You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] lemon11 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The land bridge was called Beringia.

This type of shit, and the fast and loose implications with the numbers despite supposed 200kya remains found further south, is why I hate these type of magazine articles.

0
0

[–] mrPingPong [S] ago 

Can you elaborate a little on this?

0
0

[–] lemon11 ago  (edited ago)

It's not that it was called "Beringia," which is a back-formation from the name of the strait, which was named after the (geologically) recent explorer. It is the case that currently somebody calls it that. This is insultingly sloppy copy.

(Maybe the writer's intent was to say "[it] was named 'Beringia'," which would be much more correct.)

And they throw around threshold dates that would lead an incurious reader to assume the crossings were at 10kya or 20kya or both or in between, when really those are roughly-estimated thresholds, and the actual events they talk about in the same breath happened much earlier. The prose-painted picture of events and the timeline are confused and disjointed in places, while failing to answer the obvious questions a normal reader would ask themselves.