Prehistoric remains found in Houston Texas

TxDOT's request comes a month after an archaeologist confirmed the burial site, which included three leg bones and a jaw with teeth. The remains were located about two feet below the surface in sediment that also holds artifacts more than 2,000 years old.

The Comanche and Karankawa tribes once lived on the Katy Prairie, but the human remains are believed to be from the Late Archaic Period, a little-understood era when humans used darts for hunting and began to settle in territories and use stone tools. The bones apparently were bundled for burial in an area that archaeologists believe was a seasonal campsite for small groups.

source

This article would not have caught my attention, except for the news cast was rather odd. My television played exactly as follows. "remains found in houston texas thought to be *break*, years old". Kind of weird that it would studder right at that time, and so perfectly huh? I decided to look it up and read it over.

The Sierra Club, which has filed a lawsuit to block construction of the road over flooding concerns in west Harris County, said the discovery underscores the need for more study.

"Without this more complete analysis we will not understand the significance of the remains and any other artifacts for our area and the Katy Prairie," said Brandt Mannchen, of the Sierra Club's Lone Star chapter.

The Texas Historical Commission, meanwhile, has no concerns with TxDOT's plans to remove the bones and rebury them at an "appropriate" but unspecified location.

"They are following the letter of the law," said Pat Mercado-Allinger, chief archaeologist for the state historical commission. "I'm confident of that."

source

I'm not sure if they're trying to preserve the construction project, or the status quo of accepted American history. I do think they're trying to destroy what may be important history.

reply to post by AnarchysAngel


I noticed that now they are claiming the remains are between 3,000-5,000 years old. I'm not sure how that drastic change may effect the situation. Considering that archaic period artiffacts were found with the remains, I have to wonder if the change to 3,000-5,000 years old will effect the movement to preserve the site?

An interesting find but not unusual. That is well within the time frame for native Americans to be in that area. The date difference may have been caused by the journalist mistaking 2000 BC for 2,000 years old instead of 4000 years old. One would wonder what dating method the finders are using usually in such cases an estimate by a professional will be a questiment, involving 'circa'.

Thanks for posting

reply to post by Hanslune


I'm thinking they're lieing about the age of the remains so they can say what you just said, and brush them aside. They really don't know that much about the original time period mentioned though. The artifacts, would confirm my theory. 3,000-5,000 year old remains wouldn't be found with dart tips in that area.

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
reply to post by Hanslune

 

I'm thinking they're lieing about the age of the remains so they can say what you just said, and brush them aside. They really don't know that much about the original time period mentioned though. The artifacts, would confirm my theory. 3,000-5,000 year old remains wouldn't be found with dart tips in that area.

That is a serious statement what leads you to believe that they lied?