Talk:Cerutti Mastodon site: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:54, 12 June 2018

Palaeontology Start‑class Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sounds like the 2015 dispute over a 24,000 year old mammoth in Maryland [1]--Moxy (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location?

Where is the site, precisely? Possibly at Coordinates: 32°40′12″N 117°02′31″W / 32.670136°N 117.042044°W / 32.670136; -117.042044, just south of Highway 54, in among the houses of Paseo De La Vista, Bonita? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quotation spelling

The quotation by prof. Waters presents an interesting case. He is American, where 'artifact' is the standard spelling (e.g., in the article Waters co-wrote:"Pre-Clovis Mastodon Hunting 13,800 Years Ago at the Manis Site, Washington." But when the BBC quotes him, it uses the British spelling, 'artefact.' So, when we are quoting, should we use the (inferred) spelling of the speaker or the (foreign) spelling of the quoting body? Kdammers (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they didn't ask him how he spelled it. Let's stick to "artifact". Doug Weller talk 17:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crticism

The only source we give for criticism is the BBC. But there are scientific articles calling the hominid connection into question, e.g, Haynes, Gary, 2017, "The Cerruti Mastodon," PaleoAmerica A journal of early human migration and dispersal Volume 3, 2017 - Issue 3https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2017.1330103 . Kdammers (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Downloadable from ResearchGate. If you can't get access email me. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A giant capuchin monkey is a better candidate for the smasher of the femurs and teeth of the Cerutti Mastodon than Homo sapiens.

See [2]. "My disagreement is not, in short, with the Cerutti team’s factual findings, but rather with their conclusion that there is “no other way that the material of the Cerutti Mastodon site could have been produced than through human activity.”[3] In this article I suggest that it is more likely that the Cerutti mastodon’s bones and teeth were smashed by an individual or individuals of a large platyrrhine monkey species descended from, or otherwise related to, the giant capuchin Acrecebus fraileyi." Doug Weller talk 18:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, but why not a bigfoot, then?

Seriously, There is already atleast one more super-ancient human site in America, Heyaltaco, even older. In 50 years the 'critics' simply forgot to dismiss it as they cannot proof their skepticism about its ancient age.

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 "My disagreement is not, in short, with the Cerutti team’s factual findings, but rather with their conclusion that there is “no other way that the material of the Cerutti Mastodon site could have been produced than through human activity.”[3] In this article I suggest that it is more likely that the Cerutti mastodon’s bones and teeth were smashed by an individual or individuals of a large platyrrhine monkey species descended from, or otherwise related to, the giant capuchin Acrecebus fraileyi."
 [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
+::Thank you for the link, but why not a bigfoot, then?
+Seriously, There is already atleast one more super-ancient human site in America, Heyaltaco, even older. In 50 years the 'critics' simply forgot to dismiss it as they cannot proof their skepticism about its ancient age.