The First Americans: ...Researchers...Reconsider the Peopling of the New World

Once again, orthodoxy continues to bow to the pressures of archaeological evidence. The acceptance of Monte Verde in Chile at a date of 14,800 years BP promised to open the floodgates of sites predating the 11.2 kya benchmark of Clovis.

I provide this as evidence that archaeology is not suppressed by the legendary TPTB or the Ivory Towers of Academe, simply that the bar is set high and for good reason. 'Prove it' is not an unreasonable demand.

The First Americans: Mounting Evidence Prompts Researchers to Reconsider the Peopling of the New World
Humans colonized the New World​ earlier than previously thought—a revelation that is forcing scientists to rethink long-standing ideas about these trailblazers. www.scientificamerican.com...

I mentioned this in a thread attempting to prove someone wrong after they stated they believed humans weren't older than 6000 years. or something like that. I had remembered reading about a discovery in South America containing some primitive tribe or civilization that dated to, I cannot remember accurately, but over 20,000 years old.

I also speculated, and am serious about this, that man could have originated in the New World, after which he migrated to what we know as the Old World. If that isn't true, and it was in fact the other way around, then I definitely believe that humans crossed the land-bridge BEFORE the breakup of the last ice age, which was roughly 12,000 years ago.

I think there is a LOT of history relating to our origins that we have yet to discover. I have even thought about the fact that there may be some type of coverup, after reading about certain artifacts that have been found, for example like those in the area of the Grand Canyon, that we seem to know nothing about.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Hiya JC, I thought the flags deserved a healthier reply/flag/star ratio.

As you've pointed out, the 'bar has been set high' as it relates to requiring good evidence to supersede established time-lines. Over on the Hall of Maat , they've been discussing the nitty gritty of New World migrations for years and probably welcome the burgeoning mainstream acceptance of pre-Clovis cultures.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Hiya JC, I thought the flags deserved a healthier reply/flag/star ratio.

As you've pointed out, the 'bar has been set high' as it relates to requiring good evidence to supersede established time-lines. Over on the Hall of Maat , they've been discussing the nitty gritty of New World migrations for years and probably welcome the burgeoning mainstream acceptance of pre-Clovis cultures.

Thanks for that, Kandinsky. Hall of Maat has been a generally good source for debunking some of the more enthusiastic claims that emerge, and I also encourage anyone with University access to haunt JSTOR for academic papers on their chosen subject of inquiry.

What's important is to show that there is a process at work, that changing information is recognised, and paradigms do, indeed, shift.