4 ms·
> The really interesting question is : why did "experts" ever think the opposite? No evidence. In all fairness, such evidence would be hard to find because at
by curtis 9y ago
> The really interesting question is : why did "experts" ever think the opposite?
No evidence.
In all fairness, such evidence would be hard to find because at the time sea-level was 400 feet lower than it is today. It is likely that the best archaeological sites are now underwater. The article of course mentions this. In fact, the article mentions one location in British Columbia (Quadra island) where post-glacial rebound was so great that near-sea-level sites during the last ice-age are still above sea-level today. But that investigation is relatively recent.
- ktRolster 9y agoIn theory, that could be a good thing, as the sites could be better preserved, not trammeled on by later generations of humans. Although in practice, actually finding them is hard. Note there are sites like this in Europe, too.