Interesting read, and above quote shouldn’t distract from it, but I thought that theory was abandoned, or at least certainly not considered so likely that it would be presumed by default anymore.
The second does not imply the first, correlation is not causation.
> what other theories are beating that out?
See: almost any scholarly discussion on megafauna disappearences in (say) Australasia or elsewhee of the past few decades.
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=64074
The controversy claimed is entirely overblown. Longer timelines for migration have been discussed widely for quite a while.
I completely understand not wanting to bother with peer review but generally your peers want a good result to be published.
> But the geological record is like reading the CliffsNotes version of a book, and he was frustrated by an “unconformity” in the sediment layers where thousands of years were missing, like someone had ripped out those chapters.
It’s an island and they’re not the most reliable for dating sediment layers - they’re not exactly closed systems.
I haven’t read his book but I can totally see a case for skepticism over the precise dating. It’s a common trick/error to play fast and loose with carbon dating calibration standards and sample collection to get better numbers. It’s hard to get right in the best of times and the results have to be taken in context.
Are you saying that: Effective, significant resistance to pre-Clovis theories wasn't a thing in the latter 20th cent ?
Did the Clovis conquer or wipe out the pre-Clovis people?
We don't know what happened to the preclovis groups. It's likely they were absorbed/became ancestral to later groups like those behind Clovis culture rather than erased, but the evidence is too scarce to say anything definitive.
My understanding is that Clovis-first has been considered rejected by the anthropology community since the 90s. Yet it's somehow treated as the dominant viewpoint being challenged in every single popular anthropology article even now in 2024.
Also, Clovis isn't necessarily the genetic ancestor of modern Native Americans. Evidence of Clovis culture is predominantly based on tool type, and material that can infer genetic relationships is almost entirely lacking.
That’s a problem in any community; gatekeepers.
But, at the same time, as Sagan mentioned, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A lot of completely batshit stuff pops up, all the time.
Extraordinary claims would be that humans were in this location far earlier than previous evidence suggested and they had mastered flight or were doing calculus or something.
I apologize for appearing to dis the claim. That was not my intent. I was simply stating the issues we face in these types of things, with gatekeepers and crazies.
I actually support this guy. I think he's probably correct.
American archaeologists and their desire for fame... Dig up a hole, find the stone tools that evidence human occupation, draw the stratigraphy, do radiocarbon dating, publish in a reputed journal (not your MySpace), rinse and repeat...
I mean what else did you expect archaeologists to do?
Hat's off to him for publishing it. There are currently serious problems with the peer reviewed publishing process, starting with the fact that it was born in an era when the scientific world was smaller and people reviewing your work may have known you or someone vouching for you and this is generally no longer true.
But we do rely heavily on where in a sediment layer a thing was found to try to date it, so with that piece missing for most items, arguing about the defects of the power review process is kind of moot. He should probably work at addressing this issue and maybe that's the piece he doesn't really want to wrestle to the ground to begin with in the peer review process.
In chemistry, either the proposed path works or it doesn't.
In squishier sciences (econ? archaeology? history? long-term fields like dietary and environmental sciences?), there's less ability for things that fly in the face of conventional wisdom to be provably correct solely on their content.
Consequently, there's more ability to suppress them. Or at least apathetically ignore and not circulate them.
And, to the point here, there's a lot more rocks lobbed at you when you're challenging the status quo that careers have been built on, versus following or supporting it.
Nobody wants to be wrong about something they've staked decades on.
I was wondering whether more exposed land would have made much difference to migration routes?
The DNA record doesn't show any migrations across the north or south Atlantic Ocean, correct? Is there any evidence of humans using routes other than the Bering Strait?
Referenced from https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1496
Fixed the headline boss!
There exists, mostly in the northern tribes (Ojibwa 27%, Sioux 15%) mtDNA of the X type. As I understand it the other highest group in the world is the Druze population in the Levant. (27%) What it all means is above my pay grade.
Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/animated-gifs--365917538457473...
