Early Americans earlier than thought?

[technomage]

(CNN) -- Archeologists say a site in South Carolina may rewrite the history of how the Americas were settled by pushing back the date of human settlement thousands of years.

An archeologist from the University of South Carolina today announced radiocarbon dating results of burned plant material dated the first human settlement in North America to 50,000 years ago.

"Topper is the oldest radiocarbon dated site in North America," said Albert Goodyear of the University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.

That would make it significantly older than previously discovered sites, which were thought by most scientists to be from man's earliest venture into the Americas, about 13,000 years ago.



Cool!

Justin

[Maimonides]

(CNN) -- Archeologists say a site in South Carolina may rewrite the history of how the Americas were settled by pushing back the date of human settlement thousands of years.

An archeologist from the University of South Carolina today announced radiocarbon dating results of burned plant material dated the first human settlement in North America to 50,000 years ago.

"Topper is the oldest radiocarbon dated site in North America," said Albert Goodyear of the University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.

That would make it significantly older than previously discovered sites, which were thought by most scientists to be from man's earliest venture into the Americas, about 13,000 years ago.



Cool!

Justin
Interesting. I suppose that would make the early peopling of the Americas contemporaneous with extant populations of Neandertals in Europe. I believe they would also be contemporaneous with the early peopling of the Greater Australian landmass. Fascinating!

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Justin (WiccanThat would make it significantly older than previously discovered sites, which were thought by most scientists to be from man's earliest venture into the Americas, about 13,000 years ago.[/QUOTE]
A actually do not consider this surprizing at all their has been indirect evidence of primative coastal people from both Asia and the northern Europe/Americas as having the ability to fish the ocean and travel long distances along the glacial and continental fringes during this period.

(1) Continental and glacial boundaries would have abundent food resources for ancient coastal primative Stone Age cultures. This would be far easier access to the Americas than over land by any ice bound land bridge, populated by huge bears capable of running at great speeds making indifficult for potential imigrants.

(2) The ancient Red Paint Culture of northern Canada had detachable harpons capable of whaling. The had similar potery designs as northern European Stone Age cultures.

(3) The evidence of settlement of South America is surprizing older than the known North American sites in the wast. The people are genetically close to Asians, which is a strong indication that the sttlements were likely made along the coastal routes and not over land.

(4) The Japanese current in the Pasific and the Gulf Stream make it nice travelling in the north with abundant food.

[zorathruster]

Clovis site was considered the oldest until a site in Chile was found a few years back. The Clovis site was analysed at 14,000 years but the Chile site is dated to 20,000. One of the more interesting analysis has to do with the Clovis artifact which is different than any that are found circa same time period from the Asian land route. However, it matches the artifacts found in France from the same time period. The Clovis spear is chizzeled from a single piece of stone, just like those found in France. The Asian tools were usually wood where sharp stones were imbedded into the wood creating a spear or knife.


DNA evidence suggests there were 5 major migrations to the Americas. This is done by sampling indiginous Indian populations and clocking their migration rates of Junk DNA. There is a known variation over time of this section of DNA. By linking them backwards to populations in Asia, they were able to arrive at 5 different populations that came over. 4 have been definately linked to Asian ancestory. The 5th is still unlinked.

[SteveF]

A pre Clovis date has been accepted for a while now. Its just obsessives like Vance Haynes who think otherwise.

I'm still a bit dubious about a 50 ka age for Topper. I'll have to have a look at the study in some detail.

[shunyadragon]

There is a known variation over time of this section of DNA. By linking them backwards to populations in Asia, they were able to arrive at 5 different populations that came over. 4 have been definately linked to Asian ancestory. The 5th is still unlinked.

. . . same time period from the Asian land route.
I prefer the Asian sea route over the Asizn land route for the earliest migrations.

[Dr.GH]

I knew Al 20 years or so back, and he was a good archaeologist. 50,000 years is a lot of years for a new world site. I'll wait to see replication, or a Ur/Th or Ar/Ar date. I have dated sites here in California that have had 40+ feet of deposits( ~15meters), and they were only 8.5ka.