-9 thousand years ago
Archaic 8-3
Woodland 2-500 AD
Mississipian 500AD to arrival of euros
Those are roughly the times.And flint/stone artifacts are categorized by layers found as dug and documented all over US.So a Guilford point would be archaic because it was constantly found above paleo and below woodland points
The guilford people
www.arrowheads.com/archaic/370-mysteries-of-the-archaics-guilford-people

[helens]

Well, there's a village in China called Banpo, which was a neolithic village that existed over 6000 years ago. They had a moat to protect against saber tooth tigers, and hunted mammoth for food. They buried their dead in graveyards.

If native americans came across the landbridge at the Bering Straits, wouldn't they have brought these burial traditions with them? If that's the case, then it would be logical (tho not proven) that native Americans all buried dead together in one place too (further back than 1000 years).

If you are finding artifacts but no human fossils, what's your surmise for what happened to the creators of those tools?

[jamesp]

The ice age animals left lots of mineralized bones in Florida.But there is no human fossils.And i don't think there are any 'after ice age fossil bones".Looks like humans arrived after the ice age 10-12 thousand years ago.That is amazing.It pretty much kills evolution theory.Unless evolves evolved quickly.So who snapped their fingers a stuck us here instantaneously.
I am saying that those humans rotted away because they were to new >12,000years to fossilize in Florida conditions.Saying that we are a much newer addition to mother earth than previously believed.And archeologists have about dumped the evolution theory because the only missing links are us inbred Georgians:>

[helens]

James, you said yourself that you do not dig in burial mounds and graveyards... that would be where the human bones are.

Also, in many many cultures, humans burned their dead. That would leave no fossils. So if humans either burned or buried in graveyards, then unless you are willing to fossil hunt in burial mounds or graveyards, you aren't going to find any fossils.

As for bones, again, I'm no fossil person, don't know much about it. But newer than 12,000 years old?! Here's a village site for man from 12,000 years ago: www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav041708a.shtml

Here's a fossil from 160,000 years ago, and is Homo Sapiens:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295624

I wouldn't call 160,000 years new... and that's homo sapiens, OUR species

Oldest human ancestor species found... 3.2 million years:
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

I have no idea what you mean by no human fossils... humans don't die like animals in the open... humans get buried by their loved ones in ceremonies... and usually in places they'd rot, or burned in pyres.

To find human fossils, you'd have to dig in graveyards / burial grounds /cairns, James.

[helens]

Here's a really interesting series of articles I found from the Smithsonian:
humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

[jamesp]

Am aware of Smithsonian outlook.Saw those skulls.Looks like primate.The African skull is not to convincing either;it is in bad shape.The findings are rare and most are said to be subspecies.
Trend is changing based on sheer lack of evidence.The burial should assist in fossilization.We have dug up the earth and do not uncover human fossils,many thousands of mammal fossils.Heavily populated topography like islands,points,land bridges-no human fossils.
One claim here and there-Africa-China-Laos-not good enough.A lot of incredible preservation situations,tar pits,high phosphate soils,peat bogs.Thousand and thousands of mammals.Statistical probability is overwhelming that the human fossil should be in the mix.
Burials were not normally 6 feet under-maybe 1% of 1%.Early folks were lucky to live till 40.Digging 6 foot holes with stone tools in clay/rocky soil is big deal.Floods, storms,disease,falls, drownings would take lives.
You know me-i am tangible man.I play in these fossil areas and am puzzled by the nonexistence.Just saying.And archeologists changing their theories?The Smithsonian has a few monkey looking skulls?Half million vertebrate fossils in Florida musuem,how many in the mighty Smithsonian.If 1% of 1% of 1% of these institution's fossils had human fossils i would say shutup Jamesp.

[helens]

I'm tangible too. But I haven't studied this area, so I have no idea what the fossil record shows. But it seems to me that people who HAVE spent lifetimes studying it are pretty convinced that there's a strong enough fossil record... so I defer to their authority, since I have none of my own.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'non-existence'... the fact that the Smithsonian has a collection, and other museums, and they continue to find them every year indicates there are plenty of human fossils. Most of the time, they find them in groups of burials, because the conditions there preserve the bones (thus graveyards, mounds, cairns).

Another consideration is that our population EXPLOSION worldwide is a very recent phenomenon... there weren't remotely as many humans running around 100,000 years ago say, than we probably have in 1 small city worldwide today.

I think there are different laws about human remains than animal fossils... even ancient ones, so when we do find them, we can't keep them like other fossil types, and those are the ones that are turned over to museums or gov't agencies immediately.

As for peat bogs, lots and lots and lots of human bodies have been found in peat bogs. Maybe what you are asking is has anyone cataloged all human fossil finds to date?
Also, I read something about the delicacy of human bones compared to animal bones... our bones are hollow and more marrow filled than calcified or something like that. I remember reading that no one finds frog bones either, which have a similar structure internally.

I don't know, it's an interesting question.

[Fossilman]

Watched a show last night on the "History" channel.They found a cave with human remains in it and they date back to 49,000 years ago.
They are also finding animal remains there too.Its in northern Spain and the cave is 70 feet deep and over two miles long(where they are finding these bones and fossils)..All fossilized..
It was on very late so I only watched half of it,hope it comes on again,so I can finish the show..It was very interesting!
All the bones are being found in the same formation,which means they all lived and died in the same time frame.....
In Montana(different subject)some of my friends were arrowhead hunting and came across a skeleton of a human,it was tested and recorded to be an Indian...
The Tribal people took over the investigation and found it to be from a burial area near some caves not far away(flood waters brought it to the surface)..They held a sacred burial ceremony for the skeleton and put it back into the cave...
Long story short,my friends said the bones on the skeleton were not fossilized,but were dark brown in color and still intacked......

[jamesp]

Look at the Smithsonian skulls and you will laugh.If that's the best that the greatest museum in the world can come up then i am skeptical.Mammal/human teeth are super slow to decompose.Found lots of both.But only ice age mammal teeth were fossilized.Humans in peat bogs are frequent.But not fossilized.Tannic acid preservations like that happen to lost,injured,fallen humans.Many were not buried.
It is just to weird.The Smithsonian with one of the finest fossil collections-a few monkey skulls???
I see reports in other countries.I see photos and reports.If you read cloesly they often mention subspecies between the lines.And often trying to sell a strange looking 'human' skull.
A lot of much more delicate animals than humans fossilize-birds,eggs,muskrats,turds-just saying.Bird bones as thin as tooth picks.
www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/66/suppl/DC2

[helens]

What are you SAYING? Cough it up! "Humans in peat bogs are frequent.But not fossilized.Tannic acid preservations like that happen to lost,injured,fallen humans.Many were not buried."

What's that mean? Human bones don't like to fossilize?

There are lots of human fossils in towns like Pompeii, when the volcano ate them alive.

Aha! Found you an interesting site of how humans are fossilized:
homepage.smc.edu/grippo_alessandro/fossil.html

But I just realized the key... they do NOT call humans 'fossils'. The term isn't really used. Despite being 'fossils', they are still called 'remains'. THAT's why you do not pull much up with humans and fossils. They are not categorized this way out of respect, ever.

Read this entire article by National Geographic about Pompeii's human fossils... NOT ONE TIME was the word fossil used. They are 'victims'. 'people', and 'remains'. Never fossils:
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/101102/pompeii-mount-vesuvius-science-died-instantly-heat-bodies/

I think that answers your question.

[helens]

This article is even better... calling into question the MORALITY of looking at PLASTER CASTS of the Pompeii victims... that somehow it destroyed their dignity, for others to observe their casts. How much more dignity destroying to be in possession of their fossil bones, which again, are never called that even once:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20407286

Family groups seemed to be brought back almost to life. Only the hardest of hearts remained unmoved at the sight of these doomed plaster people clinging to each other as catastrophe approached, mothers cradling their children, husbands embracing wives.

The clothes they were wearing also came as a shock. It was still generally believed in the 1860s that ancient Roman dress had been a skimpy affair, not merely suitable for warm Mediterranean climes, but flirtatiously flimsy and revealing too.
<>
But there are much wider issues at play than ancient Roman dress sense.

For a start, these strangely ambivalent objects bring us face to face with our own voyeurism. Why does it seem OK for us to gawp at these disaster victims, when it would be decidedly not OK to gawp at the death agonies of victims of a modern train crash or terror attack?

These are human FOSSILS they are talking about. This thought, and what Fossilman voiced as a sentiment (immediately rebury the indian), is why you don't see as many human fossils as animal fossils.

Humans see human fossils as remains. Other human's loved ones. To even look at their plaster cast image brings on feelings of guilt and voyeurism. No surprise that museums only possess the most fragmented and incomplete specimens. Whole ones were likely photographed/drawn, cataloged, and reburied almost as soon as found.

[jamesp]

I am saying that not all humans were buried by others.They died out in the wild by themselves.A lot of humans found in peat were loners,accident victims,etc.
I am saying that peat preserved humans are not fossils.But they may be very old.I am not educated on the age of peat preserved humans.Maybe they are a million years old.They could hold the answer of 'how long humans have been here'.But,they are not fossilized.ie,there bones/teeth have not mineralized.Where are the human fossils?Tangible,hold in your hand fossils.
I am saying that tons of ice age mammals are fossilized.But no humans other than very rare and suspicious cases.If primates can fossilize,you would think humans would too.
On the subject of ancient man's sentiment and respect for the dead.......Hmmm.Etowah/Cahokia Indian Mounds.A part of Mississipian Culture.Probably in the past 1000 years.This found at Cahokia:
"The archaeologists first uncovered a royal burial of a man in his 50s, surrounded by many grave offerings. Beneath that grave was that of another man’s skeleton, with somewhat fewer offerings. Beneath the royal burials were the skeletons of 52 young women, neatly arranged. Their skeletons showed no violence, so they were probably strangled. There were 52 years in a Mesoamerican century. Off to the side Pauketat found the skeletons of several young men(Jamesp is guessing they were the young women's lovers/husbands that did not feel to good about their honeys being sacrificed for politician), who had been violently killed. Their bodies had been haphazardly tossed into a pit".Man was the same SOB back then as he is today.
Etowah fellows seemed to like babies as their sacrificial preference.Look up the archeologist's findings on those Georgia bastards if your stomach can handle it.Some of the indians were dark and cold.
Pompei is a lava coated human situation-horrible indeed.Not a fossil.That can happen quickly near any modern day volcanoe.Those humans were 'molded' by the lava.Which brings up the question of ancient humans molded in lava.Maybe those exist.

[helens]

James... they DID fossilize... fossils are bones, not the whole animal.

Peat bogs/dry deserts/frozen tundras often preserve the entire animals. They have found whole wooly mammoths recently, complete with stomach content and DNA. At the same time, they have found lots of wooly mammoth fossils. I don't think those whole preserved specimens, like the human 'ice man' found in Europe or the Peruvian sacrifice victims, are in the same category as fossils, which are preserved remains... but not necessarily agate replaced.

I have no idea what you are trying to say still. There are no human fossils? What do you call the entire city of Pompeii? There are not as many as animals? Well of course not, over millions of years, many many many more times animals existed than humans, we are a 'new' species in Earth's timeline. Plus we burn and bury our dead in the most easily broken down areas... probably because they are easier to dig in.

I did some more digging... based on what you said, read this article:
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1297765/Last-humans-Earth-survived-Ice-Age-sheltering-Garden-Eden-claim-scientists.html

Can look more into it yourself, but this explains your question maybe:

Professor Curtis Marean, of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University discovered ancient human artifacts in the isolated caves around an area known as Pinnacle Point, South Africa.

'Shortly after Homo sapiens first evolved, the harsh climate conditions nearly extinguished our species,' said Professor Marean.

'Recent finds suggest the small population that gave rise to all humans alive today survived by exploiting a unique combination of resources along the southern coast of Africa.'

Humans would have been able to survive because of rich vegetation that was available in the area.

The sea would have also been a good source of food as currents carrying nutrients would have passed by the shore, bringing with them a plentiful supply of fish, the team will say in a new research paper.


Professor Marean said the caves contain archaeological remains going back at least 164,000 years.

Professor Chris Stringer, a human origins expert at the Natural History Museum in London, said he agreed with Professor Marean's views on the early evolution of intelligence.

But he said he was not convinced by the argument that one band of humans were the origin of modern man.


'However, I no longer think that there was ever a single small population of humans in one region of Africa from whom we are all uniquely descended. We know, for example, that there were early modern humans in Ethiopia 160,000 years ago and others in Morocco, and populations like those may also have contributed to our ancestry.'


Many researchers believe that modern humans are thought to have evolved about 195,000 years ago in East Africa, and within 50,000 years had spread to other parts of the continent.

It is thought that 70,000 years ago a dry period caused Red Sea levels to fall and the gap across its mouth to shrink from 18 miles to eight miles.


A tribe of as few as 200 period took advantage of this and crossed to Arabia.


Last year Professor Morean's team announced that they believed stone age blacksmiths mastered the use of fire to make tools at Pinnacle Point.


Knowing how to use fire may have helped the early humans who left Africa 50,000 to 60,000 years ago to cope with colder conditions in Europe.


It may also have given them a big advantage over the resident Neanderthals they encountered.


By 35,000 years ago, the Neanderthals, a sub-species of humans whose own origins were in Africa, were mostly extinct.


Professor Curtis Marean, , said: 'The command of fire, documented by our study of heat treatment, provides us with a potential explanation for the rapid migration of these Africans across glacial Eurasia.


'They were masters of fire and heat and stone, a crucial advantage as these tropical people penetrated the cold lands of the Neanderthal.'


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1297765/Last-humans-Earth-survived-Ice-Age-sheltering-Garden-Eden-claim-scientists.html#ixzz2TykvpqiL
Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[jamesp]

I would like for you to show me mineralized(fossilized) human bones.Other than a few primate skulls.
Mineralized(fossilized) human bones.A human covered by lava is not a fossil.That could have happened last week.You can quote a long list of archeologists.They have fought over this subject for a long time.
The original simple question:
It all boils down to tangible mineralized(fossilized) human bones.Where are they Helen S?
Not frozen preservations
Not lava molds
Not tannic acid preservations
Not peat preservations
Not tar pit preservations
It is a simple question.

I have no idea what you are trying to say still. There are no human fossils?
Yes,i am saying that there are no human fossils.

Read more: forum.rocktumblinghobby.com/index.cgi?board=fossilsb&action=display&thread=59811&page=4#ixzz2TysDlkg4


Read more: forum.rocktumblinghobby.com/index.cgi?board=fossilsb&action=display&thread=59811&page=4#ixzz2TynEXi6C

[helens]

Ok, mineralized fossilized human bones, the most prominent ones:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#archaics

Here's a whole box of human fossils that look like they were replaced with iron instead of agate (like ammonites), but maybe it's brown agate, I dunno:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223122209.htm

Was showing you that box of 195,000 year old Homo Sapien fossils sufficient? They aren't skulls. They are human homo sapiens. They are fossilized:



So there are human fossils, you are looking at one box of them, tho the first link will give you hundreds more, so hope you are at peace now.

[helens]

This one's pretty neat, found in the USA at Dinosaur National Monument (in Dakota??):
www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/DinosaurWorld/human_and_dinosaur_bones_in_the_same_rock_strata.html



That's a fossil, you can see right there it's human from the pelvis, and it looks like it might be a nifty blue/green agate too.

[helens]

This pix is even better... they were buried with BEADS!!!! And they appear to be mineral replaced pretty variscite material:



Please note that this came from a Creationist site who claims that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans... Creationists don't seem to agree on much.

[helens]

Here's human fossil bones that resemble jasper:
www.melkakunture.it/museum/tukul3-27.html