Evidence is building that people were in the Americas 23,000 years ago
The age of "rarely preserved" ancient human footprints dotting the landscape at White Sands National Park in New Mexico has been hotly debated for years. Now, a new study has found that these footprints really are around 23,000 years old — but the date isn't accepted by everyone.
If the 23,000-year-old age is accurate, it would mean that humans were in North America around the peak of the Last Glacial Maximum, the coldest part of the last ice age — far earlier than archaeologists had previously thought.
In the new study, the researchers radiocarbon-dated organic sediment in core samples from the site, which provided dates for the footprints as well as for the entire paleolake and river system that once existed there. The analysis was done in labs unaffiliated with earlier studies.
"Our data supports the original data" that dated the site to 23,000 years ago, study first author Vance Holliday, a professor emeritus of anthropology and geosciences at the University of Arizona, told Live Science. "Plus, we now have an idea of what the landscape was like when people were out there."
The saga of dating the roughly 60 footprints goes back to 2021, when a study reported the discovery of the footprints and dated them to between 21,000 and 23,000 years old. However, a 2022 rebuttal took issue with using the seeds of ditch grass (Ruppia cirrhosa), a water plant, for radiocarbon dating. Water plants get their carbon from underwater, which can be much older than carbon from the atmosphere. This can skew the levels of carbon 14, a radioactive version of the atom, in the samples, making the plants appear older than they really are.
So, in 2023, researchers redated the site with optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating, which revealed when quartz or feldspar grains in the tracks were last exposed to sunlight, and radiocarbon dating of ancient conifer pollen from the footprint layer — which proved to be another way to use carbon 14 without relying on water plants.
Related: The 1st Americans were not who we thought they were
Again, the scientists found that the footprints were 21,000 to 23,000 years old. While some scientists called the results "very convincing," others, including those who wrote the 2022 rebuttal, were still wary of the results, saying the samples weren't taken from the right layer.
Now, the new study offers more evidence that the footprints date to the Last Glacial Maximum, when the area was a vast wetland inhabited by ice age animals. The footprints likely came from hunter-gatherers who arrived in the Americas after traveling along the Bering Land Bridge, which connected Siberia and Alaska when sea levels were lower, research suggests.
For decades, researchers thought the earliest Americans were the Clovis, who lived in North America around 13,000 years ago. But the footprint discovery and others are slowly revealing that Indigenous people reached the Americas much earlier than thought.
Holliday has been working at White Sands since 2012, and some of his data was used in the original 2021 study, making him a co-author, he noted. This time, Holliday and his colleagues radiocarbon-dated mud cores from the site. They found that the trackways date to between 20,700 and 22,400 years ago, which closely matches the original dates.
When added together, there are now a total of 55 radiocarbon-dated samples of mud, seeds and pollen from the footprint layer that support the 21,000- to 23,000-year-old dates, Holliday said.
Ancient human footprints are "so rarely preserved," he said. And now, scientists have "dates on three different materials that all coincide" on a time for these tracks.
"You get to the point where it's really hard to explain all this away," he said in a statement. "As I say in the paper, it would be serendipity in the extreme to have all these dates giving you a consistent picture that's in error."
However, more work is needed to securely date the footprints at White Sands, said Michael Waters, director of the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M University, who was not involved with the study.
"Even with these new data, I remain concerned about the radiocarbon ages generated to date the footprints at White Sands," Waters told Live Science in an email. He reiterated the known Ruppia issue, saying the radiocarbon dates "are likely too old" because the plant got its carbon from the water. In fact, the same underwater carbon issues could have also affected the sediments dated in the new study, he said.
"The new ages on bulk organic sediments presented in this paper are interesting, but it is unclear about the origin of the carbon being dated," Waters said.
RELATED STORIES
—13 of the oldest archaeological sites in the Americas
—Ice age children frolicked in 'giant sloth puddles' 11,000 years ago, footprints reveal
—How did humans first reach the Americas?
Furthermore, Holliday and his colleagues acknowledge that their study doesn't address another hot-button issue: Where are the artifacts or settlements from these ice age people at White Sands?
That question remains to be answered, Holliday said. But it's unlikely that hunter-gatherers would have left behind valuable items in the short time it took them to trek around the wetland.
"These people live by their artifacts, and they were far away from where they can get replacement material," Holliday said in the statement. "They're not just randomly dropping artifacts. It's not logical to me that you're going to see a debris field."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Optimizing Therapies for HR+ Early-Stage Breast Cancer
Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early-stage breast cancer is one of the most common types of breast cancer, characterized by tumor cells that have receptors for estrogen or progesterone hormones. Although significant progress has been made in screening, treatment, and surgery, the risk of recurrence still remains. To explore therapies for managing HR+ early-stage breast cancer, Medscape spoke with Hope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO, division chief of breast medical oncology and a professor of medical oncology and therapeutics research at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California, and professor emeritus at the University of California San Francisco. Read on for her insights. What role does risk stratification play in determining therapy for HR+ early-stage breast cancer? Hope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO This is a critical area. It is a key aspect of determining appropriate treatment and extent of treatment, and we are still learning more about how to appropriately stratify based on clinicopathologic and genomic characteristics. Gene expression tests are used widely to understand prognosis and benefit from chemotherapy, but there are ongoing issues in HR+ disease including disease heterogeneity and how to optimally treat very young women with HR+ disease. We use clinicopathologic data in combination with gene expression tests to stratify risk, but this approach doesn't always provide us with the necessary information for determining the optimal adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment. The adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor trials will be helpful, as they will allow for longer follow-up of patients with high- and intermediate-risk disease. Additionally, newer predictors, such as gene expression signatures that may estimate the benefit from immunotherapy, are also being evaluated. What factors influence your choice between endocrine therapy and chemotherapy for HR+ early-stage breast cancer? Multiple factors have an influence on the choice of therapy, including the extent of disease and tumor biology. We have also learned that the intensity or extent of estrogen positivity plays a role in endocrine sensitivity. In terms of tumor biology, understanding tumor proliferation and chemotherapy sensitivity is critical. We are currently using gene expression tests, but it is clear that these are insufficient, even within the context of age and tumor burden. Additional markers that help to identify up-front or emerging resistance to endocrine therapy are critical. Data from the CDK4/6 inhibitor adjuvant trials has further complicated this question — as now the issue is where optimal outcome can be achieved in less chemotherapy-responsive, higher-risk disease with the addition of abemaciclib or ribociclib. Considering recent research, is extended endocrine therapy actually beneficial? I believe it is, but careful consideration needs to be given to the decision to extend therapy. Disease burden is of course our first consideration, but sensitivity to endocrine therapy, development of resistance, and response to chemotherapy in appropriate cases need to be taken into consideration. Interestingly, several analyses have suggested that patients with low proliferative and genomic risk, but a higher disease burden, might be most likely to benefit from extended duration endocrine therapy due to the long natural history of this disease. We are now exploring the use of switching the type of endocrine therapy in the high-risk adjuvant setting and the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to optimize therapy. What role do CDK4/6 inhibitors play in the adjuvant setting for HR+ early-stage disease? Both abemaciclib and ribociclib have reduced the risk of recurrence and the risk of distant recurrence in patients with intermediate or high-risk early-stage breast cancer. The duration of therapy varies, and eligibility criteria overlap; however, the recent NATALEE trial included a diverse population, including an intermediate-risk group (stage II, node-negative with additional risk factors) to evaluate the role of the CDK4/6 inhibitors among such populations. The striking aspect of this trial was the carry-over effect, shown most clearly in the monarchE study with 5-year follow-up. Even 3 years after completing treatment with abemaciclib, the data showed an increasing impact on disease-free survival and distant disease-free survival. Although there has been no overall survival impact yet, fewer patients with abemaciclib in monarchE are living with metastatic disease. What are the most critical research gaps or upcoming trials that could reshape how we manage HR+ early-stage breast cancer in the upcoming years? A few main things to address are improving risk stratification, how to use ctDNA to improve outcome, and understanding if use of oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERDs) in sequence improve outcome and their optimal therapy duration. So far, studies using ctDNA to assess risk and guide therapy changes have been challenging due to the low number of positive ctDNA results. Moreover, ctDNA detection has sometimes coincided with metastatic disease already visible on scans in case of several aggressive cancers. We still don't know the optimal treatment approach when molecular evidence of disease is found, which is making studies focus on adding targeted therapy or changing endocrine therapy. Several trials are evaluating oral SERDs in the early stage setting for the treatment of high-risk disease. While these trials will also collect ctDNA, patient eligibility is not based on these tests. One very important area that requires additional research is understanding early-stage breast cancer in young women, where tumors seem to behave poorly — particularly in women under the age of 40 — even when patients are treated with optimal therapy. Understanding optimal therapy is a key research focus, and further investigation of biological drivers in both ductal and lobular cancers is warranted. The OFFSET trial aims to determine the value of adjuvant chemotherapy vs ovarian function suppression in conjunction with standard endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors as indicated. However, this study is challenging to enroll in. Hope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Chugai; Puma; Sanofi; Napo; Mylan Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG/Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer; Stemline Therapeutics; OBI Pharma; Ambrx
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scientists Find Vitamin That May Lower Blood Sugar and Prevent Diabetes
A new scientific analysis finds that people with prediabetes who take vitamin D have a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Previous research has found a similar link. Endocrinologists and dietitians explain the link. More than one in three American adults has prediabetes, a condition where blood sugar levels are higher than normal, but not high enough to be diagnosed as type 2 diabetes. While prediabetes and type 2 diabetes are complicated conditions, new research suggests taking a vitamin D supplement may help lower blood sugar in certain groups. The study, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, analyzed data from 10 clinical trials involving nearly 4,500 people with prediabetes. The researchers discovered that 18.5% of study participants who took vitamin D reached normal blood sugar levels, compared to 14% who took a placebo. In all of the trials, the data showed that people with prediabetes who took vitamin D were more likely to develop normal blood sugar levels. Meet the experts: Sylvia Christakos, Ph.D., is a vitamin D researcher and professor of microbiology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School; Jessica Cording, R.D., is author of The Little Book of Game Changers; David Cutler, M.D., is a family medicine physician at Providence Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, CA; Ankit Shah, M.D., assistant professor in the Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Nutrition at Rutgers – Robert Wood Johnson Medical School; Anastassios Pittas, M.D., is a study co-author and a professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine The connection between vitamin D and blood sugar management seems random, but doctors say there is something to this. But experts warn this does not mean you should forego a regimen or treatment recommended by your doctor in favor of a supplement. Here's what the research found, and what it may mean. What is vitamin D? Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, per the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Also known as calciferol, the vitamin helps your gut's absorption of calcium. If you don't have enough vitamin D, your bones may become thin and brittle. But vitamin D plays many roles in the body, including reducing inflammation and supporting immune function and blood sugar metabolism, according to the NIH. Vitamin D is produced by your body when your skin is exposed to the sun's rays, and it's also found in some foods, like certain fatty fish, mushrooms, and fortified milk and cereal, says Jessica Cording, R.D., author of The Little Book of Game Changers. Why might vitamin D help with blood sugar management? That's still being explored, although this isn't the first time vitamin D has been linked with managing diabetes. A scientific analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2023 analyzed three clinical trials that studied the impact of vitamin D supplementation on people with prediabetes. During a three-year follow-up, the researchers discovered that 22.7% of participants who took vitamin D developed type 2 diabetes, compared to 25% of those who took a placebo. The differences aren't massive—meaning, taking a vitamin D supplement isn't a guarantee that you'll avoid developing type 2 diabetes—but many experts agree that there does seem to be something here. One theory behind this link is that vitamin D impacts glycemic control, which is your body's ability to manage your blood sugar, Cording says. 'Vitamin D is actually a hormone,' Cording points out. Having healthy levels of vitamin D may in theory help regulate other hormones in the body, helping to support the function of your endocrine system. (Type 2 diabetes impacts the endocrine system, which regulates glucose, a.k.a. blood sugar, levels in the blood, Cording explains.) Vitamin D is also linked to a lower risk of insulin resistance, which is when the body is unable to respond to or use the hormone insulin. Insulin helps to escort sugar to your cells, where it's used for energy. Insulin resistance is often seen as a part of prediabetes and a precursor for type 2 diabetes. 'Additionally, vitamin D may have an anti-inflammatory effect, and inflammation is a known risk factor for developing diabetes,' says Ankit Shah, M.D., assistant professor in the Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Nutrition at Rutgers, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. But there are still a lot of unknowns here. 'The mechanisms involved in potential helpful effects of vitamin D in lowering the risk for type 2 diabetes at this time have not been well defined,' says Sylvia Christakos, Ph.D., a vitamin D researcher and professor of microbiology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School. However, she points out that data suggest that people with low vitamin D levels also seem to have impaired pancreatic beta cell function and insulin resistance. Both of those are linked to the development of type 2 diabetes. It's also entirely possible that there's nothing to this link, says David Cutler, M.D., a family medicine physician at Providence Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, CA. 'It's very easy to find studies that show associations,' he says. 'You have to accept that many studies that were done showed no association and never came to light.' Should I use vitamin D to manage blood sugar? As of right now, there's no official recommendation on using vitamin D to manage blood sugar in people with prediabetes. However, Christakos recommends having your vitamin D levels tested if you're at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. If you're low, your doctor may recommend that you take a vitamin D supplement to support several areas of your health, not just your blood sugar. Dr. Shah agrees. 'While vitamin D deficiency and diabetes are two separate issues that have different treatment strategies, there might be a benefit such that treating one issue may have positive spillover effects on the other,' he says. If your doctor says you could benefit from taking a vitamin D supplement, it's important to have the right expectations for what this could do for you, says Anastassios Pittas, M.D., study co-author and a professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine. 'Vitamin D should be viewed as part of an overall diabetes prevention plan, not a stand-alone solution,' he says. 'In the vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials, participants took an average of about 4,000 IU of vitamin D daily. That dose would be a good starting point.' He says some people may need a bit less or more, depending on their lifestyle and size. Again, it's important to consult your doctor before adding a supplement to your routine. But Cording says it's important to keep in mind that you can overdo it with vitamin D. So, you don't want to put yourself on this vitamin without talking to a healthcare professional first. 'Taking too much vitamin D can lead to vitamin D toxicity,' she points out. That can cause your body to absorb too much calcium, raising your risk of kidney stones and constipation. In extreme cases, it may even lead to heart rhythm issues, kidney failure, and death, per the NIH. How to lower type 2 diabetes risk Dr. Shah stresses that you're not doomed to develop type 2 diabetes if you've been diagnosed with prediabetes. 'Having prediabetes puts you at risk for developing overt type 2 diabetes, but it does not have to be a foregone conclusion,' he says. 'One can prevent, or at least delay, this progression by employing multiple well-known strategies.' That means focusing on eating a low-glycemic diet, doing your best to manage your weight (as this may impact insulin resistance), and exercising regularly, Dr. Cutler says. 'These are all proven to both prevent type 2 diabetes and help with blood sugar control,' he says. Dr. Shah also recommends trying to reduce your stress levels and aiming to get at least seven hours of sleep a night. Ultimately, it's important to have a conversation with your healthcare provider if you've been diagnosed with prediabetes. They should be able to give you personalized guidance on next steps. Dietary supplements are products intended to supplement the diet. They are not medicines and are not intended to treat, diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or cure diseases. Be cautious about taking dietary supplements if you are pregnant or nursing. Also, be careful about giving supplements to a child, unless recommended by their healthcare provider. You Might Also Like Can Apple Cider Vinegar Lead to Weight Loss? Bobbi Brown Shares Her Top Face-Transforming Makeup Tips for Women Over 50 Solve the daily Crossword
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Which choices contribute most to climate change? Most people miss the mark, one study found
It turns out many Americans aren't great at identifying which personal decisions contribute most to climate change. A study recently published by the National Academy of Sciences found that when asked to rank actions, such as swapping a car that uses gasoline for an electric one, carpooling or reducing food waste, participants weren't very accurate when assessing how much those actions contributed to climate change, which is caused mostly by the release of greenhouse gases that happen when fuels like gasoline, oil and coal are burned.
