[HN Gopher] New dating for White Sands footprints confirms contr...
___________________________________________________________________
New dating for White Sands footprints confirms controversial theory
Author : _tk_
Score : 54 points
Date : 2025-06-20 18:23 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| __cxa_throw wrote:
| What is the new widely accepted theory for how humans first
| arrived in the Americas, if not for the traditional Bering Land
| Bridge hypothesis?
| ianburrell wrote:
| The new theory is that they came along the coast. Clovis
| culture arrived 13-16,000 years ago through corridor in ice
| sheets. But earlier sites, including these footprints, suggest
| that people arrived another way. These footprints are 21-23,000
| years ago. I don't think there is any evidence how they got
| there, but the coast is plausible explanation.
| tempestn wrote:
| When you say "the coast", do you mean travelling south down
| the Pacific coast after crossing the Bering land bridge?
|
| Edit: ah, the earlier discussion covers this:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44319585
| m0llusk wrote:
| There is genetic evidence linking these very old inhabitants
| to Pacific Islanders of that time and there were more islands
| at that time because of lower sea levels.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| It's really confusing to use the term pacific islanders
| here. The farthest humans had reached was the Solomon
| Islands, what we call "near Oceania". The places people
| think of when they say "Pacific Islands", namely Remote
| Oceania (Melanesia), Micronesia, and Polynesia were all
| uninhabited. Those early Papuans weren't especially closely
| related to the founding populations of the Americas, though
| they're closer than you might expect from the geographic
| distance because of the serial founder effect.
| chneu wrote:
| There is also evidence that pacific Islanders made at least
| two trips to the Americas using rafts.
|
| I believe generic testing shows pacific Islander and early
| Asian DNA mixing.
|
| Stefan Milo on YouTube has a few videos looking into
| different theories.
| advisedwang wrote:
| My lay understanding is that the theory is that these earlier
| humans crossed the Bering land bridge but that they didn't
| proceed through a inland ice-free corridor (as there was none
| then). They likely traversed the pacific coast, which was not
| at the same position it is today and so would leave no
| evidence.
|
| I have also seen discussion of sea arrivals, but they are much
| more hypothetical.
|
| Also worth noting as the earlier arrival doesn't rule out the
| later ice-free corridor traversal as having also happens - it
| just means it wasn't the first people to arrive in the
| Americas.
| o11c wrote:
| It's not _that_ different. There 's just dispute over when
| exactly between 30kya and 11kya people first crossed.
| MangoToupe wrote:
| In addition to what other people have indicated, there's a long
| tale of competing theories. There's very limited evidence of
| human settlement in the old crow flats as far back as 40kya
| (which is still 20kya after the settlement of australia), but
| unfortunately this evidence (butchered animal bones) are
| circumstantial and the dating is not reliable.
|
| However, i think ~23kya is a pretty safe bet at this point. And
| there are dozens of sites before 14kya as far south as chile.
| Clovis first has been largely rejected for about 30 years now
| but the old narratives keep floating around.
| fshafique wrote:
| I like the Battlestar Galactica theory for this - a group of
| humans and human-Cylon hybrids bred with the early Neanderthals
| in different regions of the world.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44319585
| quantadev wrote:
| You can tell those feet had toes that were much longer and
| stronger than modern toes are. Makes sense since these creatures
| were closer back to when we were like monkeys climbing thru
| trees.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| These were anatomically modern humans, essentially identical to
| you or I.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Maybe ultra modern humans have toes stunted from non-stop
| shoe wearing. You definitely splay your toes more if you're
| accustomed to walking bare foot than you do if you're
| accustomed to walking in shoes.
| speakspokespok wrote:
| Probably not. :)
|
| However, I do notice the pronounced gaps between the toes. My
| parents generation grew up in Melanesia starting around the
| 1950's and many of them have commented on the distinctly
| different footprint profiles of the local people who never had
| worn shoes and the western newcomers. If you've never worn
| shoes your toes are far more splayed. I don't know about lenght
| of toe.
|
| So really I don't think your observation is related to their
| genetic proximity and more to do with bodily adaptation.
| Perhaps an anthropological podiatrist can comment.
| MangoToupe wrote:
| This comment made me belly laugh. Wtf?
| binary132 wrote:
| 23,000 years is really not a meaningful distance at all in
| terms of evolutionary timescales.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-20 23:01 UTC)