[diogenes4]

I believe that "sometime between 26,500 and 19,000 years ago" is an appositive marking the beginning of the land bridge's accessibility, not the time of migration. What they should have said is that the broadly accepted conservative time frame for migration is somewhere between 14kya and 19kya, as the white sands footprints have dating issues that complicate accepting them at face value. The liberal interpretations of the evidence—especially in northern Canada and Alaska—can push evidence back to more than 33kya—I've seen dating for 44kya, iirc, which is very contentious and not broadly accepted.

That said I don't have a wapo subscription, so that's my best guess.

[hn_throwaway_99]

You can read WaPo articles if you turn off Javascript.

[hinkley]

It wasn’t so long ago we thought 12500 years was about the right time.

[AlotOfReading]

It's been well over a decade since Monte Verde became widely accepted (2008-2010ish). Only a couple more years till it can vote.

[hinkley]

It’s been decades since most people here took a natural history class.

World is full of doctors spewing fifteen year out-of-date medical knowledge. Not everyone is going to be up on recent-ish events in your little niche. You’re in for a lot of rough conversations.

[JKCalhoun]

FWIW, WaPo loads fine for me with Reader turned on (Safari).