Dentition Signature Analysis to Identify Hominin Mastication Evidence

Not the catchiest of titles is it? An sorry it's abbreviated, there was a character limit.

Mitchel Townsend is one of the authors and gave this paper at the 69th Annual Anthropology Research Conference in Tacoma Washington last year. It's flown under the radar for awhile now even I hadn't heard about it. So I dug in.

So far it's intriguing, for a science PDF anyways.

I don't know how to link directly to the paper, so have included this article that does have the link.
thesubtimes.com...

Yeah...I thought that too, however I read the paper and the very few critiques online about it which I'll also link. I'm on the fence with it to be honest. Plus to be more truthful I'd have to read the supporting papers cited to get a better sense of how legitimate this is. On the surface it doesn't look too shabby and is currently been submitted and NOT rejected by the Journal of Archaeological Science/Reports.

So I'm asking what you all think?

One of the stumbling blocks I have was a criticism regarding the bone stacks consisting of the "non-utility" parts of the prey animals. Altho the point could be made those were consumed in situ and the better parts carted off, it's still a stretch?
See argument in link
www.andywhiteanthropology.com...

I realize this could easily have fit in other ATS sections but since it's already been presented in an Anthropology context and I wasn't looking to start WW3 debating all the side topics that tag along the Sasquatch subject, plus I need educated eyes to look at the paper cause I'm a layperson it seemed better to post it here.

Lastly here's the other critique I found.
www.ancient-origins.net...

Found link to paper
onedrive.live.com...

You can open it in word or on your browser.

this thread probably belongs in cryptozoology.

anywho this is nice paper.

the bone stacking, giganto footprints, tooth marks, an matching dis-articulation patterns are striking.

the lack of tooth marks from known predators is also interesting.

nice find

a reply to: dashen

Yeah I was a bit torn about where to place the topic, but since the paper is based on using archaic hominid bite marks as comparison to the finding of the rib bones and is an anthropology paper it seemed any meaningful feedback would be more forthcoming here.

Personally I think Townsend jumped the shark by making any conclusions the bite marks are from a sasquatch. I would say that's yet to be determined.

Can't believe all the regulars are so quiet?

Really just needed someone to vett the science.