Archaeologica.org

http://www.patagoniatimes.cl/index.php/ ... EMENT.html

Archeologists in southern Chile’s Region X are continuing to revel in the chance 2007 discovery of molars and bones belonging to a stegomastodon, a species of prehistoric elephant. Their ongoing research suggests that the site, known as La Plata, could eventually rival nearby Monte Verde in terms of historical significance.
The stegomastodon (gonfoterio in Spanish) is a prehistoric mammal that looks like a stronger version of the modern elephant. It lived in the Andes region approximately 13,000 years ago.

Thanks for the link Min.
This will be fun to watch.
I am waiting for them to find some scrimshaw carved on one of those tusks!

According to Wikipedia "the Stegomastodon species occupied warmer, lower-altitude habitats east of the Andes, while the related gomphothere Cuvieronius hyodon occupied cooler, higher-altitude habitats".

Aren't Monte Verde and La Plata relatively low on the west side of the Andes?

Gee. Wiki might have gotten something wrong? Imagine that?




Anyway, you're right. Monte Verde is West of the Andes, relatively near the sea, and about half way along the Chilean coast. I assuming that the new site is nearby because they said so.

There is an inlet there (use Google maps for Monte Verde) opening into what looks like a good sized bay which keeps my cherished boats in the mix!

Minimalist wrote:Gee. Wiki might have gotten something wrong? Imagine that?

No, I don't think so in this case. The Andes are the second highest mountain range on the face of the earth. About twice as high as the Alps and the Rockies. And barren. That's a formidable obstacle for vegetarian pachyderms. Literally an insurmountable one, I think. Remember Hannibal trying to get 28 war elephants across the Alps? At 'only' half the Andes altitude exactly one elephant made it across to the Italian battle fields! So I have a very hard time conceiving of Stegawhatsisname west of the Andes.

There is an inlet there (use Google maps for Monte Verde) opening into what looks like a good sized bay which keeps my cherished boats in the mix!

Of course! But pachyderms rafting or swimming east across the Pacific to populate the coast of Chile is a bit too much for even me.

So what's the story here? It don't jive.

Except...if the bones are on BOTH sides of the Andes then, ipso facto, Wiki is wrong to say that they were not. Unless one wants to speculate that primitive man carried them across the Andes just so they could screw with Wikipedia when it was finally invented.

Down in Patagonia the Andes aren't nearly so big (no more than 2,000 metres IIRC) and there are river valleys that (today) lead from Argentina into Chile.

Sam Salmon wrote:Down in Patagonia the Andes aren't nearly so big (no more than 2,000 metres IIRC)

2,000 Meters is "no more than" the average Rocky or Alp. A very effective pachyderm barrier.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

Sam Salmon wrote:Down in Patagonia the Andes aren't nearly so big (no more than 2,000 metres IIRC)

2,000 Meters is "no more than" the average Rocky or Alp. A very effective pachyderm barrier.

We all see/hear/perceive what we want to.

and there are river valleys that....lead from Argentina into Chile.

My point is that there is no impenetrable wall that stops species of any kind from passing from one side of Patagonia to the other-that is nonsense.

It would hardly be the first time that Wikipedia was wrong.

In fact....there are some people who don't think it has ever been right.

Minimalist wrote:It would hardly be the first time that Wikipedia was wrong.

In fact....there are some people who don't think it has ever been right.

They tested that precept 2 years ago. They compared a couple thousand random entries in Wikipedia with entries on the same subjects in the Encyclopædia Britannica. The latter had 12% more mistakes than the former...

And that 12% was wrong for the same reason that Wiki is wrong in regards to the Stego. New evidence was discovered AFTER publishing. Luckily for Wiki, it's much easier to update.

Sam Salmon wrote:My point is that there is no impenetrable wall that stops species of any kind from passing from one side of Patagonia to the other-that is nonsense.

Especially if there are desirable females and/or food on the other side.

Forum Monk wrote:

Sam Salmon wrote:My point is that there is no impenetrable wall that stops species of any kind from passing from one side of Patagonia to the other-that is nonsense.

Especially if there are desirable females and/or food on the other side.

Ever seen the Chilean/West Patagonian/Andean landscape, Monk? I have. Been there, done that.
Rocks, rocks, and rocks. It's like a moonscape. Nothing grows there. It's a giant rock desert.
There is/was nothing there for a pachyderm from the rich eastern pampas to aspire to. No flora = no food. And thus no females either.
Also, 15,000 years ago the Würm was still going on. So, unbelievable as it may seem if you know the present landscape, the Andes and west Patagonia were even colder and dryer than today. Thus the Andes and west Patagonia were even more impenetrable to elephantine fauna then than they are today.

Show me a rich, green flora on the Andes' west side, 15,000 years ago, and I'll be willing to consider pachyderms there. But those would have come south in a looong walk from the north. Along a green coast, on the Andes' west side. They didn't cross the high and dry Andes, because they couldn't.
However, Chile has never been green and/or wet in the last 60,000 years. There wasn't a habitat for elephantine creatures during the entire Würm on the Andes' west side.
Today there still isn't, but that's moot of course, as there are no pachyderms in south America anymore.
(unless you count tapirs, but you won't find any of those outside the dense lowland tropical rain forest).

And yet the bones are there.....

Perhaps the Monte Verdeans carried them over the Andes when they were done with the boating season?

Seriously, if the bones are correctly identified (and, I'd have to hope they were careful about that before making the announcement) then they either lived there or were brought there.