Evidence of human occupation in Mexico around the Last Glacial Maximum

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Perhaps the oldest known site is Monte Verde, Chile. 20 years ago, I heard mutterings out of there that pointed to 40 KYA. It's all about what can be proven, and as technology improves, so do dating techniques.

My question was relevant then: Wouldn't people from the north migrate south. It also follows of course that people from the south, considering a global and not local ice age, would emigrate north from the south.

Can you explain a bit more to balance your gotcha statement?

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

The establishment and sell out archaeologists can (SNIP) my (SNIP) (SNIP).

Just wonder what are they hiding from us.

My gut knows. But he aint saying .

Well why don't you tell us I never made any great finds - if you know where history changing stuff IS and you don't tell anyone then that makes YOU the person hiding stuff.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Can you explain a bit more to balance your gotcha statement?

Not at all meant as a 'gotcha statement', and I'm sorry if you took it that way. We are looking at multiple paths at various times. Some could have happened simultaneously...it's a big place. But by no means was I mocking you...I was expanding on your statement.

a reply to: TimHeller

Thanks so much for posting this info. As soon as I began reading about it, I thought about the finds you’ve added.

I am curious about migration patterns as well. I don’t know how the Earth’s climate was 250k years ago or 40k. I’ll have to look it up. Migration or adaptation of animals would occur depending on the areas and how fast the climate changed. Time to research.


Found a link 800k years of Earth’s Climate

Although much more recent, look at how far the Polynesians made it across the Pacific. There is the idea that earliest migrations were in boats from the north ice berg hopping (more less) and traveling the coast southward. Before the melt, the sea level was lower and those old coastal areas are now under water. Early campsites and colonies are now likely under the ocean, be they from migrations over land or water.

It seems obvious to me that archeology is a study that involves starting from the present and working backward in time. Therefore, as archeology builds its data base and as new information comes in, it allows the study to go further back in time. This can take many years as it gets harder to find artifacts the further back you go. I expect they will continue to find evidence of humans in the New World that confirms the earlier dates.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Although much more recent, look at how far the Polynesians made it across the Pacific. There is the idea that earliest migrations were in boats from the north ice berg hopping (more less) and traveling the coast southward. Before the melt, the sea level was lower and those old coastal areas are now under water. Early campsites and colonies are now likely under the ocean, be they from migrations over land or water.

There are a number of models that are currently being given active consideration, including trans-Pacific and coastal shoreline. The latter, in particular, is turning into a gimme for the reasons you cite. Boats, yes, but they could have walked, too. Underwater searches are being done, and are resulting in sites just where they oughtta be. DNA is adding to the deductive process. However, the trans-Atlantic Solutrean hypothesis is being slammed for a variety of reasons. Healthy debate continues...as it should.

Told y'all so

From the BBC...
Earliest evidence for humans in the Americas

From Nature...Controversial cave discoveries suggest humans reached Americas much earlier than thought

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Although much more recent, look at how far the Polynesians made it across the Pacific. There is the idea that earliest migrations were in boats from the north ice berg hopping (more less) and traveling the coast southward. Before the melt, the sea level was lower and those old coastal areas are now under water. Early campsites and colonies are now likely under the ocean, be they from migrations over land or water.

There are a number of models that are currently being given active consideration, including trans-Pacific and coastal shoreline. The latter, in particular, is turning into a gimme for the reasons you cite. Boats, yes, but they could have walked, too. Underwater searches are being done, and are resulting in sites just where they oughtta be. DNA is adding to the deductive process. However, the trans-Atlantic Solutrean hypothesis is being slammed for a variety of reasons. Healthy debate continues...as it should.

Damn! You got some book learning my neighbor in the Great White North. Makes me want to drink maple beer and eat Canadian bacon while I watch a hockey game, sort of.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

This is a no brainer. The given theory that we came 12-10k years ago across the land bridge has never made sense given all the sites in North and South America with those same ages. Like we all ran full speed across the land bridge, knew exactly where to go and immediately started building temples and city complexes.

Native American authors have tried to tell us for a long time they have been here longer than we claimed and we ignored them. Thank god some white scientist finally figured it out to make the news lol.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
Told y'all so

Howdy Punkinworks10

Yep you certainly did and we told you THEN that with the evidence we had THEN itwasn't good enough to over turn the existing theories and that more evidence would be needed and the good old mainstream went out and found it.

If it holds up the theories will be adjusted. Looks good to me despite a lack of human bones and DNA.

originally posted by: FishBait
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
This is a no brainer. The given theory that we came 12-10k years ago across the land bridge has never made sense given all the sites in North and South America with those same ages. Like we all ran full speed across the land bridge, knew exactly where to go and immediately started building temples and city complexes.
Native American authors have tried to tell us for a long time they have been here longer than we claimed and we ignored them. Thank god some white scientist finally figured it out to make the news lol.

A few things to unpack, here...
First off, First Nations oral histories are being given increasingly more credence by archaeologists. As they should be. But it can't be forgotten that much of it is as historically accurate as the Bible. I leave you to sort that one out.

This may be a no brainer, as you say, but even the most reasonable supposition must be backed up by evidence in order to become part of the knowledge base. The exclusive Beringia theory has been trashed for a number of years. This just puts yet another stake in it.

And it's fun to bandy about the image of the 'white scientist', but modern archaeological practices encourage inclusiveness and diversity, especially with respect to descendent populations. This also includes promoting Indigenous education in archaeology, at all levels...from monitor and liaison duties to post secondary education.

Finally, many First Nations have discovered the value of of archaeology in establishing scientifically supported time frames that are essential to successful land claims and restitution for historic losses.

So it ain't all bad.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: FishBait
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
This is a no brainer. The given theory that we came 12-10k years ago across the land bridge has never made sense given all the sites in North and South America with those same ages. Like we all ran full speed across the land bridge, knew exactly where to go and immediately started building temples and city complexes.
Native American authors have tried to tell us for a long time they have been here longer than we claimed and we ignored them. Thank god some white scientist finally figured it out to make the news lol.

A few things to unpack, here...
First off, First Nations oral histories are being given increasingly more credence by archaeologists. As they should be. But it can't be forgotten that much of it is as historically accurate as the Bible. I leave you to sort that one out.

This may be a no brainer, as you say, but even the most reasonable supposition must be backed up by evidence in order to become part of the knowledge base. The exclusive Beringia theory has been trashed for a number of years. This just puts yet another stake in it.

And it's fun to bandy about the image of the 'white scientist', but modern archaeological practices encourage inclusiveness and diversity, especially with respect to descendent populations. This also includes promoting Indigenous education in archaeology, at all levels...from monitor and liaison duties to post secondary education.

Finally, many First Nations have discovered the value of of archaeology in establishing scientifically supported time frames that are essential to successful land claims and restitution for historic losses.

So it ain't all bad.

I know, I'm being a bit cynical. At the same time there is no denying that science is run by money (funding) just like everything and results can be influenced. We see this in all fields. Scientist themselves will admit things get jaded by money and people not wanting to give up a theory they were involved in establishing. They attack and trash each other to be the one whose theory is on top. Ego affects all. There is also no denying Native American studies have been heavily skewed by whites who needed the narrative of wild natives that hadn't been here long to be true so it fit their genocidal manifest destiny. This has held fast for a very long time and has been accepted with out question. Thankfully it's finally starting to turn a little.

I wasn't really talking about oral histories, there are Native American writers like Vine Deloria that have provided well thought out theories with decent evidence since the 90's and earlier. Sure, some of the findings have been claimed to be misdated or hoaxes (not by Vine but by the discoverer) but plenty he sites have been shown to be true and again this is a common thing in science that we discover something, think we understand it and later find out we need to modify it based on new finding.

Even before reading Vine I had had a similar "thought experiment" when we were being told we came over the land bridge 10-12k years ago and also we had found sites near that age in Eastern US and Central America. It just made no sense to a lay person and should have been questioned more by science. How could stone age people on foot navigate the land bridge and the very narrow corridor (there was still a lot of ice up there! and mountains!) from (what is now) Alaska, through Canada and quickly spread all over the US and Central/South America with established city complexes. There is no way it happened that fast.

It would have been nice for the scientist to have admitted that and say they were working in earnest to find the evidence. This is not uncommon at all that scientists say "well it only makes sense if there is this other thing we haven't found yet so we are looking and believe it's there". With archeology/anthropology they love to say they have it all figured out and anyone who says otherwise is a fringe psudo-science then 30 years later the fridge is proven right.

originally posted by: FishBait
It would have been nice for the scientist to have admitted that and say they were working in earnest to find the evidence.

They have been, and these are some of the results that show the system is working. Slowly, but it's working. And the greatest part of what is being called 'fringe pseudo-science' is demonstrably so.

A quick edit to point out once again that academe is chock-full of eager young minds that want to make their names by blowing up the existing paradigms. There may be an ivory tower, but it's under assault from within. Nothing wrong with you challenging the status quo, though.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: FishBait
It would have been nice for the scientist to have admitted that and say they were working in earnest to find the evidence.

They have been, and these are some of the results that show the system is working. Slowly, but it's working. And the greatest part of what is being called 'fringe pseudo-science' is demonstrably so.

A quick edit to point out once again that academe is chock-full of eager young minds that want to make their names by blowing up the existing paradigms. There may be an ivory tower, but it's under assault from within. Nothing wrong with you challenging the status quo, though.

Yea, I agree it’s a lot like our society where not so great beliefs were firmly entrenched for a long time and finally (slowly!) younger more open minds are starting to prevail.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Although much more recent, look at how far the Polynesians made it across the Pacific. There is the idea that earliest migrations were in boats from the north ice berg hopping (more less) and traveling the coast southward. Before the melt, the sea level was lower and those old coastal areas are now under water. Early campsites and colonies are now likely under the ocean, be they from migrations over land or water.

There are a number of models that are currently being given active consideration, including trans-Pacific and coastal shoreline. The latter, in particular, is turning into a gimme for the reasons you cite. Boats, yes, but they could have walked, too. Underwater searches are being done, and are resulting in sites just where they oughtta be. DNA is adding to the deductive process. However, the trans-Atlantic Solutrean hypothesis is being slammed for a variety of reasons. Healthy debate continues...as it should.

Damn! You got some book learning my neighbor in the Great White North. Makes me want to drink maple beer and eat Canadian bacon while I watch a hockey game, sort of.

Will you settle for a Flying Monkeys Smashbomb Atomic IPA, and a peameal on a kaiser? With cheddar, and yellow mustard, of course.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: FishBait
It would have been nice for the scientist to have admitted that and say they were working in earnest to find the evidence.

They have been, and these are some of the results that show the system is working. Slowly, but it's working. And the greatest part of what is being called 'fringe pseudo-science' is demonstrably so.

A quick edit to point out once again that academe is chock-full of eager young minds that want to make their names by blowing up the existing paradigms. There may be an ivory tower, but it's under assault from within. Nothing wrong with you challenging the status quo, though.

If you want tenure, book deals, grants galore, and an institute named for you - you need to to find something extraordinary.

If we were to name scientists off the top of our heads - its the one who found great stuff that are remembered today.

Science has an annoying habit when something is found to support a previous idle speculation - they incorporate it.

One just needs to look at the state of archaeology in 1820 vs today, two hundred years - virtually everything theorized then has been overturned.

originally posted by: [post=25318675]JohnnyCanuck

Will you settle for a Flying Monkeys Smashbomb Atomic IPA, and a peameal on a kaiser? With cheddar, and yellow mustard, of course.

HEY, Hey, hey none of that regional tomfoolery.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It would make sense that any society to the North would head South during a glacial maximum wouldn't it? Maybe the problem with science is not giving any common sense value to what were, essentially, our ancestors.

Except for those who came from the south.

Or the West across the ocean. Or the East from southern Africa or beyond.

Well the southern-north pattern would come out of the west. As to southern Africa? Never say never.

Just thinking of the South Equatorial currents. I don't think there have been any discoveries in genetic tracking that have shown any shared haplotypes or anything between southern Africa and Brazil, but the currents are there. Also, I suppose the southern Africans really didn't do a lot of long-distance seafaring. Some of those Olmec statue heads sure look African, though.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It would make sense that any society to the North would head South during a glacial maximum wouldn't it? Maybe the problem with science is not giving any common sense value to what were, essentially, our ancestors.

Except for those who came from the south.

Or the West across the ocean. Or the East from southern Africa or beyond.

Well the southern-north pattern would come out of the west. As to southern Africa? Never say never.

Just thinking of the South Equatorial currents. I don't think there have been any discoveries in genetic tracking that have shown any shared haplotypes or anything between southern Africa and Brazil, but the currents are there. Also, I suppose the southern Africans really didn't do a lot of long-distance seafaring. Some of those Olmec statue heads sure look African, though.

Funny you should mention that as this came up in one of my feeds today...Hijacking History: the problem with the “Black Olmec” myth