Parsons Island in Chesapeake Bay in the news with archaeological discoveries which would seem to date human presence about 7,000 years earlier than most commonly believed as coming over the Bering land bridge after the Ice Age. Similar dating in earlier discoveries in New Mexico but that would seem to come up from the south. This passage about small population collapse may be disturbing to the DeSantis types in terms of making a natural law argument in favor of diversity Let’s suppose you have a successful population colonizing an area, and then one day, 15 males go out and get eaten by a short-faced bear,” Lowery said. “You reduce the genetic diversity, and bada boom, bada bing, game over.”
Working politics into a completely unrelated archaeological discovery, never change Too Hot. By the way, there have been a bunch of pieces of evidence for older human habitation here, though they have had a hard time gaining traction. But Oxford has a study that said it’s likely 30k years. The earliest Americans arrived in the New World 30,000 years ago | University of Oxford
I just went by what it said in the piece. And yes, I couldn't resist a hobby horse about genetic diversity being vital when the concert is under irrational philosophical attack
As far as the date, I wasn’t criticizing you posting it, it’s very interesting. It is just that these things keep coming up and every time it supposedly defies conventional wisdom. But sites like Bluefish Caves to the north in the Yukon and Santa Elina in Brazil have shown similar numbers for years. Plus the New Mexico find, the one you just posted and the Oxford simulation. So there’s evidence in far North America, far South America, and two points in between. The wisdom needs to start changing it seems.
I’m no expert for sure, just a history major who really enjoys stuff like this so I follow it a bit. I just think science is slow to change and none of the sites are hard core slam dunks. They will come around eventually if the evidence continues to pile up. I know you enjoy reading, this is an article about the guy who discovered Blue Fish and the resistance he faced and still faces. From Vilified to Vindicated: the Story of Jacques Cinq-Mars | Hakai Magazine
Or the London (Texas) Hammer found encased in stone. An Anomaly in Stone: The London Hammer’s Unexplained Presence The London Hammer is a captivating archaeological discovery that has fascinated researchers and enthusiasts alike. Encased in rock, this peculiar artifact has raised numerous questions about its origin, purpose, and the possibility of a vastly different ancient history. With its enigmatic presence, the London Hammer has become an intriguing anomaly that challenges our understanding of the past. Unveiling the London Hammer The London Hammer came to light in the mid-20th century when it was discovered by a local couple, Max and Emma Hahn, while exploring a remote area near London, Texas. Intrigued by the peculiar rock formation, they decided to investigate further and were astounded to find a metal hammerhead encased within it. Recognizing the significance of their find, the Hahns sought expert opinions and eventually handed over the artifact for scientific examination. Careful analysis of the London Hammer revealed several intriguing aspects. The metal hammerhead, composed predominantly of iron, exhibited signs of advanced corrosion. Surprisingly, the wooden handle appeared to have partially fossilized, suggesting a considerable age. The overall design of the hammerhead resembled those commonly used by humans, raising questions about its origin and purpose. Notably, the artifact displayed no signs of casting or molding, indicating that it was likely forged by hand. This observation added to the perplexity surrounding its presence within the solid rock formation, as its discovery implied an extraordinary scenario of a man-made object trapped in geological strata.
Trump has just made a stunning announcement. Archeologists digging in an old basement at Mar-a-Lago have found a 30,000-year-old inscription that says "America First."
Reading this now. Thanks. I am now realizing how vicious the reaction can be if you upset the dominant paradigm. More substantively, first question I had is whether the “humanoids” (term deliberately chosen), who he is discovering evidence of anthropologically are descended from the same line, or whether it is a separate evolutionary line that evolved here and died out. I guess the “lower” primate not being in the Americas would dispel that as I think about it, but it would address the Bering land bridge issue. Also sea travel? The distance to Southern Chile around the poles. Will need to look at. Either way, I recall that Clovis had been debunked, but nor by 12000 years. This seems dispositive In general, the critics focused their attacks on two major fronts. They questioned whether key artifacts at proposed pre-Clovis sites were really made by humans, as opposed to natural processes. And they pored over presentations and reports for any possible errors in dating.
This whole subject is kind of a cool rabbit hole to go down, because there’s just enough evidence to be backed by science but not enough to avoid romantic ideas of new species (the Flores hobbits for example) or crazy old finds (Bluefish or the one in the OP) that change our understanding of humanity. To be fair though to the skeptics, when someone tries to upend a long held scientific belief which is backed by decades of evidence and careful scientific review, they should face pushback. Just some of it always seems over the top and petty. This happens a lot in science from what I’ve seen and was my frustration in the OP article. I am sure they talked to an archaeologist for background who didn’t even acknowledge the outstanding questions.
Good article. I've also been keeping up with developments over the years and seen the "arrival date" pushed back. Those who reflexively resist the increasingly older dates seem, to my mind, to underestimate the ingenuity and resiliency of Homo sapiens. Tampa stated: "I am now realizing how vicious the reaction can be if you upset the dominant paradigm." The hardest thing for us humans to do is admit when we're wrong. (We see it all the time on TH, where positions are entrenched and resistant to new facts.) This is especially so when one's professional livelihood is at stake.
More evidence btw. Was This Giant, Armadillo-Like Animal Butchered by Humans in Argentina 21,000 Years Ago? | Smithsonian
I watched an episode or two on Jacques Cing-Mars. I can't remember where (Netflix or Prime), or what the name of the series was.
This was unrelated to the OP, but when speaking about how vicious scientists can be with one another over discoveries, it reminded me of this discussion… it’s a great read. Long but interesting. The Feud Tearing the Paleontology World Apart
