Humerus I.d. Request

[Auspex]

I guess I missed the vehement controversy part; I just think it's a fascinating bone, and would like to know what it is.

[Harry Pristis]

ok, lessee, we collectively could not identify a raccoon jaw over several days of guessing, but people have me all jammed up over posting pictures of a bone that has distinct differences from every picture I could find online of a human humerus.

to those who "wish me luck", i don't need it, as the circumstances hypothesized are not fact, and the statutes referenced do not apply.

one sort of unrelated point to that - i have seen people huddle online in the past and debate the finer points of law before, when they obviously had no legal training or background. hopefully they don't also do medical procedures and tax preparation.

thank everyone for their thoughts. i obviously had no idea that one of my random fossil postings would cause such a stir, and i will certainly attempt now to memorize enough osteology to avoid accidently posting any picture of anything that might resemble a human bone. it just never crossed my mind when i was thinking about horses, camels, etc.

Take it easy, 'tracer.' I was teasing you, but it was a tease with a point.

If your bone is human (and you'll have to confirm that locally), and none of your neighbors is missing <black humor>, your bone may be from a 5,000 year old Native-American.

The law-enforcement presumption is, if you have a bone (and perhaps artifacts), you have disturbed a burial. Your bone and artifacts could be seized as evidence. It would then be up to you to prove in court or administrative hearing that you never disturbed a burial. There are lots of precedents for this sort of prosecution. Whatever the outcome, it's never good for the collector.

Don't be bent out of shape over this. All the posts here are sympathetic, not hostile or critical.

[Evans]

ok, lessee, we collectively could not identify a raccoon jaw over several days of guessing, but people have me all jammed up over posting pictures of a bone that has distinct differences from every picture I could find on line of a human humerus.

to those who "wish me luck", i don't need it, as the circumstances hypothesized are not fact, and the statutes referenced do not apply.

one sort of unrelated point to that - i have seen people huddle online in the past and debate the finer points of law before, when they obviously had no legal training or background. hopefully they don't also do medical procedures and tax preparation.

thank everyone for their thoughts. i obviously had no idea that one of my random fossil postings would cause such a stir, and i will certainly attempt now to memorize enough osteology to avoid accidently posting any picture of anything that might resemble a human bone. it just never crossed my mind when i was thinking about horses, camels, etc.

Tracer,

I have often wondered about the same situation that you are in right now and honestly do not how I would proceed. If I found fossilized human remains in the field would I collect them and then report it, leave them and then report it or simply act dumb (not a hard part to play for me) and see what is around the next bend.

I hope you will keep us posted on the progression of this situation as I think it would be a great educational experience for most of us.

Again, and sincerely, good luck,

Brian

[Uncle Siphuncle]

All right boys and girls, when I found that Native American woman's skull and turned it in to the homicide detective (then the medical examiner and ultimately a school where it still resides) he told me there were no laws against having it in my possession. It was found on a gravel bar so there was no associated cultural evidence; it was an isolated find. Lacking maxillary bones and teeth, many clues have been lost to the ages. Lab testing labeled it as having no forensic significance, and it couldn't even be assigned to a tribe. It is my feeling that since so much of the "Pleistocene" material found in rivers and creeks and beaches is indeterminate tumbled material, half the time or more you don't know if you are picking up part of a deer, human, etc. How many of us can even tell a rolled horse from a camel from a tapir lumbar vert? I certainly can't. Since Tracer wasn't back hoeing some burial ground he doesn't stand to face any legal repercussions in TX no matter what he found. Now I think I'll go breathe in some fresh air and find some fossils...

[Harry Pristis]

You're right, Dan. Tracer is a long way from having his collection seized by the authorities. The attention that your own find got should alert all of us that this is a sensitive area.

Worldwide, the treatment of human remains is burdened with taboos and spiritual significance. Many of these taboos have been institutionalized into the law. And it works well for us -- head-hunting is not practiced; scalps are not trophies any more; burials in cemetaries usually go unmolested.

Still, a collector of bones can be put into an awkward situation. It pays to be careful, to know what you're doing. That's all I suggest.

[MikeD]

If that bone came from the area that I think it did and if it is human and even if there was a burial at one time, then any trace of it would have long since been destroyed by the elements before the modern, civilized man of the last few hundred years even came to the area.

[Tracer Jr.]

i pulled the bone out of a river gravel bed, not a burial site. good grief people.

[Harry Pristis]

If that bone came from the area that I think it did and if it is human and even if there was a burial at one time, then any trace of it would have long since been destroyed by the elements before the modern, civilized man of the last few hundred years even came to the area.

No one here believes that 'tracer' has been digging up burials. Where the bone (assuming it is human) was found is not the issue. The issue is the sensitivity that goes with any human remains. Somebody is likely to have an interest -- law enforcement agencies of the state or even Indian tribes. Remember "Kennewick Man"? A bone collector has to be aware.

[Auspex]

i pulled the bone out of a river gravel bed, not a burial site. good grief people.

Never for a minute thought elsewise!

[explorer1]

Tracer,

I have often wondered about the same situation that you are in right now and honestly do not how I would proceed. If I found fossilized human remains in the field would I collect them and then report it, leave them and then report it or simply act dumb (not a hard part to play for me) and see what is around the next bend.

I hope you will keep us posted on the progression of this situation as I think it would be a great educational experience for most of us.

Again, and sincerely, good luck,

Brian

well carbon date the thing then bury back lol

[MikeD]

No one here believes that 'tracer' has been digging up burials. Where the bone (assuming it is human) was found is not the issue. The issue is the sensitivity that goes with any human remains. Somebody is likely to have an interest -- law enforcement agencies of the state or even Indian tribes. Remember "Kennewick Man"? A bone collector has to be aware.

Don't remember, so I looked it up. Interesting. I see your point. Thanks.

[JohnJ]

Tracer,

Although there is similarity with a human humerous, I tried to think of other Pleistocene animals with a close range of motion to humans. Sloth seemed too robust. Now, I'm leaning toward a bear humerous.

cave bear

[kauffy]

i pulled the bone out of a river gravel bed, not a burial site. good grief people.

Auspex- Never for a minute thought elsewise!

Bah me either, ive been reading this post with close interest, awaiting a conclusion! it would be interesting to have found human remains (whether thats the conclusion?) completly by accident.. i dont think they have any grounds taking you to court for pulling a bone out of a gravel bar while fossil hunting!

[tracer]

JohnJ - thanks. i was not going to post anything else regarding this matter, but you are correct that it appears far more similar to a bear humerus than a human. you can zoom in on the picture at http://www.greatbasinheritage.org/wpmuseum.htm and see the similar features that were missing in the previous comparison. the thickness, the "side wing" on the distal end, the lack of raised features on the bearing surface of that end that i originally pointed out.

there were too many things ignored, thrown in, hypothesized, etc. with the singular facts of what the pictures showed, which more or less caused a devolution into an ad hominem, or ad hominem circumstantiae argument, in my opinion. and i have to wonder why.

there was never any issue other than the identification i'd requested. i had in situ pictures all along. nobody asked.

[Harry Pristis]

JohnJ - thanks. i was not going to post anything else regarding this matter, but you are correct that it appears far more similar to a bear humerus than a human. you can zoom in on the picture at http://www.greatbasinheritage.org/wpmuseum.htm and see the similar features that were missing in the previous comparison. the thickness, the "side wing" on the distal end, the lack of raised features on the bearing surface of that end that i originally pointed out.

there were too many things ignored, thrown in, hypothesized, etc. with the singular facts of what the pictures showed, which more or less caused a devolution into an ad hominem, or ad hominem circumstantiae argument, in my opinion. and i have to wonder why.

there was never any issue other than the identification i'd requested. i had in situ pictures all along. nobody asked.

You sound so wounded, 'tracer'! I suppose, if it feels like people are out to get you, occasionally they are. But not here. We're just interested in your humerus from the river.

JohnJ's suggestion of bear is a reasonable one. The "side-wing" is called a "lateral supracondyloid ridge" in technical terms.

Here is a line-drawing of a bear humerus for comparison.

[Uncle Siphuncle]

Hey Tracer if you found bear you are one up on me! Or could it be Timothy Treadwell's humerus....

[tracer]

Dan, I will never be "one up" on you.

JohnJ - thank you very much for your continued work on the ID and your correct conclusion.

Here's the deal. There were obvious signs from the very beginning that the "human" ID couldn't be right. I gave four views of the bone. The superficial "layout" may have been similar, but nothing else matched, and the thing was WAY too structurally stout to be human. The structure of the bone was to support vast amounts of muscle - Ursus Americanus muscle.

i would not have wasted the time of busy professionals over this matter except for the fact that things posted regarding the bone spun it up in a very public way to the point where i felt it should be dealt with. So it was referred to an appropriate state agency, which referred it to an archeologist, who probably had a great laugh before referring it to an expert at an educational institution who specializes in assisting archeologists with analyzing faunal remains at archeological sites. And, <drumroll>, that person stated it definitely wasn't human, and agreed with JohnJ's assessment that it was a bear. Specifically, Ursus Americanus.

Now, if you google and study Ursus Americanus, you'll find that President Roosevelt was invited to hunt them in 1907 in the Big Thicket in east Texas. You will also find that they apparently are making a comeback and live in the area NOW. I will say that, personally speaking, after this deal, and having a bear come at my son and I a couple of months back in west Texas, i'm a bit tired of bears, and not in favor of them making the big comeback that alligators have.

[Auspex]

...i'm a bit tired of bears, and not in favor of them making the big comeback that alligators have.

In that case, "surviving the northern winters" is not just a question of temperature:

[tracer]

awww, how CUTE! <slowing traversing and elevating belt-fed machine gun>

[mommabetts]

Go for it tracer, bear meat is really, really good. Slow cooked over an open fire, a little BBQ sauce, make you want to slap your momma.

[tracer]

Go for it tracer, bear meat is really, really good. Slow cooked over an open fire, a little BBQ sauce, make you want to slap your momma.

um, that seems a bit kinky. but let me think about it a bit. it might grow on me as a concept.

[JohnJ]

.... you can zoom in on the picture at http://www.greatbasinheritage.org/wpmuseum.htm and see the similar features that were missing in the previous comparison. ....

Looks like a lot more bones on that skeleton that could be found where you found the humerus....

[Tracer Jr.]

so looking at a fossilized bear bone causes you peoples mouths to water? roasting and eating BEARS? i feel so normal when i read these posts

[Auspex]

...i feel so normal when i read these posts

Don't fret about it son, you'll get over it.

[screweduptexan]

WOW.

How did I miss this one?!

BTW, if it is human (hotly debated), you have not offended many and there is no reason for anyone to be offended. You did no harm and were not disrepectful in any way. I have not seen that any one is offended per se, I am just saying. And I can say b/c my g-grandmother was a member of a Native American tribe and so you have not offended me.

Very interesting indeed.

Let us know what the final outcome is.