Western folk have been doing this racist shit for over 200 years. They can't process the possibility that we didn't come from asians, asians came from us. Berengia has been disproven so many times, yet they still try to prove it because it isn't concievable for us to originate from the Americas, despite the proof the further south they go into the paleo-record the older it gets. Its okay for an Out-of-Africa theory*(which has recently been disproven), but its not ok for us to have a say of where we come from, and who we are. What terrifies them, is that if it is true that the arrow points the other way, it would mean we were to first to explore as a sea-faring culture, way before anyone else and the possibility that natives had the first civilization more than 45,000 years ago.
I do not want to get into politics, but just the dating was wrong. clearly some stuff in far southern South America, blowup old theories. can we not discuss facts?
@@reneprovosty7032 Has it ever occured to you the whole exercise of the dating is disenfranchisement of our people? If you want to discuss facts, lets take a look at the obvious. Berengia theory was a fraudulent theory and had been disproven. Yet, that hasn't stopped Western folk from continually use it as a base to their hyposthesis, and to continually objectify us, tell us who we are and where we came from. Based on the research I have done, and what I have learned from the elders, the arrow of migration should be pointing the other direction.The further south into the Americas you go, the older the record. That means the track migrations started in South America, and went north and into Siberia in the distant past. We never came from Asia, the asian sub-groups came from us. If you look at the linguistic model of track migration from polynesia, this is found to be true, it goes from east to west. Our distant ancestors were sea-faring, way before younger dryas going as far as before 45,000 years. If you pay attention to diseases, the hanta virus that infects the south-asian area, is closely matched to the hanta virus/dear mice virus in the four corners, and its genetic marker goes back 30,000 to 45,000 year. The descenant virus is the hanta virus in South Asia, and the only way it could get there, was by boat by infecting grain storage. That means -> sea-faring. If it was concievable Out of Africa theory(which has also recently been disproven) then the hypothesis of a genesis of peoples coming from the Americas should be concievable and explored. The only objection which is consistent in the field of archeology and related fields is that they would lose funding and would have to rewrite the history books, and contend with the realization that maybe, just maybe, our people were a cradle of civilization among many. it is as racist as it can get. To this day, our people are treated as if though we never invented or bulit anything, even though it is right in front of their noses.
@@reneprovosty7032 Has it ever occured to you the whole exercise of the dating is disenfranchisement of our people? If you want to discuss facts, lets take a look at the obvious. Berengia theory was a fraudulent theory and had been disproven. Yet, that hasn't stopped Western folk from continually use it as a base to their hyposthesis, and to continually objectify us, tell us who we are and where we came from. Based on the research I have done, and what I have learned from the elders, the arrow of migration should be pointing the other direction.The further south into the Americas you go, the older the record. That means the track migrations started in South America, and went north and into Siberia in the distant past. We never came from Asia, the asian sub-groups came from us. If you look at the linguistic model of track migration from polynesia, this is found to be true, it goes from east to west. Our distant ancestors were sea-faring, way before younger dryas going as far as before 45,000 years. If you pay attention to diseases, the hanta virus that infects the south-asian area, is closely matched to the hanta virus/dear mice virus in the four corners, and its genetic marker goes back 30,000 to 45,000 year. The descenant virus is the hanta virus in South Asia, and the only way it could get there, was by boat by infecting grain storage. That means -> sea-faring. If it was concievable Out of Africa theory(which has also recently been disproven) then the hypothesis of a genesis of peoples coming from the Americas should be concievable and explored. The only objection which is consistent in the field of archeology and related fields is that they would lose funding and would have to rewrite the history books, and contend with the realization that maybe, just maybe, our people were a cradle of civilization among many. it is as racist as it can get. To this day, our people are treated as if though we never invented or bulit anything, even though it is right in front of their noses.
Imagine how much sooner this might have been studied -- along with a myriad of other once avant-garde ideas -- if academics weren't so quick to jealously defend their published conclusions? It's nice to see credentialed scientists finally willing to challenge the status-quo, it's a refreshing signal to the rest of the field that it's ok to move on. Well done.
The Smithsonian was central to the dogma of Clovis First. The very LEADERS were clobbering careers to hold onto that. I agree with you. And hooray for Monte Verde and Tom Dillehay, the site that blew Clovis First out of the water. Clovis has its place, but who in the WORLD would think that the very first find of Clovis points would be THE first? What were they THINKING? I like the work being done with Y-DNA and mtDNA, to tie regions with types and dates. It is a second avenue, and with two avenues, the chaotic period created by the necessary death of Clovis First is hopefully going to not last as long, because of an open research universe, finds tied with genetics.
The White Sands footprints at 21kya-23kya has made a huge difference for anthropologist Tom Dillehay, who has extensively worked the Monte Verde site in south Chile. Carbon 14 dates have consistently shown dates 14,000-15,000 years ago -- contemporary with the Oregon Paisley Caves. After decades of either being ignored or being criticized for being contrary to the Clovis First model. Dillehay has let it be known that he's found another site that has dates around 32,000 ya. First, the use of sea travel for immigrants to arrive, bypassing the ludicrous theory that humans would brave hundreds of miles of glacial desert with no available food beggars the imagination. Sea travel has been known for almost 60,000 years, as that is the ONLY reliable explanation for the initial Aboriginal arrival into Australia occurred at that time. Another point that the footprints at White Sands does is show that humans co-existed with megafauna for almost ten thousand years, making the premise of "man the mighty hunter" hunting the megafauna to extinction absurd. The animal populations adjust to the presence of human predators just fine. At 1:16 you say earlier groups migrated into North America and didn't survive. Yes! And it continues to boggle my mind that the catastrophic end of the megafauna 12,800 years ago continues to be ignored. NOVA aired on March, 31 2009 an episode (3607) originally titled "The Last Extinction." However, this was considered too controversial, and due to academic complaints, NOVA changed the episode title to "Megabeasts' Sudden Death." Because acknowledging am extinction event is too disruptive. North American archeology is supposed to be "settled and sedate." Some 66 million years ago, Chicxulub was struck by a massive asteroid. As seriously devastating as it was, with all the gypsum being vaporized and transformed into sulfur dioxide that poisoned the air and the rain for years, that alone wouldn't have resulted in the worldwide extinction of the dinosaurs and the end of the Cretaceous Era. What we now know is that Chucxulub was accompanied by at least three other large strikes -- Doggerland, Ukraine, and an ocean impact on the Western Shiva Plateau off the Indian subcontinent. It was the combination of those four asteroid strikes that did the job, leaving only the nascent bird populations in the swamps of Kamchatka as the only surviving relatives to fill in all the suddenly vacant eco-niches. The sulfur dioxide was enough to acidify the oceans, killing many coral reefs and ending the reign of mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, and other apex critters like megalodon. There is a burn layer throughout much of North America at the 12,800-12,900 mark. The above named NOVA episode found evidence of hexagonal nano-diamonds in ice cores from Greenland. One of the biggest rebuttals against the claim for an asteroid/comet impact is -- where is the impact site? Except that half of North America was covered in glacial ice. SOMETHING caused Lake Aggasiz to burst its banks and empty its considerable waters and scour its way to the seas. The current global warming warnings are about exactly that -- melting enough freshwater to destabilize the Gulf Stream and trigger an new ice age. Several French climatologists participated in creating a documentary in 2006 - "Gulf Stream and the Next Ice Age" by Grand Angle Productions. This film is now hard to find because it threatens continued petroleum use. Geologist Antonio Zamora has posted a UA-cam video documenting one such crater in south Saginaw Bay, and based on the size of the crater, estimates everything within 1200 km radius was instantly vaporized. I think there was more than one impact, and the second one impacted on the Laurentide glacier, instantly turning miles of ice into a massive flashflood of freshwater. This massive influx of freshwater then disturbed the Atlantic Conveyor aka the Gulf Stream current, and triggered Younger Dryas. Interestingly, Lochaber See is the site of a volcano in Germany (now a popular lake), and it erupted around that same time period, spewing ash into the atmosphere, prolonging the ice age. No proof, but what if the asteroid impact(s) caused a wobble in the tectonic plates, especially the release of all that ice must have caused an uplift of the North American plate, just enough to trigger the eruption in Europe? Asteroid impacts are a lot more common than previously thought; the latest I've heard is it has to potential to happen every 26,000 years. It doesn't always happen, but it has the potential to do so. People tend to think -- wrongly -- that space is empty until one reaches the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The truth is there are hundreds of thousands of small asteroids, most of them being small. What's more, is that when they do travel, they tend to pull along smaller ones in their trail. Just like Chicxulub. And, yes, I'm suggesting that it wasn't a comet that broke up, but was a large asteroid with some smaller "friends." In any event, the asteroid impact(s) in North America incinerated everything east of the Rocky Mountains. South America already had humans. But this catastrophe cleared the slate for the subsequent migrations into North America from Siberia -- whether by land or sea. ANY previous populations were wiped out by the massive fires, evidenced by the burn layer in the soil record; below the burn layer, plenty of megafauna. Above the layer, no megafauna. This tells us directly why there is no genetic OR linguistic evidence of other HUMAN lineages in North America. They, too, died in the subsequent infernos that scorched the habitable land areas east of the Rockies. Those that survived in Beringia and the isolated Northwest were unable to withstand the many subsequent migrations either linguistically or genetically intact. You sound like you're cautious, and I understand your academic reasons. But this asteroid event happened. It's been documented. Hexagonal nano-diamonds ONLY happen as the result of the immense pressured that occur during impacts into the earth. We need to follow the science, regardless of where it takes us, even if it changes our whole way of looking at things. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away, it simply caters to academics who don't want their own pet theories to get ruffled. I'm fully aware most of what I've put forth is controversial. But there is verifiable evidence for it. And for all the calls for science as being based on "reason and logic," far too many academics treat those who challenge the current model, whatever it is, like the challengers were idolators and iconoclasts, just as zealots do. Far too often, instead of reasoned debate, character assassination happens and careers are destroyed. While they would deny it, some have adopted science as their religion, and then act accordingly to protect the status quo -- because dissertations (and thus, careers) are at stake! Alfred Wegener wasn't the first to postulate the theory that lead to our understanding of plate tectonics, but his was the most concise. While today his vision is lauded, when he first proposed the theory, he was so roundly criticized he vowed to never publish outside meteorology again. Max Planck - "Science advances one grave at a time." Kudos for your presentation.
I agree with you on a good portion of this, but the peoples west of the Rockies did stay genetically distinct. The DNA from paisley caves matched current day Native American populations in Oregon and Washington
I like seeing your comments, dude. FYI, the Great Basin region was NOT all dry and hot at the YDB. It was a lush land with swamps and more. I found this out recently. Temps like 14° lower and a different rain pattern region. Zamora I find is a hanger-on, and who really jumps to conclusions. I left him behind years ago. Not someone I count on for understanding much. The non-academics are doing really good work, yes. And are able to teach new people a lot, not just some basics. I think they are a coequal branch of scientific inquiry, and the academics have been - and will be - attacking alternate researchers as being un-diploma-d. But the academics are followers in most cases. There ARE some attack dogs among the academics, who are defending the institutional world and giving alternate folks a hard time. I stand with both when they are right and they both can be wrong. The attack dogs - sad cases of follower syndrome. If alternates could get the funding of academics, they would give them a BIG run for their money. Some good minds out there - though not all - on either side.
For people who wont actually watch the video (these are my related, compatible thoughts, not a summary of the video) solid dates around ~18k years in Oregon, and now ~21k-24k years at White Sands -- along with evidence at other locations -- totally puts to rest the "Clovis First" position. Not only where there folks in the Americas a few thousand years before Clovis, there were people in the Americas during the Last Glacial Maximum. ... how did they get here? They must have boated along the Aleutians and/or Beringia and down the coast, I would think. Can't think of any other way. It seems to me we need to look for evidence of early people up river systems that would have been attractive to people boating down the coast, south of the Cordilleran glacier -- like the Columbia River. So maybe the Portland Basin would be a good spot to look. What I find interesting is that it may well be the case that modern indigenous Americans almost entirely descend from that larger, later wave associated with Clovis. So it could be that early folk were quite small in numbers, and their genetic contribution was almost enitely swamped by the apparently much larrger population that came in ~14kya.
Any evidence of human habitation along the Columbia river would've been totally annihilated by the catastrophic flooding that created the scablands when the glacial lake Missoula ice dam failed. Melting of the mountain glaciers would've caused episodes of flooding degrees of magnitude more extreme than any know in historic times along most if not all major riverway, washing away all traces of prior human occupation. Couple that with sea level rise submerging any evidence that may have existed for tens to hundreds of miles from the ice age coast, and it's easy to understand why we may never know when people first made it to the Americas. There could have been people living along the Pacific coast all the way to the tip of South America, back up along the Atlantic coast all the way to the ice sheet, and in all the major river valleys in between without leaving a trace of their existence that still survives today.
I had not seen specifics about Western Stem points and their range. I had assumed Great Basin, but not north. I am researching tangential topics and am familiar with much about Clovis and Clovis Not-First, including Dennis Stanford and Sulutrean points. The Japanese points' similarities to western stem on first glance looks like a winning conjecture to me. I had even mapped some 13 kya and 16kya coasts on Google Earth, so when this mentioned the Sea of Okhotsk, I perked up a lot. THIS has to be the leading contender for the immediately pre-Clovis technology. I like this a lot. It helps to learn something new, and often we have to have other facts at hand to see how new evidence connects. Clovis First held back archaeology in the Americas by several decades. A shameful episode in science.
I used to hunt ducks and fish in Oregon's portion of the great basin, Klamath and Summer Lakes, for example. Spring creeks and shallow lakes are so food productive there would have been little reason to chase massive mega fauna. With more people moving in, along with better cooperation and technology exchange, it was open season on the really big critters. Love this field of inquiry.. Great lecture.
Every single point maker would have, from his hands-on working with the chert and obsidian and whatever, would have arrived at several variations. Arkies are so wrapped up in adding names and getting their names in the history books, so they are just a nuisance. You know, archaeology before radiocarbon was dating everything based on style variations. Talk about LAME. And I see some of that with points, too. Archaeology is hamstrung. All they had to start with was bones and stones. Graves and rocks. NO CULTURE REVOLVES AROUND EITHER ONE. But they would have you think that. The way people buried their dead was not central to their lives. And arkies also got started by rich, white guys from N Erurope who were religious. So they projected their own world onto the past and still run around telling the world about ceremonial and ritual sites - almost all of which will turn out to be something else. And since 1800, they have forced that ceremonial interpretation upon everything they - with their limited real world experience - run across. IT really is not true. People of the past were living in the modern world - THEIR modern world - and tried to develop everything they could. Their brains were actually BIGGER than ours. They would have had clever people and have been as modern as they could be - given their limited infrastructures. Arkies treat them all like blithering idiots, to the shame of archaeology. Google 'brains smaller now'. This came up for me: "The brains of modern humans are around 13% smaller than those of Homo sapiens who lived 100,000 years ago. Exactly why is still puzzling researchers." - May 18, 2024 So bigger brains - COULD mean they had a more stimulating environment, one not so mollycoddled.
Bluefish caves in the Yukon suggest first arrival around 24,000 years. Evidence for that was shown in the late 70s. Clovis 1st is so outdated. It’s ridiculous how slowly archeologists held on to the theory.
The easiest place for hunter gatherers to survive would have been and still is the seashore and shallow waters of the continental shelves, especially at river delta or anywhere fresh water meets the sea. Even today the vast majority of major cities are located on the coasts or along major rivers. There's every reason to believe these areas have always been the prime locations for human habitation as well as our most travelled migration routes . I would venture to guess that 95% of the areas where humans lived and travelled prior to the end of the last ice age have either been submerged under hundreds of feet of water along the continental shelves or totally eroded away by the massive flooding that took place along the major river systems when all the mountain glaciers rapidly melted. It may well be that the only archeological evidence that survived this transformative era belonged to a small minority if people who inhabited the wild upland regions and not representative of the greater population at large. Archeologists will probably always be trying to figure out the picture with access to only about 5% of the puzzle pieces.
I know about the 200+ Columbian mammoths at the new airport site. And a funny thing - those died off at the same time s the ones in Alaska and Siberia and Pennsylvania.
I owe Graham Hancock an apology when he stops using words like maybe or could be or possibly. I could come up with a bunch of theories to it with the same words give me a break. He doesn’t use any scientific methods. Quite frankly, he calls archaeology like a specialist. Try to diagnose a disease. Can’t wait to see your comment.
I consider archaeology to not be a science, but a branch of historians. Until radiocarbon, they dated everything on variations in STYLES. That is in the field of ART, not science. And if the assert their use of C14, ask then if they do the lab testing themselves. No, they don't - they send it to real science labs. Their only thing is to put a grid of strings criss-cross on a dig and clerically label where an artifact was found. A secretary can do that. For a write-up, they start with the existing belief system of their bosses and wrap everything around the current paradigm. Don't wanna lose FUNDING! New ideas scare the CRAP out of most of them.
After the White Sands discovery, how can you even consider the title of this video? Snd the ice free corridor woudl have been a frozen swamp not traversable by foot!
I read a paper ten years ago that studied the Ice-Free corridor and artifacts in it. Findings were sparse, and they didn't find any in the southern end until about 8kya.
It is just commonsense to be open to the possibility of human migration before Clovis. The Clovis First archaeologists became un-objective & ridiculously close-minded. They did a great disservice to archaeology.
The Hueyatalaco site was dated by 5 seperate archeologists using 5 different methods and all gave dates over 200,000 years not 20,000 . The controversy is that other archaeologists don’t want to accept the proof that man or some other hominid was here 200,000 to a million years ago .all the archaeologists on the site are top notch . The fact they tried to did credit them when they did nothing but report the facts.facts are the artifacts /tools found found on the site are over 200,000 years old and probably closer to 2 million years old . You add that anomaly to the calico site now you have two add the footbprints near Hueyatalco you have three site older much older than 20,000 years old that’s a fact
Almost got it right. There was only one who got the 240,000 date (back from a lab), her name was Virginia something or other. I believe she never worked again. She got black balled. ALL the other arkies at Hueyatlaco quit the dig that had been a long term dig, and the site was abandoned and is now under single family dwellings in the Puebla suburbs.
@@stevegarcia3731 Actually one geologist used fission track dating got a 230,000 date but it was cooperated with another scientist who date things that are in water using diamtides that are fossilized plankton they are classified by different types and lived in certain eras .these were found to be of the right era They also used a unranium depletion method that had a 200,000 date .Virginia stern made tire got a 80,000 date but was being very conservative because she knew nobody would except it .all these dates were for the ash flow covering the layers where the artifacts were found meaning they had a potential to be much older . Everything was meticulously labeled and tested including the intact stratification the also speaks to the dating of the site . It was shut down by the chief archeologist of Mexico after false accusations. People were labled everything bad because they were exposing the truth .not necessarily humans but some thing lived in the Americas millions of years ago . Which makes sense seeing camels bears and monkeys all originated on this continent and migrated from here to there.why would it not be so with all predators following prey ? Humanoids included ..
Luminescent Dating Them should be used on all new archaeological finds that will tell you exactly how long the stone object has been underground but for some reason archaeologists never never use it which leaves me to ask why they won’t even use it on the pyramids, even though it’s more accurate than any other form dating stone objects
Since Valsequillo, and its 240,000 year old dating, the arkies DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE FACTS. That is my understanding. That dig was abandoned immediately after 8 years or so, like it had Covid. And the woman who sent the artifacts and kept the sample in situ - she couldn't get another job in archaeology. AND the Mexican top arkie actually went to her in situ very much protected hunk of dirt AND HE TOOK IT OUT, thus blowing any ability to do further work on it. MUCH of their work is protecting their territory.
How do you explain that 95% of Clovis archaeological sites are located on the east coast. I repeat east coast, and that Clovis technology is identical to Solutrean other than the flute. This does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that Clovis people arrived on the East Coast first.
@@Sixrabbbitit’s also why the attribute the lack of full blooded native Americans compared to the west. They say the east was colonized by the Europeans first and slowly made their way out west. They mixed with the native Americans and why a lot of the native Americans in the east coast look a lot less native than ones on the west coast
Oh yes, the fact that the same style of points were made all over North America obviously proves that there was one shared culture in N. America. That's a fair scholarly assumption, right? NO. A variety of cultures could easily have incorporated this one technology into their culture, while still remaining distinct. If the evidence from that time period is so sparse, why do people try to come to conclusions that they can't really back up?!
This is the 20th video this year I've watched about clovis, folsom and western stemmed points and EVERY single video has different dates.......i guess energy person just picks the dates they want and roll with it.
The archaeological evidence and dates of Clovis sites across the American hemisphere clearly show that Clovis people came from the east not west as your map clearly showed. Where are the large concentration of Clovis point discovered East Coast Clovis people use Solutrean technology. This is a fact.
@@qui-gonjay2944 here's something else they don't talk about the people of Northern Asia and the Mongolian steppe did not use Stone technology according to archaeologists they used bone and antler due to the fact that there is not that much good Stone to be found in Northern Asia or the Mongolian steppe let alone the Arctic circle and we're supposed to believe the minute they hit North America they made the most precise highly technical stone tools ever created man where is the progression of technology. I'll tell you where the solutions people in southern who made a tip identical to Clovis without the flute
@@jamesherron9969 You are not wrong. I liked the Japan points in the area of the Sea of Okhotsk shown here. I agreed with Dennis Stanford since before 2010. This one might be better. Do not make their mistake: Clovis is a technology, not a culture. It could NOT have dispersed across 3 million square miles in 700 years or whatever, not if it was a culture. And they SHARED it. They didn't have patent rights back then. By sharing, the tech traveled faster and farther and wider than any group could. They have all sorts of evidence that they traded with other groups. And their brains were 11% bigger. So improvements and variations would occur as it spread.
No, with marine cultures like Japan, no, they certainly did NOT need a land bridge. But they did have it, at least at 13kya. But the Japanese were uniquely situated - both culture and location - to be some of the first in the Americas. Who was actually first we are NOT going to ever know, and it really is not important. In Europe they had SEVERAL unfluxes of people and even a second wave. And I have yet to see anyone over there claiming "Our find is the earliest!" They are just doing the science and piecing things together. The YDB event - whatever it turns out to be - has added a level of complexity that throws many ideas for a loop. We all have our ideas, but it will take many more decades to really sort it out.
@@stevegarcia3731 - Clovis first was wrong. Very wrong. People were saying that but Academia wouldn't budge... until they had no choice. It happens all the time: Academia is extremely conservative, scholastic even.
@@LuisAldamiz It was academic insecure office politics. WHY the Smithsonian could POSSIBLY think that anyone by that time could have found THE first people into the Americas buggers the imagination. What? Was the research in that direction even 2% along the continuum? 1%? 0.25%? And HOW many careers did they destroy in order to sustain their premature conclusion?
@@stevegarcia3731 - I don't know all the details but definitely it's not the only case where careers have been destroyed by a reactionary and inquisitorial Academia.
So do I get you right? You are willing to accept that people from Japan came to the Americas across the largest body of water on this planet three times the size of the Atlantic, but you reject the Solutrean theory everything that you just said about Japan is the exact same evidence we have for Solutrean’s, except at that time there was some really large islands in the middle of the Atlantic. You are archaeologist who refuses to accept evidence when is put in front of you because it doesn’t agree with your theory quit being racist because that’s what you’re doing and except facts as are given to you I cannot watch anymore of this racist propaganda
He did NOT say anything about the Japanese coming ACROSS the Pacific. He specifically said they followed the coast, and that being a maritime culture it was their normal way of life.
archaeologists owe people like Graham Hancock a sincere apology. You guys are only confronting your dogmatic positions after the Graham Hancocks of this world have taken unwarranted abuse for decades, dragging academia back to reality over facts they would have just as soon continued to sweep under the rug and ignore.
That’s totally hilarious. And so cute that you think Hamhock has had any influence on professionals. He’s for people like you, mommy’s special little boy.
@@Oddball5.0 When they are going to such lengths as to ban him from filming at the pyramids at Giza and Serpent Mound in Ohio, you bet he's had an influence. The professionals need to grow up.
Come on people really, what is so hard about the scientific method.. It's a process and it evolves over time when new information and methods can help us learn more. GH is just an entertainer of things on the fringe that always have fans but never are based on science so he and his like and fans can always play the victims of those people who want to cancel their truth, truth is objectively simple but always from the perspectives of moment and eventually will and should always believe in miracles and fantastic ideas with absolutely no basis or very little in fact and that's ok expected and unsurprising. But leave science to its tired and true process of evaluation. And enjoy every moment of your " their out to cover up the truth" for eternity.
@@jlujan63 The scientific method is fine if that's what's being practiced. The problem with your response is that it isn't. Science has become politicized, so the outcomes are predetermined and the funding/findings are only geared to support those predeterminations. That is the antithesis of science. That is dogma. And GH and others like him are telling you these emperors have no clothes. They are correct.
Another problem with this is that your arguement is that they arived here by boat, but the boat was invented only 10000 years ago, and the points were here first.
You really believe that modern man who has been around a hell of a lot longer than 10000 years. Has only been using boats for that long .😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅 Where's your proof ??? You do realize if man disappeared today . In 10000 years there would be nothing left on the surface to prove we were here .
How the hell can you be certain that boats were not invented until 10,000 yrs ago! Your logic is stupid! There may have been boat usage many thousands of years before this time!
@@spacecadet4783Did you really research this? Humans first arrived on the main Japanese islands more than 30000 years ago. Humans first arrived on the Australian continent between 48000 and 50000 years ago.
Titles like THIS one remind me to only ask academics about measurements - not inspired thinking. For the record, you, “academics” finally declaring Clovis First wrong only proves how much of a drag you’ve been on the development of these new facts - as you kick and scream the entire time in a vain attempt to protect/publish your erroneous conclusions. Welcome to the party, it’s been raging for quite some time. 🤦♂️
They take the side that defends their profession. But they are not the only inquirers in the world. And when they find new inquirers, some of them try to make sure the new guy is going to follow the current paradigm. Like everyone before continental drift could not think that continental drift was right. Or Scablands floods. Or that the Earth was round. Or the heliocentric solar system. Or that a meteor killed the dinosaurs. Or that any human settlements were older than Jericho. Or that climate change is NOT terrible now, and it has been steady for only 8,000 years. You can't believe any of that - no matter HOW much you yourself study it. So don't forget: Civilization is only 8,000 - oops! - I mean 12,000 - oops! I mean 13,000 years old! And the Aborigines had to wait till 7600 BC to float across to Borneo and rush down to Oz, and then start faking older evidence, before the arkies arrived!
Thank you so much for this well-balanced talk. I'm so tired of hearing about Clovis first and glad to know it's definitively been put to rest. ❤
Clovis was NOT the first. We have been here longer than any body will EVER know.
we...methane-breathers?
Western folk have been doing this racist shit for over 200 years. They can't process the possibility that we didn't come from asians, asians came from us. Berengia has been disproven so many times, yet they still try to prove it because it isn't concievable for us to originate from the Americas, despite the proof the further south they go into the paleo-record the older it gets. Its okay for an Out-of-Africa theory*(which has recently been disproven), but its not ok for us to have a say of where we come from, and who we are. What terrifies them, is that if it is true that the arrow points the other way, it would mean we were to first to explore as a sea-faring culture, way before anyone else and the possibility that natives had the first civilization more than 45,000 years ago.
I do not want to get into politics, but just the dating was wrong. clearly some stuff in far southern South America, blowup old theories. can we not discuss facts?
@@reneprovosty7032 Has it ever occured to you the whole exercise of the dating is disenfranchisement of our people? If you want to discuss facts, lets take a look at the obvious. Berengia theory was a fraudulent theory and had been disproven. Yet, that hasn't stopped Western folk from continually use it as a base to their hyposthesis, and to continually objectify us, tell us who we are and where we came from. Based on the research I have done, and what I have learned from the elders, the arrow of migration should be pointing the other direction.The further south into the Americas you go, the older the record. That means the track migrations started in South America, and went north and into Siberia in the distant past. We never came from Asia, the asian sub-groups came from us. If you look at the linguistic model of track migration from polynesia, this is found to be true, it goes from east to west. Our distant ancestors were sea-faring, way before younger dryas going as far as before 45,000 years. If you pay attention to diseases, the hanta virus that infects the south-asian area, is closely matched to the hanta virus/dear mice virus in the four corners, and its genetic marker goes back 30,000 to 45,000 year. The descenant virus is the hanta virus in South Asia, and the only way it could get there, was by boat by infecting grain storage. That means -> sea-faring. If it was concievable Out of Africa theory(which has also recently been disproven) then the hypothesis of a genesis of peoples coming from the Americas should be concievable and explored. The only objection which is consistent in the field of archeology and related fields is that they would lose funding and would have to rewrite the history books, and contend with the realization that maybe, just maybe, our people were a cradle of civilization among many. it is as racist as it can get. To this day, our people are treated as if though we never invented or bulit anything, even though it is right in front of their noses.
@@reneprovosty7032 Has it ever occured to you the whole exercise of the dating is disenfranchisement of our people? If you want to discuss facts, lets take a look at the obvious. Berengia theory was a fraudulent theory and had been disproven. Yet, that hasn't stopped Western folk from continually use it as a base to their hyposthesis, and to continually objectify us, tell us who we are and where we came from. Based on the research I have done, and what I have learned from the elders, the arrow of migration should be pointing the other direction.The further south into the Americas you go, the older the record. That means the track migrations started in South America, and went north and into Siberia in the distant past. We never came from Asia, the asian sub-groups came from us. If you look at the linguistic model of track migration from polynesia, this is found to be true, it goes from east to west. Our distant ancestors were sea-faring, way before younger dryas going as far as before 45,000 years. If you pay attention to diseases, the hanta virus that infects the south-asian area, is closely matched to the hanta virus/dear mice virus in the four corners, and its genetic marker goes back 30,000 to 45,000 year. The descenant virus is the hanta virus in South Asia, and the only way it could get there, was by boat by infecting grain storage. That means -> sea-faring. If it was concievable Out of Africa theory(which has also recently been disproven) then the hypothesis of a genesis of peoples coming from the Americas should be concievable and explored. The only objection which is consistent in the field of archeology and related fields is that they would lose funding and would have to rewrite the history books, and contend with the realization that maybe, just maybe, our people were a cradle of civilization among many. it is as racist as it can get. To this day, our people are treated as if though we never invented or bulit anything, even though it is right in front of their noses.
Imagine how much sooner this might have been studied -- along with a myriad of other once avant-garde ideas -- if academics weren't so quick to jealously defend their published conclusions? It's nice to see credentialed scientists finally willing to challenge the status-quo, it's a refreshing signal to the rest of the field that it's ok to move on. Well done.
Credentialed scientist have been challenging "Clovis First" for quite a while now.
academics are human.
The Smithsonian was central to the dogma of Clovis First. The very LEADERS were clobbering careers to hold onto that. I agree with you. And hooray for Monte Verde and Tom Dillehay, the site that blew Clovis First out of the water. Clovis has its place, but who in the WORLD would think that the very first find of Clovis points would be THE first? What were they THINKING?
I like the work being done with Y-DNA and mtDNA, to tie regions with types and dates. It is a second avenue, and with two avenues, the chaotic period created by the necessary death of Clovis First is hopefully going to not last as long, because of an open research universe, finds tied with genetics.
The White Sands footprints at 21kya-23kya has made a huge difference for anthropologist Tom Dillehay, who has extensively worked the Monte Verde site in south Chile. Carbon 14 dates have consistently shown dates 14,000-15,000 years ago -- contemporary with the Oregon Paisley Caves. After decades of either being ignored or being criticized for being contrary to the Clovis First model. Dillehay has let it be known that he's found another site that has dates around 32,000 ya.
First, the use of sea travel for immigrants to arrive, bypassing the ludicrous theory that humans would brave hundreds of miles of glacial desert with no available food beggars the imagination. Sea travel has been known for almost 60,000 years, as that is the ONLY reliable explanation for the initial Aboriginal arrival into Australia occurred at that time.
Another point that the footprints at White Sands does is show that humans co-existed with megafauna for almost ten thousand years, making the premise of "man the mighty hunter" hunting the megafauna to extinction absurd. The animal populations adjust to the presence of human predators just fine.
At 1:16 you say earlier groups migrated into North America and didn't survive. Yes! And it continues to boggle my mind that the catastrophic end of the megafauna 12,800 years ago continues to be ignored. NOVA aired on March, 31 2009 an episode (3607) originally titled "The Last Extinction." However, this was considered too controversial, and due to academic complaints, NOVA changed the episode title to "Megabeasts' Sudden Death." Because acknowledging am extinction event is too disruptive. North American archeology is supposed to be "settled and sedate."
Some 66 million years ago, Chicxulub was struck by a massive asteroid. As seriously devastating as it was, with all the gypsum being vaporized and transformed into sulfur dioxide that poisoned the air and the rain for years, that alone wouldn't have resulted in the worldwide extinction of the dinosaurs and the end of the Cretaceous Era. What we now know is that Chucxulub was accompanied by at least three other large strikes -- Doggerland, Ukraine, and an ocean impact on the Western Shiva Plateau off the Indian subcontinent. It was the combination of those four asteroid strikes that did the job, leaving only the nascent bird populations in the swamps of Kamchatka as the only surviving relatives to fill in all the suddenly vacant eco-niches. The sulfur dioxide was enough to acidify the oceans, killing many coral reefs and ending the reign of mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, and other apex critters like megalodon.
There is a burn layer throughout much of North America at the 12,800-12,900 mark. The above named NOVA episode found evidence of hexagonal nano-diamonds in ice cores from Greenland. One of the biggest rebuttals against the claim for an asteroid/comet impact is -- where is the impact site? Except that half of North America was covered in glacial ice. SOMETHING caused Lake Aggasiz to burst its banks and empty its considerable waters and scour its way to the seas. The current global warming warnings are about exactly that -- melting enough freshwater to destabilize the Gulf Stream and trigger an new ice age. Several French climatologists participated in creating a documentary in 2006 - "Gulf Stream and the Next Ice Age" by Grand Angle Productions. This film is now hard to find because it threatens continued petroleum use.
Geologist Antonio Zamora has posted a UA-cam video documenting one such crater in south Saginaw Bay, and based on the size of the crater, estimates everything within 1200 km radius was instantly vaporized. I think there was more than one impact, and the second one impacted on the Laurentide glacier, instantly turning miles of ice into a massive flashflood of freshwater. This massive influx of freshwater then disturbed the Atlantic Conveyor aka the Gulf Stream current, and triggered Younger Dryas.
Interestingly, Lochaber See is the site of a volcano in Germany (now a popular lake), and it erupted around that same time period, spewing ash into the atmosphere, prolonging the ice age. No proof, but what if the asteroid impact(s) caused a wobble in the tectonic plates, especially the release of all that ice must have caused an uplift of the North American plate, just enough to trigger the eruption in Europe?
Asteroid impacts are a lot more common than previously thought; the latest I've heard is it has to potential to happen every 26,000 years. It doesn't always happen, but it has the potential to do so. People tend to think -- wrongly -- that space is empty until one reaches the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The truth is there are hundreds of thousands of small asteroids, most of them being small. What's more, is that when they do travel, they tend to pull along smaller ones in their trail. Just like Chicxulub. And, yes, I'm suggesting that it wasn't a comet that broke up, but was a large asteroid with some smaller "friends."
In any event, the asteroid impact(s) in North America incinerated everything east of the Rocky Mountains. South America already had humans. But this catastrophe cleared the slate for the subsequent migrations into North America from Siberia -- whether by land or sea. ANY previous populations were wiped out by the massive fires, evidenced by the burn layer in the soil record; below the burn layer, plenty of megafauna. Above the layer, no megafauna. This tells us directly why there is no genetic OR linguistic evidence of other HUMAN lineages in North America. They, too, died in the subsequent infernos that scorched the habitable land areas east of the Rockies. Those that survived in Beringia and the isolated Northwest were unable to withstand the many subsequent migrations either linguistically or genetically intact.
You sound like you're cautious, and I understand your academic reasons. But this asteroid event happened. It's been documented. Hexagonal nano-diamonds ONLY happen as the result of the immense pressured that occur during impacts into the earth. We need to follow the science, regardless of where it takes us, even if it changes our whole way of looking at things. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away, it simply caters to academics who don't want their own pet theories to get ruffled.
I'm fully aware most of what I've put forth is controversial. But there is verifiable evidence for it. And for all the calls for science as being based on "reason and logic," far too many academics treat those who challenge the current model, whatever it is, like the challengers were idolators and iconoclasts, just as zealots do. Far too often, instead of reasoned debate, character assassination happens and careers are destroyed. While they would deny it, some have adopted science as their religion, and then act accordingly to protect the status quo -- because dissertations (and thus, careers) are at stake! Alfred Wegener wasn't the first to postulate the theory that lead to our understanding of plate tectonics, but his was the most concise. While today his vision is lauded, when he first proposed the theory, he was so roundly criticized he vowed to never publish outside meteorology again. Max Planck - "Science advances one grave at a time."
Kudos for your presentation.
I agree with you on a good portion of this, but the peoples west of the Rockies did stay genetically distinct. The DNA from paisley caves matched current day Native American populations in Oregon and Washington
I like seeing your comments, dude. FYI, the Great Basin region was NOT all dry and hot at the YDB. It was a lush land with swamps and more. I found this out recently. Temps like 14° lower and a different rain pattern region.
Zamora I find is a hanger-on, and who really jumps to conclusions. I left him behind years ago. Not someone I count on for understanding much.
The non-academics are doing really good work, yes. And are able to teach new people a lot, not just some basics. I think they are a coequal branch of scientific inquiry, and the academics have been - and will be - attacking alternate researchers as being un-diploma-d. But the academics are followers in most cases. There ARE some attack dogs among the academics, who are defending the institutional world and giving alternate folks a hard time. I stand with both when they are right and they both can be wrong. The attack dogs - sad cases of follower syndrome. If alternates could get the funding of academics, they would give them a BIG run for their money. Some good minds out there - though not all - on either side.
For people who wont actually watch the video (these are my related, compatible thoughts, not a summary of the video) solid dates around ~18k years in Oregon, and now ~21k-24k years at White Sands -- along with evidence at other locations -- totally puts to rest the "Clovis First" position.
Not only where there folks in the Americas a few thousand years before Clovis, there were people in the Americas during the Last Glacial Maximum. ... how did they get here? They must have boated along the Aleutians and/or Beringia and down the coast, I would think. Can't think of any other way.
It seems to me we need to look for evidence of early people up river systems that would have been attractive to people boating down the coast, south of the Cordilleran glacier -- like the Columbia River. So maybe the Portland Basin would be a good spot to look.
What I find interesting is that it may well be the case that modern indigenous Americans almost entirely descend from that larger, later wave associated with Clovis. So it could be that early folk were quite small in numbers, and their genetic contribution was almost enitely swamped by the apparently much larrger population that came in ~14kya.
I’d be surprised if people weren’t in the Americas by 50KYA
@@revolvermaster4939 New San Diego site is over 100,000 years but still controversial
@@stikaeric4301 it’s not a convincing site from what I’ve seen & read.
Any evidence of human habitation along the Columbia river would've been totally annihilated by the catastrophic flooding that created the scablands when the glacial lake Missoula ice dam failed. Melting of the mountain glaciers would've caused episodes of flooding degrees of magnitude more extreme than any know in historic times along most if not all major riverway, washing away all traces of prior human occupation. Couple that with sea level rise submerging any evidence that may have existed for tens to hundreds of miles from the ice age coast, and it's easy to understand why we may never know when people first made it to the Americas. There could have been people living along the Pacific coast all the way to the tip of South America, back up along the Atlantic coast all the way to the ice sheet, and in all the major river valleys in between without leaving a trace of their existence that still survives today.
41:00 that's what my grandpa must've been referring to when he'd say he was "old as shit"
the alarm is toooooo annoying, sorry.
Do any Native Americans have words in common with the Japanese language?
I had not seen specifics about Western Stem points and their range. I had assumed Great Basin, but not north. I am researching tangential topics and am familiar with much about Clovis and Clovis Not-First, including Dennis Stanford and Sulutrean points. The Japanese points' similarities to western stem on first glance looks like a winning conjecture to me. I had even mapped some 13 kya and 16kya coasts on Google Earth, so when this mentioned the Sea of Okhotsk, I perked up a lot. THIS has to be the leading contender for the immediately pre-Clovis technology. I like this a lot. It helps to learn something new, and often we have to have other facts at hand to see how new evidence connects.
Clovis First held back archaeology in the Americas by several decades. A shameful episode in science.
duh! we have known this for a very long time, but it will never be allowed
It is and has been "allowed" by academia for a very long time. It is the work of archaeologists the revealed this, not alt-history followers.
I used to hunt ducks and fish in Oregon's portion of the great basin, Klamath and Summer Lakes, for example. Spring creeks and shallow lakes are so food productive there would have been little reason to chase massive mega fauna.
With more people moving in, along with better cooperation and technology exchange, it was open season on the really big critters.
Love this field of inquiry.. Great lecture.
If everyone new about the Ohio Ancient Advanced Culture cover-up ! They would , and eventually will crap themselves !
Since all the Obsidian/Clovis points were individually made over thousands of years, it's reasonable that variations would exist.
Not all obsidian are clovis points not many clovis points are obsidian.
Every single point maker would have, from his hands-on working with the chert and obsidian and whatever, would have arrived at several variations. Arkies are so wrapped up in adding names and getting their names in the history books, so they are just a nuisance. You know, archaeology before radiocarbon was dating everything based on style variations. Talk about LAME. And I see some of that with points, too.
Archaeology is hamstrung. All they had to start with was bones and stones. Graves and rocks. NO CULTURE REVOLVES AROUND EITHER ONE. But they would have you think that. The way people buried their dead was not central to their lives. And arkies also got started by rich, white guys from N Erurope who were religious. So they projected their own world onto the past and still run around telling the world about ceremonial and ritual sites - almost all of which will turn out to be something else. And since 1800, they have forced that ceremonial interpretation upon everything they - with their limited real world experience - run across. IT really is not true. People of the past were living in the modern world - THEIR modern world - and tried to develop everything they could. Their brains were actually BIGGER than ours. They would have had clever people and have been as modern as they could be - given their limited infrastructures. Arkies treat them all like blithering idiots, to the shame of archaeology. Google 'brains smaller now'.
This came up for me:
"The brains of modern humans are around 13% smaller than those of Homo sapiens who lived 100,000 years ago. Exactly why is still puzzling researchers." - May 18, 2024
So bigger brains - COULD mean they had a more stimulating environment, one not so mollycoddled.
I love the kelp highway hypothesis too much to be impartial. 🥰
This has been known (clovis wasn't first ) for most of the 21st century.
Bluefish caves in the Yukon suggest first arrival around 24,000 years. Evidence for that was shown in the late 70s. Clovis 1st is so outdated. It’s ridiculous how slowly archeologists held on to the theory.
Yeah, the Smithosonian set archaeology back 50 years at a minimum.
The easiest place for hunter gatherers to survive would have been and still is the seashore and shallow waters of the continental shelves, especially at river delta or anywhere fresh water meets the sea. Even today the vast majority of major cities are located on the coasts or along major rivers. There's every reason to believe these areas have always been the prime locations for human habitation as well as our most travelled migration routes . I would venture to guess that 95% of the areas where humans lived and travelled prior to the end of the last ice age have either been submerged under hundreds of feet of water along the continental shelves or totally eroded away by the massive flooding that took place along the major river systems when all the mountain glaciers rapidly melted. It may well be that the only archeological evidence that survived this transformative era belonged to a small minority if people who inhabited the wild upland regions and not representative of the greater population at large. Archeologists will probably always be trying to figure out the picture with access to only about 5% of the puzzle pieces.
Yeah them same archaeologists That’s sad there was no one here before 13,000 years ago so do you really wanna believe them on where Clovis came from?
Yep - Think for yourself. READ AND PLENTY OF VIDEOS. Let your brain absorb it all.
don't forget the dig south of Mexico City. 26,000 and possible neanderthal.
I know about the 200+ Columbian mammoths at the new airport site. And a funny thing - those died off at the same time s the ones in Alaska and Siberia and Pennsylvania.
I owe Graham Hancock an apology when he stops using words like maybe or could be or possibly. I could come up with a bunch of theories to it with the same words give me a break. He doesn’t use any scientific methods. Quite frankly, he calls archaeology like a specialist. Try to diagnose a disease. Can’t wait to see your comment.
I consider archaeology to not be a science, but a branch of historians. Until radiocarbon, they dated everything on variations in STYLES. That is in the field of ART, not science. And if the assert their use of C14, ask then if they do the lab testing themselves. No, they don't - they send it to real science labs. Their only thing is to put a grid of strings criss-cross on a dig and clerically label where an artifact was found. A secretary can do that. For a write-up, they start with the existing belief system of their bosses and wrap everything around the current paradigm. Don't wanna lose FUNDING! New ideas scare the CRAP out of most of them.
I tried to endure the incompetence but only made it 10 minutes.😅
After the White Sands discovery, how can you even consider the title of this video?
Snd the ice free corridor woudl have been a frozen swamp not traversable by foot!
I read a paper ten years ago that studied the Ice-Free corridor and artifacts in it. Findings were sparse, and they didn't find any in the southern end until about 8kya.
It is just commonsense to be open to the possibility of human migration before Clovis. The Clovis First archaeologists became un-objective & ridiculously close-minded. They did a great disservice to archaeology.
The Hueyatalaco site was dated by 5 seperate archeologists using 5 different methods and all gave dates over 200,000 years not 20,000 . The controversy is that other archaeologists don’t want to accept the proof that man or some other hominid was here 200,000 to a million years ago .all the archaeologists on the site are top notch . The fact they tried to did credit them when they did nothing but report the facts.facts are the artifacts /tools found found on the site are over 200,000 years old and probably closer to 2 million years old . You add that anomaly to the calico site now you have two add the footbprints near Hueyatalco you have three site older much older than 20,000 years old that’s a fact
Almost got it right. There was only one who got the 240,000 date (back from a lab), her name was Virginia something or other. I believe she never worked again. She got black balled. ALL the other arkies at Hueyatlaco quit the dig that had been a long term dig, and the site was abandoned and is now under single family dwellings in the Puebla suburbs.
@@stevegarcia3731
Actually one geologist used fission track dating got a 230,000 date but it was cooperated with another scientist who date things that are in water using diamtides that are fossilized plankton they are classified by different types and lived in certain eras .these were found to be of the right era They also used a unranium depletion method that had a 200,000 date .Virginia stern made tire got a 80,000 date but was being very conservative because she knew nobody would except it .all these dates were for the ash flow covering the layers where the artifacts were found meaning they had a potential to be much older . Everything was meticulously labeled and tested including the intact stratification the also speaks to the dating of the site . It was shut down by the chief archeologist of Mexico after false accusations. People were labled everything bad because they were exposing the truth .not necessarily humans but some thing lived in the Americas millions of years ago . Which makes sense seeing camels bears and monkeys all originated on this continent and migrated from here to there.why would it not be so with all predators following prey ? Humanoids included ..
Luminescent Dating Them should be used on all new archaeological finds that will tell you exactly how long the stone object has been underground but for some reason archaeologists never never use it which leaves me to ask why they won’t even use it on the pyramids, even though it’s more accurate than any other form dating stone objects
Since Valsequillo, and its 240,000 year old dating, the arkies DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE FACTS. That is my understanding. That dig was abandoned immediately after 8 years or so, like it had Covid. And the woman who sent the artifacts and kept the sample in situ - she couldn't get another job in archaeology. AND the Mexican top arkie actually went to her in situ very much protected hunk of dirt AND HE TOOK IT OUT, thus blowing any ability to do further work on it. MUCH of their work is protecting their territory.
How do you explain that 95% of Clovis archaeological sites are located on the east coast. I repeat east coast, and that Clovis technology is identical to Solutrean other than the flute. This does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that Clovis people arrived on the East Coast first.
That area is more habitable and less rugged than the west
Much like how the east is more densely populated today
@@Sixrabbbitit’s also why the attribute the lack of full blooded native Americans compared to the west. They say the east was colonized by the Europeans first and slowly made their way out west. They mixed with the native Americans and why a lot of the native Americans in the east coast look a lot less native than ones on the west coast
They never could resolve the 17,000 vs 13,000 time difference.
Duh. Really? The evidence has been overwhelming for decades.
Amazing and thank you
Oh yes, the fact that the same style of points were made all over North America obviously proves that there was one shared culture in N. America. That's a fair scholarly assumption, right? NO. A variety of cultures could easily have incorporated this one technology into their culture, while still remaining distinct. If the evidence from that time period is so sparse, why do people try to come to conclusions that they can't really back up?!
This is the 20th video this year I've watched about clovis, folsom and western stemmed points and EVERY single video has different dates.......i guess energy person just picks the dates they want and roll with it.
The archaeological evidence and dates of Clovis sites across the American hemisphere clearly show that Clovis people came from the east not west as your map clearly showed. Where are the large concentration of Clovis point discovered East Coast Clovis people use Solutrean technology. This is a fact.
Also some of the oldest dates are on the east coast. The DelMarva peninsula has many sites dating 18-21,000
@@qui-gonjay2944 here's something else they don't talk about the people of Northern Asia and the Mongolian steppe did not use Stone technology according to archaeologists they used bone and antler due to the fact that there is not that much good Stone to be found in Northern Asia or the Mongolian steppe let alone the Arctic circle and we're supposed to believe the minute they hit North America they made the most precise highly technical stone tools ever created man where is the progression of technology. I'll tell you where the solutions people in southern who made a tip identical to Clovis without the flute
@@jamesherron9969
You are not wrong. I liked the Japan points in the area of the Sea of Okhotsk shown here. I agreed with Dennis Stanford since before 2010. This one might be better.
Do not make their mistake: Clovis is a technology, not a culture. It could NOT have dispersed across 3 million square miles in 700 years or whatever, not if it was a culture. And they SHARED it. They didn't have patent rights back then. By sharing, the tech traveled faster and farther and wider than any group could. They have all sorts of evidence that they traded with other groups. And their brains were 11% bigger. So improvements and variations would occur as it spread.
Click to add text.
thermite paint!!!
clovis first was in reverse!
Whichever is first didn't even matter. Except to their careers.
@@stevegarcia3731 spoken like a faceless no nothing.
The 21000 years ago time line in my guestimation was about the time of peleg. Continents probably weren't even divided. Didn't need no land bridge.
You’re confused
No, with marine cultures like Japan, no, they certainly did NOT need a land bridge. But they did have it, at least at 13kya. But the Japanese were uniquely situated - both culture and location - to be some of the first in the Americas. Who was actually first we are NOT going to ever know, and it really is not important. In Europe they had SEVERAL unfluxes of people and even a second wave. And I have yet to see anyone over there claiming "Our find is the earliest!" They are just doing the science and piecing things together. The YDB event - whatever it turns out to be - has added a level of complexity that throws many ideas for a loop. We all have our ideas, but it will take many more decades to really sort it out.
Very wrong. I'll watch only to feel vindicated.
Say WHAT? Is somebody here an arkie?
@@stevegarcia3731 - Clovis first was wrong. Very wrong. People were saying that but Academia wouldn't budge... until they had no choice. It happens all the time: Academia is extremely conservative, scholastic even.
@@LuisAldamiz
It was academic insecure office politics. WHY the Smithsonian could POSSIBLY think that anyone by that time could have found THE first people into the Americas buggers the imagination. What? Was the research in that direction even 2% along the continuum? 1%? 0.25%? And HOW many careers did they destroy in order to sustain their premature conclusion?
@@stevegarcia3731 - I don't know all the details but definitely it's not the only case where careers have been destroyed by a reactionary and inquisitorial Academia.
So do I get you right? You are willing to accept that people from Japan came to the Americas across the largest body of water on this planet three times the size of the Atlantic, but you reject the Solutrean theory everything that you just said about Japan is the exact same evidence we have for Solutrean’s, except at that time there was some really large islands in the middle of the Atlantic. You are archaeologist who refuses to accept evidence when is put in front of you because it doesn’t agree with your theory quit being racist because that’s what you’re doing and except facts as are given to you I cannot watch anymore of this racist propaganda
He did NOT say anything about the Japanese coming ACROSS the Pacific. He specifically said they followed the coast, and that being a maritime culture it was their normal way of life.
archaeologists owe people like Graham Hancock a sincere apology. You guys are only confronting your dogmatic positions after the Graham Hancocks of this world have taken unwarranted abuse for decades, dragging academia back to reality over facts they would have just as soon continued to sweep under the rug and ignore.
Tell it like it is !!!
Graham is the best.
That’s totally hilarious. And so cute that you think Hamhock has had any influence on professionals. He’s for people like you, mommy’s special little boy.
@@Oddball5.0 When they are going to such lengths as to ban him from filming at the pyramids at Giza and Serpent Mound in Ohio, you bet he's had an influence. The professionals need to grow up.
Come on people really, what is so hard about the scientific method..
It's a process and it evolves over time when new information and methods can help us learn more. GH is just an entertainer of things on the fringe that always have fans but never are based on science so he and his like and fans can always play the victims of those people who want to cancel their truth, truth is objectively simple but always from the perspectives of moment and eventually will and should always believe in miracles and fantastic ideas with absolutely no basis or very little in fact and that's ok expected and unsurprising. But leave science to its tired and true process of evaluation. And enjoy every moment of your " their out to cover up the truth" for eternity.
@@jlujan63 The scientific method is fine if that's what's being practiced. The problem with your response is that it isn't. Science has become politicized, so the outcomes are predetermined and the funding/findings are only geared to support those predeterminations. That is the antithesis of science. That is dogma. And GH and others like him are telling you these emperors have no clothes. They are correct.
Another problem with this is that your arguement is that they arived here by boat, but the boat was invented only 10000 years ago, and the points were here first.
When did you decide this
You really believe that modern man who has been around a hell of a lot longer than 10000 years. Has only been using boats for that long .😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
Where's your proof ???
You do realize if man disappeared today . In 10000 years there would be nothing left on the surface to prove we were here .
@@markwallace5907 i mean I didnt decide. I was just fact checking on Google.
How the hell can you be certain that boats were not invented until 10,000 yrs ago! Your logic is stupid! There may have been boat usage many thousands of years before this time!
@@spacecadet4783Did you really research this?
Humans first arrived on the main Japanese islands more than 30000 years ago.
Humans first arrived on the Australian continent between 48000 and 50000 years ago.
Titles like THIS one remind me to only ask academics about measurements - not inspired thinking. For the record, you, “academics” finally declaring Clovis First wrong only proves how much of a drag you’ve been on the development of these new facts - as you kick and scream the entire time in a vain attempt to protect/publish your erroneous conclusions. Welcome to the party, it’s been raging for quite some time. 🤦♂️
They take the side that defends their profession. But they are not the only inquirers in the world. And when they find new inquirers, some of them try to make sure the new guy is going to follow the current paradigm. Like everyone before continental drift could not think that continental drift was right. Or Scablands floods. Or that the Earth was round. Or the heliocentric solar system. Or that a meteor killed the dinosaurs. Or that any human settlements were older than Jericho. Or that climate change is NOT terrible now, and it has been steady for only 8,000 years. You can't believe any of that - no matter HOW much you yourself study it.
So don't forget: Civilization is only 8,000 - oops! - I mean 12,000 - oops! I mean 13,000 years old! And the Aborigines had to wait till 7600 BC to float across to Borneo and rush down to Oz, and then start faking older evidence, before the arkies arrived!