3 ms·

There is I think a little bit of chronological confusion that I will try to clear up. My understanding of the consensus rough chronology is as follows: * Popul

There is I think a little bit of chronological confusion that I will try to clear up. My understanding of the consensus rough chronology is as follows: * Populations move into Beringia maybe 20-25kya. (My knowledge of this date is particularly hazy). * Populations start moving from Beringia into the Americas. This date is highly contested, but it's accepted that this occurred at least 15kya. * Clovis culture starts up around 13kya, ends around 11.5kya. * Younger Dryas starts up 12.8kya, ends around 11.5kya. So genetic evidence suggesting that peopling starts from around 17kya isn't inconsistent with mainstream dates for peopling of Americas, although it would mean being suspicious of sites much older than 17kya. > but the really interesting question from here then is who were they and what happened to them? My interpretation of the evidence... they became Clovis culture.

moloch-hai 4y ago
The lakebed footprints securely scotch that timeline, and Cerutti blasts it to smithereens. The most that could be left of it is that these late migrations somehow wholly supplanted earlier populations. Either the earlier pop. died out before the later crew arrived, or ... well, genocide is a demonstrated human behavior. It is hard to carry out continent-wide without microbial assistance, but they could have had that.
- acdha 4y ago
  It’s cool to be excited about this - who wouldn’t be? - but you’re using very definitive language for highly speculative. The article outlines a timeline which, as with the post you’re replying to, is compatible with the White Sands lake footprints. The Cerutti site _could_ completely upset that theory but it’s far from proven that it’s not a misunderstanding, or that it was Homo sapiens and not another hominid. That would be exciting in its own right, but until there’s more confirmation we should be careful not to describe these as facts or highly-probable.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    There seems no possibility of an upset to Cerutti. Bone fragments in the rock faces, greenstick fracturing, adjacent placement of stones and hip-joint ends. The only plausible complaint I have heard of is lack of stone-knife flakes, but the site is still being excavated. That it might have been H. e. is exciting. They did get around!

moloch-hai 4y ago

The lakebed footprints securely scotch that timeline, and Cerutti blasts it to smithereens. The most that could be left of it is that these late migrations somehow wholly supplanted earlier populations. Either the earlier pop. died out before the later crew arrived, or ... well, genocide is a demonstrated human behavior. It is hard to carry out continent-wide without microbial assistance, but they could have had that.

acdha 4y ago
It’s cool to be excited about this - who wouldn’t be? - but you’re using very definitive language for highly speculative. The article outlines a timeline which, as with the post you’re replying to, is compatible with the White Sands lake footprints. The Cerutti site _could_ completely upset that theory but it’s far from proven that it’s not a misunderstanding, or that it was Homo sapiens and not another hominid. That would be exciting in its own right, but until there’s more confirmation we should be careful not to describe these as facts or highly-probable.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  There seems no possibility of an upset to Cerutti. Bone fragments in the rock faces, greenstick fracturing, adjacent placement of stones and hip-joint ends. The only plausible complaint I have heard of is lack of stone-knife flakes, but the site is still being excavated. That it might have been H. e. is exciting. They did get around!