Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lee Olsen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rick Baudé Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> >
> > Rick wrote: "Funny thing about proteins they
> break
> > down over time."
> >
> > Which calls into question discoveries of
> possible
> > protein on claimed Acheulean age hand axes
> from
> > California.
> >
>
> Oh yeah that's why I used the qualifying word
> 'possible'in the title.

How science works is you test it.

>And that's exactly the
> reason I pulled the paper down was because

The dog ate your homework?

I
> couldn't rule out contamination as a contributing
> factor.

I never said it wasn't protein, how do you know it wasn't protein until tests are made? You can spot protein with a microscope and not even an expensive one at that. It's the tests that are expensive and that can't be done visually, so outright rejection visually is not very scientific.

Abstract

"My examination of the broken bone fragments in the Cerutti Mastodon Site collection indicates that the hypothesis of breakage by modern heavy machinery is invalid, as a thick precipitate of soil carbonate on the broken surfaces proves that the breakage was indeed very ancient."

That paper hasn't been pulled down; with real papers you can't do that, only at Disneyland. In fact the guy who invented the very test for the type of dating that was done sort of agrees they probably have the dating close enough to declare "ancient" so Ruth Gruhn "possibly" has the carbonate it right also. That's why I didn't read Ruth's paper, she already had double independent verification, so I have no idea what she did for tests.

However, big trouble for the Cerutti team. Both the dating originator, Ruth and multiple other specialists say the dating is probably correct, but the site is not demonstrated to be human caused. So much for assuming the upright tusk is evidence, just another cute one-of-a-kind anomaly.

After further researching green fractures, it turns out Allan (who I didn't disagree to start) still has it pretty close IMO.

Allan Shumaker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot of the discussion on this thread concerns
> lack of cut marks. However this implies that the
> tusks were removed at the same time as the bones
> were broken for marrow extraction. In elephants
> the root of the tusk is a "pulpy cavity that
> contains nerves, tissue and blood vessels". If the
> tusks were removed later (maybe a year) after the
> flesh had decayed it may have been easy to remove
> the tusks by simply twisting them in the socket to
> loosen them.

Lee Olsen wrote (in reply to Allan's hypothesis): "After thinking on this more, I think you may be on to something. Not only does this logic apply to the tusks, but the teeth also. What happens to a lot of teeth in many case in an old skull [www.ancient-origins.net] many times they eventually fall out on their own. It makes no sense at all for a hominin to be pulling teeth anymore than breaking the molars open for morrow. I mean try pulling a fresh molar out of even a juvenile mastodon. We know they didn't have dentist pliers. It is even less likely the molar got broken bashing it out of the skull because neither the molars or the tusks have to be removed to get at the brain and tongue. Did they break the jaw or the skull to get at the morrow there?"

Yep, tusks falling out later, right along with the tooth scatter, the new, better, scenario for the upright tusk placement and an ancient date (it's all starting to fit together). I really need Ruth Gruhn to be correct.