Archaeologica.org

This article is about 6 months old. I wonder if there is any followup on it? (this is in Uruguay)

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-11-ancient- ... umans.html

I would doubt it from a US source.

Thanks!

circumspice wrote:Thanks!

You're welcome. I was surprised to find that much

If mainstream archaeology has its way, you'll never hear anything else about this....at least not for many years. The old school codgers have to all die off before anything new will be accepted. I firmly believe that humans have been in this hemisphere for much, much longer than what the accepted literature states. Some may have even evolved here. Just my opinion....

Frank Harrist wrote:If mainstream archaeology has its way, you'll never hear anything else about this....at least not for many years. The old school codgers have to all die off before anything new will be accepted. I firmly believe that humans have been in this hemisphere for much, much longer than what the accepted literature states. Some may have even evolved here. Just my opinion....

You could say there are two mainstreams: NA and SA. The South Americans couldn't care less what our dominant NA paradigms are. Some are willing to entertain the notion that some Brazilian sites represent evidence of arrival from Africa across the Atlantic. They were never locked into Clovis-first when Clovis-first ruled the day. I do think things like the recent Paleoamerican conference in Santa Fe shows that we are at the point where NA archy's know they must accommodate the SA sites and dates to understand the arrival of humans in this hemisphere.

Thank you Shawomet.

My book is "Man and Impact in the Americas", and the Americas include both North, Central, and South America.

What is more striking between the three communities of archaeologists is their differences in the use of oral materials.

The worse part is the work done on the Shawnee in Ohio.
It is truly truly crappy.

shawomet wrote:

Frank Harrist wrote:If mainstream archaeology has its way, you'll never hear anything else about this....at least not for many years. The old school codgers have to all die off before anything new will be accepted. I firmly believe that humans have been in this hemisphere for much, much longer than what the accepted literature states. Some may have even evolved here. Just my opinion....

You could say there are two mainstreams: NA and SA. The South Americans couldn't care less what our dominant NA paradigms are. Some are willing to entertain the notion that some Brazilian sites represent evidence of arrival from Africa across the Atlantic. They were never locked into Clovis-first when Clovis-first ruled the day. I do think things like the recent Paleoamerican conference in Santa Fe shows that we are at the point where NA archy's know they must accommodate the SA sites and dates to understand the arrival of humans in this hemisphere.

I hope you're right. Living in NA we still may not hear about it even if it's accepted by the rest of the world. Our mainstream media is a propaganda machine and they only tell us what the government lets them. I don't know why they wouldn't want us to know this, but who can guess what's in the minds of those idiots?

Our mainstream media is a propaganda machine and they only tell us what the government lets them.

Frank, a propaganda machine in the land of the free? Tell me it isn't so!

Every foreigner I've met understands your comment and most often the only
manner in which to obtain reliable news is to acquire it from outside the U.S.
Our news is biased ... I'm not sure whether its government, or just stupidity.

I just remembered this NY Times article from late March. It's the video link that was very illuminating in showing just how far outside the Clovis-first world view some archaeologists in SA have been all along.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world ... ience&_r=0