[email protected] wrote:
Significance
The IFC has long played a key role in hypotheses about the peopling of the Americas.
Earlier assessments of its age suggested: the IFC was available for a Clovis-first migration,
but subsequent developments now suggest a pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas, before the opening of the IFC,
this supports a Pacific coastal migration route,
but large uncertainties in existing IFC ages cannot preclude its availability as a route for the first migrations. ...
We report cosmogenic nuclide exposure ages:
the final opening of the IFC occurred well after pre-Clovis occupation.
"Pre Clovis" is a fact now. NOBODY subscribes to "Clovis First." I don't even think the Out of Africa purists -- the bird brains who got a cracker every time they regurgitated what the professor told them, verbatim -- couldn't believe the "Clovis First" thing.
My long, Long, LONG argued model is that Clovis "Culture" makes a threshold. No, not when people got here, but when a population threshold was crossed
and "A culture" could span a very wide area.
People also had to adapt. Groups that arrived along the coast had to push inland, adapt to a new lifestyle & spread... exactly like we see happening all the way back to the miocene:
Waterside ("Aquatic Ape"). Pushing inland. Adapting.
It didn't stop with the Rift Valley or the Neanderthals/Denisovans or EVER.
The same process: Nature was always nature.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711356336312582144
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)