Man in America 130,000 Years Ago?

[Charl]

A new study, published in the journal Nature, no less, offers to really upset the apple cart. And it might have been Neanderthals or Denisovan humans....

Controversial study claims humans reached Americas 100,000 years earlier than thought : Nature News & Comment

https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...AZ6ZdA28d1UA&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charl]

The second link above gives one access to the complete article in the journal Nature. That may be for a limited time, or maybe they are permitting access to get a wide audience for it. The first link above is a brief synopsis from the Nature website.

 

[ptsofnc]

The second link above gives one access to the complete article in the journal Nature. That may be for a limited time, or maybe they are permitting access to get a wide audience for it. The first link above is a brief synopsis from the Nature website.

Thanks. I saved it for when I have the patience to read it. The arch. community opinions and conclusions are all over the place. Constantly changing. Much disagreement.

 

[Charl]

Thanks. I saved it for when I have the patience to read it. The arch. community opinions and conclusions are all over the place. Constantly changing. Much disagreement.

That's often how it is with science. Look at physics. And the human element, the ego, can stymie innovation at times. That's the story of science too. I suspect we'll be surprised at how little we really knew when we thought we knew. But it shouldn't be a surprise. This isn't the only "impossible" date to emerge in the Americas over the decades. I don't think I'll live long enough to see it, but my money is on this new thinking being true. But, in the meantime, resistance will be fierce. As to be expected, so long as new research is not blackballed and ostracized.

 

[1320]

If you believe (most academia's do) that the continents were connected 200 million years ago, you should also believe that North American had an excellent chance of being populated long before Clovis arrived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

 

[ptsofnc]

There are so many mysteries (to us).

 

[unclemac]

one site, one mans opinion, does not a fact make....this one is so, so off the time line that it will be open to interpretation forever until corroborating evidence is found. the evidence reminds me a lot of what we say here..."nope, just rocks"....

 

[CHUDs]

It constantly amazes me that we think we know so much....time and again what we "know" has proven to be incorrect...don't sail off the side of the world!

 

[Oddjob]

Like gold, it is there, you just need to find the right location and go deep enough. Not shocking at all really.

 

[creekhunter]

Great read!

 

[Mrdigz]

Interesting read, thanks! I personally think Occupation of North America has been here well before 13,000 years. To be continued....

 

[sandchip]

Hopefully research can continue openly and freely and not be blackballed like Kennewick Man was.

 

[Charl]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HyfSsgCrjb0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GVeOoWmUnLw


The authors of the article and San Diego museum might be criticized for themselves making a big deal of it to the media. Coming out by press conference, even though it is in Nature, might seem presumptuous where their own study is concerned. It is exciting. But speaking of it as proven won't go down well even if it were irrefutable at first glance, which it won't be to most. Both from the point of view of reflexively defending that level of orthodoxy that resists "impossible" dates tooth and nail, and simply because it is only one site, the news should have been presented more cautiously. The way it was presented, I think, is an end run around the opinions of their peers. The team and museum had to know it would be highly controversial by its very nature, without making it sound like a foregone conclusion that changes everything.

Of course, it might. Eventually. But it's a confrontational stance almost, if you're an archaeologist elsewhere working in the peopling of the Americas, and here this small team telling the world they've made a discovery, and this is the brand new narrative. The archaeological community knows press conferences and single sites don't constitute new regimes generally. Science doesn't advance by decree.

So I guess I could view it as I've described, and maybe that's fair. The reaction will be stronger by reason of the aggressive presentation alone. I guess if that's what you want. It might bespeak of one hell of a confident position, in the long run, by the authors. They do have balls. They're confident in their case, and understand the implications would overturn the narrative still again. Hopefully, they're not just caught up in themselves, and actually not only have something with this site, but can advance their theory by finding more sites.

 

[Charl]

one site, one mans opinion, does not a fact make....this one is so, so off the time line that it will be open to interpretation forever until corroborating evidence is found. the evidence reminds me a lot of what we say here..."nope, just rocks"....

Yes, there are 2 main bones of contention. Are the rocks actual tools, and might the bones have been fractured by non-human means. See the second video I posted above for a closer look at the rocks, in an effort to answer the first question. These are not the kind of hammerstones we experienced collectors are able to readily identify. But the much closer look they took, and a comparison to geological processes, might demonstrate that they were used as hammers....

 

[tonykidd]

Anthropologists use deduction and inference based upon past science to reach conclusions. On this point, they have been missing the boat for many years, even going so far as to ignore carbon dating that doesn't jive with expectations or "common" knowledge. North and South America have long thought to have been uninhabited prior to 13,500 years ago. How does this make any sense at all? With the majority of this area not covered by ice during the last Ice Age, are we to believe that this huge area, with all of it's resources and compatible climate, was uninhabited by humans?
I've seen firsthand the absolute stubbornness the purveyors of conventional wisdom in anthropology have displayed, the most recent being the discovery of the Clovis tools at the Ladson-Page site outside of Tallahassee, Florida.. Many of these so-called "experts" have been proven wrong, and are now trying to defend their positions by attacking irrefutable new evidence that throws conventionality out of the window. Academics must publish to be viable, so it is understandably difficult to be shown that, in some cases, entire career positions must now be altered to show a new line of thinking.
This is no exception, and will be a bone of contention for many years among archaeologists and anthropologists alike. As avocationals, we have the advantage of being able to easily change and adapt our theories and beliefs without reprisal. It will be interesting.