Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Humans Arrive in Mexico 30,000 Years Ago?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Did Humans Arrive in Mexico 30,000 Years Ago?

    Did humans arrive in Mexico 30,000 years ago?

    Well, I think it would be fair to say that the Jury’s still out. You can access the original paper as a pdf from within the article below (but not download it):

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/h...ling-americas/

    I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

  • #2
    Thanks Roger, I was struck by how crude the artifacts are. Not seeing the secondary flaking that I would expect. Are they simply not showing the good stuff? The ancient people were very skilled flintknappers so what gives here?
    Michigan Yooper
    If You Don’t Stand for Something, You’ll Fall for Anything

    Comment


    • Ron Kelley
      Ron Kelley commented
      Editing a comment
      1,900 stone artifacts and this is the best of the best?

  • #3
    Originally posted by Ron Kelley View Post
    Thanks Roger, I was struck by how crude the artifacts are. Not seeing the secondary flaking that I would expect. Are they simply not showing the good stuff? The ancient people were very skilled flintknappers so what gives here?
    That's part of the issue. They are showing the good stuff. Contentious as artefacts for a variety of reasons and... if you take away those lithic pieces.... the evidence for human occupation at the date claimed drops close to zilch.
    I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

    Comment


    • Ron Kelley
      Ron Kelley commented
      Editing a comment
      Agreed Roger! Another issue: Did flowing water scramble the evidence?

    • Cecilia
      Cecilia commented
      Editing a comment
      It’s too bad they can’t date the human DNA they found there in the cave.

  • #4
    The National Geo article said I had exceeded my 3 free articles, but I kept trying, and did not think they had shown the “point”. Apologies if it did show the “point”, this article does:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/science/scie...ought-n1234578

    I was able to use Sci-Hub to unlock one of the two Nature articles, but not sure if I can carry it over to our forum:

    https://sci-hub.tw/downloads/2020-07...020-2491-6.pdf
    Last edited by CMD; 07-22-2020, 01:53 PM.
    Rhode Island

    Comment


    • #5
      Originally posted by CMD View Post
      The National Geo article said I had exceeded my 3 free articles, but I kept trying, and did not think they had shown the “point”. Apologies if it did show the “point”, this article does:

      https://www.nbcnews.com/science/scie...ought-n1234578

      I was able to use as Sci-Hub to unlock one of the two Nature articles, but not sure if I can carry it over to our forum:

      https://sci-hub.tw/downloads/2020-07...020-2491-6.pdf

      Yes, the point was shown (as item ‘o’ bottom right corner):

      Click image for larger version  Name:	Lithics.jpg Views:	0 Size:	173.7 KB ID:	472607

      However, the authors say : "Most items are from component SC-B" and also say:

      "Few stratum interfaces could be followed along their natural topography (this was nearly impossible in SC-B). Most of the time, we used arbitrary 5- or 10-cm layers, inevitably cross-cutting."

      "SC-B dates to between 16,605–15,615 cal. and 13,705–12,200 cal."
      I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

      Comment


      • Lindenmeier-Man
        Lindenmeier-Man commented
        Editing a comment
        Thanks for showing the artifacts, I read the article but had not seen those..

    • #6
      There are a couple of things I like/find really interesting about this site.

      First, while not a smoking gun of evidence, it's good to see that it's no longer professional suicide to write an article about an early maybe site. I think the authors were relatively transparent about the potential issues with the site, as well as the potential meaning if things are as old as one lens seems to suggest.

      Second, that model of small groups of people that didn't really make a huge impact on the landscape makes sense to me. They weren't talking about an invasion of 10,000 people who altered the environment, they are looking at small groups of hunter gathers who managed to hang on. It could have been 'one of a thousand sparks' that lead to humans coming to settle essentially every part of the Americas vs a prairie fire invasion.

      Third, it's interestingly consistent that some of the early dates from South America and Central America don't have really strong bifacial technology at these early dates. Eventually, one of these cave sites might offer up better evidence (human bone, organic tools, fecal matter, etc.) that can be dated more conclusively. The Brazilian sites that have been published in Europe (French & Portuguese journals) are usually just ignored as Ruth Gruhn pointed out. It goes back to my first point, eventually a solid site might pop up and it could get actually recognized.
      Hong Kong, but from Indiana/Florida

      Comment


      • #7
        https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02137-3


        Click image for larger version

Name:	2DFAA9A7-3758-4CCE-833E-C8F2B3F7E987.png
Views:	60
Size:	79.1 KB
ID:	472823

        Rhode Island

        Comment

        Working...
        X