There are numerous sites that are accepted as predating the “ice free corridor” by which overland entry to the rest of the Americas from Beringia was possible. At most, this route represents *a* migration into the Americas, not *the first* migration into the Americas.

well if you had cared to gander at any other of these threads under OP, you would know that i already DID that research and the Bering Land Bridge was open between 30,000 to 12,000 years ago and the oldest recognized site is White Sands which dates to around 23,000 years ago.

30000 years ago? Now I’m the one who’d like to see a source

Oh, Beringia was passable 30k years ago. But the land bridge hypothesis posits that nobody entered the rest of the Americas from Beringia until much closer to 10k years ago when it was possible to do so on foot (the “ice-free corridor”).

www.nsf.gov/news/bering-...

www.arcus.org/witness-the-...

Why are people so upset about this land bridge thing?

now the ice corridor was open and green enough for travel about 13,000 years ago, but considering many other landmasses were colonized by short island hops, it's not farfetched that migration happened over the land bridge and then down the coast

I think the point of contention here is whether overland through the ice free corridor represents the first migration into the Americas beyond Beringia. It is pretty clear that it does not.

DNA evidence does suggest a large in-migration during the time the ice-free corridor was open, but also corroborates the idea that there were other lineages already in the Americas at the time.

i never said it did. neither did Abby. she said they got there by "walking over a land bridge that is now underwater" in the video which is still correct even if they used island hops to get down the coast because the interior was still impassable. like it's one sentence out of a paragraph.

Why include it at all, then? It’s a complicated and controversial topic. Better not to comment than to breeze through in a way that seems to validate inaccurate conventional wisdom (there are public schools in the U.S. still teaching that nobody lived in the Americas prior to the ice-free corridor)

Why give her the benefit of the doubt when she uses a slur the entire video and doesn’t talk abt Jefferson being a slave owner rapist?

i don't agree with some parts of the video but people are spouting scientific falsehoods over a single *scientifically correct* sentence. i'm defending the scientific fact and not the video.

Scientifically correct? JFC

There’s no archaeological record to speak of! We can talk about what, logically, was likely to have happened, but there isn’t evidence and we’re not likely to ever find evidence one way or the other.

The entire complaint here has to do with overconfidence in these sorts of statements, all to prioritize a harmful narrative with a motte and bailey where you excuse a harmful reductive narrative, will only defend that some people at some time traversed Beringia on foot, which was never disputed.

I mean it was one out of numerous ways travelled AND happened WAY before the particular migration she’s talking abt. It’s a way of saying indigenous ppl weren’t here as long as they were. Like that’s the point of that hypothesis as the main or only big migration moment for indigenous people

Although big asterisk on that date since the accuracy of the radiometric dating is still under debate. Still, definitely in the range of up to 24k years ago which is fascinating.

On my first read, I mistook this as dates during which a land route from Beringia to the Americas was passable, rather than what was meant (when Beringia itself was still extant). I don’t have a problem with the dates after realizing my error.

Yeah I mean the date of the fossilised footprints

Well, now I’ve done it twice