A cave in a remote part of Mexico was visited by humans around 30,000 years ago – 15,000 years earlier than people were previously thought to have reached the Americas.

[Just another man]

https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/earliest-humans-stayed-americas-oldest-hotel-mexican-cave

"Dr Ardelean said: “We don’t know who they were, where they came from or where they went. They are a complete enigma. We falsely assume that the indigenous populations in the Americas today are direct descendants from the earliest Americans, but now we do not think that is the case."

[Just another man]

When you couple this with the big news last week [about how Polynesian islands were populated by people from the Americas, aka Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon Tiki theory is accurate], it’s almost like our entire picture of pre-Columbia’s America’s is terribly wrong.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/07/dna-pre-columbian-contact-polynesians-native-americans/

[JW Insider]

This is quite interesting. I'm glad you brought it up as I need outside reminders these days, and no longer try to keep up with articles in National Geographic and Nature, etc. Unless prompted.

I am concerned that the Mexican cave archaeologists have so little to go on. The supposed limestone tools were made from limestone that is already just outside the cave entrance. And much of the evidence is literally, "flaky." Just flakes of limestone that were chipped off larger stones. I assume they are holding back some of the best evidence, because the only picture in the article of the supposed tool evidence is this:

The article shows that there is doubt, too. For example:

. . . Oregon State archaeologist . . . points out that cave environments also create plenty of naturally fractured stones that can be misinterpreted as artifacts. . . . He’s also troubled by the lack of other signs of human occupation in the cave deposits, such as hearths and animal bones bearing cut marks.

“You can have a big list of all the things you might expect to see in a site, and [the Chiquihuite researchers] don't have anything except for some broken rock,” Davis says. “And if you take the rocks away, there’s really nothing.” While he calls the research “intriguing,” he’s reserving judgment.

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, Michael Krewson said:

When you couple this with the big news last week [about how Polynesian islands were populated by people from the Americas, aka Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon Tiki theory is accurate], it’s almost like our entire picture of pre-Columbia’s America’s is terribly wrong.

The NatGeo article also admits that the findings are a bit controversial and could also have worked about as well in the other direction. (Polynesia to Peru, rather than Peru to Polynesia, with arguments in both directions.)

For a couple of centuries, some of these theories by scientists who make a study of the early populations of the Americas have been permeated with racists. Their agenda has often been to promote superiority and priority of whiter populations over darker populations.

Also, highlighting ancient Native American migrations and movement due to war and conquest has, for example, been utilized to defend the genocidal tendencies in European conquerors. That was not part of this story, but one of the articles that the NatGeo article links to about Thor Heyerdahl is revealing, and embarrassing:

 

[Just another man]

So nobody really knows. Sigh.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Michael Krewson said:

So nobody really knows. Sigh.

Sometimes, it's what the scientist says that ain't necessarily so. (Apologies to "Porgy and Bess")

Of course, we've all learned that people once came over from Asia to North America on a land/ice "bridge" between what's now Russia and Alaska. There weren't any road signs up back then, so they had trouble keeping their Bering Strait. 😊