20,000 Year Old Footprints Show Humans Have Been Longer Than

Post Reply New Topic

Full Title:
20,000 Year Old Footprints Show Humans Have Been in the Americas Longer Than Previously Believed

https://www.businessinsider.com/white-sands-human-footprints-ancient-dated-new-evidence-2023-10

While interesting, I remain skeptical until independent carbon-dating is performed.

If true, then this would be the year 22,023 of the unofficial Human Era.

Of the unofficial American Human Era you mean, oldest Homo Sapien remains so far were found in Morocco and dated to 300K years ago.

It pushes the date back by some 6000 years, compared to previous estimates.
Well, why not? There were probably multiple migration events, of smaller and larger scale.

Let's not forget that twenty-something thousand years ago, anatomically modern humans already lived on the other side of Beringia and current Bering Strait was land.

Nothing to do with that.

If verified we would still be in the year 12023. And Alexander the Great would still be 9670.

This "unofficial human era" thing, seems to be a sudden bee in your bonnet obsession, and you dont seem to even quite understand it.

This "human era" thing is NOT "the era that humans have existed", nor even "the era that anatomically modern humans have existed".

Its the era that "the planet's ecosystems have become dominated by human activity". Or something along those lines.

Its the "human dominated era" not "the era of humans" (the later would be a lot longer time span).

At then end of the last Ice Age humans began to play around with domestication and settling down and began to transition from the Paleolithic to the mesolithic and then to Neolithic and then finally to the Bronze Age after about five thousand years. And that end of the Ice Age and start of the transition began about ten thousand years ago. Which happens to be a nice round figure.

So some propose sticking ten K onto dates so that both BC and AD dates become positive numbers counted forward from this approximate prehistoric end of the last Ice Age.

Before ten thousand BC we existed, but were just another large mammal on the planet, after that we gradually became a geological force effecting the planet. Or thats the thinking.

So even if this evidence of Paleoindians in American prior to Clovis at 20 thousand years ago is verified it still has nothing to do with "the human era" because the people who left the evidence, though anatomically modern humans, were still "cave people" (ie stone age Paleolithic hunter gatherers).

Humans (the genus Homo) have been around for about two million years when Homo Erectus appeared.

Anatomically modern humans came out of Africa about a hundred thousand years ago, and reached Australia by at least 60 thousand years ago. And entered Europe and interacted with the Neanderthals already there about 40 thousand years ago, and finnished driving the Neanderthals to extinction some time shortly after 35 thousand years ago.

All of the above happened long before the start date of this "human era" thing.

Genetics has established the first Americans were Australians
https://www.science.org/content/article ... n-ancestry

And not Asiatic Siberians

Curiously the genetic data suggest aboriginal Australians were able to arrive in America at least 20,000 years ago
When you include Clovis Man arriving through ice bridges from Europe a little later it explains why phenotypically indigenous peoples in north and south American often don't resemble Siberians.

The earliest civilisaiton in meso-America, the Olmecs sculpted their faces like Australian aboriginals

This isn't surprising, there may well have been even earlier humans, but who's traces were destroyed or have yet to be found.

^^No one in the article claims native Americans weren't descendants of Syberian Asians. They have admixture of DNA shared with Australians and Melanesians. Out of several computer models, the one fitting the data the best is that this admixture was present already during the initial dispersal - but it does not fit the fact that North Americans don't have this gene.
And, as usually, more research needed. There's plenty of things we still don't know, that's what research is all about.

The original Ainu people of Japan show a very close resemblance to Australian aboriginals



It indicates the people the Japanese referred to as the Jamon or Amishi were likely travelling from south in Indonesia and north into North America thousands of years before.

Really?

Anyway, the Australasian ancestry was found in contemporary Aleutians (living today in islands that used to be Beringia) and there's speculation of some ghost population in East Asia that contributed both to Australasians and ancient Beringians - and, through them, to indigenous Americans.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18029

Modern Ainu are closer genetically to Modern Japanese as with modern native Americans are closer to Siberia. That there is no dispute.

But the original peoples who lived in these regions show common phenotypic resemblance to melanesians/aboriginal Australians. An interesting characteristic of aboriginal Australians, pacific melanesians and negrito peoples of Andaman and the Philippines is a high level of Denisovan DNA.

The people in your images are clearly intermixed with Japanese. The one I posted is less so.

Denisovian admixture is yet another topic - most prominent in Tibetans, who probably get their unique adaptations to high altitudes from them.

Phenotypes are often misleading, they often turn out more related to living conditions than to ancestry.

The man you posted is barely visible from behind his facial hair, you can't even tell his eyes' shape. Is being wrinkled and barely visible from hair how you trace indigenous Australian phenotype? I don't think so.

Chukchi, Aleutes, Eweni, all North East Asians have features you seem to attribute to "intermixing with Japanese". Maybe it were the Japanese who intermixed with Aleutes to get this phenotype? Who are Japanese, genetically? East Asians, just like them.

By the way, there's no reason to assume any kind of "pure blood races" in places that were never isolated from neighbouring nations.

^ The forehead perhaps. It is a distinct feat of Australian Aboriginals.

Sloping forehead is also common in Russia and Europe in general.

Curiously the biologist, Alfred Wallace found there is clear distinct geographic line that separates east Asian flora and fauna from the Australasian or Austro-pacific flora and fauna. Today we call this the Wallace line.



By coincidence it also represents a demarcation between the mongoloid south-east Asian populations and the melanesian populations found in New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia and Australia.

The demarcation is no accident. East Asian populations are highly self-conscious over their physical identity and while there are some exceptions (Philippines and Timor) they quite clearly did not seek to "contaminate" their bloodlines. East asians have always been highly conscious over colourism, this was never introduced by Europeans, self-selection was happening for thousands of years. As I said the Wallace line is no accident, It represents a distinct human separation line.