# How accurate are the claims made in "The Indigenous Paleolithic of the Western Hemisphere," were Humans in the Americas 150,000 years ago? : AskHistorians ## Highlights ### > Humans were in the Arctic at least 45kya, reaching Yenisei Bay and the Arctic ocean. And humans were in the steppes of Mongolia/Siberia (Tolbor-16 site) around this time as well. So paleolithic northern Eurasians were able to live in all the places that, well, modern northern Eurasians live. And these intrepid people went further north, reaching Kotelny island north of Siberia ca. 26kya. We also know paleolithic people could've traveled pretty far and quickly, at least by the early Holocene (11-9kya) ancient Siberians made dogsleds and traded obsidian doing treks of ~2000km (~1250 miles). There's no evidence of dog sleds from before this, but it's not unreasonable so assume that paleolithic Eurasians created them when domesticating dogs ~40-20kya. At least we can say there's no evidence of them using dog breeds related to modern ones and trading obsidian before the Holocene (~12kya). > • [Ancient people conquered the Arctic at least 45,000 years ago](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-arctic/ancient-people-conquered-the-arctic-at-least-45000-years-ago-idUSKCN0UT00D) > • [Early human presence in the Arctic: Evidence from 45,000-year-old mammoth remains, Vladimir V. Pitulko et al.](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad0554) > • [Humans Migrated To Mongolia Much Earlier than Previously Believed, Tolbor-16 Site](https://www.eurasiareview.com/17082019-humans-migrated-to-mongolia-much-earlier-than-previously-believed/) > • [Northernmost Stone Age Hunters Found at Kotelny Island](https://www.livescience.com/northernmost-stone-age-hunters-found) > • [Prehistoric Siberians May Have Traveled 1,500 Kilometers by Dogsled](https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-prehistoric-siberians-may-have-traveled-1-500-kilometers-by-dogsled-1.6964489) > This leaves us with humans spreading into frigid and steppe Beringia possibly sometime after 45kya. The Beringian Standstill theory suggests they did this sometime in the ca. 35-25kya range, at least during the Last Glacial Maximum. Then they were stuck there by the weather (glaciers), until sometime after ca. 25kya they could get to what is now far-western Canada, eventually sometime after this leaving to populate the rest of North America (which they did relatively quickly). In [A Three-Stage Colonization Model for the Peopling of the Americas, by Andrew Kitchen et al. 2008](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001596), Kitchen et al. suggest Beringia was occupied by eastern Siberians ca. 43-36kya til 16kya when people expanded into the Americas in both an interior and a coastal route. > In [Is theory about peopling of the Americas a bridge too far? By Traci Watson, 2017](https://www.pnas.org/content/114/22/5554), she notes Tamm et al. (2007) as the first paper making the case for the Beringian Standstill, in which they suggested people were there before the Last Glacial Maximum ca. 27-19kya and stayed up to 15kya in Beringia. Recent studies such as Llamas et al. (2016), Raghavan et al. (2015), and Lindo et al. (2017), all support this, as does Bluefish Cave in the Canadian Yukon which was occupied as early as 24kya, see Bourgeon and Higham (2017). And Vladimir Pitulko notes mammoth tusks used for tools at the Yana river in northern Siberia 24-21kya as the LGM began, suggesting people didn't leave Beringia even if some moved on, see Pitulko and Pavlova (2017). > A summary of the general concept is succinctly given in [Biomarkers in ancient Alaskan lake sediment could influence thinking about early Beringian migration, by Max Graham, 2021](https://www.nps.gov/subjects/beringia/standstill-theory-article.htm): > > ...climatological data suggest that ancient Beringia was more hospitable to human life than many parts of Siberia...the Bering Land Bridge wasn’t just a bridge, but part of a landscape that humans long inhabited. Perhaps humans populated Beringia, ranging from northeastern Siberia to northwestern Canada, for thousands of years, during the Last Glacial Maximum (about 25,000 BCE) and before moving south into the Americas. Rather than, or in addition to, a swift movement into North America, an isolated human population might have settled in Beringia, diverging genetically and culturally from their Eurasian ancestors. > Yet, in Traci Watson's 2017 paper, there are some skeptics of the genetic standstill part of the hypothesis. Since genetics doesn't specify *where* the standstill happened, it could've been somewhere else along the journey to the Americas such as somewhere else in Siberia (argues Ben Potter), or on the Hokkaido, Sakhalin, and Kuril islands north of Japan (which were all connected in the LGM). From 26kya and onward there's increasing human habitation on what was the Hokkaido-Sakhalin-Kuril island (Buvit and Terry 2016), which Ian Buvit suggests was from an influx of people fleeing neighboring Siberia (and thus leading to people spreading to the rest of the Americas). > • Beringian standstill and spread of Native American founders, E. Tamm et al. (2007) > • Ancient mitochondrial DNA provides high-resolution time scale of the peopling of the Americas, B. Llamas et al. (2016) > • Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans, M. Raghavan et al. (2015) > • Ancient individuals from the North American Northwest Coast reveal 10,000 years of regional genetic continuity, J. Lindo et al. (2017) > • [Earliest human presence in North America dated to the Last Glacial Maximum: New radiocarbon dates from Bluefish Caves, Canada, Bourgeon and Higham 2017](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169486) > • Revising the archaeological record of the Upper Pleistocene Arctic Siberia: Human dispersal and adaptations in MIS 3 and 2, Pitulko and Pavlova (2017) > • Outside Beringia: Why the northeast Asian Upper Paleolithic record does not support a long standstill model, Buvit and Terry (2016) > In support of Beringians being the early founders, a recent paper to-be-published in 2021 by Yongson Huang et al. has found evidence of human feces on the Seward Peninsula of northern Alaska ca. 32kya, see the overview above by Max Graham (2021). This date, along with the Bluefish Cave dates suggest that Beringians were in Alaska and the Yukon in the late 30's to mid 20's. - [View Highlight](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qnyevd/how_accurate_are_the_claims_made_in_the/hkazukj?__readwiseLocation=0%2F1%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0%2C0%2F9%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A375#:~:text=Humans%20were%20in%20the%20Arctic%2Clate%2030's%20to%20mid%2020's.) ### > But when did people get out of Beringia and into the rest of the Americas? This is the million dollar question, though I don’t think releasing papers on the subject is how anyone wins the million dollars. Moving onward, there's a few other early dates in the 35-20kya range...depending on which researcher you read. > Christelle Lahaye et al. (2013) suggests Monte Verde I in Chile is dated to ca. 35-30kya; but this isn't supported by others such as Roosevelt et al. (1996) and Tom Dillehay's 2015 chronology. Christelle Lahaye et al. (2013) also suggest Pedra Furada II is ca. 31-25kya, but this (as mentioned above) is contentious, see Politis and Prates (2019). > Other sites in this age range are Chiquihuite cave in Zacatecas, central Mexico, ca. 33-31kya (see Ardelean et al.; and Becerra-Valdivia and Higham). And in South America, the Arroyo del Vizcaino site near Sauce, Uruguay has ancient sloth bones butchered ca. 30kya (see Fariña et al.), again disputed by Politis and Prates (2019). > Into the early 20’s, the Quintero (GNLQ1) site in Valparaiso Chile is dated to ca. 29.2-28.8kya and ca. 26.1-25.8kya calibrated; see Luis A. Borrero (2016) above. He cites "possible cutmarks on some bones", whereas other researchers suggest no human activity at the site at all – only megafauna animals; see Diego Carabias et al. (2014). - [View Highlight](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qnyevd/how_accurate_are_the_claims_made_in_the/hkazukj?__readwiseLocation=0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F5%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0%2C0%2F3%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F5%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A338#:~:text=But%20when%20did%20people%20get%2CDiego%20Carabias%20et%20al.%20(2014).) ### > From ca. 18.5-18kya dates are less in dispute: such as the Lovewell Mammoth site in Kansas, as noted by John Q. Jacobs who cites Holen (1996), and the La Sena site in Nebraska is ca. 18.6-18.3kya, see Bonnichsen and Turnmire (1999). Tom Dillehay's 2015 chronology for South America is ca. 18.5-14.5kya calibrated, see Luis A. Borrero (2016), Dillehay et al. (2015). From ca. 18-15kya Crook III suggests elk came into the Americas en mass from Beringia and thus humans probably followed; I’m assuming he's citing calibrated dates (?) or he’s got the precise date wrong, because in the source of this claim the date for this event is only ca. 15kya and onward, see Meirav Meiri et al. (2014). > • The Lovewell Mammoth: A Late Wisconsinan Site in North-Central Kansas, Steven Holen (1996) > • An Introduction to the Peopling of the Americas, by R. Bonnichsen and K. Turnmire, in Ice Age People of North America, ed. by R. Bonnichsen and K. Turnmire (1999) > • [New Archaeological Evidence for an Early Human Presence at Monte Verde, Chile, Tom D. Dillahay et al. 2015](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651426/) > • [Faunal record identifies Bering isthmus conditions as constraint to end-Pleistocene migration to the New World, Meirav Meiri et al. 2014](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2013.2167) > Some researchers would cite Meirav Meiri et al. in suggesting that the earliest colonization of South America was only ca. 16 or 15kya. Luciano Prates et al. (2020) suggests the earliest sites are only ca. 15.5kya calibrated with the highest bound of this date range being 16.6kya. By this time ca. 16.5kya onward, many researchers accept many sites like Chiquihuite component B, Cooper’s Ferry, Debra L. Friedkin, etc.), see Becerra-Valdivia and Higham (2020). Recent work by Ranere and Cooke (2021) dates the El Jobo points from Taima Taima, Venezuela, to ca. 15.8kya calibrated. And returning to the Topper site, Dean Snow (2010) suggests the oldest pre-Clovis tools at the site are from ca. 16kya; while a conservative reading of Goodyear (2005) suggests ca. 20-16kya, see Haynes (2015). > • [Rapid radiation of humans in South America after the last glacial maximum: A radiocarbon-based study, Luciano Prates et al. 2020](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236023) > • [Late glacial and Early Holocene migrations, and Middle Holocene settlement on the lower isthmian land-bridge, A. J. Ranere, R. G. Cooke 2021](https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/7003790) > • Archaeology of Native North America, Dean Snow (2010) > Around this time ca. 16kya, people settled along the Pacific coast from Baja California (Cedros island) to Monte Verde, Chile by at least 14.5kya. This is called the Kelp Highway hypothesis. What are these people doing here? Well they probably migrated from similar coastal areas in Asia, as Cedros island fishhooks resemble those made from sea snail shells in Okinawa ca. 23kya. Stemmed points indicative of a proto-Clovis style are seen in the Incipient Jomon in Japan ca. 15.5kya. This stems from two 2017 overviews by Lizzie Wade. A 2016 article, [Ancient DNA suggests the first Americans sidestepped the glaciers, by Carolyn Gramling](https://web.archive.org/web/20160813052427/www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/ancient-dna-suggests-first-americans-sidestepped-glaciers) the Kelp Highway peopling was dated only to ca. 15-14kya, presumably based on Waters and Stafford Jr. (2014), and Rothhammer and Dillehay (2009). This work had suggested South America was populated ca. 15-13.5kya, but Dillehay's later work (2015) suggests this period of peopling starts ca. 18.5kya calibrated; the earliest in South America (of course, disputed). - [View Highlight](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qnyevd/how_accurate_are_the_claims_made_in_the/hkazukj?__readwiseLocation=0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F7%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0%2C2%2F4%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F7%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A364#:~:text=From%20ca.%2018.5-18kya%20dates%20are%2CSouth%20America%20(of%20course%2C%20disputed).) ### > So after looking at ALL those sites and dates, what do we have? *A lot* of possible sites and dates, some with better chances and some with less. Many of the possible sites are disputed in quite fundamental ways: that the tool is a natural rock, that the taphonomy of the area wasn't understood, etc. Gary Haynes' 2015 overview cites a few examples of critiques in which the supposed pre-Clovis tools were likely natural breakage: Topper (Hand 2014), Pedra Furada (Meltzer et al. 1994), and Calico (V. Haynes 1973). While this critique killed Calico, it only tampered the more extreme dates at Topper and Pedra Furada. > Researching this reminds me of looking into the history of Christian schisms, I've cited 106 articles, papers, reviews, and overviews; which give a dozen or so entirely different paradigms. There are various researchers who believe in *their* particularly ancient site, but no one agrees with each other about other sites. The problem cannot be solved by a single team, nor in a single overview as I’m attempting; but needs to be solved by an international standard and an international team made of the opposing sides...and is going to happen in the foreseeable future? Probably not. - [View Highlight](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qnyevd/how_accurate_are_the_claims_made_in_the/hkazukj?__readwiseLocation=0%2F1%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F8%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0%2C2%2F2%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F8%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A342#:~:text=So%20after%20looking%20at%20ALL%2Cthe%20foreseeable%20future%3F%20Probably%20not.) ### > So there's solid evidence from the early 30's in Beringia, then North and South America in the late 20's, with increasing evidence from 20kya onward. There are a few sites in the late 30's and early-mid 20's which are disputed, but these might even be expected. By the time we get to Clovis ca. 13kya, it’s far behind the first. Though there are still a minority of researchers who continue to believe in the Clovis First theory, of course; because this field doesn’t have enough sectarianism! > This has been a long rabbit-hole...but the point is to rebut Paulette Steeves' notion that there are vast numbers of sites in the 20-200kya range, and that any of these are undisputed, nor do any so far conclusively prove occupation to 50, 100, and 200kya. - [View Highlight](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qnyevd/how_accurate_are_the_claims_made_in_the/hkazukj?__readwiseLocation=0%2F9%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F8%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0%2C0%2F10%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F8%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A256#:~:text=So%20there's%20solid%20evidence%20from%2Cto%2050%2C%20100%2C%20and%20200kya.) ### > That was a lot of qualifying, but with *all* that said we shouldn’t discount the idea that hominins came to the Americas in the paleolithic period. Steeves' general premise is a fair suggestion: she notes that paleolithic animals were traveling to and fro during this period, and so presumably this includes hominins. Paleolithic hominins were hardy travelers, if there's anything to call *homo erectus* it's *hardy* – the first to live across Eurasia, the first to use fire, etc. In archeology, people say *never say never*; and we certainly shouldn't bet on the hardiness of erectus or any of their cousins. If we find paleo hominins in places we didn't think they reached, we should *expect* someone from this branch of the family tree. > Hominins like erectus got from Africa into Eurasia via the Saharan Pump. There is a great band of desert from Morocco to Oman (let’s call it Saharabia) which today is a desert, but climate's cyclical changes mean that for some periods it's greener and allows lots of animals, lakes, rivers, and hominins. Once it cyclically returns to a desert, the animals and humans there leave; and thus for cyclical periods Africa and Eurasia are ecologically cut off. This operates like a “pump”, pushing everyone from the drying region into all surrounding vegetative regions – and this happened to erectus, who even fled to China just because they just couldn't stand the sand! As they say, *"It's course and rough and irritating. And it gets everywhere."* And yes, erectuses and cousins/relatives of theirs were in China; just how northeast they went is a good question. > Hominins probably wandered across Eurasia in the deep past, before sapiens even existed; the overview by David Turnbull (2019) gives a few examples. The Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco has an ancient hominin who is a mix of archaic with modern human morphologies some 300kya, see Hublin et al. (2017). There are skulls from both Portugal and China dated to 400kya, see Athrey and Wu (2017), and Daura et al. (2017); and stone tools in India at 300kya, see Akhilesh et al. (2018). This does not mean the Out-of-Africa model is dead, as Paulette Steeves claims; these are homo erectus! They are cousins to us, some branch of theirs stayed in Africa where they originated. A simple Out-of-Africa model where everything starts in East Africa is now in dispute, with Africa having macro-regions of separate-yet-related hominin groups by ca. 300kya, a “continent-wide mosaic of cultural and genetic interactions between differing groups…”, see Scerri et al. (2018). - [View Highlight](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qnyevd/how_accurate_are_the_claims_made_in_the/hkazukj?__readwiseLocation=0%2F1%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F9%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A0%2C0%2F3%2F0%2F4%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F9%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F4%2F1%2F0%2F2%2F1%2F0%2F0%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F3%3A956#:~:text=That%20was%20a%20lot%20of%2Csee%20Scerri%20et%20al.%20(2018).)