00:00.00 archpodnet Hello and welcome to the pseudo archeology podcast episode 102 and I'm your host Andrew Kingkella tonight we look at the sirrudi mastodon site. Why are we looking at this site that kind of is a site. But kind of isn't a site but kind of is a site find out so here we are at the sirrudi mastodon site and I have to tell you guys. I hate myself for doing this episode I hate myself for doing this one why because on this show, we're so used to talking about real fraud. You know the Eric von dinekins of the world right? The thing. You know, shrouded to ran this one is different. This one takes a bit of a deeper dive and a deeper think because this example deals with real archeologists and a real site that. Ultimately got sucked up into the media machine and spit out the other side in a very disingenuous manner I would say and so what do I mean by this, you know first. 01:33.78 archpodnet This one kind of fell on my lap for several different reasons first as I always tell you guys I do these based on what kind of comes up on my phone. You know when I Google for archeology just see what see what the world is seeing on their phone and on their news apps. And this Rudy Mastodon site came up and then also on top of that I saw some other really weak research that was using the sarudi mastodon site as an example to bolster their weak research. So I was like oh now I got to tackle this one. And then finally we'll put the nail in the coffin for tonight is that my fellow podcasting friends over at life and ruins happened to do this Rudy Mastodon site a while ago and they were. Running an encore episode of it so I will definitely put a link to that down in the in the show notes. But I listened to their show and man that was a killer show that the life and ruins guys did they were bold. They were factual. Was fantastic and and after I saw that they did it I'm like hey man if they could do it I'll do it because I need to do it. The sirudy mastodon site was a mastodon. 03:02.54 archpodnet I know you're shocked. It was a mastodon that was found in San Diego County in 9092 and it was found as part of a crm archeology project. This is archeology for hire this is where an archeologist goes out and works with construction workers. And make sure they're not digging up native american burial sites and so on right I think we get this but the archaeologist out there that day they were widening a road and he saw a mastodon Tusk sticking out of there so that's really exciting and really amazing that. Does happen right? We do have all kinds of really cool mega fauna in Southern California that come up from time to time. These are the creatures of the ice age and it was ultimately going to be dated to one hundred and thirty thousand years old which. Is very fair in terms of mastodons and if you don't know what mastodon is it's like a woolly mammoth minus the woolly right? This is a large elephant like creature from the ice age from the pleistocene. So. This story though didn't really break until 2017 when an article in nature came out about the sarudi mastodon site already. Don't you have a couple questions like it was found in 9092? Why do. 04:33.65 archpodnet Came out in 2017 and yeah, you know and the hundred and thirty thousand years thing seems like no big deal. Why why is King Kella worried about this well when I first heard this story I was like what. When I saw the date of 130000 and then my next reaction was oh no here we go. Why am I so negative and worried because the archeologists who found the mastodon. Said that human beings butchered it and when I first say that you're like big deal can kill a human beings butchered mastodons you know and I'm sure they did it one hundred and thirty thousand years ago yes but not in the new world. So this is what makes makes this so crazy so wild is that they're claiming human beings were there to butcher the mastodon a hundred and thirty thousand years ago right and that is wild because that would throw our whole timeline. Peopling of the new world into total disarray because you know I would say that peopleing of the new world when human beings first got to north and South America I think of it as the single hardest question to answer. 06:07.90 archpodnet In all of archeology I'm not kidding you guys. It's the one I pick when people ask me? what do you? Think's the hardest thing because the evidence is so difficult to deal with it's relatively rare. It's very spread out. Um. You're talking about timelines where when you have ice ages the ice age itself sucked up water from the oceans so coastlines were three hundred feet below modern sea level. So you're going to have lots of sites that are underwater and have been for a long time. Um, you know how did the first people get here when did the first people get here which route did they take that stuff is super contentious and really difficult. It is so difficult I've you know put a toe in those waters a little bit over the years and it's just. 07:03.30 archpodnet It's tough and I have respect for people who are trying to deal with it because it it is just intrinsically difficult. So with all that said, the current good science. Good data is going to place peopleing of the new world like the first humans to. Set foot on the Americas and it was most likely North America oh let's say sixteen and a half thousand years ago give or take you know if you say fifteen and a half that's not crazy if you say seventeen and a half that's not crazy, but somewhere in there. Right? That's when the evidence shows us that the first human beings got to the new world by crossing the bearing land bridge most likely along the beaches taking a very coastal route from the bering land bridge because again, it's going to be the ice age. So. There's no water there. There's land. The ah shoreline is three hundred feet below where it is now so they just walk straight over from the tippy top of Russia over there across and into the new world now. 08:17.12 archpodnet Ah, hundred and thirty thousand years ago is not even close to 17 right? It's plus what a 15000 so it's wildly far away from the accepted knowledge in the accepted science. It's way out. 08:35.76 archpodnet And there have been other problems with dealing with this in the past too you may have heard of the clovis mafia which is the world's most unscary gang of nerdy archeologists now if you listen to. Pseudo archeologists. They always bang on about the clovis mafia as a great example of how archeology is so blind what the clovis mafia is it was a group of scientists I would say in the 70 s maybe into the eighty s that thought that um. Clovis artifacts and clovis culture. This is just a name that go it goes with a certain type of spear point and it's also used to say oh these people that are about oh um, 11000 years old 12000 years old and in that vicinity you know you know it's so funny I always forget. Exactly when Clovis is is it 11000 years before present or 11000 bc doesn't matter too much I'll look it up later and through the wonders of modern technology. You guys I just looked it up I paused the recording and looked it up. Deal with that and clovis is indeed this is why I get it messed up. It's ah it's about thirteen thousand years ago about 11000 Bc right? give or take a little bit depending on the carbon 14 dates and the error in this kind of thing. But so. 10:09.78 archpodnet My point there is that the clovis mafia said that there was no humans before that and they kind of had that hard date at thirteen thousand years ago give or take you know thirteen and a half they'll give you that and they would they would. Shout down other academics who would even say oh maybe it's maybe it's fourteen and a half you know and and obviously that was overbearing and silly and um, overcooked nerds are never fun. But. 10:45.80 archpodnet Archaeologists always blow this way out of proportion I'll tell you this guys I was in college in the 90 s and we were joking about the clovis mafia then right and by we I don't mean just the students of professors too. They'd be like yeah you know the clovis mavia thing but but pseudo archeologists will. Keep that up and they'll be like oh you know the clovis mafia it's like dude, nobody's even given a damn about that for like 30 years we know it was silly and so now we've dated many many sites that you would call pre clovis you know there are there are real. Dates of 32000 stuff in the low 14 s you know you'll you'll get that kind of stuff once you're tipping tiptoeing up to fifteen though it gets pretty pretty sparse out there. Ah so that's the world. That the cirudy mastodon site is going to come into when they publish their stuff in 2017 and and again so we know nature the magazine nature is super super well respected. So this isn't just a fly by night secondary thing. This is this is a big deal. So. We really need to look at their evidence very closely now. Okay, you're saying that this sites one hundred and thirty thousand years old hey are the dates decent. Okay, you're saying there's evidence of human beings here. Okay, what are the artifacts look like what what data do you have. 12:12.45 archpodnet And we're gonna have to parse this out very very carefully now when we come back a more focused history on the saruy mastodon site and why it's become such a pain in my ass. We'll be right back.