I just read an interesting book (“THE FIRST AMERICANS”),by an archaeologist whodescribes some very ancient sitesin pennsylvania(dated to 14,000 BC),and the site in Chile (thought tobe 30,000 years old!).
This mademe wonder-is it possible that humans werein the Americas as long as 100,000 years ago? Might it even be possible that South America wascolonized first (via Pacific Islanders travelling east across the pacific), and the migration was North into N. America?
Or,tobe more radical,could ancient man have arisen in the Americas, independent of australopithicenes in Africa?
What amazed me is how most experts in the field are reluctant to accept any dates earlier than around 12,000 BC (Clovis man).
Anybody know more about early man in the Americas?
Its unlikely. Suffice it to say, there is no direct evidence of it, and even those two sites you mention are… controversial, to say the least.
No. That would be, while not absolutely impossible, utterly impossible. The genetics would be much, much different. Moreover, they wouldn’t have features identical to modern man (particularly modern mam in Northeast Asia.)
Hence they are being “professional”, and not breathlessly accusing leading scientists of willful ignorance. The reason the dates 12,000 BC is generally accepted is because we have no definitive, yes-or-no evidence for human life before that. People might have been there earlier; but 12,000 BC seems to fit the evidence.
I was reading an article somewhere that said that there was a European origin for tribes around the Great Lakes.
How does that fit (if it does) in to the picture?
Yes, indeed! Nebraska Man discovered 80 years ago.
::d&r::
Seriously, though, I saw an article that showed how it might have been possible, if not plausible, for primitive European savages to have migrated to the New World. During the Ice Ages, Europe and North America might have been “connected” by an ice sheet, the coastline of which would have included Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland and present-day UK. By hopscotching along the coast, it might have been possible, but I don’t know of any evidence that actually gives it credibility.
Like all other branches of science, the study of man in the Americas is a work in progress. Just when the time of arrival was though to have been nailed down pretty well, someone found sites that were dated considerably earlier than had been thought possible.
So people started to reexamine their assumptions and discovered that even during ice ages before passages opened up inland, travel from Asia could have been possible along the west coast of N. Amer. So people now busy looking for evidence of that.
In part, it’s a numbers game.
Largish permanent populations began leaving their remains in the Americas after 12,000 Before Present, as I understand it.
But it would be foolish, and almost certainly untrue, to deny that occasional individuals or small groups managed to wander into the Americas prior to that date. But there just weren’t enough of them to leave around artifacts that anyone is likely to stumble across.
The site in Chile (is it called Monte Verde) is gaining acceptance, if it is not quite yet “generally accepted”.
Anything is possible, but why speculate about 100ky old humans in the New World? If there are scientifically verifiable fossils, that would be great. There are none, so it really is moot.
As for a seperate line of Homo developing in the New World, that would be contrary to everything we know about evolution. Two seperate species do not independently evolve into one common species. You might be lead to that conclusion by the (mistaken) belief that somehow pre-homo ancestors were enexsoribaly (I’m sure I spelled that one wrong…) evolving toward homo spaiens.
For sure, you spelled that one wrong. 
My fingers are often dyslexic. Did I spell that right?
Regarding the first point: the current archaeological record has shown no movement into the Pacific before 1600 BC.E when it appears that the Solomon Islands were settled. Does this preclude any possibility of an earlier event? No, but it would make it quite unlikely–particlarly if one goes back to 100,000 years ago, when the indications are that humans had not progressed far enough in either tool development or societal organization to build the fleets and organize the voyages to accomplish such journeys.
Regarding the second point, the genetic distribution of the Y chromosome cytosine-to-thymine shift found throughout the Americas and the Eastern edge of Siberia argues strongly for a distribution from Northern Asia to the Americas. (Again, one could speculate–rather wildly–that an earlier group had arisen in the Americas and were overwhelmed by the Asian invaders, but then one has to ask where the fossil evidence for the Austalopithecines that gave rise to Hominids can be found in the Americas. I know of no such discovery.)