https://www.inverse.com/science/chiquihuite-cave

THE STORY YOU WERE TAUGHT of the original peopling of the Americas likely went like this: About 13,000 years ago, big-game hunters entered the continent through an ice-free corridor from Asia. They moved southward, spread across North America, and had their own distinct material culture.

The story of big-game hunters describes the ‘Clovis-first’ model, and today, most experts agree that it is wrong. Successive finds in North and South America indicate that humans migrated much earlier. One of the handful of questions that remains is how much earlier?

Ciprian Ardelean is an archeologist affiliated with the University of Zacatecas. He tells Inverse that most academics accept that people entered North America at least 16,000 to 18,000 years ago.

“The 'older-than-18,000' discoveries have to struggle for years to be accepted by the academic establishment, exactly how it used to be during the Clovis-first reign,” Ardelean says.

Ardelean's research pushes the date of humans in North America nearly twice as far back in time.

For the past ten years, Ardelean has directed a project aimed at finding early human sites in the Zacatecas desert in North-Central Mexico. Now, based on evidence discovered in a location known as the Chiquihuite Cave, Ardelean and his colleagues believe that the initial entry date into the Americas could have been as far back as 33,000 years ago.

Quite fascinating stuff and yet even the 33,000 year estimate is small compared to the 250,000+ years that Homo sapiens have existed on the planet. It just goes to show that basic seafaring was much too advanced for early humans.

I always heard the first ones to come to the Americas were the Chinese and from their descendants were the American Indians and the group that ventured further south of North America, the ones who are ancestors to the Hispanic in Central and South America.

Where did you "hear" that? Archaeologists have confirmed that the earliest people to cross the Bering Strait into North America were indigenous populations from Siberia.

I don’t know what is controversial about this research. Like the article and the source-material says, the idea that the ‘Clovis-first’ model is wrong is well-established. The only thing this research adds are more data points to consider (carbon-dated findings in a cave). Carbon-dating is a quite sensitive technology with a high chance of ‘bad data’, so that the research itself is controversial I can go with, but the theory itself is fine. It is also supported by findings of fish hooks and tool designs that were already outdated 18000 years ago.

Interesting story nonetheless

Which had came from China.

It's interesting, but I get a little cautious when I read things like "For the past ten years, Ardelean has directed a project aimed at finding early human sites in the Zacatecas desert in North-Central Mexico."

Because people generally find what they're looking for when it takes analysis and interpretation to determine the results, like how old are the artifacts found, and how do you determine that with a degree of certainty? With stuff that old, I think it can be difficult to know for certain, and a lot of what's decided upon is opinion based on the circumstances, and that's not always accurate. Maybe it is, but I am a bit more skeptical when I hear someone found exactly what it was that they were looking for in these situations.

Where? From my history classes in school. Wiki also says the early Siberians were Chinese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Siberia

I've read several stories of another dig in Mexico in the '70s or '80s that they thought might go back over 50,000 years. Archeology has almost made a religion out of 'Clovis first' though, and the head of the team had her funding pulled and was fired from the university she was teaching at. I've also read of a dig in Brazil that may date back 80,000 years.

Hopefully enough evidence has finally piled up to break the Clovis first myth permanently and some more real science can finally be done. I visited with an archeologist at a museum last year. She was working on a dig here in Texas that may date back 30k years, but she has endured endless ridicule from her peers. She said she was actually told in college that when you hit the Clovis era strata you stop digging. It's kind of the same thing as in ancient Egypt. There is no doubt that the pyramids predate the pharoahs, but the 'party line' in archeology won't admit it.

Possibly the early Chinese were Siberians...in fact I could change the Wiki to say that right now if I wanted.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm

This article was written in 2004.

@nixer: That is not how the human haplogroups mutated. Through DNA research, it has been quite well established how exactly mankind developed into different races and which routes they took.

Hell. Forget this. I am still waiting for the answer to the biggest scientific mystery in human history:

What came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

The egg

The discussion of "scientists finding what they believe they will find" resonates. Virtually all I worked with did it -- some spent entire careers heading in the wrong direction. I did it once on one project and KICK myself to this day for letting my preconceived notions dictate how I analyzed the data.

There was once a "study" where Scientists were shown physical information via microscope (I think -- long time ago). The finding was:

1. If it agreed with their beliefs, they immediately saw the information and the connection.

2. If it did not agree with their beliefs, they rationalized the situation to allow them to continue believing.

3. If it proved unequivocally that they were wrong, they often did not even see it.

Of course, that "study" could have been biased also -- but I noticed that behavior myself in "real life science"

Meantime, interesting thread. Showing how behind the times I am, I thought carbon dating ran out of accuracy at around 14000 years.