Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Saru

Did humans reach Americas 22,000 years ago?

58 posts in this topic

New evidence has been found which suggests humans reached South America far earlier than thought.

Humans lived in South America at the height of the last ice age, thousands of years earlier than we thought, according to a controversial study. A team claims to have found 22,000-year-old stone tools at a site in Brazil, though other archaeologists are disputing the claim.

arrow3.gifRead more...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Of course America had been discovered before Columbus, but it had always been hushed up"...Oscar Wilde.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean they weren't Israelites that later became the Indians and Mexicans? Joseph Smith couldn't be THAT off, could he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will believe it when there is much better evidence than now; in the meantime a much later date seems more likely, although even then several thousands of years before Noah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, the 20-40 thousand year ago range seems most likely. Doesn't mean these populations were successful and could have easily died off due to disease or natural disasters, etc, but the 12 thousand year ago mark just seems too late. Humans are adventurous creatures after all and can/will spread whereever possible as quickly as possible.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by paperdyer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell... humans reached everywhere before everyone thought... recorded history doesn't mean sh*te! I think we should gift all our land in the world to the neanderthals (yes i know a few) they were there first.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean they weren't Israelites that later became the Indians and Mexicans? Joseph Smith couldn't be THAT off, could he?

You forgot the Egyptians in the Grand Canyon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the OP Link:

Stones falling from above can break, making them look like human-made tools. As a result, McNabb calls the evidence "suggestive but unproven".

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same topic, 6 weeks ago

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=244814

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people where here sooner.but did they stay thats the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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)!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

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

Like keithisko quoted, the get that dating by thermoluminescence.

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.