PDA

View Full Version : Disputed finds put humans in South America 22,000 years ago



southerncross
03-16-2013, 06:28 PM
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/348953/description/Disputed_finds_put_humans_in_South_America_22000_y ears_ago

Of course,main stream science doesn't want to accept this possibility so they are down to crediting capuchin monkeys ! I have to admit, it was the best chuckle I've had in a long time.

Doc
03-16-2013, 06:40 PM
When I first started following this subject, they were talking about 7,000 years ago for the Clovis Culture. It took decades of evidence and argument for the Clovis proponents to grudgingly accept 10,000 years ago and then 12,000 ago. Thge last time I checked, they were resisting 14,000 years ago. Since the Clovis people still run the university departments, we may have to wait for a few more funerals for finds like Pedra Furada and Calico to get a fair evaluation. The Calico stone tools were dismissed as the product of water running down rocky streams and breaking random stones into tool-like forms. Nobody laughed.

A99
03-16-2013, 09:34 PM
Right, it's all about maintaining the existing status quo and they do that by resorting to every devious trick in the book by:
-- pulling rank
-- questioning the researchers qualifications to have conducted the research project in the first place.
--- attacking the research methodologies and techniques used in the study/project by saying they're unorthodox.
--- challenging their theories by claiming that they were not working in a legitimate category in the field.
-- and so on...

Whenever there is an established formal or informal hierarchy in any field of study, the person with the new information that’s going to topple the existing apple-cart is ambushed in the manner I just described above. So as we can see, those who are like this justify their ridiculous pretenses to authority in the field by tearing down anyone who they see as their competitor. But their real passion is not the field they are working in -- but their own ego’s.

majicbar
03-16-2013, 10:17 PM
Typically any new idea will only get 10-15% adoption, no matter how correct or obvious it may be. Another few years may get to 30% penetration and after a generation maybe half will come around to accepting the truth. Only when the old guard dies off and the cultural memory of the old ideas has passed on will the adoption of the truth be accepted such that it is. It is a shame but this has been true throughout history.

CasperParks
03-17-2013, 04:18 AM
Continuing support of, we know nothing regarding ancient history. Ancient unknown history will come to the forefront when disclosure unfolds. Can we expect truth or deceit?

southerncross
10-16-2013, 05:59 PM
Information and research is adding up. This article refers to cultures dating back 30,000 in the Americas.
Glad the research is catching up to what many suspected and knew from the college of common sense.

http://news.discovery.com/history/did-humans-arrive-in-americas-30000-years-ago-131014#mkcpgn=rssnws1

.

Doc
10-17-2013, 07:54 PM
Information and research is adding up. This article refers to cultures dating back 30,000 in the Americas.
Glad the research is catching up to what many suspected and knew from the college of common sense.

http://news.discovery.com/history/did-humans-arrive-in-americas-30000-years-ago-131014#mkcpgn=rssnws1

.

It is beginning to look like the new accepted date is going to be 30,000 years ago. Over the last year, the stories like the one you linked are all talking 22,000 to something over 30,000. The evidence is mounting and some of the newer people are going to be tougher to silence with the internet available to get the word out.
The Last time I went to Calico the Site Guide said they were revising the dates downward to 30,000 - 60,000 based on new tests. This is huge change for them. When we dug there as student volunteers we were excavating stone tools and debitage from levels dated between 80,000 to 120,000 and they were quite sure of those dates at the time. Now that the desert has cooled off I guess it is time for another trip out there to see if there are any newer developments.

Doc
10-18-2013, 07:43 AM
These are some of the more promising of the older dated sites. These have varying levels of acceptance and none are completely accepted.

Pedra Furada (Brazil) (http://archaeology.about.com/od/pethroughpg/qt/pedra_furada.htm)

Pedra Furada is a rockshelter in northeastern Brazil, where quartz flakes and possible hearths have been identified dated to between 48,000 and 14,300 years ago. The site is still somewhat controversial, although the later occupations, dated after 10,000 are accepted

Tlapacoya (Mexico) (http://archaeology.about.com/od/tterms/g/tlapacoya.htm)

Tlapacoya is a multicomponent site located in the basin of Mexico, and it includes an important Olmec component site. Tlapacoya's Pre-Clovis site returned radiocarbon dates between 21,000 and 24,000 years ago.

Topper (Virginia, USA) (http://archaeology.about.com/od/tterms/qt/topper.htm)

The Topper (http://archaeology.about.com/od/tterms/qt/topper.htm) site is in the Savannah River floodplain of the Atlantic coast of Virginia. The site is multicomponent, meaning that human occupations later than Pre-Clovis have been identified, but the two Pre-Clovis component date to 15,000 and 50,000 years ago. The 50,000 is still fairly controversial.

Monte Verde (Chile) (http://archaeology.about.com/od/preclovissites/ss/monte_verde.htm)

Monte Verde is arguably the first Pre-Clovis site to be taken seriously by the majority of the archaeological community. The archaeological evidence shows a small group of huts were built on the shoreline in far southern Chile, about 15,000 years ago. This is a photo essay of the archaeological investigations.

Meadowcroft Rockshelter (Pennsylvania, USA) (http://archaeology.about.com/od/mterms/qt/meadowcroft.htm)

If Monte Verde was the first site seriously considered as Pre-Clovis, than Meadowcroft Rockshelter is the site which should have been seriously considered. Discovered on a tributary stream of the Ohio River in Pennsylvania, Meadowcroft dates to at least 14,500 years ago and shows a technology which is decidedly different from traditional Clovis.

The links are from About.com Archeology http://archaeology.about.com/od/upperpaleolithic/tp/Pre-Clovis-Sites.htm