Timeline for Why have so few paleo-Indian skeletons been found?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 2023 at 8:24 | comment | added | Dohn Joe | Could certain funerary rites that leave less remains also be a contributing factor? If the dead are buried, there is a good chance to find some remains archeologically. If the dead are burned, then there is much less to start with. If the there are no grave goods as part of the funerary rites, there's again, less to start with. | |
| Apr 27, 2023 at 23:07 | vote | accept | ruakh | ||
| Apr 26, 2023 at 20:54 | answer | added | codeMonkey | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 3, 2017 at 0:07 | comment | added | MAGolding | Chatters' answer seems logical. Thus one might suspect that Chatters logically deduced that those were the reasons for lack of Paleo-Indian skeletons, and that Chatters was not aware of any sort of strong evidence in favor of such an answer. I wonder if anyone has compared square miles and years for each skeleton discovered for the Americas and for an equivalent area in the Old World. | |
| Dec 2, 2017 at 16:09 | comment | added | ruakh | @Mark: I've presented a question and two completely contradictory answers: one saying that we have no idea why, the other confidently listing the reasons. My reason for doubting each one is the other. | |
| Dec 2, 2017 at 12:16 | comment | added | MCW♦ | You've presented a question and an answer. Why do you doubt the existing narrative?? Why doesn't Chatters' answer resolve the question? | |
| Dec 2, 2017 at 7:30 | history | edited | Lars Bosteen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar, phrasing
|
| Dec 2, 2017 at 4:59 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 2, 2017 at 10:28 | |||||
| Dec 2, 2017 at 4:57 | history | asked | ruakh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |