What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
quote:New research confirms that fossil human footprints in New Mexico are likely the oldest direct evidence of human presence in the Americas, a finding that upends what many archaeologists thought they knew about when our ancestors arrived in the New World.
The footprints were discovered at the edge of an ancient lakebed in White Sands National Park and date back to between 21,000 and 23,000 years ago, according to research published Thursday in the journal Science.
The estimated age of the footprints was first reported in Science in 2021, but some researchers raised concerns about the dates. Questions focused on whether seeds of aquatic plants used for the original dating may have absorbed ancient carbon from the lake—which could, in theory, throw off radiocarbon dating by thousands of years.
The new study presents two additional lines of evidence for the older date range. It uses two entirely different materials found at the site, ancient conifer pollen and quartz grains.
The reported age of the footprints challenges the once-conventional wisdom that humans didn't reach the Americas until a few thousand years before rising sea levels covered the Bering land bridge between Russia and Alaska, perhaps about 15,000 years ago.
"This is a subject that's always been controversial because it's so significant—it's about how we understand the last chapter of the peopling of the world," said Thomas Urban, an archaeological scientist at Cornell University, who was involved in the 2021 study but not the new one.
Thomas Stafford, an independent archaeological geologist in Albuquerque, New Mexico, who was not involved in the study, said he "was a bit skeptical before" but now is convinced.
"If three totally different methods converge around a single age range, that's really significant," he said.
The new study isolated about 75,000 grains of pure pollen from the same sedimentary layer that contained the footprints.
The researchers also studied accumulated damage in the crystal lattices of ancient quartz grains to produce an age estimate.
"White Sands is unique because there's no question these footprints were left by people, it's not ambiguous," said Jennifer Raff, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Kansas, who was not involved in the study.
More information: Bente Philippsen et al, Dating the arrival of humans in the Americas, Science (2023). DOI: 10.1126/science.adk3075. Just a moment...
Jeffrey S. Pigati et al, Independent age estimates resolve the controversy of ancient human footprints at White Sands, Science (2023). DOI: 10.1126/science.adh5007. Just a moment...
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Re: Strong Evidence of Humans in N. America 21K-23K Years Ago
​"This is a subject that's always been controversial because it's so significant—it's about how we understand the last chapter of the peopling of the world," said Thomas Urban.
Less than 10,000 year difference between old and new data. Significant difference but this seems hyperbole. What controversy? We have more accurate data. Did someone lose their tenured faculty position because of this? Do they hang the guys that got it wrong?
But you found it significant enough to bring it here. I missed something. So please educate me, Tany. Why did you find this compelling?
Re: Strong Evidence of Humans in N. America 21K-23K Years Ago
I posted a critical comment at the Washington Post article (Ancient footprints upend timeline of humans’ arrival in North America). There's a character limit on comments and so I wasn't as clear as I would have liked to have been, but I tried to make the point that this isn't the earliest arrival of humans in North America. It's just the earliest arrival that we have evidence for.
The traditional view is that migration from Asia to North America was governed by glacial minimums and maximums. But the glacial maximums that lower sea levels and supposedly provided a land bridge between the continents would have been covered by glaciers, like everything else that far north. And a glacial minimum would have raised sea levels and turned the land bridge into island chains, which is what we see today.
So I don't understand why two things aren't considered obvious by scientists:
Migrations involved both land and boat/raft travel and could have happened at glacial maximums, minimums, and anywhere in between.
There have been many migrations from Asia to North American over the past 200,000 years or more. The current discussion is about the oldest migration we have evidence for. We forget that ancient humans were as capable as us, just with almost no technology. Across a span of time as great as 200,000 years there most certainly must have been earlier migrations, but they didn't leave evidence behind, or didn't survive long, or the evidence hasn't been uncovered yet.
Re: Strong Evidence of Humans in N. America 21K-23K Years Ago
It is a huge difference in archaeology and history. It changes the whole idea of indigenous culture and population models. For the general public, it is meaningless. For archaeology and history geeks it is huge.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
Re: Strong Evidence of Humans in N. America 21K-23K Years Ago
Yes there were probably multiple migrations in the 200k years, but we are looking at and for one that had a significant influence and lasted. If they made it to New Mexico it was significant and permanent. If they were there at this time frame when did their ancestors enter America? Hugely, significant in our understanding of issues like future population levels, extinction of species and domestication of native flora and fauna.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
Re: Strong Evidence of Humans in N. America 21K-23K Years Ago
It changes the whole idea of indigenous culture and population models.
Why? There is less than 10,000 years to add to the mix. That's not a lot.
I am missing something. I can't see where this is any more controversial than a data update in the spreadsheet.
What does that 10,000 year span mean to the indigenous culture? The population was here earlier than we thought. They did the same thing as in our other scenario only earlier and longer. So what controversy is this thing fixing?
Re: Strong Evidence of Humans in N. America 21K-23K Years Ago
Within scientific circles there has always been skepticism about earlier dates, whether in North America, Asia or Africa and whether about humans or predecessors. The people that work in paleoanthropology seem an incredibly egocentric bunch. They all want their own discoveries to be the oldest, so they're automatically antagonistic toward anyone's discoveries indicating earlier dates. It's ridiculous and embarrassing.
I'm fine with skepticism that centers around the evidence. We should be as certain as possible when it comes to forming a consensus within science, especially since it will in turn affect what appears in the textbooks. But I'm not fine with egocentric skepticism, or with skepticism that seems based on ancient people being less capable than people today, except for their lack of technology.
Less than 10,000 year difference between old and new data. Significant difference but this seems hyperbole. What controversy?
Well, in the Americas the evidence indicates that humans only arrived relatively recently, compared to evidence that humans and human ancestors have been present in Europe and Asia for hundreds of thousands of years and millions of years in Africa, so evidence supporting humans in the Americas up to eight thousand years earlier is significant.
I personally thought it was interesting because I have watched the rejection of multiple dating tests (over the pat 30-40 years) that indicated earlier than expected human presence at multiple sites. These rejections have seemed to me to be motivated by dogmatic protection of cherished hypotheses rather than encouraging good scientific scholarship.
Now obviously, this finding and dating doesn't tell us how much earlier the ancestors of these people actually got to the Americas or whether these people were part of the cultures that survived and spread throughout the New World.
I just think this story (humans colonizing the Americas) is fascinating and I wonder what Coyote's opinion would be.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Re: Strong Evidence of Humans in N. America 21K-23K Years Ago
10,000 years is a huge increase in time that the population grew in the Americas. Part of the reason there is an argument about a 100 million+ population pre-European contact is that there was not enough time to get to that level. This helps put another nail in that argument. That influences the interpretations of indigenous culture. The conventional wisdom has been that there were only a couple of large urban population centers and the sophisticated cultures that go with them. A higher population supports the idea of more sophisticated cultures than existed when there were at the time European contact.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
Re: Strong Evidence of Humans in N. America 21K-23K Years Ago
Technology is a cultural thing. Indigenous Americans had access to copper and iron. In fact, they used copper tools before the rest of the world. There are many reasons they may not have made further steps. Wood and stone technology was world class. Also, most of the large mammals died out fairly early after people came to the Americas. Finally, indigenous cultures may have had less of a "conquer nature" vibe than Asian and European.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
Finally, indigenous cultures may have had less of a "conquer nature" vibe than Asian and European.
Didn't the pawnee Indians (as depicted in Dances With Wolves) have a conquering vibe? The tribes that Dunbar (dumb bear) encountered were quite friendly, however. I think that the ancient cultures understood consensus much better than the Europeans and westward migrating Americans. Talk about a bunch of dumb bears!
Re: Strong Evidence of Humans in N. America 21K-23K Years Ago
I expect that American Indian tribes exhibited the same range of behaviors as all human groups everywhere, with the particulars dependent upon circumstances. Agrarian societies were more common in eastern North America, hunter/gatherer societies in the great plains and the west, and on the northwest coast fishing societies were common. Wars between tribes were common, and after their arrival European assistance was often requested. Way back in the early 1600s Champlain and a platoon of ten or so soldiers armed with guns joined a war party made up of several local tribes to fight the Iroquois, their common enemy.
™ Version 4.2
