Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Did humans reach Americas 22,000 years ago?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#16    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,521 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton, Blighty!

Posted 01 May 2013 - 10:45 AM

From the article: The stone tool remains are not indiginous to the Dig Location. They came from 15Kms away, so those who dispute the findings will need to come up with a credible means for the translocation of these artefacts to the dig site. "Randomly Faulted Gravel" does not explain this.

As for the dating: "The team dated the sediments in which the tools were buried using a technique that determines when the sediments were last exposed to light. Some tools were buried 22,000 years ago"

Edited by keithisco, 01 May 2013 - 10:50 AM.


#17    Parsec

Parsec

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 215 posts
  • Joined:15 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 01 May 2013 - 11:46 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 30 April 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

From the OP Link:


I tend to fall into this group. Many of the pictures I've seen online from the oldest of these Pre-Clovis sites appear (to me) to be randomly faulted gravel. I do agree that there is very good evidence in several places of pre-Clovis occupation, but some of the more ancient claims seem to be very less well evidenced, to put it kindly. Finding charcoal and findin faulted rocks does not equal human habitation.

View PostDieChecker, on 01 May 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

There are the pictures of the gravel I was talking about. I've seen many much more arrow-heady stones walking randomly around the Oregon countryside.

Surely, given the implications, it requires further analysis, but this time things could be slightly different from other researches and findigs.
Consider that Eric Boeda is one of the most authoritative European researchers and anthropologists of our times, so, if HE writes something like this, the least we can do is listen to him and think deeply before replying.

To me sometimes we forget that we're not experts (at least, I can't consider me one), but (at the very best) well educated people with a well developed thinking method.
It's always a good thing to think with our own minds and don't follow blindly what others say, but we have to consider that if someone who did this job for more than 30 years, who's spent three years on site and, like I wrote, is one of the most influential anthropoligists alive, well, maybe he knows what he's talking about and more than we do.

And who knows, maybe you've just missed a great finding in Oregon, because of your untrained eye (obviously no offense intended, it's really hard to recognize stone tools)!
That's why I'm very interested in the finding, because Boeda has a very well trained eye (much more than many of his collegues)!


#18    Myles

Myles

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,502 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2013 - 12:31 PM

View PostParsec, on 01 May 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Surely, given the implications, it requires further analysis, but this time things could be slightly different from other researches and findigs.
Consider that Eric Boeda is one of the most authoritative European researchers and anthropologists of our times, so, if HE writes something like this, the least we can do is listen to him and think deeply before replying.

To me sometimes we forget that we're not experts (at least, I can't consider me one), but (at the very best) well educated people with a well developed thinking method.
It's always a good thing to think with our own minds and don't follow blindly what others say, but we have to consider that if someone who did this job for more than 30 years, who's spent three years on site and, like I wrote, is one of the most influential anthropoligists alive, well, maybe he knows what he's talking about and more than we do.

And who knows, maybe you've just missed a great finding in Oregon, because of your untrained eye (obviously no offense intended, it's really hard to recognize stone tools)!
That's why I'm very interested in the finding, because Boeda has a very well trained eye (much more than many of his collegues)!
I didn't see where anyone posted that he was full of crap.   As it is good for him to question current thinking, it is good for him to be questioned.


#19    PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock

    Pooseycat

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,763 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Few things do more harm than the belief that life should be Dramatic.

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:07 PM

I can't see any reason why humans wouldn't have spread from Siberia to Alaska (and points south) as soon as they developed the ability to cross short stretches of open ocean, which must have been >40KYA. On the other hand, it's a little hard to see why the 'settlers' would have abandoned several hundred thousand years of stone-shaping technology, to judge by the crudeness of the 'tools'.

Edited by PersonFromPorlock, 01 May 2013 - 01:07 PM.


#20    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 01 May 2013 - 02:11 PM

You are talking about centuries.  People walk pretty fast.

Not to be perverse, but that really is all it takes.  They will spread to the extremes first and then fill in the middle.  It's not at all like the population pressure that tends to cause migrations into already occupied territory.  If what's in front of you is empty of people, each generation will push on, even if country behind is left empty.


#21    Parsec

Parsec

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 215 posts
  • Joined:15 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 01 May 2013 - 04:03 PM

View PostMyles, on 01 May 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

I didn't see where anyone posted that he was full of crap.   As it is good for him to question current thinking, it is good for him to be questioned.

I didn't write it. Where do I write that someone thinks he's full of crap?
I was answering DieChecker that, althought (like you wrote) it's good to question what someone says and not believe blindly to him/her, sometimes it's better wait further analysis before dismissing an hypothesis, particuraly if it's formulated by someone who knows well what he's saying.

He's not a fringe selfmade "researcher", he's a "real" anthropologist. Maybe we can give him some credit.
It's weird that we demand for more "official" archaeology and anthropology to be more "openminded" and then when some of the "officials" say something out of orthodoxy, he's dismissed as a probable misinterpretation of data.

Anyway, let's close it here.


#22    Parsec

Parsec

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 215 posts
  • Joined:15 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 01 May 2013 - 05:16 PM

View Postmarcos anthony toledo, on 30 April 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

They have been hiding evidence of human settlement of the Americans likely the Americas was settled  for centuries. It is more than likely a 100.000 to 250,000 year record of settlement exist but is denied for political and racist reasons.

What are you exactly trying to say?
If you talk about "Americas", I'd say none said it was settled only for centuries. Never heard of Mexican temples or Bolivian Tiahuanaco for example? They're dated thousands of years old.
If you're referring to North America, the same Clovis Culture is dated 13.000 years old.
Which records are denied according to you? I'm very interested, since 100.000-250.000 is a big leap in the past.


View Postpaperdyer, on 30 April 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

This goes along with the  dig on my company's plant site in Martin, SC. There is strong evidence that humans were in North America around that time as well.

Can you explain it more thoroughly?


View PostSheep Smart, on 30 April 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

Where do they get the "2,000" from?  Not 20, 000 but precisely 22, 000.??

Like keithisko quoted, the get that dating by thermoluminescence.


View PostFrank Merton, on 01 May 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

As I understand the finds, and they are really not convincing, there may have been humans in the Americas 22,000 years ago according to the dating of materials found associated with what may be stone tools, but the association is debated.

When the last ice age began to end, real movements of Siberian populations happened geologically very rapidly (less than a thousand years) and quickly populated the Americas head to toe.  Subsequently several other waves of migration may also have happened and the Americas may have been visited but not settled successfully by Chinese, Japanese, Polynesians, Scandinavians, and maybe even Romans.

Why according to you the finds aren't convincing?


View PostFrank Merton, on 01 May 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

You are talking about centuries.  People walk pretty fast.

Not to be perverse, but that really is all it takes.  They will spread to the extremes first and then fill in the middle.  It's not at all like the population pressure that tends to cause migrations into already occupied territory.  If what's in front of you is empty of people, each generation will push on, even if country behind is left empty.

This topic always fascinated me. Your hypothesis works, but why someone should  push on endlessy, or better, 'till the end of earth?
They didn't know the American continent's geography, they didn't know what they would have found around the corner.
I understand the "sense of adventure", but I guess that a group of few explorers would travel towards the unkown, not entire communities or tribes.
Would you risk your children and family's life taking theme to an unknown place, without a real reason?
If hunger didn't push them, then why? If you find a place that can give you food and shelter and that's a good place to live, why would you leave it? Can we assume that the whole North America wasn't a good place to live in? And Mexico too?
Further, unless there was a physical obstacle that blocked their way (like some theories say), why going only south first? were they bidirectional?

It doesn't make too much sense to me and I'd like your thoughts.


#23    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 01 May 2013 - 06:27 PM

View Postmarcos anthony toledo, on 30 April 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

They have been hiding evidence of human settlement of the Americans likely the Americas was settled  for centuries. It is more than likely a 100.000 to 250,000 year record of settlement exist but is denied for political and racist reasons.

Considering that there is no evidence for human migration in general out of Africa and extending anywhere other than the Levant and Yemen/Oman (the latter dating to c.106,000 BP) and no extensive migration prior to c.50,000 - 70,000 BP then no, it's not likely.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 01 May 2013 - 06:30 PM.

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#24    Myles

Myles

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,502 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2013 - 07:14 PM

View Postmarcos anthony toledo, on 30 April 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

They have been hiding evidence of human settlement of the Americans likely the Americas was settled  for centuries. It is more than likely a 100.000 to 250,000 year record of settlement exist but is denied for political and racist reasons.

I would like to know what these political and racist reasons are.


#25    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 10,271 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 01 May 2013 - 07:23 PM

View Postmarcos anthony toledo, on 30 April 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

They have been hiding evidence of human settlement of the Americans likely the Americas was settled  for centuries. It is more than likely a 100.000 to 250,000 year record of settlement exist but is denied for political and racist reasons.
I too would like to know, what political and racist reasons?


#26    Freshness

Freshness

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 42 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Everything we Think we know is all Wrong!

Posted 02 May 2013 - 07:40 AM

Duh? Of course, since there is no such thing as the "Evolution Theory", it's really Intelligent design, it's blatantly so obvious!


#27    Freshness

Freshness

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 42 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Everything we Think we know is all Wrong!

Posted 02 May 2013 - 07:43 AM

View Postmarcos anthony toledo, on 30 April 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

They have been hiding evidence of human settlement of the Americans likely the Americas was settled  for centuries. It is more than likely a 100.000 to 250,000 year record of settlement exist but is denied for political and racist reasons.
Dude, you are so right, nail on the head!


#28    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 02 May 2013 - 07:47 AM

The evidence of uncontroverted human presence is less than 15,000 years ago.  We now have claims of evidence for 22,000, which most authorities doubt but I've seen no outright rejections.  This does seem a little unlikely to me too, but if the evidence stands up then it will have to be accomodated -- if it stands up.  For the present I think I will wait and see.


#29    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 02 May 2013 - 07:53 AM

Regarding why humans "push on," the fact is that we find them everywhere within a couple of thousand years, so we presume that is what they did.  A variety of reasons is not hard to imagine -- especially if it was a mainly boating culture moving down the coast.  At first game is unaware of humans as a threat, but after a few years this changes, so move on where the game remains naive.  That is just one way to see it.  Maybe it was a culture that had "moving on" as part of its ethos.  My point is not that any of these suggestions were the reality -- we don't know -- but what we see is not good evidence for the later date.


#30    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 10,271 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 02 May 2013 - 11:22 AM

View PostParsec, on 01 May 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

What are you exactly trying to say?
If you talk about "Americas", I'd say none said it was settled only for centuries. Never heard of Mexican temples or Bolivian Tiahuanaco for example? They're dated thousands of years old.
If you're referring to North America, the same Clovis Culture is dated 13.000 years old.
Which records are denied according to you? I'm very interested, since 100.000-250.000 is a big leap in the past.


Can you explain it more thoroughly?


I am still waiting for an answer for him to explain it more thoroughly because i do not understand where the "racist reasons" come into this.

View PostParsec, on 01 May 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:


Why according to you the finds aren't convincing?




There have been many claims of an early human presence in South America, but none has proved conclusive, says Silvia Gonzalez of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK. She studied apparent ancient human footprints in Mexico, which turned out not to be footprints.
"We seem to be going around in circles," she says. "Until someone finds a human skeleton, no one is going to believe this."

View PostFreshness, on 02 May 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Dude, you are so right, nail on the head!
You seem to agree with him, thats fine, so can you explain it to me please?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users