I don't think I mentioned it before, but the White Sands footprints have been known about for a couple of years now. They are thousands of years earlier than we used to think humans came to the New World - like 20K BC versus 13K BC, a big difference. The doubt seeps in because there are no bones, so carbon dating from the organic material to identify the strata is a bit more risky. Still, it is considered pretty solid.
Nor is it the only pre-Clovis find. There are sites in Mexico and the Northwestern US that may not be related to any current humans, so presumably died out eventually without descendants, yet they were here. We tend to dismiss tribes if they weren't "our" ancestors, but really, define our. Do we think people who have no descendants now are not quite real? I suppose there is an evolutionary fitness definition that means you aren't real if none of your grandchildren have any kids, but we don't usually conceive of it that way. And a tribe that dies out isn't really any different, is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment