PinGGG!....................
The “native people” are really not natives, but migrants.
Let me be the first to proclaim this racist.
So the first nations are not first but a distant 2nd?
The Indians are not going to like this one bit.
But BIPOCs? Weren’t the ALWAYS here? Straight out of Africa.
When the Climate people started talking about “settled science”, every decent scientist in the world should have jumped up and said, “Hang on. We never really know much of anything in science. We don’t “prove” things in science — that’s a mathematical concept not a scientific concept. Science is a quest, we are constantly learning new things. Science is never “settled” and it’s a bad idea to talk about it that way.”
But, of course, scientists kept their mouths shut.
Didn’t they find bones way older than they were supposed to be in Washington state back during the Clinton years?
North America had aborigines?
Here’s a link to a thread from last year about another cave Mexico.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3867807/posts
Humans have been on this planet for at least 200000 years.
Of course they populated the American continent more than 30000 years ago.🤔
Gypsies
Arrived 30,000 years ago.....and still waiting for their luggage.
May have been 100,000 years earlier. Denisovans or Neanderthals. See https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129042-first-americans-may-have-been-neanderthals-130000-years-ago/
I’ve always wondered about how scientists discovered the baseline of carbon dating. Kind of like the chicken and the egg. Don’t scientists have to start with a constant?
OK kids, follow me on this one. There was an ice age and a Bering Land Bridge because a lot of the sea water was frozen as glaciers so there was a lot more shore line than there is now. Humans were migrating from Siberia across the land bridge. Do they continue inland where everything is frozen and there might not be much food or do they stick to the coastline where they know there is a lot of stuff to eat as they move south? I would have stuck to the shoreline. Eventually the Earth starts to warm and much of that ice melts back to water. The land bridge is flooded as are most of the coastal settlements. We’ll not find any evidence of these coastal settlements because they are all under water now. However, if the ancient humans migrated far enough south along the coast they eventually would have reached areas without glaciers and could have easily moved inland. Mexico was never glaciated. See how easy it is to be a scientist?
The writers of this article knows not of the discovery in the 80s in South Carolina that shoved man’s presence back in NA to 50KYA, nor the discovery in San Diego area in 1992 along State Route 54 that shoved it back to 130KYA.
I’m not suggesting that the Hueyatlaco site surveys weren’t inaccurate or debatable...
...but this demonstrates that they NEVER should have shut down debate on the matter by closing off the site and burying the research under a literal façade of dirt (development) and bureaucratic stonewalling to protect the ‘settled science’ of North American archaeological history (the latter being dripping sarcasm).
I can’t recall the documentary name I watched on the dig over a decade ago, but the Mexican government literally permitted development of the site, including housing and bulldozing of the dig.
Coincidentally, both the Tehuacan Valley site and the (former) Hueyatlaco site are near the city of Puebla, Mexico. The OP article makes no mention.
Curious. /s
For reference & of interest:
https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/hueyatlaco-00616