There appears to be two main bones of contention which scientists engaged in the subject of the peopling of the Americas will and have focused on where this 1992 discovery is concerned.
1. Are the stones identified as tools, in fact tools? One of my archaeologist friends suggested the anvilstone may very well be. But the hammerstones were not convincing, as far as he was concerned, and that will likely be a common reaction going forward.
2. The lead author claims the pattern of breakage displayed by the bones(which are mineralized bone, i.e., fossilized, not still bone)could only have been caused by humans. Others have pointed out the breakage could have occurred by the weight of multi-ton equipment on the surface above where the remains laid. Personally, I don't buy that, for the reasons the lead author has stated elsewhere. Evidence was presented, for example, that the breakage had to have occurred when the bones were still fresh, i.e., ~130,000 years ago, and could not have occurred 25 years ago, when the bones had long been fossilized. The lead author is an authority in studying sites where extinct megafauna, both in the US and Siberia, present evidence they were butchered by humans, not nature. And he claims it is very easy to distinguish damage by humans vs. damage by heavy equipment....
The authors of the article and San Diego museum might be criticized for themselves making a big deal of it to the media. Coming out by press conference, even though it is in Nature, might seem presumptuous where their own study is concerned. It is exciting. But speaking of it as proven won't go down well even if it were irrefutable at first glance, which it won't be to most. Both from the point of view of reflexively defending that level of orthodoxy that resists "impossible" dates tooth and nail, and simply because it is only one site, the news should have been presented more cautiously. The way it was presented, I think, is an end run around the opinions of their peers. The team and museum had to know it would be highly controversial by its very nature, without making it sound like a foregone conclusion that changes everything.
Of course, it might. Eventually. But it's a confrontational stance almost, if you're an archaeologist elsewhere working in the peopling of the Americas, and here this small team telling the world they've made a discovery, and this is the brand new narrative. The archaeological community knows press conferences and single sites don't constitute new regimes generally. Science doesn't advance by decree.
So I guess I could view it as I've described, and maybe that's fair. The reaction will be stronger by reason of the aggressive presentation alone. I guess if that's what you want. It might bespeak of one hell of a confident position, in the long run, by the authors. They do have balls. They're confident in their case, and understand the implications would overturn the narrative still again. Hopefully, they're not just caught up in themselves, and actually not only have something with this site, but can advance their theory by finding more sites.
A short video by the San Diego museum describing the discovery of the site and research over the years:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GVeOoWmUnLw
Another short video by the San Diego museum with a more critical look:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HyfSsgCrjb0
The San Diego museum's official page devoted to the discovery:
https://www.sdnhm.org/consulting-services/paleo-services/projects/cerutti-mastodon/
Finally, the press conference announcing the paper. Actually begins just before the 7 minute mark. I don't know why the first 7 minutes are not edited out. But, the conference is well worth listening to if the subject matter interests one...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL88N5B2WX2kLhKTOxVca7k4bLSgRU22AQ&v=qQK-8Rk5CKI
The article from Nature. Unfortunately, this was available a week ago, free access, and I had downloaded it and posted it on other sites dealing with such discussions, but I see it is no longer available free. But, here is the abstract and some illustrations from the paper can be viewed:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html
Bottom line: it's only the beginning. The authors have confidence in their findings but an enormous amount of work remains to convince the archaeological establishment, and that work has to be the discovery of similar sites in geological layers of the same age....
Of the links I posted, the first two videos do at least provide a quick overview education and are worth watching, IMHO...
BTW, as far as the subject title of this thread, the subject of the peopling of the Americas, both the who, the when, and the directions and means of entry, has made this subject very far from settled ever since the dominant paradigm, namely the Clovis-First paradigm, was finally undermined enough to open the field of research up as wide as it is now opened. There have long been pre-Clovis sites claimed and disputed, such as the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in Pa, and the Monte Verde site in coastal Chile. One theory that has since gained widespread popularity is the so-called Pacific Coast kelp highway hypothesis, which suggests migration and settlement by boat. We know, for instance, that Australian aboregenes(so?)made it to Australia by at least 50,000 years ago. They did not walk there.
Science should probably never be regarded as truly "settled". Science should be self correcting when new data requires it. All too often, on the other hand, human egos defend what sometimes becomes indefensible, and careers can be ruined when people attempt to rock the boat. The Monte Verde, Chile site rocked the boat for many years before it was finally accepted for what it was: proof that people were here before the Clovis culture of of some 13,500 years ago. Thomas Kuhn's seminal work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", described the fits and starts nature of change in science. Often stated as "new paridigms finally ascend when the last proponents of the old paradigm die". It's human nature, after all, and unfortunately, there have been ugly examples of careers ruined when in fact the new ideas proposed were actually correct....
What made this study mind boggling to many is it goes far beyond the pre-Clovis sites now accepted as valid.
Lol. I keep thinking I'm finished with this comment, but here is one more relevant read. Recent genetic research has supported the notion of a single migration movement into the Americas no earlier then about 23,000 years ago. But there are suggestions of another migration. This article has links to the two studies that attempted to explain this anomalous genetic data:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33612869
I hope the links I've posted prove informative for those wishing more info. Perhaps the most interesting possibility emerging from this paper is the suggestion that this site may reflect the presence of humans other then our own kind. Perhaps Neanderthals, or the mysterious Denisovans. Which makes the last link interesting, since it is Australasians that display Denisovan genetic traits....
