Ancient Footprints Could Be Oldest Traces of Humans in the Americas (nature.com) 38
Opyros writes: Fossil footprints in New Mexico have been dated to 21,000-23,000 years before present. As a result, human habitation of the Americas can be pushed back several thousand years.
The footprints were found in sedimentary rock at White Sands National Park, near the location of a long-vanished lake. Since the rock contains seeds of ditchgrass, it was possible to apply radiocarbon dating, leading to the remarkably early date. Until now, the oldest unequivocally dated signs of human presence in the New World were only 16,000 years old. Hence the great significance of the find.
The footprints were found in sedimentary rock at White Sands National Park, near the location of a long-vanished lake. Since the rock contains seeds of ditchgrass, it was possible to apply radiocarbon dating, leading to the remarkably early date. Until now, the oldest unequivocally dated signs of human presence in the New World were only 16,000 years old. Hence the great significance of the find.
Civilization (Score:2)
"Civilization is always older than we think, and below are feet were people who also lived and loved."
Re: (Score:3)
> also lived and loved.
and laughed.
Re: (Score:1)
If footprints counted as civilisation, it would go back to the amphibians.
The first known real civilization in the Americas was around 3500BC in Peru. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If wokeness determines that every savage was "civilised", the word loses all meaning.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
quenda wants to dictate what is culture and what isn't, and he has "standards".
Culture != civilisation. Culture is ideas and habits that are passed between generations, and long predates humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Again, there is no hard definition, but we can safely say that while we can observe cultural transmission in primates, or some birds, it is not seen in lizards.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it seems you didn't.
Re: Civilization (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
While your self-righteous hissy-fit out of nowhere is amusing, we'd prefer some sort of semi-intelligent argument.
I can't even tell what is up your arse. What's wrong with savages? (not that I used the word, as I know some people feel it has negative connotations ).
99.9% of may ancestors were savages, and they probably had a better life than most of my civilised ancestors who lived as peasant farmers.
Re: (Score:2)
oops, i did use the 'S' word without a trigger warning. Sorry. But if you find the word offensive, that just reveals your own prejudices about savages.
Modern examples would include the Kalahari Bushmen, and I never heard anybody talk badly of them. Perhaps you grew up with bad Hollywood stereotypes?
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me your language is precisely that of a savage.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate savages?
Re: (Score:3)
If wokeness determines that every savage was "civilised", the word loses all meaning.
It has no clear meaning anyway.
Typo (Score:2)
"below our feet" (not "are feet").
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks
Ancient Neil Armstrong. (Score:2)
That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.
There are sites that have been claimed to be older (Score:5, Interesting)
There are sites that have been claimed to be older, but have yet to be accepted by mainstream archeology.
For example, Chiquihuite Cave in Mexico is claimed to show signs of human artifacts 30,000 years ago, but doubts have been raised if they are human-made stone tools, and if the dating is correct.
On the flip side, to explain a younger date more in line with Clovis (around 14,000 years ago), archeologists have to go with a Beringia-isolation model to be consistent with the evidence. Some genetic evidence seems to indicate that the ancestors of modern indigenous Americans split from NE Asians around 30,000-40,000 years ago. To get around this while still believing in a later peopling of Americas, the theory is that the ancestors of indigenous Americans must have been isolated in what is now Beringia for over 10,000 years. That seems rather questionable as well.
Re:There are sites that have been claimed to be ol (Score:5, Informative)
The list of older sites is getting longer and longer [wikipedia.org]. I don't think Clovis is tenable anymore. Especially after this find in tfa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, with the sheer number of older dates we're finding, my gut feeling is that they probably aren't all inaccurate.
Yeah in the last decade the consensus has changed. With these footprints for example, they found seeds encased in the footprints and carbon dated them. Are you going to say the carbon dating is wrong? That's unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There are sites that have been claimed to be o (Score:2)
Let's remember that native peoples have often obstructed work intended to clarify some of these questions, lest it be revealed they themselves were simply another invasive culture that overwhelmed and exterminated a backward native populace when they arrived here, and likely without offering such populations the niceties of free college and tax free situations on their way out...
simply unbelievable (Score:3)
Okay, let's play Occam's razor.
Which is the simpler explanation:
1) that humans were secretly spread all over the Americas for 10,000 years, left virtually no traces behind anywhere other than these footprints and a handful of other minor settlements (each separated by thousands of miles and thousands of years, THEN suddenly one day, 13,000 years ago, some one said "Hey, did you guys know we can eat all these big animals?" And they then multiplied exponential across the continents and left massive traces of all kinds from then on.
Or 2) That these footprints and the handful of other pre-land bridge sites, despite the honest efforts by archeologists, are simply just misdated.
Re:simply unbelievable (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing against the integrity or rigor of the researchers, but that it seems most likely to me that the site just appears older than it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They migrated all the way into New Mexico and then just.... completely disappeared without a trace?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it seems more then a handful of sites. Someone posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] an interesting read.
Consider the Denisovan and how few sites have been found of their existence, considering they may have lasted till 14,500 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's really hit and miss for evidence to survive for that long, with ice ages and ocean level changes erasing or otherwise hiding evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, let's play Occam's razor.
Which is the simpler explanation:
1) that humans were secretly spread all over the Americas for 10,000 years, left virtually no traces behind anywhere other than these footprints and a handful of other minor settlements (each separated by thousands of miles and thousands of years, THEN suddenly one day, 13,000 years ago, some one said "Hey, did you guys know we can eat all these big animals?" And they then multiplied exponential across the continents and left massive traces of all kinds from then on.
Or 2) That these footprints and the handful of other pre-land bridge sites, despite the honest efforts by archeologists, are simply just misdated.
What is secret about it? The sites exist even if there dates are not always clear. In addition, there is the hypothesis that much of the early migration was costal and sea levels were much lower during the ice age, so the sites would be underwater now. Stone age cultures did not always leave a lot of traces especially if they were hunter/gatherer or herder cultures that did not stay in one place. I think that that Clovis date is due in part to the fact that they were the first remains discovered and in
Re: (Score:2)
Simple explanations may be emotionally satisfying, but they are often wrong. In this case, the "Clovis First" hypothesis you seem to subscribe to is outdated. The Clovis points were invented by people already established in the Americas 13K years ago (the oldest ones were found in Texas and Mexico), not brought along by people migrating from Asia so they simply cannot be used to date when the migration(s) occurred. In fact the explosive spread of these tools looks very much like cultural spread of a new ide
Or (3) they aren't homo sapiens (Score:2)
Duh, option 3 -> they weren't modern humans at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or 3) that someone 10,000 years ago stepped in some 20,000 year old mud and left a footprint.
We get sedimentation, leaving clearly datable strata. Then a river shifts and exposes older layers. And somebody walks in it. I can go out today and leave bootprints in 10,000 year old sediment. And leave future generations of anthropologists wondering how the first settlers to this continent came to be wearing Doc Martins.
Can't be humans. (Score:1)
Humans are born with shoes. They need them to survive. As everybody knows and tells me. ... /s
Not exactly new (Score:2)