• DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why go inland is answered by looking to every other group of people on the planet. Which is why there’s so much evidence for those older cultures across the earth. It’s not a brand new space after 10000 years. There’s no reason for every group of people to hug the coast for that long.

    Not to mention that the evidence being presented for that theory is primarily very very far inland. Like the new Mexico footprints that are supposedly 23k years old.

    • j4k3@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think there is a parallel situation in human evolution and land exploration where traveling and expanding along a coast was an option, or where initial access likely involved a seafaring culture where the only motivation is simple expansion. Even today most small coastal communities can exist entirely within a few kilometers of the coast without expanding further. Early communities were probably no more than a few families that spawned an outcast group every few generations.

      • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s the majority of human migration. We follow water bodies, but not to the exclusion of all growth. By that logic we’d never have made it inland at all.

        There’s no logical reason for a supposed pre Clovis culture to not go inland. 10,000 years and you really think they stayed 10km from the waves that whole time? It makes no sense. They would be the only group in human history to do that and they’d have needed to do it for millenia