- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Unlikely. The limited evidence presented for pre Clovis cultures in North America has some large margins for error and rely on big assumptions. This evidence is no different, and should be taken on context of it being a big maybe.
One of the biggest problems with the pre Clovis theory is that there should be waaaay more evidence of humans in that time frame like we see everywhere else on the world. It’s highly unlikely that humans were in N America for more than 10, 000 years and left barely any trace across two continents.
27k years may be a stretch, but there is widespread acceptance of preclovis people in the Americas. For example, Buttermilk Creek and Monte Verde are generally acknowledged as being older than the Clovis culture.
Those links flat out say that they are not generally acknowledged or have widespread acceptance. They are theories based on incomplete evidence.
Spectacular video by Stefan Milo on the current evidence of the First Americans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsnrdCdGs7o
He even sites his sources. Solid stuff.
It can be a great YouTube video, but the evidence is still highly suspect. Nothing has successfully challenged the theory that the Clovis culture were the first humans in America
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=UsnrdCdGs7o
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Except that the coast from that time is often tens of kilometres out to sea now. I can imagine a very long period after people first discovered this new land, they would just continue living on the coast. I mean if you’re part of a seafaring culture, looking for new space and resources, why go inland when for thousands of years you can just go a couple kilometers away and you’re in a brand new space. All of that is lost now. I don’t see how you get large enough established culture for surviving evidence now, deep within foreign continents, without an enormous amount of exploration and the existence of small groups long before anything with enough permanence for modern evidence is established.
That said, these bones don’t look like some kind of jewelry to me. They look like natural polished wear from something like gizzard/gastrolith wear in my unqualified opinion.
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.
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.
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
