The debate on the settlement of America is reopened

The debate on the settlement of America is reopened

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

The work published in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society by the team led by the Uruguayan paleontologist Richad Fariña reopens the debate on the antiquity of human presence in the American continent.

Since a severe drought in 1997 revealed the Arroyo del Vizcaíno paleontological site, near the city of Sauce (Uruguay), with abundant remains of South American megafauna, many and of a very diverse type have been the theories that have emerged from the study of fossils. Among them, the possible presence of lithic tool marks on some of these fossilized bones questions the hypotheses most accepted by archaeologists, which date the human settlement in America to around 15,000 BC.

To date, 5% of the more than a thousand fossils analyzed show signs of erosion by stone tools, a finding that according to Fariña could dismantle the classic theories of the American settlement if it were accepted by the international community. These fossils date back to 29,000-30,000 BC..

Further, the age composition of the bones itself supports the idea of ​​Fariña's team: the abundant presence of full adults in the site seems to be an indication of human intervention since if it did not exist and it was a mere habitat of carnivorous fauna, there would be more pieces of juvenile and elderly animals.

However, these new approaches are limping several feet according to some archaeologists and paleontologists. In the first place, there is the possibility that the site is a simple accumulation of remains carried by the river current, although it is unlikely since the force of it does not seem to be enough to move such a magnitude of fossils.

On the other hand, experts like Rafael Suárez question the validity of the site as an archaeological site, well the presence of lithic material is practically nil. Just a small scraper the size of a fingernail that does not support, as Suárez claims, the presence of humans in the site, much less that it was a human site. Another argument that is questioned is that the marks found under the microscope in the fossils are the product of human beings and not of natural agents.

Romantic, in the artistic sense of the word. In my adolescence both family and friends reminded me over and over that I was an inveterate humanist, as I spent time doing what perhaps others not so much, believing myself to be Bécquer, immersed in my own artistic fantasies, in books and movies, constantly wanting to travel and explore the world, admired for my historical past and for the wonderful productions of the human being. That is why I decided to study History and combine it with Art History, because it seemed to me the most appropriate way to carry out the skills and passions that characterize me: reading, writing, traveling, researching, knowing, making known, educating. Disclosure is another of my motivations, because I understand that there is no word that has real value if it is not because it has been transmitted effectively. And with this, I am determined that everything I do in my life has an educational purpose.

Video: World of WokeCraft: Mists of Postmodernia. with Wokal Distance


  1. Mikajar

    Congratulations, great answer ...

  2. Digore

    In my opinion you are not right. Write to me in PM, we'll talk.

  3. Naftali

    I, sorry, but this variant certainly does not suit me.

  4. Astyrian

    I congratulate, it seems to me this is the excellent idea

  5. Jujinn

    You have hit the spot. I like this idea, I completely agree with you.

Write a message