New Evidence Suggests People Lived in the Arctic 45,000 Years Ago

This is very interesting. Turns out the arctic had human settlements thousands of years before our previously held discovery!

The partial frozen carcass of a mammoth was discovered near the eastern shore of Yenisei Bay in the central Siberian Arctic in 2012 by an 11-year-old boy. Scientists, led by Alexei Tikhonov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, excavated the mammoth remains, and found injuries made by sharp weapon tips to the ribs and right mandible, and signs of chopping to the outside of the right tusk. “This is a rare case for unequivocal evidence for clear human involvement,” Vladimir Pitulko of the Russian Academy of Science told Science.

Radiocarbon dating of collagen from the tibia, bone, hair, and muscle tissue indicate that the animal died some 45,000 years ago, or 10,000 years earlier than it had been thought modern humans lived in the Eurasian Arctic. The find also indicates that people had made the necessary adaptations in cooperation, hunting, tool making, shelter building, and clothing production in order to live in such a harsh environment.

Link

Previously, researchers had discovered various tools around the arctic 12,500 years ago, and so it was thought that they could likely be the first.

I love when big discoveries about our past like this article comes about. It really makes you contemplate what our greatest ancestors could have achieved, and what amazing things they witnessed.

If you want to learn even more about the discover, head over to Science magazine for a more detailed article

a reply to: Ghost147

Good reads! Thanks!

a reply to: Ghost147

Just imagine 12,500 years from now, what the next generation of intelligent species will learn from digging in the rubble of our present. Just a little humor here. haha

a reply to: CharlesT

i wonder what the climate was like in the arctic 45,000 years ago
i would imagine it would be pretty chilly but not necessarily as inhospitable as it is now

originally posted by: Ghost147
This is very interesting. Turns out the arctic had human settlements thousands of years before our previously held discovery!

Interesting! Thanks!
Funny how inevitable it is that as soon as our illustrious scientists date something, the next week they are always finding that it was actually much older than thought (until next week, of course)!
Invariably, it seems!
I wonder why...

originally posted by: namelesss
Interesting! Thanks!
Funny how inevitable it is that as soon as our illustrious scientists date something, the next week they are always finding that it was actually much older than thought (until next week, of course)!
Invariably, it seems!
I wonder why...

You're welcome

It's important to note that Science is fluid and isn't based off of absolute certainty. Many people tend to shy away from science because they come in with the thought that a scientific claim/definition is meant to be absolute, when it is simply a means for us to say "this is what we have observed so far, subject to change"

Not sure if that was what you were implying or not

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme
a reply to: CharlesT

i wonder what the climate was like in the arctic 45,000 years ago
i would imagine it would be pretty chilly but not necessarily as inhospitable as it is now

Unlike North America and Europe, this area was not covered by glaciers. There was very little snow at the time and the ecosystem was a grassland Steppe and a much milder climate than what most people would think of from an American or European perspective because we have been taught about the extent of glaciation. That never occurred in Siberia and the climate was more temperate than it is today. This could vary however over periods of time. When it was warmer, there was more wildlife because there was more grass for the herbivores like Mammoth. More mammoth meant more predators. More of both predator and prey meant better hunting for our ancestors and so on...

a reply to: Ghost147


Great find. Much appreciation for posting this. I was hoping that the site would be a bit closer to or in Beringia but it's still a pretty important find nonetheless.

a reply to: Ghost147

Yes. Not new news though.
Governments know but backed out of opening up oil wells and mines because it has not warmed enough yet.
I cannot imagine people not already knowing this.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme
a reply to: CharlesT

i wonder what the climate was like in the arctic 45,000 years ago
i would imagine it would be pretty chilly but not necessarily as inhospitable as it is now

Unlike North America and Europe, this area was not covered by glaciers. There was very little snow at the time and the ecosystem was a grassland Steppe and a much milder climate than what most people would think of from an American or European perspective because we have been taught about the extent of glaciation. That never occurred in Siberia and the climate was more temperate than it is today. This could vary however over periods of time. When it was warmer, there was more wildlife because there was more grass for the herbivores like Mammoth. More mammoth meant more predators. More of both predator and prey meant better hunting for our ancestors and so on...

Interesting note on the lack of glaciation during this period in that area. Definitely seems counter-intuitive. Would you fancy an inquiring mind a couple links/sources for information on this area's climate during this period? Many thanks in advance.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme
a reply to: CharlesT

i wonder what the climate was like in the arctic 45,000 years ago
i would imagine it would be pretty chilly but not necessarily as inhospitable as it is now

Unlike North America and Europe, this area was not covered by glaciers. There was very little snow at the time and the ecosystem was a grassland Steppe and a much milder climate than what most people would think of from an American or European perspective because we have been taught about the extent of glaciation. That never occurred in Siberia and the climate was more temperate than it is today. This could vary however over periods of time. When it was warmer, there was more wildlife because there was more grass for the herbivores like Mammoth. More mammoth meant more predators. More of both predator and prey meant better hunting for our ancestors and so on...

Interesting note on the lack of glaciation during this period in that area. Definitely seems counter-intuitive. Would you fancy an inquiring mind a couple links/sources for information on this area's climate during this period? Many thanks in advance.

Why is it counter intuitive ?
Mammoth are not arctic animals, they are cold adapted, but their preferred habitat was grassland, they were grazing animals, any where you find their remains even if it is frozen in Siberia, shows that when they died, the area wasn't as cold as it is today

Here is the 2008 study on why they went extinct,

Climate conditions for woolly mammoths were measured across different time periods: 126 ky BP, 42 ky BP, 30 ky BP, 21 ky BP, and 6 ky BP. We show that suitable climate conditions for the mammoth reduced drastically between the Late Pleistocene and the Holocene, and 90% of its geographical range disappeared between 42 ky BP and 6 ky BP, with the remaining suitable areas in the mid-Holocene being mainly restricted to Arctic Siberia, which is where the latest records of woolly mammoths in continental Asia have been found

a reply to: Marduk

Thanks a lot man... I dragged my lazy ass out of bed so I could answer this properly instead of trying to type with my fat fingers on the tiny screen of my phone only to find you beat me to the punch! Well played sir, well played.

a reply to: Marduk

The fact that the glaciation was so prevalent in the mid latitudes in North America and Europe, while Artic Siberia was grasslands seemed counter-intuitive on its face. I mentioned nothing about the presence of mammoths being counter-intuitive. I'm well-aware of their preferred habitats.

I was asking about the extent of glaciation, but carry on with your best Attenborough narrative of mammoth behavior - someone may find it noteworthy.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
I was asking about the extent of glaciation,

I was wondering why you were incapable of answering that question for yourself, so I added some extra information I assumed from your approach that you wouldn't know about Mammoths either. So sorry to have missed your glittering intelligence.

Mammoths being grazers, would indicate to most people that the area was grassland then, as it is today.


This is the region today, the Mammoth site is marked


As you can see from this graph, there was less ice 45,000 years ago than there is today


The Earth at that time was at the start of an interstadial period (relating to a minor period of less cold climate during a glacial period), which lasted for 20,000 years



Community Announcement re: Decorum

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Marduk

The fact that the glaciation was so prevalent in the mid latitudes in North America and Europe, while Artic Siberia was grasslands seemed counter-intuitive on its face.

It really isn't counterintuitive though. What it comes down to is weather patterns such as the path of the Jet Stream (which is one of the biggest and most important factors in localized climate trends across the world) as well as ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream which brings warm waters to Western Europe. For a little perspective and context, lets compare a few cities.

Portland Oregon has a fairly mild climate. Not too hot in the summer, pretty mild fall and spring and the winters also fairly mild for its latitude( they seldom get heavy accumulation of snowfall). Portland lies at 45 deg 31'N.

On the opposite side of N. America we have Montreal Canada. It's nearly the same latitude as Portland @45 deg 30'N The avg. July temperature in Montreal is ~80' F and the mean Feb. temp is ~14'F. It gets pretty cold and there are high winds in Montreal and snowfall is some of the heaviest in Canada.

And last on our compare and contrast exercise is going to be Milan Italy at 45 deg 28'N. So far, these 3 cities lie roughly the same distance from the equator yet Milan has a subtropical climate similar to what we see in the Caribbean. This is because the Gulf Stream drags all of this warm water and moisture up from the tip of Florida and deposits it into the Mediterranean and all along the Western coast of Europe. This is why Milan can be at the same latitude as Montreal and the two cities have diametrically opposing climates.

I mentioned nothing about the presence of mammoths being counter-intuitive. I'm well-aware of their preferred habitats.

But if you looked at the data that Marduk cited, the Mammoths habitat is broken down by various dates throughout the Holocene from 6Ka all the way back to 126 Ka BP. Logically, if the Mammoth were flourishing in the area then there can not be glaciation.

I was asking about the extent of glaciation, but carry on with your best Attenborough narrative of mammoth behavior - someone may find it noteworthy.

Glaciation has a direct corollary with the amount of snowfall. If it does not snow, and it does not stay cold enough to maintain a buildup of ice and snow to compact, there can be no glaciation. The Jet Stream pattern and ocean currents brought excesses of moisture to N. America and Europe which increased the snowfall. It stayed cold enough in these places for the snow to accumulate and compact. It is analogous to throwing gas on a fire. It quite simply, was too dry in Beringia and Siberia for glaciation to occur.

www.beringia.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
faculty.montgomerycollege.edu...
www.mountainguides.is...
www.climate4you.com...
www.nature.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

FOTG in 3 2 1

a reply to: Ghost147

Interesting read and most of all to me looking find... as the carcass looks like it is embedded in a lot of ash not unlike the way Pompeii looked afterwards... so it makes me curious as to soil content... could it be the theorized volcanic ash that led to the ice age and mass extinction when the catechism that blocked out the sun for all those proposed years occurred? As that would be just as interesting a find and lend much credence to the theory.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Ghost147

Interesting read and most of all to me looking find... as the carcass looks like it is embedded in a lot of ash not unlike the way Pompeii looked afterwards... so it makes me curious as to soil content..

It is that colour because of
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness could it be the theorized volcanic ash that led to the ice age and mass extinction when the catechism that blocked out the sun for all those proposed years occurred? As that would be just as interesting a find and lend much credence to the theory.

What is it about his 45,000 year old Carcass that makes you think it kicked off the ice age we are currently in, 2.6 million years ago ?

a reply to: Marduk

Not kicked it off but buried under as a result

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Marduk

Not kicked it off but buried under as a result

You're going to have to post some more information

what catechism
Evidence for the sun being blocked out for years ?
thanks