Question about the new dating for the Clovis points found in Texas

Last week, a team from Texas A&M put out a paper saying they used a new method to date some Clovis points found near Gault, Texas. They say the dates push human presence in North America back by about 3,000 years, to around 16,000 years ago. But three years ago, a big study from a site in Mexico argued the oldest solid proof was only 13,000 years old. So now we have two big finds telling different stories. One side says the new Texas dates are solid and change everything. The other side says we need more proof from other sites before we rewrite the textbooks. Which side do you think has the better case right now?

2 comments

2 Comments

victorhill3d ago

Push human presence back by 3,000 years" is a huge claim. The Mexico study seemed pretty solid, so this new method needs to be checked by other teams. I'm leaning toward waiting for more proof before we change the story.

wendy3913d ago

Yeah, it's smart to wait. I see this all the time now, not just with science stuff. A new study or a viral story comes out saying something huge, and everyone rushes to share it. Then a week later, other people find problems with it. It happens with health news, product reviews, everything. We're so quick to grab onto the new thing before it's even settled. So I'm with you, let it sit and see if other experts can get the same results. Changing the whole story needs more than one paper.