https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/22/stone-tools-chiquihuite-cave-mexico-humans-north-america


Tools excavated from a cave in central Mexico are strong evidence that humans were living in North America at least 30,000 years ago, some 15,000 years earlier than previously thought, scientists said on Wednesday.

The artefacts, including 1,900 stone tools, showed human occupation of the high-altitude Chiquihuite cave over a 20,000-year period, they reported in two studies published in the journal Nature.

“Our results provide new evidence for the antiquity of humans in the Americas,” Ciprian Ardelean, an archaeologist at the Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas and the lead author of one of the studies, told AFP.

“There are only a few artefacts and a couple of dates from that range,” he said, referring to radiocarbon dating results putting the oldest samples at 33,000 to 31,000 years ago. “However, the presence is there.”

No traces of human bones or DNA were found at the site.

“It is likely that humans used this site on a relatively constant basis, perhaps in recurrent seasonal episodes part of larger migratory cycles,” the study concluded.


The saga of how and when Homo sapiens arrived in the Americas – the last major land mass to be populated by our species – is fiercely debated among experts, and the new findings will probably be contested.

Until recently, the widely accepted storyline was that the first humans to set foot in the Americas crossed a land bridge from present-day Russia to Alaska some 13,5000 years ago and moved south through a corridor between two massive ice sheets.

Archeological evidence – including uniquely crafted spear points used to slay mammoths and other prehistoric megafauna – suggested this founding population, known as Clovis culture, spread across North America, giving rise to distinct native American populations.

But the so-called Clovis-first model has fallen apart over the last two decades with the discovery of several ancient human settlements dating back two or three thousand years earlier.

In the second study published in Nature, evidence from 42 sites around North America indicated human presence dating to at least a time called the Last Glacial Maximum, when ice sheets blanketed much of the continent, about 26,000 to 19,000 years ago and immediately thereafter.

The findings suggest low numbers of people entered the continent earlier than previously understood – some perhaps by boat along a Pacific coastal route rather than crossing the land bridge – and some died out without leaving descendants.

“Clearly, people were in the Americas long before the development of Clovis technology in North America,” said Gruhn, an anthropology professor emerita at the University of Alberta, in comments on the new findings.

The archaeological scientist Lorena Becerra-Valdivia of the University of Oxford in England and the University of New South Wales in Australia – the lead of author of the second article – said the continent’s populations then expanded significantly beginning around 14,700 years ago.

“These are paradigm-shifting results that shape our understanding of the initial dispersal of modern humans into the Americas,” Becerra-Valdivia added.

If Mr. R. Nelson endorses this, I'm IN!

But still no sign of Nephites.

Or wooden submarines

Did they find a liahona?

Nama chezus cries hymen, lol

And they dated the stone tools how?

I fished this out of the ol' bullchip catcher:

>>“There are only a few artefacts and a couple of dates from that range,” he said, referring to radiocarbon dating results putting the oldest samples at 33,000 to 31,000 years ago. “However, the presence is there.”

Show me the DNA...

One bit of honesty from the article:

>>The saga of how and when Homo sapiens arrived in the Americas – the last major land mass to be populated by our species – is fiercely debated among experts, and the new findings will probably be contested.

No foolin'...

Are you still committed to Clovis First?

The article rightly states that "the so-called Clovis-first model has fallen apart over the last two decades with the discovery of several ancient human settlements dating back two or three thousand years earlier."

You may be right about this find, but your credibility depends on whether you are ready to acknowledge that your long campaign in favor of Clovis First ended in a route.

Aren't some artifacts dated by examining organic materials in layers above and below them to get a range or by dating organic remains at the same layer?

Sorry; these claims are so outrageous and those 30,000 year dates so specious I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face while I'm writing this.

One more time from Gary Haynes (whom I corresponded with prior to his retirement): Q: Were there pre-Clovis in America? A: Probably is the safest answer.

Even Monte Verde (which Anna C. Roosevelt insists is "not a pre-Clovis site) is only dated to 18,500 B.C.E. Moreover, the dating of the "Anzick Clovis Child" proves it belonged to a population that was ancestral to all Native Americans. Alternative POV's don't offer any comparable evidence.

Honest, I'm simply the reporter on this one; my "modest views" are "fact-based," and I would change them if there were any reasonable evidence, which there isn't. To insist on pigeon-holing me as one of the "Clovis First" crowd is to engage in "Orwellian lazythink."

Really?

You are now going to deny how many arguments we have had over the last decade about Clovis? How many times you rejected the Pre-Clovis consensus even after I proved that your sources against Pre-Clovis were in fact committed to that view?

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

--Orwell

> One more time from Gary Haynes (whom I
> corresponded with prior to his retirement): Q:
> Were there pre-Clovis in America? A: Probably is
> the safest answer.

Yeah, here you go again. If you really corresponded with Haynes, and he really said "probably," then that correspondence was a decade or longer before now. In truth, you would do better to read what he actually says and publishes. That would bring your ideas up to date more dependably than your acting as if nothing has changed since 2002.

Thus,

'"We've known there's pre-Clovis for a long time," says Gary Haynes of the University of Nevada, Reno' in 2012.

https://archive.archaeology.org/1201/trenches/clovis_buttermilk_creek_manis_mastodon.html

And there's this, a paper published by Haynes in 2015 in which he assumes the reality of pre-Clovis civilization and then works towards an understanding of what that material culture looked like.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2055556315Z.00000000016

The question, therefore, is why were you insisting that Roosevelt, Willerslev, Raff, and Haynes still accepted Clovis First when they had all rejected that position years earlier. You really need to read more if you want to keep up to date.

Calling you out for your misrepresentations, innuendo, and subtle personal attacks (and now you've proven the old adage, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"). I was in Reno about three or four years ago and sought to communicate with Gary Haynes, and I've reported our exchange accurately.

By contrast, that link you offered says nothing about his "current views" (he noted in our correspondence that he recently retired), but is rather an abbreviated abstract.

>>This paper reviews the published information, uncertainties about claims, and possible technological and cultural relationships of a sample of sites which have older-than-Clovis dates in North America.

>>Overall, the available data are incomplete or ambiguous, and as a result, individual interpretations have produced incompatible models of Clovis origins.

You write about Haynes that

> I've reported our exchange
> accurately.

Is that so? Then how do you explain the two different stories of that encounter you have presented in this very thread?

> I was in Reno about three or four years ago and sought to
> communicate with Gary Haynes.

versus

> One more time from Gary Haynes (whom I corresponded with prior to his retirement). . .

Which of your accounts is "accurate," Cabbie? Did you meet him in Reno or did he write you a letter?


---------------
And while we are on "accuracy," is there any reason why when quoting the summary of the article to which I linked you omit the key sentence? To wit,

> Production technology and artifact characteristics in a number > of the lithic sites (such as Debra Friedkin and possibly
> Page-Ladson) may be evidence of Clovis ancestry, but the lithic > materials in most pre-Clovis sites cannot be explicitly linked > to Clovis.

Could it be because in this sentence Haynes assumes pre-Clovis is established fact and then says he is trying to see if Clovis derived from pre-Clovis?

You wouldn't intentionally omit a sentence to misrepresent Haynes's views and make him look closer to your position, would you Cabbie?


--------------
> By contrast, that link you offered says nothing about his
> "current views" (he noted in our correspondence that he
> recently retired)

Really? You are contending that Haynes published the aforementioned study in 2015 and then, when you met (or was it corresponded with?) him in 2016 or 2017, renounced his academic record to you personally but without telling anyone else?

Sorry, Cabbie. You are the man who claims Jennifer Raff was agreeing with you when she said "we'll just have to disagree;" who claimed Willerslev shared your Clovis First beliefs despite his decade of articles saying the opposite; and who is certain he knows Haynes's secrets even though you can't recall whether you met him in in person in Reno or corresponded with him by mail.

That record is not sufficient to support your implication that a serious archaeologist reversed himself and told no one but you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2020 03:47PM by Lot's Wife.

Seriously, this wasn't a study; it was a review of the literature.

The answer "Probably" was from another paper he published. Do your homework, and if you'd cease the personal attacks, your posts would "live" longer. I see one was already deleted where I mentioned communicating with Haynes; you questioned me on whether that took place, and that was removed as well

Your attempts at obfuscation amount to gaslighting, period.

I won't hold my breath waiting for a coherent reply on that figure of "30,000 years."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2020 04:00AM by SL Cabbie.

Cabbie, you should see a doctor about your "vocie" rather than seeking advice on such an embarrassing subject from strangers on the internet.


-------------------------------------------------------
> Seriously, this wasn't a study; it was a review of
> the literature.

Sure. A review of outstanding research is not itself a "study." It is insights like that on which you have built your prodigious academic career.


----------------------
> The answer "Probably" was from another paper he
> published. Do your homework,

So you were lying when you implied above that that was something he said to you in personal correspondence?

Because you wrote: "One more time from Gary Haynes (whom I corresponded with prior to his retirement): Q: Were there pre-Clovis in America? A: Probably is the safest answer."

You've now given us in a single thread three different versions of the "probably" story. First you implied that Haynes said that to you in person in Reno, then you claimed he wrote it to you in "personal correspondence," and now you say he wrote it in a paper he published.

Get your story straight, Cabbie, because all the contradictory accounts make you look so desperate for approval that you will say anything, true or not, to portray yourself as taken seriously by experts.


-----------------------
> and if you'd cease
> the personal attacks, your posts would "live"
> longer.

When your post calling me a narcissist was removed, so too were my responses. Now you claim that my posts were the problematic ones. . .

That's classic Cabbie thinking: impressive to an audience of one, risible to everyone else.


------------------------
> I see one was already deleted where I
> mentioned communicating with Haynes; you
> questioned me on whether that took place, and that
> was removed as well

If my questioning your claims about interacting with Haynes were violations of the rules, they would have been deleted--and yet there they are, in all their glory, in the post to which you are now replying.


----------------
> I won't hold my breath waiting for a coherent
> reply on that figure of "30,000 years."

You asked me no question about "30,000 years." Hold your breath waiting for an answer if you want, another child turning purple in the hope that some adult will pay him the attention he so deeply craves, but as a general rule I do not answer questions that no one has posed to me.


---------------
> Your attempts at obfuscation amount to
> gaslighting, period.

Excellent. You deceive us about your contact with Haynes, you claim my posts were pulled when it was yours that were deleted, you fault me for not answering a question you never asked me--and I am the one who is gaslighting.

That, in a nutshell, is Cabbie logic. "I'm a victim," he says, "regardless of the facts."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2020 02:41PM by Lot's Wife.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269690575_The_Millennium_Before_Clovis

>>In the assessment of some scholars, if there had been human populations in the New World many more than 1000 years before Clovis, the archeological traces of the millennium before Clovis, as reviewed above, should be much clearer and more extensive than it is, which seems to weaken the hypothetical case for a very early human occupation of the New World.

A good portion of this paper (2015 date) is focused on possible "pre-Clovis people"; no one doubts there was a population that gave rise to the widespread Clovis culture, but the devil-in-the-details is who were they and where did they live? The DNA results from the "Anzick Clovis Child" showed it descended from this population.

Haynes: "It was also obvious that there had to be an ancestral human population in the Americas, which developed the Classic Clovis features. Haynes and others had faith that a pre-Clovis progenitor population would be found. It seems logical to expect that sites dating to the millennium before Clovis would provide evidence about the origins of Clovis."

Haynes' Conclusion: "Probably the very first humans in the New World were too scattered and transitory in any one locality to leave much of an archeological record, as Meltzer (2009) and others have surmised. But by the time of Clovis, the record had become very visible and distinct. The ancestral humans of 1000 years before Clovis were in the process of establishing an archeological footprint, even if they left hardly any discoverable traces for centuries. Our picture of the transition from the older-than-Clovis period to the Clovis era may always remain indefinite and perplexing because of the visibility problem. In the assessment of some scholars, if there had been human populations in the New World many more than 1000 years before Clovis, the archeological traces of the millennium before Clovis, as reviewed above, should be much clearer and more extensive than it is, which seems to weaken the hypothetical case for a very early human occupation of the New World."

Thank you for making my point.

Haynes is among the great majority of experts in the field who see pre-Clovis population of the Americas as an established fact. The purpose of his paper, as I said above, was to explore whether the origins of the later Clovis civilization can be tied to specific Pre-Clovis groups and cultures as they are understood at this point in time.

That fact, which you transparently sought to obscure above by omitting the key sentence in the abstract, indicates clearly that Haynes does not--and has not for six plus years--believe in Clovis First. Given that all your stars, Haynes, Raff, Roosevelt, Willerslev, agree that Clovis First is discredited and Pre-Clovis firmly established, why did you persist in arguing against the latter until when? A year ago? Six months ago? Now?

Or are you still that lonely man, an advocate of Clovis First?

According to the article's I've read they dated the stratigraphic layer in which they were found.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2020 04:03PM by Richard the Bad.

The best part of this is when the same people who talk about "Native Americans" say Europeans aren't native to Europe. Even when people have been in Europe longer than the Americas. AFAIK, unless you want to go into the realm of crypto-zoology (Ameranthropoides and Bigfoot etc), there is no evidence of non Sap hominids in the Americas. Unlike Europe where pale big nosed Neanderthals once lived.

This is what is known as cognitive dissonance. There is even some round here.

Based on the photo's I've seen of the tools, I'm rather skeptical at this point. But we shall see.

My skepticism is rooted in that figure of 30,000 years.

A moment of silence for Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

My skepticism isn't really rooted on the date. But more on the artifacts (if they really are artifacts) themselves, and the context in which they were found.

since the earth was built from spare parts from other worlds...

Whatever they found was very cleverly put there by all of the pre-mortal priesthood holders as they helped mormon Jesus build a world where upon these may dwell....

I would't be suprised if someone didn't put 30,000 year old tools there just to give us something to talk about, since they could see the future.

For those who don't know me, yes, I am joking...

(sorry for asking) Is there some (direct) tie to ChurchCo claims here somewhere?

Yeah, something to the effect that "...and the land was empty, having been reserved for Nephi and his kin..." And that was in 600 B.C., so the indicators that the two American continents were teeming with Pre-Lamanites was a bit of an embarrassing blunder on the part of Joseph Smythinhacker, Jr.

My dog in this fight only cares that there were LOTS of people here prior to 600 B.C.

Several ties.

First the claim that humans have been around less than 7,000 years. So any humans existing prior to that is at odds with their teachings.

Second that the Americas were empty of human life and populated around 600 BCE by migrants from Jerusalem. Now they've since backed off on this after DNA evidence failed to match their theology.

Third. The claim unique to mormonism that humans originated in the Americas. No archeological or DNA evidence supports this.

The more clear picture we have of human origins and migrations the better we understand the fraud of mormonism.

3 arrows to the chest, got it..