Humans lived in America earlier than thought

[UM-Bot]

New evidence has pushed the arrival of the first humans in the Americas back more than 1,500 years.

The discovery was made following an archaeological investigation of the Page-Ladson sinkhole which is situated on the Aucilla River near Tallahassee in Florida.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/294586/humans-lived-in-america-earlier-than-thought

[BlackBearWolf]

When was the land brigde in the bering straight first available for travel for humans?

[+Hammerclaw]

There's been dozens of such finds, and the Clovis first crowd has cast doubt on every one. Their tenacious dogmatic stance persists, long after even older dates have been confirmed by the archaeological community in South America.

[Infernal Gnu]

"If people don’t believe this site, they’re not going to believe anything."

Hmm, the diehard pro-Clovis crowd need to come up with a cool conspiracy theory to explain this site as not being pre-Clovis. Ancient aliens teleported them there, or something.

[Gingitsune]

When was the land brigde in the bering straight first available for travel for humans?

Homo sapiens appeared around 200,000 years ago, which would mean 8 land bridges emerge from the water over the time. It is unlikely homo sapiens made it prior to 100,000 years ago, they were barely in Middle East back then, but the second before last, between 70,000 and 53,000 years ago, is not such a stretch. The others for the Wisconsin glaciation could also be possibilities.

Homo sapiens appeared around 200,000 years ago

Edited May 16, 2016 by Gingitsune

[BlackBearWolf]

So it took humans roughly 180,000 years to migrate from ethopia to the americas?

This seems very plausible and not sure why it seems implausible. Thats plenty of time for smart monkeys to walk over the next hill.

[maxcred]

I don't if these people came across on the Bering land bridge. They may have come across the frozen ice of the Northern Atlantic as the Solutreans did.

[paperdyer]

This find goes with the dig on our manufacturing site in Martin, SC. Spear and arrowheads were found that are much older than what were expected. I wish I still had the link, but you should be able to Google it. The plant is actually in Allendale county, SC near Martin, SC (If there really is anything near Martin, SC other than cows and corn fields).

[Harte]

(If there really is anything near Martin, SC other than cows and corn fields).

And other than a pre-Clovis dig.

Harte

[Bavarian Raven]

When was the land brigde in the bering straight first available for travel for humans?

Forget land bridges, coastal migration was/is easier, quicker, and more likely imho.

[Gingitsune]

So it took humans roughly 180,000 years to migrate from ethopia to the americas?

This seems very plausible and not sure why it seems implausible. Thats plenty of time for smart monkeys to walk over the next hill.

There are no trace of homo sapiens in Eurasia before 100,000 years ago, it probably took some time for the species to consolidate, then expand. Around 100,000 years ago is a warm period which probably allow our species to expand outside of there original territories. But their number were still quite small back then, a few tens of thousands at most. They colonized the entire African continent and spread as far as South East Asia and Pacific islands, but it seems there was an issue with higher latitudes. Maybe they just weren't competitive enough yet to challenge Neandertal and Denisovan on their own turf. Anyway, we haven't found anything homo sapiens in Europe older that 45,000 years, and that's also around these years we find the oldest trace of sapiens in Siberia.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28774-humans-adapted-to-arctic-life-10000-years-earlier-than-thought/

The oldest homo traces in Alaska and Yukon are also around 40,000 years ago, so there could have been an early migration into America before the ice sheet expanded into blocking the continental way down. The coastal way could still be usable though. However, even an early migration could have just died out. We need to dig more.

[Gingitsune]

Another article on the same topic:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2088095-first-americans-hunted-big-game-in-florida-14500-years-ago/

Which conclude with this line:

Halligan and her colleagues think plenty more pre-Clovis archaeology is awaiting discovery in the region, submerged by prehistoric sea level rise.

Which is my line of thinking, The oldest site in the Americas are often below sea level, I expect great finds in the future in these low lands. The same apply for Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania.

[qxcontinuum]

so was the white man but it is too inconvenient for aboriginals to admit.

Edited May 17, 2016 by qxcontinuum

[Likely Guy]

so was the white man but it is too inconvenient for aboriginals to admit.

Whut?

[Myles]

The dates keep getting pushed back.

We are currently at 14,500 years ago.

[paperdyer]

And other than a pre-Clovis dig.

Harte

Thanks Harte. The artifacts were originally found around 1978 when we were braking ground to build the plant. We had stop building until the area could be investigated. I'm not sure the site is still heavily active. Part of it can only be accessed when the Savannah River is low. The area had been flooded a few times.

Here's another link:

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/scientists-have-unearthed-ancient-artifacts-that-are-upending-the-history-of-mankind/Content?oid=4092912

Edited May 17, 2016 by paperdyer

[Gingitsune]

So it took humans roughly 180,000 years to migrate from ethopia to the americas?

This seems very plausible and not sure why it seems implausible. Thats plenty of time for smart monkeys to walk over the next hill.

I woke up this morning thinking of an article I read a few months ago about the Inuit paradox, which may explain why sapiens, who have been spreading East, West and South like wildfire, didn't move North before 50,000 years.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox

Sapiens were tropical animals used to eat a lot of plants. As they moved North in Ice Age Eurasia, they had to switch to a diet high on animals, almost exclusively animal in fact. That might have taken quite some time for every few generations to move out of their comfort zone and a bit into less hospitable lands. Maybe it even took genetic admixture and borrowing know how for Neandertal and Denisovan, so they made it in Siberia without dying of scurvy.

[Hawken]

The dates keep getting pushed back.

We are currently at 14,500 years ago.

I'm sure there will be more discoveries that could will rewrite the books.

[Gingitsune]

Monte Verde is now said to have been inhabited 19,000 years ago, no bone though.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/oldest-stone-tools-americas-claimed-chile?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twitter

[Podo]

I like the idea of early human migration, and the last decade of discoveries keep pushing those dates earlier and earlier. We need to keep digging!

[Harte]

Older thread with a ton of info: Link

Harte

[Leonardo]

When was the land brigde in the bering straight first available for travel for humans?

Further to the post Gingitsune made indicating the dates when a Bering Sea land-bridge existed, it is not just the existence of the land bridge which is important, but also whether there existed any passage across or between the ice sheets that covered the far north.

The Clovis-first hypothesis is predicated on the knowledge that such a passage did exist from around 13,000 ybp, however it is known that a passage between the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets also existed approx 10,000 years before that - meaning a separate migration from northeast Asia was possible some 21 - 23,000 ybp.

The suggestion of finds in South America (particularly in the east) that some claim to predate even this (it is suggested some of the sites may be up to 50,000 years old) may or may not be linked to any Asia-America migration, and so it is dangerous to presume a very early migration based on just those claims. However, the growing evidence that pre-Clovis sites of around 15 - 16,000 ybp (and even slightly older) exist in the North American continent do suggest a migration during the earlier existence of a passage between the two ice sheets mentioned above is quite possible.

With respect the article in the OP, I find the last couple of paragraphs where it is suggested that any migration of peoples into North America earlier than those who contributed to the Clovis peoples could not have originated from Asia (and so indirectly supporting the Solutrean hypothesis) to be poorly researched and wholly incorrect in it's certainty. It is far more likely that any earlier migration was, in fact, from Asia and took advantage of the earlier existence of an ice-free passage into the American continent.

There is also the possibility of a coastal migration but, not knowing the situation of the coast at that time and how free of ice it was I personally think the land passage hypothesis to be the more likely

Edited May 19, 2016 by Leonardo

[Harte]

Further to the post Gingitsune made indicating the dates when a Bering Sea land-bridge existed, it is not just the existence of the land bridge which is important, but also whether there existed any passage across or between the ice sheets that covered the far north.

The Clovis-first hypothesis is predicated on the knowledge that such a passage did exist from around 13,000 ybp, however it is known that a passage between the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets also existed approx 10,000 years before that - meaning a separate migration from northeast Asia was possible some 21 - 23,000 ybp.

The suggestion of finds in South America (particularly in the east) that some claim to predate even this (it is suggested some of the sites may be up to 50,000 years old) may or may not be linked to any Asia-America migration, and so it is dangerous to presume a very early migration based on just those claims. However, the growing evidence that pre-Clovis sites of around 15 - 16,000 ybp (and even slightly older) exist in the North American continent do suggest a migration during the earlier existence of a passage between the two ice sheets mentioned above is quite possible.

With respect the article in the OP, I find the last couple of paragraphs where it is suggested that any migration of peoples into North America earlier than those who contributed to the Clovis peoples could not have originated from Asia (and so indirectly supporting the Solutrean hypothesis) to be poorly researched and wholly incorrect in it's certainty. It is far more likely that any earlier migration was, in fact, from Asia and took advantage of the earlier existence of an ice-free passage into the American continent.

There is also the possibility of a coastal migration but, not knowing the situation of the coast at that time and how free of ice it was I personally think the land passage hypothesis to be the more likely

I think coastal is likely to have happened, but not in the numbers of the land migration.

Besides, we'd probably never find evidence given the sea level rise since that time.

I'd still guess it was probably both.

Harte

[Leonardo]

I think coastal is likely to have happened, but not in the numbers of the land migration.

Besides, we'd probably never find evidence given the sea level rise since that time.

I'd still guess it was probably both.

Harte

I know there is evidence of ancient occupation of some islands off the north-west of North America and in the Aleutians, but I don't know they necessarily support a migration from Asia. They could instead be evidence of a back migration of people who immigrated into the North American heartland by land, then expanded to the western coast and travelled north and west from there.

Either scenario is possible, but I would consider the latter to perhaps be slightly more possible.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Leonardo

[Harte]

Could be.

I just like the idea of fishing and sealing along the ice like the Solutrean Hypothesis involves, only in the Pacific.

Probably because I like to fish.

So far, the antiquity of proposed sites in South America is greater than those in the north.

Or has that changed?

Harte