Talk:Peopling of the Americas

Citations

• Bruce B. Huckell; J. David Kilby (2014). Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries and New Research. UNM Press. ISBN 978-0-8263-5483-9.
• Claude Chapdelaine (2012). Late Pleistocene Archaeology and Ecology in the Far Northeast. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 978-1-60344-805-5.
• Neil Asher Silberman; Alexander A. Bauer (2012). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–78. ISBN 978-0-19-973578-5.
• Timothy R. Pauketat (2012). The Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-538011-8.
• John F. Hoffecker; Scott A. Elias (2013). Human Ecology of Beringia. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-50388-4.
• Vivien Gornitz (2009). Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 207. ISBN 978-1-4020-4551-6.
• Terry L. Jones; Alice A. Storey; Elizabeth A. Matisoo-Smith (2011). Polynesians in America: Pre-Columbian Contacts with the New World. Rowman Altamira. ISBN 978-0-7591-2006-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith; Lisa Matisoo-Smith; K. Ann Horsburgh (2012). DNA for Archaeologists. Left Coast Press. pp. 130–... ISBN 978-1-59874-682-2.
• Graeme Wynn (2007). Canada and Arctic North America: An Environmental History. ABC-CLIO. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-85109-437-0.

Implicit time travel by migrants

Mmmeiss (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The migration map shown in Figure 2 implies time travel. The arrowheads presumably show direction of travel, and the color scale shows time in thousands of years before present.

Consider Arrow 1, the large arrow with the red head. Its tail is in Siberia and the yellow color indicates 10,000 years ago. Its head is almost in Alaska and is dark read, indicating 25,000 years ago. Thus, as the people migrated into Alaska, they went back in time.

Arrow 3 shows the same confusion, while the green arrows (both with the number 4) both go from older to more recent, as we would expect.

Is this a case where a graphic artist payed more attention to artistry than logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.5.76 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The map is about gene flow....pls see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000829 for a better explanation.--Moxy (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A giant capuchin monkey is a better candidate for the smasher of the femurs and teeth of the Cerutti Mastodon than Homo sapiens.

See [1]. "My disagreement is not, in short, with the Cerutti team’s factual findings, but rather with their conclusion that there is “no other way that the material of the Cerutti Mastodon site could have been produced than through human activity.”[3] In this article I suggest that it is more likely that the Cerutti mastodon’s bones and teeth were smashed by an individual or individuals of a large platyrrhine monkey species descended from, or otherwise related to, the giant capuchin Acrecebus fraileyi." Doug Weller talk 19:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

and why not a giant Spaghetti flying monster, then? Or a Bigfoot? A giant apes that demolish a mastondon is really better to believe than a human action? Ever happened that an ape can use tools to do this? Anyway thanks to the link.

Pedra Furada

Not a single word about Pedra Furada? Pedra Furada is the oldest known human site in the Americas and it is in South America and not in North America and it contradicts the Clovis Theory and the Short Theory. Is it the reason for the exclusion? Joaoialima (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I just created the redirect Pleistocene peopling of the Americas -- this is intended to refer to the "long chronology" theory. The problem seems to be that the two theories aren't conflicting, but are presented in a muddled-up fashion as if they were. The two should be discussed separately:

• "Short chronology" means post-LGM, including all unresolved questions of "ice corridor" vs. "coastal migration", and just how many years before Clovis (19 kya? 16 kya?)
• "Long chronology" doesn't impinge on any of this, it is the possibility that there may have been an earlier peopling, at 50 kya, tens of thousands of years before. There is very scant evidence for this indeed, but recent genetic studies appear to lend support to it, so it may be worth dedicating a section to it. Everything discussed under "short chronology" will still be valid even if this is true, the only difference will be that a small number of "Australoids" were already hiding in the Amazon basin, and may have interbred with the new arrivals around 14 kya.

I am not sure if Pleistocene peopling of the Americas is the best title (technically, 19 kya is still in the "late Late Pleistocene), I took the term from Santos et al. 2003, but there certainly should be a dedicated page on this, combining the material now scattered across this page, Luzia Woman, Walter Neves, Pedra Furada, Australo-Melanesians#Possible_early_presence_in_the_Americas, Fuegians#Possible_Australian/Melanesian_origin, Las Palmas Complex and possibly elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 06:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, "Pleistocene peopling of the Americas" could be a better title for this page, as all scenarios, early (50 kya), post-LGM (20 kya), "Clovis first" (13 kya) and even "Solutrean" (20 kya), take place entirely within the Late Pleistocene. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)