 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / March 2007New evidence -- Clovis people not first to populate North America
New evidence -- Clovis people not first to populate North America COLLEGE STATION -- The belief that the Clovis People were the first to populate North America some 11,500 years ago has been widely challenged in recent years, and a Texas A&M University anthropologist has found evidence he says could be the final nail in the coffin for the Clovis first model. Michael Waters, director of the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M, is the lead author of the paper "Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas," that appears in the Feb. 23 (Friday) issue of Science. Waters' paper revises the original dates for the Clovis time period, suggesting that humans likely inhabited the Americas before Clovis, who have long been considered to be the first inhabitants of the New World. "It was always argued that Clovis represented the first people who came to the Americas," Waters says. "The new dating that we did indicates that the Clovis Complex ranges from 11,050 to 10,900 radiocarbon years before the present." "Slowly but surely, archaeologists have been questioning whether Clovis represents the earliest people to enter the Americas." To properly understand the age of Clovis, Waters and co-author Thomas Stafford of Stafford Research Laboratories in Colorado, tested samples from various Clovis sites in an effort to re-date some of what Waters says were poorly dated sites. Because of technological advances, Waters says that he and Stafford were able to more precisely pinpoint the dates for some of the more than 25 dated Clovis sites that were excavated in North America. "Many of these radiocarbon dates were run back in the 1960s and 1970s when radiocarbon technology wasn't what it is today," says Waters. "Many of the dates obtained from these sites had ranges on them of plus or minus 250 years. We can now get to plus or minus 30 years." What Waters and Stafford found when they did their testing were radiocarbon dates that showed the Clovis time range wasn't as long as had been previously thought. Their tests placed the Clovis time frame between 11,050 radiocarbon years before present to approximately 10,800 radiocarbon years before present. "It was a surprise," Waters says of the results. "And I think people are going to be surprised by the dates." Waters says those dates show that Clovis was no more than 200 to 400 calendar years long, making it almost impossible for the Clovis people to spread as far as previously thought in such a short time span. They would, at most, have had to be prehistoric jet-setters to cover the ground in this amount of time. "Once you realize that the Clovis Complex dates much younger than previously thought and that Clovis has a much shorter duration than we thought, you have to ask how could people, in such a short period of time, reach the tip of South America." Waters says. "It doesn't make any kind of anthropological sense that these people could have been moving that fast, nor would they have wanted to move that fast. And it seems highly unlikely, given 20 generations, they could have made it that far that quickly." To re-date the sites, Waters requested samples for dating from different researchers who had excavated Clovis sites. He then sent the radiocarbon samples to Stafford who put them through a process where the bone is dissolved and bone collagen is extracted. The collagen was put in a molecular sieve where it worked its way down through the sieve. Once this was complete, Stafford was left with purified amino acids from the bone. The highly chemically-pure sample was processed into a target and dated using an atomic accelerator. The revised ages that Waters and Stafford obtained overlap dates from a number of North American sites that are technologically and culturally not Clovis sites, further bringing into question whether the Clovis People were the first humans in the Americas. "The long-range implications of our study is that it will get scientists looking for pre-Clovis evidence with a lot more vigor and thinking differently about Clovis," Waters says. "This will force us to develop a new model to explain the peopling of the Americas." Source: Texas A&M University http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/tau-nec022007.php  SignaturePosted by Robert Karl Stonjek When the climate shifts as dramatically as it did back then, people move fast, and far. But Nova reported the other night that 25% of mtDNA among the Ojibwa was Soulutrian. There are reports of curious DNA in the southern tip of Argentina as well that mite be aborigine. However, in either case, if the number of immigrants is too small inbreeding problems would have produced high rates of birth defects and limited the numbers of survivors. > But Nova reported the other night that 25% of mtDNA among the Ojibwa > was Soulutrian. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180497 Did NOVA forget to tell you how many ancient Solutreans skeletons have tested positive for Hap X? (hint:zero). Assuming (and probably wrongly) the same % of X existed in Europe 20,000 years ago as today, that means about 96% of Europe then was something else besides X. This means the odds of X being in the group getting to America, if such a group did get here, would be slim. Where then are these major European groups in the Native American population today? The odds of the 4% X group surviving and the other 96% groups going extinct are what? Near zero? > > But Nova reported the other night that 25% of mtDNA among the Ojibwa > > was Soulutrian. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > today? The odds of the 4% X group surviving and the other 96% groups > going extinct are what? Near zero? How many ancient skeletons do we have to look at? How do we know they are representative? 96% of Europe was, at the time, hunters, not fishermen. Only those familiar with boats would have left. It'd be interesting to see a map of the coastline at the time. Were there islands that are now submerged? We see the Ainu, who remained islolated on Hokkaido for millennia retaining a unique genetic endowment. If they ever get any DNA from the Kennebic man, I'd like to know if he had Ainu markers. We know in historic times innumerble examples of individual men making remarkably long journeys, whose genetic endowment, if any was left, was washed out in larger gene pools. I dont really claim to know Lee. I dont have a dog in the Clovis fight. I do, however, expect that tracing haplotypes will be a far more complex process than generally imagined. > > > But Nova reported the other night that 25% of mtDNA among the Ojibwa > > > was Soulutrian. > > > > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180497 http://www.saa.org/publications/amantiq/65-2/Straus.html Lawrence Guy Straus Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality American Antiquity Volume 65 Number 2 April 2000 Abstract The Solutrean techno-complex of southern France and the Iberian Peninsula is an impossible candidate as the "source" for either pre- Clovis or Clovis traditions in North America. Primarily this is because the Solutrean ended ca. 16,500-18,000 B.P. (at least 5,000 years before Clovis appeared) and was separated from the U.S. eastern seaboard by 5,000 km of ocean. In addition, there are major differences between the Solutrean and Clovis (and even more between it and "pre-Clovis") in terms of the composition of lithic and osseous technologies and with regard to evidence of artistic activity. Nor is there any evidence that Solutrean people had navigation, deep-sea fishing, or marine mammal hunting capacities which could have made a transatlantic crossing even conceivable. Furthermore, there is no evidence that people lived above about 48? N latitude in western Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum, making a "jumping-off" point from the (then largely glaciated) area of the current British Isles unlikely. The peopling of the Americas, even if the result of several "migrations," was from Asia. Sellet 1998, Clark 2000, and Schurr 2004 have written similar shorter papers expressing their disgust with the Stanford and Bradley hypothesis. > > Did NOVA forget to tell you how many ancient Solutreans skeletons have > > tested positive for Hap X? (hint:zero). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 96% of Europe was, at the time, hunters, not fishermen. Only those > familiar with boats would have left. > It'd be interesting to see a map of the coastline at the time. Were > there islands that are now submerged? How did it happen that only the 4% haplogroup X were fishermen and the 96% of the hunters were H and V etc.? Are the Ojibwa coastal fishermen? > We see the Ainu, who remained islolated on Hokkaido for millennia > retaining a unique genetic endowment. If they ever get any DNA from > the Kennebic man, I'd like to know if he had Ainu markers. All modern (except proven recent admixture) Native Americans and all ancient skeletons that have been tested so far are A,B,C,D, and X. What would the Ainu have to do with anything? If you go back far enough in time we are all related. > We know in historic times innumerble examples of individual men making > remarkably long journeys, whose genetic endowment, if any was left, > was washed out in larger gene pools. And after making landfall, would these individual men remember (after a 5000 year hiatus) how to make a Solutrean point? > I dont really claim to know Lee. I dont have a dog in the Clovis > fight. I do, however, expect that tracing haplotypes will be a far > more complex process than generally imagined. In seven years of waffling on the issue, Stanford and Bradley have produced absolutely nothing in the way of empirical evidence to support their hypothesis. For NOVA to make such a claim based on such a pathetic hypothesis demonstrates incompetence beyond comprehension IMO. The sad part is that there are always gullible people out there who will believe dog sh.t. > > > > But Nova reported the other night that 25% of mtDNA among the Ojibwa > > > > was Soulutrian. (snip), Oh well, if Nova says it, it must be true - TV is a reliable source. > > We see the Ainu, who remained islolated on Hokkaido for millennia > > retaining a unique genetic endowment. If they ever get any DNA from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What would the Ainu have to do with anything? If you go back far > enough in time we are all related. Chatters did one of those analyses on the skull of KM, and found it wasn't much like any modern, but came closest to the Polynesians, though the Ainu were somewhat closer than other moderns. REgards John GW. On Feb 26, 1:43 pm, "john...@aol.com" <jgi...@pwi.net> wrote: > > > > > But Nova reported the other night that 25% of mtDNA among the Ojibwa > > > > > was Soulutrian. > > (snip), Oh well, if Nova says it, it must be true - TV is a reliable > source. Almost as good as Hollywierd! + Spizney wannabee + > > > We see the Ainu, who remained islolated on Hokkaido for millennia > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > REgards > John GW. In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 25 Feb 2007 05:50:46 -0800, Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez: >> > > But Nova reported the other night that 25% of mtDNA among the Ojibwa >> > > was Soulutrian. >> > >> > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180497 >http://www.saa.org/publications/amantiq/65-2/Straus.html >Lawrence Guy Straus >Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality >American Antiquity Volume 65 Number 2 April 2000 >Abstract >The Solutrean techno-complex of southern France and the Iberian [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >unlikely. The peopling of the Americas, even if the result of several >"migrations," was from Asia. >Sellet 1998, Clark 2000, and Schurr 2004 have written similar shorter >papers expressing their disgust with the Stanford and Bradley >hypothesis. I dunno. I'll agree it's somewhat unlikely, but I would not be so sanguine about it as these guys. They mention deep sea fish and marine mammals; yup no evidence they were hunted, but then the sites available to us now would have been inland then. All the places where one might find coastal tribes with maritime skills are now 100m under water. And note, here where we have the experience of our recent arrival, the natives have radically different cultures and skills if you just travel a few miles inland = ca. a hundred metres altitude. Which is only sensible - the inland tribes were not mobile - the terrain discourages it - they would live in a river valley, hunt in the woods and fish the salmon travelling by. Meanwhile down the river a few miles, on the coast, the tribes built canoes and went out harpooning on the ocean. Note also these guys failed to make mention of the great auks, essentially a boreal penguin, which existed in how big of numbers during the ice age? Possibly like their southern counterparts. And so easy to catch they were wiped out shortly after large numbers of europeans started crossing the northern ocean with post-renaissance weaponry. Who knows what the coastal tribes of europe encountered on the atlantic ice floes 16kya? We do know they seem to have colonized britain as soon as the retreating ice made it possible - perhaps, on the broad now-submerged plain SW of cornwall, they were present much earlier. >> > Did NOVA forget to tell you how many ancient Solutreans skeletons have >> > tested positive for Hap X? (hint:zero). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> 96% of Europe was, at the time, hunters, not fishermen. Only those >> familiar with boats would have left. >> It'd be interesting to see a map of the coastline at the time. Were >> there islands that are now submerged? >How did it happen that only the 4% haplogroup X were fishermen and the >96% of the hunters were H and V etc.? Are the Ojibwa coastal >fishermen? Um, I dunno how useful modern measurements of gene frequencies on east coast natives are (or are these archaeological pre-contact Ojibway they're testing?) but if it says only 25% have the X, then if the originating population was 4%, aren't we talking about something like a one in six chance? >> We see the Ainu, who remained islolated on Hokkaido for millennia >> retaining a unique genetic endowment. If they ever get any DNA from >> the Kennebic man, I'd like to know if he had Ainu markers. >All modern (except proven recent admixture) Native Americans and all >ancient skeletons that have been tested so far are A,B,C,D, and X. >What would the Ainu have to do with anything? If you go back far >enough in time we are all related. >> We know in historic times innumerble examples of individual men making >> remarkably long journeys, whose genetic endowment, if any was left, >> was washed out in larger gene pools. >And after making landfall, would these individual men remember (after >a 5000 year hiatus) how to make a Solutrean point? What 5000 year hiatus? Presumably the arriving population would have been small, and living on now-submerged continental shelf land. After all, they must have been a maritime people if they got here that way. The appearance of the Clovis material is rather suspiciously near the time such people would have been nudged up onto the higher ground by the rising sea level. >> I dont really claim to know Lee. I dont have a dog in the Clovis >> fight. I do, however, expect that tracing haplotypes will be a far >> more complex process than generally imagined. >In seven years of waffling on the issue, Stanford and Bradley have >produced absolutely nothing in the way of empirical evidence to >support their hypothesis. > For NOVA to make such a claim based on such a pathetic hypothesis >demonstrates incompetence beyond comprehension IMO. The sad part is >that there are always gullible people out there who will believe dog >sh.t. It's not a slam dunk, not a problem. But I sure don't see any call for them using the word "impossible". Nothing can ever really be demonstrated to be impossible, and with this stuff, there isn't enough evidence from that period to say one way or the other with that level of confidence. I would buy a statement that said something like "we have 90% confidence that it didn't happen". I won't buy 100%. Signature========================================================================== vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. <snip> Thank you for your thoughtful comments. If you are interested in this subject, it is being discussed (to death) on MAAT, a very large moderated list. http://www.hallofmaat.com/list.php?1 There have been numerous long threads on the subject within the last month or so. The search box works great so it shouldn't be too hard to find them. Rather than me paste all the arguments back over to here (and some of this hypothesis is close to being off-topic on sap anyway), it would be easier for you to see all of them, so far, over there. If you see something to comment on, join in. In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 27 Feb 2007 17:15:20 -0800, Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez: ><snip> >Thank you for your thoughtful comments. If you are interested in this >subject, it is being discussed (to death) on MAAT, a very large >moderated list. > http://www.hallofmaat.com/list.php?1 >There have been numerous long threads on the subject within the last >month or so. The search box works great so it shouldn't be too hard [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >be easier for you to see all of them, so far, over there. If you see >something to comment on, join in. Yipes, what a site. I've known about it, but never bothered to explore it because I'm not terribly interested in holocene egypt; I didn't realize it ranged beyond that. A huge quantity of postings. Man, the interface is a beast, though. I generally hate mouse-driven interfaces, and the pages, god, the pages are so bloody big they take ages to load when you go in and out of an article. Anyway, I select this excerpt from a post quoting: "Constructing the Solutrean Solution Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley Smithsonian Institution University of Exeter "We point out that the idea of independent invention is an unsupported opinion and not a tested hypothesis. In contrast, we outline a testable model with supporting evidence such as the occupation levels found at the Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill sites with pre-Clovis dates that fill the time gap. The pre-Clovis levels also contained biface and blade/core technologies that we would expect in an artifact assemblage transitional between Solutrean and Clovis. We argue that during the 20,000 years that lapsed between the beginning of maritime technology in Southeast Asia and the advent of Solutrean in Southwest Europe, major developments in sea going technologies and skills likely spread around the coastal waters of the inhabited world. We also point out that during Solutrean times lower sea levels greatly reduced the distance between the Celtic and the North American Continental Shelves and a connecting ice bridge eliminated the necessity of a 4,000-mile blue voyage between Lisbon and New York City. The southern margin of this ice bridge was a relative rich environment inhabited by migrating sea mammals, birds, and fish attracting Solutrean people. We reason that generations of Solutrean hunters learned to cope with ice and weather conditions to follow rich resources such as Harp seals and Great Auks that migrated north and westward along with retreating ice in late spring. Through such activities they ended up (by accident and/or design) along the exposed continental shelf of North America discovering a new land." Well, that rather succinctly hits just about all the points that occurred to me in my comment upthread, and adds much more. Signature========================================================================== vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. > In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 27 Feb 2007 17:15:20 -0800, > > Yipes, what a site. I've known about it, but never bothered to > explore it because I'm not terribly interested in holocene egypt; I > didn't realize it ranged beyond that. A huge quantity of postings. I just ignore them. > Man, the interface is a beast, though. I generally hate mouse-driven > interfaces, and the pages, god, the pages are so bloody big they > take ages to load when you go in and out of an article. Anyway, I Slow? I'm on a 19.2 kbs dial-up. Sometimes when line corruption is bad, I can't access pages 5 or 6 deep at all. Last year I was on a fiber optics line and didn't have a loading problem. > select this excerpt from a post quoting: <snip> > Well, that rather succinctly hits just about all the points that > occurred to me in my comment upthread, and adds much more. I will throw in a few arguments upthread then. > -- > ========================================================================== > vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent > Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. <snip> > Anyway, I select this excerpt from a post quoting: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > inhabited by migrating sea mammals, birds, and fish attracting Solutrean > people. [...]" <snip> There are at least three big problems with this "ice bridge" idea: 1) The ice is frozen saltwater, so is not a source of drinking water; 2) The ice does not contain a source of raw material for tools and shelter; 3) Heat is hard to come by at the ice edge. - Daryl Krupa > <snip>> Anyway, I select this excerpt from a post quoting: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > There are at least three big problems with this "ice bridge" idea: > 1) The ice is frozen saltwater, so is not a source of drinking water; I didn't reckon this was right, so I checked: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Re-St/Sea-Water-Freezing-of.html " As sea water freezes, salt is excluded, because salt has a different crystalline structure: it forms cubic crystals (with four sides) whereas ice is hexagonal, or six-sided. (A close look at tiny snowflakes will reveal their hexagonal form.) So pockets of brine form within the ice; they refuse to freeze, because of the high salinity. The brine then slowly leaches out of the bottom of the forming ice and drips into the ocean below. Thus sea ice, when melted, is considerably fresher than the original sea water from which it formed... " > 2) The ice does not contain a source of raw material for tools and > shelter; > 3) Heat is hard to come by at the ice edge. > > - > Daryl Krupa > <snip>> Anyway, I select this excerpt from a post quoting: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > There are at least three big problems with this "ice bridge" idea: > 1) The ice is frozen saltwater, so is not a source of drinking water; I didn't reckon this was right, so I checked: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Re-St/Sea-Water-Freezing-of.html " As sea water freezes, salt is excluded, because salt has a different crystalline structure: it forms cubic crystals (with four sides) whereas ice is hexagonal, or six-sided. (A close look at tiny snowflakes will reveal their hexagonal form.) So pockets of brine form within the ice; they refuse to freeze, because of the high salinity. The brine then slowly leaches out of the bottom of the forming ice and drips into the ocean below. Thus sea ice, when melted, is considerably fresher than the original sea water from which it formed... For instance, when frozen at an air temperature of −40°C (−40°F), the salinity of the ice is about 10 percent. But when frozen at an air temperature of −6°C (21°F), the salinity of the ice is only about 4 percent. Such ice is fresh enough to use as drinking water; in fact, in spring, polar bears often drink the water in melting ponds on ice. When sea ice melts in the summer, the meltwater forms a relatively fresh surface layer that lies above the saltier ocean water, maintaining the halocline, and allowing easier freezing the next winter . " Ross Macfarlane > 2) The ice does not contain a source of raw material for tools and > shelter; > 3) Heat is hard to come by at the ice edge. > > - > Daryl Krupa Such ice is fresh enough to use as drinking water; in fact, > in spring, polar bears often drink the water in melting ponds on ice. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ross Macfarlane Believe whalers used to use it. Regards John GW On Mar 2, 1:16 pm, "john...@aol.com" <jgi...@pwi.net> wrote: > Such ice is fresh enough to use as drinking water; in fact,> in spring, polar bears often drink the water in melting ponds on ice. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Regards > John GW Oops - make that sealers, though I imagine whalers in the Atlantic did some, and perhaps the Franklin and Amundson expeditions. REgards John GW Mac, couple of errors and a qualifier to your ref. 10% should be 10 parts per thousand 4% should be 4 parts per thousand Saltwater is about 3.5% salt [These corrections are at bottom of the ref. page] and you didn't include this blurb: "Ice floes and other forms of sea ice are less salty than the sea water from which they formed, owing to a process known as brine rejection. Yet sea ice still is too salty to be melted for human consumption. Only icebergs, which are derived from glaciers, are composed of fresh-water ice". [Which is why I think it's possible though unlikely that Tasmanians could have drifted to Chile/Peru] Sea ice may or may not be too salty to consume, depending on temperature that the ice formed. Keep in mind that people sweat and pee losing salts which need to be replenished. DD > > <snip>> Anyway, I select this excerpt from a post quoting: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - > > Daryl Krupa Your wrong about sea-ice being all salty. look it up before you sate something. Heck you're on the internet aren't ya? On Feb 27, 9:28?pm, vinc...@triumfunspam.ca (pete) wrote: <snip> > Anyway, I select this excerpt from a post quoting: > > "Constructing the Solutrean Solution > Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley > Smithsonian Institution > University of Exeter > " [...] a connecting ice bridge > eliminated the necessity of a 4,000-mile blue voyage > between Lisbon and New York City. > The southern margin of this ice bridge was a relative rich environment > inhabited by migrating sea mammals, birds, and fish attracting Solutrean > people. [...]" <snip> There are at least three big problems with this "ice bridge" idea: 1) The ice is frozen saltwater, so is not a source of drinking water; 2) The ice does not contain a source of raw material for tools and shelter; 3) Heat is hard to come by at the ice edge. - Daryl Krupa > In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 25 Feb 2007 05:50:46 -0800, > Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > a few miles, on the coast, the tribes built canoes and went out > harpooning on the ocean. But the Continental Shelf is not the same distance from land now everywhere on the Iberian Peninsula, so the sea in some areas was just as close (or within reason) then as it is now. Sea mammal hunters use high ground to spot their game, where are those artifacts? They have marine cultural artifacts on Anangula Island from before the sea level came up to its present level. Not to mention all the mammoth bones and Mousterian artifacts dredged up from the North Sea bottom, why no Soutrean items? Also, if someone was in Europe with a marine culture at that time, why would it be typed Solutrean? Why would it even remotely look Solutrean if they claim it is now under water? If you can't see it, what is it? > Note also these guys failed to make mention of the great auks, > essentially a boreal penguin, which existed in how big of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > on the broad now-submerged plain SW of cornwall, they were > present much earlier. No undisputed Solutrean sites have been found on the British Isles that I know of, but Gravettian sites have. Bradley and Stanford have only argued Solutrean similarities. > >> > Did NOVA forget to tell you how many ancient Solutreans skeletons have > >> > tested positive for Hap X? (hint:zero). [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > then if the originating population was 4%, aren't we talking about > something like a one in six chance? http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180497 It is notable that X2 includes the two complete Native American X sequences that constitute the distinctive X2a clade, a clade that lacks close relatives in the entire Old World, including Siberia. The position of X2a in the phylogenetic tree suggests an early split from the other X2 clades, likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East. Ripan S. Malhi and David Glenn Smith 2002 Breif Communication: Haplogroup X Confirmed in Prehistoric North America. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 119:84-86. >From the abstract: "...,we identified an individual radiocarbon dated to 1,340 +/-40 years BP that is a member of haplogroup X, found near the Columbia River in Vantage, Washington." Page 86: "These lines of evidence together with recent criticism of similarities between the Clovis and Solutrean cultures (Straus 2000) that were cited by Stanford (1997), strongly suggest that haplogroup X did not reach the Americas via an ancient European migration........a characteristic mutation in HVSI of the control region not found in European or Asian members of haplogroup X (the G->A transition at hp 16,213), imply it is a founding Native American lineage." A quote from Jason Eshleman, a member of this list: "...the popular depiction of Kennewick Man as a pre-Columbian Caucasoid in the New World, coupled with the discovery of haplogroup X as a founding Native American lineage, fueled premature speculation about early European migrations to the New World. Genetic evidence does not support such a migration." X2e (X2 Europe) in Europe does not equate, not has it been demonstrated, to be in any way associated with the Solutrean. Pretty much the same arguements for haplogroup Y as far as I know. The Solutrean hypothesis is falsified at the 90% confidence level by the DNA evidence before we hardly begin. Impossible yet? No. > >> We see the Ainu, who remained islolated on Hokkaido for millennia > >> retaining a unique genetic endowment. If they ever get any DNA from [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > suspiciously near the time such people would have been nudged > up onto the higher ground by the rising sea level. But there is Cactus Hill and Meadowcroft inland early and those are the site types they use. Those two were not lost underwater. So..... Lee: "I just reread Stanford and Bradley's (2002, 2004) explanation on how they cover the now back to 5000 year timing problem (Waters 2007). They have to sell their last claim to competency in order to do it IMO. First they claimed there were many similarities (Collins originally about 18) between Solutrean and Clovis. Then they claim the 5000 year hiatus between the two is filled with the industries at Cactus Hill and Meadowcroft, which are dated closer, but exhibit none (none that are especially different from many other cultures) of the the similarities between Solutrean/Clovis. The only possible exception between the S/C, their major claim, would be overshot flaking (Straus 2000:219) and there is none at CH/M. >From page 2002:259-60: "Although the combined artifact samples from both sites are small, we suggest that these two assemblages should be considered part of the same technological complex. Further, their chronological placement suggests to us that they are prime candidates for the developemental Clovis." Well, if Clovis wasn't developed yet, what pray tell do the similarities with the Solutrean have to do with anything? Are they saying once the Solutreans got to America they stopped using overshot, shaft wrenches, etc. for 5000 years and then suddenly remembered to use them again during Clovis times? Why didn't their descendants back home remember to use all these neat innovations during the later Azilian period if they were so necessary to cultural status? Where I live Native Americans forgot where they got something as important as the horse in three or four generations and forgot how to flintknap (after a continuous hominid run of 2.6 million years) in only two generations. But something as useless as the overshot technique simmered in limbo, was not forgotten for 5000 years?" Kat: "When I was watching the show and Stanford was holding a Solutrean, a Cactus Hill, and and a Clovis point and explaining that the technology went from here to here to here ..well... I did scream at the TV then ...." Lee: "Yes, anyone who understands science can see the BAIT and SWITCH going on here, but the problem is the National Science Foundation has determined that 60-70% of Americans are technically scientifically illiterate. What those people really see then is an argument that Europeans beat Native Americans to America. An initially poorly- thought-out hypothesis that would be squished dead in the journals becomes a racially motivated national news item instigated by scientists who have a personal motive. Of course that motive is to protect the remaining stock of Native American skeletons housed at the Smithsonian." Stanford and Bradley have two ways they can deal with their hypothesis, they can either appeal to their peers in the science journals or they can bypass science and take their case to national TV, newspapers, and web sites. When they take the TV route they obtain celebrity status. They are subject to the same rules as any one else in the public realm and in a way have reduced their hypothesis to the level of mass entertainment. When a newspaper columnist draws a grotesque face of a politician and publishes it in the editorial section of a paper it is not slander. It is from the direction of the media aspect of Stanford and Bradley's position that I feel justified in my name calling of their work. If we were talking about data in a journal I would not do so. Press-release archaeology is archaeology of the worst kind and Standford is a master at it, IMO. Clovis has washed up from unknown sources on beaches from out at sea, so Clovis has been demonstrated offshore, where are the pre-Clovis artifacts, why don't they wash up also? > >> I dont really claim to know Lee. I dont have a dog in the Clovis > >> fight. I do, however, expect that tracing haplotypes will be a far [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > statement that said something like "we have 90% confidence > that it didn't happen". I won't buy 100%. Straus was talking to his peers, not the general public. How impossible is used was previoulsy discussed in the Greenman paper in 1963, and since Straus cited Greenman, we can assume he read the paper. However, if I were to argue that Henry Ford built six 1964 Ford Mustangs in 1910 and hid them in a garage and I'm going to offer you one of those for sale today, would you not claim "impossible"? You tell me, if 90% (DNA) X 90% (overshot) X 90% (arguments you haven't seen yet) falsify so many parts of the hypothesis as to equal a number so ridiculously large that for all 'practical purposes' is impossible ( just maybe not from a pure science point of view)? > -- > ========================================================================== > vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent > Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 28 Feb 2007 08:21:25 -0800, Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez: >> In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 25 Feb 2007 05:50:46 -0800, >> Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >> a few miles, on the coast, the tribes built canoes and went out >> harpooning on the ocean. >But the Continental Shelf is not the same distance from land now >everywhere on the Iberian Peninsula, so the sea in some areas was just >as close (or within reason) then as it is now. Sea mammal hunters use >high ground to spot their game, where are those artifacts? They have >marine cultural artifacts on Anangula Island from before the sea level >came up to its present level. Right. I had not thought about the shelf off Spain, of which I'm not familiar. I was thinking about the regions I am more familiar with, off the east coast of NA and the west coast of England/France, where the exposed shelf extended a long way from the current shoreline. Not to mention all the mammoth bones and >Mousterian artifacts dredged up from the North Sea bottom, why no >Soutrean items? None at all? Molecular data now indicate britain was populated from Spain, so I would have expected the submerged shelf to reflect the culture present in Spain. It was my impression that the colonization of britain was accomplished by land before the channel formed, so even if solutreans were an inland culture, they should have been able to migrate, leaving artefacts in their wake. I guess it's possible that the migration occurred later, after the solutrean tradition was abandoned, but then we can equally ask why are not any post-solutrean artefacts found? Perhaps it's just an issue of sampling - Mousterian was around a lot longer. I can't believe that there are no Solutrean objects to be found there, but of course up til now what is found has been mostly (entirely?) by unintentional byproduct of the fishing industry, so perhaps that is part of it. And if a fisherman found a five inch long laurel leaf biface, how often would he be likely to report it? >Also, if someone was in Europe with a marine culture at that time, why >would it be typed Solutrean? Why would it even remotely look Solutrean >if they claim it is now under water? If you can't see it, what is it? Well, the whole point was to provide an explanatory story for the similarity of Clovis and Solutrean, so why would those looking for a physical connection want to speculate that it didn't exist? Of course, you're right, the maritime culture may not have been Solutrean at all, but in that case, if it existed, and did reach north america, what evidence might it have left to indicate that it had done so? The only hope for putting the C-S connection on a more solid footing is the discovery of intermediate tools in intermediate locations. >> Note also these guys failed to make mention of the great auks, >> essentially a boreal penguin, which existed in how big of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> on the broad now-submerged plain SW of cornwall, they were >> present much earlier. >No undisputed Solutrean sites have been found on the British Isles >that I know of, but Gravettian sites have. Bradley and Stanford have >only argued Solutrean similarities. OK. I'm not too surprised at that, in that the further north and upland you go, the less hospitable it gets. The most tolerable regions at such northern latitudes during those times would be the most southerly and close to sea level, exactly those regions now under water. I'm sure my knowledge of these cultures is now out of date, but didn't Gravettian predate the most severe period of the last glaciation? A quick search nets me Wiki, so sorry about the dodgy reference, but it sez Gravettian is 22kya and back, while Solutrean is forward from 19k. ...Wiki also sez in one place that "Creswell Crags" in England has some Solutrean, but elsewhere that is written "proto-solutrean" and no date is offered. However, it does say it was occupied 15-12kya - rather surprising, its location is about central, far further north and inland than I would have expected for that period. >> >> > Did NOVA forget to tell you how many ancient Solutreans skeletons have >> >> > tested positive for Hap X? (hint:zero). [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> then if the originating population was 4%, aren't we talking about >> something like a one in six chance? >http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180497 >It is notable that X2 includes the two complete Native American X [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the other X2 clades, likely at the very beginning of their expansion >and spread from the Near East. >Ripan S. Malhi and David Glenn Smith 2002 Breif Communication: >Haplogroup X Confirmed in Prehistoric North America. American Journal >of Physical Anthropology 119:84-86. Of course, if there is no evidence of that particular subgroup anywhere in the old world, it doesn't say anything about siberia vs atlantic, one way or the other. >>From the abstract: "...,we identified an individual radiocarbon dated >to 1,340 +/-40 years BP that is a member of haplogroup X, found near >the Columbia River in Vantage, Washington." >Page 86: "These lines of evidence together with recent criticism of >similarities between the Clovis and Solutrean cultures (Straus 2000) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >European or Asian members of haplogroup X (the G->A transition at hp >16,213), imply it is a founding Native American lineage." >A quote from Jason Eshleman, a member of this list: >"...the popular depiction of Kennewick Man as a pre-Columbian [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >New World. Genetic >evidence does not support such a migration." >X2e (X2 Europe) in Europe does not equate, not has it been >demonstrated, to be in any way associated with the Solutrean. >Pretty much the same arguements for haplogroup Y as far as I know. >The Solutrean hypothesis is falsified at the 90% confidence level by >the DNA evidence before we hardly begin. Impossible yet? No. As I said above, this eliminates a particular argument for a positive molecular link to europe, but does not introduce a negative counterexample. We are left with no information favouring one or the other. >> >> We see the Ainu, who remained islolated on Hokkaido for millennia >> >> retaining a unique genetic endowment. If they ever get any DNA from [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> suspiciously near the time such people would have been nudged >> up onto the higher ground by the rising sea level. >But there is Cactus Hill and Meadowcroft inland early and those are >the site types they use. Those two were not lost underwater. >So..... >Lee: "I just reread Stanford and Bradley's (2002, 2004) explanation on >how they cover the now back to 5000 year timing problem (Waters 2007). >They have to sell their last claim to competency in order to do it >IMO. >First they claimed there were many similarities (Collins originally >about 18) between Solutrean and Clovis. Then they claim the 5000 year [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >between the S/C, their major claim, would be overshot flaking (Straus >2000:219) and there is none at CH/M. >>From page 2002:259-60: "Although the combined artifact samples from >both sites are small, we suggest that these two assemblages should be >considered part of the same technological complex. Further, their >chronological placement suggests to us that they are prime candidates >for the developemental Clovis." >Well, if Clovis wasn't developed yet, what pray tell do the >similarities with the Solutrean have to do with anything? Are they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >home remember to use all these neat innovations during the later >Azilian period if they were so necessary to cultural status? Yes, I can agree with your criticism of their arguments here entirely, but of course this doesn't kill the idea completely either. It is troubling that there are no intermediate point forms found at pre-Clovis dates, but there are currently so few pre-Clovis artefacts period, that it seems we have very little to base any sort of description of the pre-Clovis tool technology on. Maybe that's because the p-C were really an extremely sparse population, that will take a long time and infrequent discoveries to characterize, or perhaps we're just looking in the wrong places, and now the Clovis Mafia is being subdued, we'll have more material coming forth which will give us a better characterization. >Where I live Native Americans forgot where they got something as >important as the horse in three or four generations and forgot how to >flintknap (after a continuous hominid run of 2.6 million years) in >only two generations. This is such an amazing thing, completely independent of anything else in this discussion, that I just wanted to highlight it. We may have those 2.6 million years of association to thank for the genetic honing of a variety of traits, yet we seem to be able to walk away from the driving behaviour without the trace of a qualm. You would think in that vast tract of time we would have developed some kind of technology-specific genetic linkage, but apparently not. No one feels incomplete because they aren't compulsively breaking cryptochrystalline rocks... But something as useless as the overshot >technique simmered in limbo, was not forgotten for 5000 years?" Clearly, if the C-S theory is to work, that technique must be demonstrated to have endured through the intervening period. The only other way it could be substantiated would require the demonstration of the linkage of an equally distinctive characteristic technology, and I don't think it likely that there will be a candidate considering how much Solutrean material exists, and is there really anything else other than the point which is uniquely Solutrean? >Kat: "When I was watching the show and Stanford was holding a >Solutrean, a Cactus Hill, and and a Clovis point and explaining that >the technology went from here to here to here ..well... I did scream >at the TV then ...." >Lee: "Yes, anyone who understands science can see the BAIT and SWITCH >going on here, but the problem is the National Science Foundation has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >protect the remaining stock of Native American skeletons housed at the >Smithsonian." >Stanford and Bradley have two ways they can deal with their >hypothesis, they can either appeal to their peers in the science [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >journal I would not do so. Press-release archaeology is archaeology of >the worst kind and Standford is a master at it, IMO. >Clovis has washed up from unknown sources on beaches from out at sea, >so Clovis has been demonstrated offshore, where are the pre-Clovis >artifacts, why don't they wash up also? I'm rather interested in that. I know you've mentioned before points being exposed in shoreline sediments, but are you suggesting that Clovis points have been found which have apparently come from sub-sea-level sites? Doesn't this push their inception date back? >> >> I dont really claim to know Lee. I dont have a dog in the Clovis >> >> fight. I do, however, expect that tracing haplotypes will be a far [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> statement that said something like "we have 90% confidence >> that it didn't happen". I won't buy 100%. >Straus was talking to his peers, not the general public. How >impossible is used was previoulsy discussed in the Greenman paper in >1963, and since Straus cited Greenman, we can assume he read the >paper. However, if I were to argue that Henry Ford built six 1964 Ford >Mustangs in 1910 and hid them in a garage and I'm going to offer you >one of those for sale today, would you not claim "impossible"? But of course, the analogy is not really the same, is it? >You tell me, if 90% (DNA) X 90% (overshot) X 90% (arguments you >haven't seen yet) falsify so many parts of the hypothesis as to equal >a number so ridiculously large that for all 'practical purposes' is >impossible ( just maybe not from a pure science point of view)? Just looks about the same as it did before the current proponents came along - not highly likely, but intriguing, and not completely beyond consideration considering how little we know of the period, and how much of the potential evidence is now under water. We really don't have near enough data to say for certain what was going on in NA 16kya, and it will probably be a long time before we do. Probably the thing that would most convince me of its not having happened would be a much more solid set of evidence mapping out the alternative. Currently Clovis appears somewhere around the Carolinas, apparently by divine revelation, and spreads north and west from there. That really needs work. Signature========================================================================== vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. > In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 28 Feb 2007 08:21:25 -0800, > Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez: <this is getting long, let's snip some of the old statements tha aren't in dispute> > Not to mention all the mammoth bones and > >Mousterian artifacts dredged up from the North Sea bottom, why no > >Soutrean items? > > None at all? Well, a lot of the Solutrean papers are in French, so that leaves me out. I have a number of older papers by Straus and he doesn't mention any I can remember. > from Spain, so I would have expected the submerged shelf to > reflect the culture present in Spain. It was my impression that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that is part of it. And if a fisherman found a five inch long > laurel leaf biface, how often would he be likely to report it? Or maybe no longlining is done south of 48 degrees latitude. > >Also, if someone was in Europe with a marine culture at that time, why > >would it be typed Solutrean? Why would it even remotely look Solutrean [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > more solid footing is the discovery of intermediate tools > in intermediate locations. OK, I won't disagree with what you are saying here. What I'm going to do is give you a blind-artifact test. First, just give me a brief opinion as to what you see. Next I will give you a hint as to where two of the points came from. Third I will tell you where they all came from. Daryl and Dar do not get to play because they probably already have seen the points. I will change the header on one of the other posts and go there with it, rather than use this one. <snip> > >No undisputed Solutrean sites have been found on the British Isles > >that I know of, but Gravettian sites have. Bradley and Stanford have [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > surprising, its location is about central, far further north and > inland than I would have expected for that period. Yeah, one does not have to look very hard to find dating disputes :-). I'm just going by Straus, I have no idea what would be the best estimates. <snip> > >Ripan S. Malhi and David Glenn Smith 2002 Breif Communication: > >Haplogroup X Confirmed in Prehistoric North America. American Journal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anywhere in the old world, it doesn't say anything about siberia > vs atlantic, one way or the other. Right, taken by itself, X2a is lost in the Old World. > As I said above, this eliminates a particular argument for a positive > molecular link to europe, but does not introduce a negative > counterexample. We are left with no information favouring one or the > other. Here is a recent post from MAAT, if you search sap for Jason and Philip you will find they were arguing the same thing years ago. http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,440769,441072#msg-441072 Date: February 28, 2007 09:05AM "Charlie, You can't use X2 nomenclature any more. Read my primer thread on X2a. The European trail is completely useless because it and the Orkney islands are NOT X2a therefore they are impossible as a precursors to the X2a of the New World. The Siberian trail is not one that positively forbids descent. It is a matter of absence of evidence which is not evidence of absence. Further, if you read again the quotes from Brown I gave you, there are numerous other mtDNA haplotypes in the New World that clearly come from Siberia and they would have been carried along with X2a. On the other hand, we see no evidence of haplotypes (like haplotype U which is 50% of European mtDNA) which would have accompanied a presumed X2 from Europe. Further evidence for this argument is the similar situation with Y-chromosome data-- more important because the people who supposedly made the Solutrean-like points would have been male. Bernard" The latest argument is the Orkneys are 1000s of km closer to NA, so that would be the most likely jumping off place (I don't know if Stanford agrees with this or not). My OLD data says the Orneys were under a couple hundered meters of ice at that time and are 10 degrees latitude farther north than Solutreans have ever been found. X2 is recent on the Orkneys, depth of archaeology there is only 4000 years BP or so. <agreed, so snip> ...but > looking in the wrong places, and now the Clovis Mafia is being > subdued, we'll have more material coming forth which will give > us a better characterization. <good point, snip> > But something as useless as the overshot > >technique simmered in limbo, was not forgotten for 5000 years?" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Solutrean material exists, and is there really anything > else other than the point which is uniquely Solutrean? Heh heh, more blind tests on the way. Allan over on MAAT already put one up. I will look up the URL and post it with my test here on sap. > >Clovis has washed up from unknown sources on beaches from out at sea, > >so Clovis has been demonstrated offshore, where are the pre-Clovis > >artifacts, why don't they wash up also? > > I'm rather interested in that. I'll look up the URLs today, some of these sites are avalible on CSFA. > But of course, the analogy is not really the same, is it? OK, OK pretty extreme, I admit it. But remember, I wasn't the one who used the word impossible, so I agree in part with what you are saying. Just the same, impossible was used in 1963 and 2000 (in journals), Bernard just used it yesterday, and Clark's (2000) comment was "Bradley, at least, should know better." > >You tell me, if 90% (DNA) X 90% (overshot) X 90% (arguments you > >haven't seen yet) falsify so many parts of the hypothesis as to equal [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the Carolinas, apparently by divine revelation, and spreads north > and west from there. That really needs work. I don't know if you have seen Waters and Staffords' new Clovis dates. They are probably right, but they also then need to go back and re- check some of the pre-Clovis dates using their new tecniques in order to be fair. > -- > ========================================================================== > vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent > Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. > In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 28 Feb 2007 08:21:25 -0800, > >Clovis has washed up from unknown sources on beaches from out at sea, > >so Clovis has been demonstrated offshore, where are the pre-Clovis > >artifacts, why don't they wash up also? > > I'm rather interested in that. I know you've mentioned before > points being exposed in shoreline sediments, but are you Here are some coastal Clovis sites to look at. http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=4|13 http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=4|18 http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=1|19 The Clovis points found in Venezuela are also coastal Caribbean, but were found on a very narrow peninsula, the article I have doesn't say if they were on a beach or not. > suggesting that Clovis points have been found which have > apparently come from sub-sea-level sites? Doesn't this push > their inception date back? First someone is going to have to prove anyone came down the coastal route for sure. Then dating underwater sites will be even harder to do than on land, so who knows? > > In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 28 Feb 2007 08:21:25 -0800, > > >Clovis has washed up from unknown sources on beaches from out at sea, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > route for sure. Then dating underwater sites will be even harder to do > than on land, so who knows? Hello Lee and thanks for your imput I do pray for your understanding my questions and as for my truly not understanding of your input of the replies you have made here. But can you posibly pass on more a educated response to the the former replies... Please and Thank You in advance... I wrote this article friday night, then my local net dropped out, so it languished over the weekend, and yesterday I was just too busy to get to usenet. I'm sending it now unaltered: In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 1 Mar 2007 13:48:21 -0800, Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez: >> In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 28 Feb 2007 08:21:25 -0800, >> >Clovis has washed up from unknown sources on beaches from out at sea, >> >so Clovis has been demonstrated offshore, where are the pre-Clovis >> >artifacts, why don't they wash up also? >> >> I'm rather interested in that. I know you've mentioned before >> points being exposed in shoreline sediments, but are you >Here are some coastal Clovis sites to look at. >http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php >http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=4|13 >http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=4|18 >http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=1|19 >The Clovis points found in Venezuela are also coastal Caribbean, but >were found on a very narrow peninsula, the article I have doesn't say >if they were on a beach or not. >> suggesting that Clovis points have been found which have >> apparently come from sub-sea-level sites? Doesn't this push >> their inception date back? >First someone is going to have to prove anyone came down the coastal >route for sure. Then dating underwater sites will be even harder to do >than on land, so who knows? Thanks for these links, they're great. I note that not one of the three authors has any use for the old Clovis-first model. It seems that the model Faught, at least, is forming, will have the pre-clovis people scooting down the west coast, presumably crossing to the Carribean somewhere in central america, then working their way north along the now submerged gulf coast, to bring their technology above the present day shoreline in Texas, Florida and Georgia. I like his idea that their maritime culture could cope happily with the rising sea level, but when the Younger Dryas caused a brief reversal, the brine-saturated sediments exposed made for a fairly barren coastline, and it was this that finally drove them inland in large numbers. Though Faught would have the whole big point culture developing somewhere in the gulf offshore of present day Texas, I guess his colonization route gives the pre-clovans lots of time to develop their big point technology on the way from beringia, all the while out of sight of modern archaeology out on the pacific shelf. Of course that idea wants the support of some Clovis-ish discoveries from somewhere in central america. I had a preliminary look at the situation in the Atlantic during the Solutrean period, and it seems there's a substantial shaving of the distance across the ice margin, from the exposed and unglaciated Great Sole Bank west of Bretagne to the similarly bare Grand Bank and Flemish cap (http://journal.nafo.int/37/shaw/shaw-main.html#) on the NA side, however the distance remaining is still rather daunting to say the least. Crossing it implies a culture capable of functioning entirely in the icefloe environment for such a length of time as to be essentially free of any need for dry landfall. There is certainly no equivalent of such a culture among modern arctic peoples, yet if the weather (particularly wind storms) was not too severe, and seals and great auks were plentiful in the manner of penguins, it is not completely beyond the reach of possibility. People are nothing if not resourceful. But that is two large ifs. Signature========================================================================== vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. <snip> > I had a preliminary look at the situation in the Atlantic during > the Solutrean period, and it seems there's a substantial shaving > of the distance across the ice margin, from the exposed and > unglaciated Great Sole Bank west of Bretagne to the similarly > bare Grand Bank and Flemish cap > (http://journal.nafo.int/37/shaw/shaw-main.html#) <snip> The Great Sole Bank is not part of the study at that site. You have not demonstrated that it was exposed in Solutrean times. At that site, we see that Shaw has tested the hypothesis that the Flemish cap was "exposed", and determined that it was submerged, not exposed: " Figure 3, based on the 13 ka DEM, shows that Flemish Cap is submerged. ... The lowest sea level for the area is -116 m at c. 17 ka BP. Given the minimum present day water depth of 126 m, this implies that the bank was about 10 m below sea level when relative sea level in the area was at its lowest. " You reference does not supprt your claims. Here is a more comprehensive DEM: http://amcg.ese.ic.ac.uk/images/7/7c/Topog-small.png Even if sea levels were 500 metres lower in Solutrean times, it would still be a very long walk across the water: http://www.mersea.eu.org/Insitu-Obs/1-images/Atlantic-Deployment_ovide.jpg Here is a map with a 100-metre depth contour; note that it does not give an appreciably closer starting-point for a Last Glacial Maximum crossing from Europe to America: http://www.nuigalway.ie/research/mmc/research/northEastAtlanticModel.html - Daryl Krupa In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 7 Mar 2007 04:40:56 -0800, Daryl Krupa <icycalmca@yahoo.com> sez: ><snip> >> I had a preliminary look at the situation in the Atlantic during [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> (http://journal.nafo.int/37/shaw/shaw-main.html#) ><snip> > The Great Sole Bank is not part of the study at that site. > You have not demonstrated that it was exposed in Solutrean times. You will find that this is well established; I just couldn't find a good illustrative website in the time I had to make the post. Not using the best search keywords, I guess. Let me try again. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/eur18k.gif text at ...qen/europe.html You might not want to trust this site as the text alternates the spelling of Caucasus with Caucuses. Also it appears that the dominant plant across much of europe at this time was Artemisia, so clearly the Solutreans spent most of their time making absinth. Here's another one http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/ges121/lectures/03-cro-magnon/europe.gif Great Sole Bank is midway between Cornwall and Brest, and a bit west. It was in the news a couple of years ago as a putative location for Atlantis in one of the endless series of such ideas. This one had the virtue of being a large region of land reachable only by travelling west through the Pillars of Hercules, and which submerged around 9000 years before Plato or Solon wrote about it. Being a bank, it would have been an island for a while before disappearing. Unfortunately, the result of this is any websearch for information on this region gets submerged under mountains of Atlantis nonsense. Here's another of the few that aren't about that. It's focussed on parts of the bank that were underwater, but peripherally discusses the extent of exposure at LGM. It's journal pages 703-721; there's a good map on page 704, then check 716-718. www.geosciences.univ-rennes1.fr/IMG/pdf/Reynaud_1999-Sediment.pdf > At that site, we see that Shaw has tested the hypothesis that >the Flemish cap was "exposed", and determined that it was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the bank was about 10 m below sea level >when relative sea level in the area was at its lowest. " > You reference does not support your claims. I wasn't making any claims, just observations. > Here is a more comprehensive DEM: >http://amcg.ese.ic.ac.uk/images/7/7c/Topog-small.png Yeah I saw a lot of those, but I didn't like the projection angles, and they just show present day elevations, not paleoshorelines, which must account for isostatics. The optimal illustration would be a paleomap with a projection equivalent to a satellite view directly above the mid-atlantic at about 50deg north. > Even if sea levels were 500 metres lower in Solutrean times, >it would still be a very long walk across the water: Gee, I'm pretty sure I said essentially exactly the same thing. Let me replace the comments you deleted in your reply: >>however the distance remaining is still rather >>daunting to say the least. Crossing it implies a culture capable [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>is not completely beyond the reach of possibility. People >>are nothing if not resourceful. But that is two large ifs. >http://www.mersea.eu.org/Insitu-Obs/1-images/Atlantic-Deployment_ovide.jpg Again that's just present day contours, and although it's centred in the mid atlantic, it's a mercator projection so it's pretty much completely deceptive regarding distance across the whole map. > Here is a map with a 100-metre depth contour; note that >it does not give an appreciably closer starting-point for >a Last Glacial Maximum crossing from Europe to America: >http://www.nuigalway.ie/research/mmc/research/northEastAtlanticModel.html Apparently another mercator projection. Even so, it hints at the amount of distance reduction. I estimated the overall distance would be down by about 1/5th, but I'd need a good great circle measurement to be sure. That's a significant amount less than the current distance, but still mighty big, as I noted. Signature========================================================================== vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. <snip> > But the Continental Shelf is not > the same distance from land > now > everywhere on the Iberian Peninsula, > so the sea in some areas was > just as close (or within reason) then as it is now. <snip> Lee, please give us your definition of "continental shelf". The standard definition has the continental shelf immediately adjacent to land, but you would have it at some distance from land, so I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you have confused "continental shelf" (the part of the sea floor immediately adjacent to the seashore that has been either exposed land or shallow water at some time in the past) with "continental slope" (the other margin of the continental shelf, where water depth increases rapidly, and slope angles are much steeper than on the continental shelf above or the abyssal plains below). Please tell us what you were talking about, and what it was that the sea was just as close to. - Daryl Krupa In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 1 Mar 2007 16:51:43 -0800, Daryl Krupa <icycalmca@yahoo.com> sez: ><snip> >> But the Continental Shelf is not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> just as close (or within reason) then as it is now. ><snip> > Lee, please give us your definition of "continental shelf". > The standard definition has the continental shelf >immediately adjacent to land, but you would have it >at some distance from land, so >I don't know what you're talking about. In my response, I interpreted this as meaning "the breadth of the continental shelf outward from the coast". Thus I guess his implication is that in regions with little shelf, the paleo maritime culture might be expected to be within a short hike of regions now still above water, so the absense of a distinct set of maritime artefacts found in those regions puts their existence in doubt. > Perhaps you have confused "continental shelf" >(the part of the sea floor immediately [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Please tell us what you were talking about, >and what it was that the sea was just as close to. >- >Daryl Krupa Signature========================================================================== vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. > In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 1 Mar 2007 16:51:43 -0800, > In my response, I interpreted this as meaning "the breadth of > the continental shelf outward from the coast". Thus I guess [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of maritime artefacts found in those regions puts their existence > in doubt. Exactly. Where the sea was shallow and a 100 meter drop created thousands of square miles (or tens of thousands) of new land, I would admit some archaeological sites could possibly get lost. But where the sea depth dropped off rapidly from shore, like at the Strait of Gibraltar area, almost no substantial amount new land was created by the Pleistocene drop in sea level. Here sites related to maritime use should still be found. I just thought of something else also. The Chinook Indians on the Washington coast used the same sea-going canoes on the rivers, just as they did on the open ocean. They hunted seals and sea lions inland (who were also chasing the spawning salmon) at certain times of the year. This maritime industry pushed 100 miles inland, proven by the artifacts, DNA, and ethnographic accounts. The bottom line is, yes, some sites could get submerged and lost, but others would be hard (impossible :-) to hide. Straus claims no evidence of a maritime industry exists in the Solutrean. >> In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 1 Mar 2007 16:51:43 -0800, >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the Pleistocene drop in sea level. Here sites related to maritime use > should still be found. This is silly. (a) Who would want to make a camp site -- with their infants and small children -- on the top of high cliff overlooking the sea? It might seem fine if you only go to such sites on a fine summer's afternoon -- but try them on a windy night. (b) Even IF they had _regularly_ camped at such a site, and the seas then advanced to the extent we know they did around 12 kya, how long would it remain intact, given the huge forces of erosion high seas generate? > I just thought of something else also. Fatal. > The Chinook Indians on the Washington coast used the same sea-going > canoes on the rivers, just as they did on the open ocean. They hunted [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bottom line is, yes, some sites could get submerged and lost, but > others would be hard (impossible :-) to hide. Again this is ridiculous. The Chinooks, etc., who did this, would have come in along low- lying estuaries, often in rias (look it up) created by that post-glacial flooding often in huge valleys, carved out in dry land over the previous two million years. They would rarely have gone upstream increading their their altitude above sea-level by 100 metres. Even IF some canoe-users 20 kya had done some- thing like that, the geography today in such locations would be completely different. An inland river then only a hundred yards wide, would now be an estuary 50 miles wide. Paul. > > Exactly. Where the sea was shallow and a 100 meter drop created > > thousands of square miles (or tens of thousands) of new land, I would [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > children -- on the top of high cliff overlooking > the sea The real question is, how did you get from this... On Feb 28, 8:21 am in this thread, Lee Olsen wrote: "Sea mammal hunters use high ground to spot their game, where are those artifacts?" to infants and small children camping on a cliff? Don't you think you should learn to follow a thread before you comment in one? > > I just thought of something else also. > > Fatal. Says the loon from the pub.... <snip> >> > Exactly. Where the sea was shallow and a 100 meter drop created >> > thousands of square miles (or tens of thousands) of new land, I would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The real question is, how did you get from this... From your words quoted above >> > Here sites related to maritime use should still be found. What do you think might constitute (your word) "sites" ? > On Feb 28, 8:21 am in this thread, Lee Olsen wrote: > "Sea mammal hunters use high ground to spot their game, where are > those artifacts?" This is even sillier. If a hunter (or even several) walks along a cliff to spot seals on rocks below, how do they create "sites" ? And, apart from that, why should they leave valuable artefacts behind when they prospect in this manner ? > to infants and small children camping on a cliff? As you (correctly) imply, the only realistic hope of finding evidence of human occupation comes from SITES regularly occupied over long periods. That implies a normal population of adults (both male and female) children and infants. I appreciate that you work with the common (and standard PA) assumption that all early hominids (and all pre-modern humans) were adult males but, in fact, this is not good science. If you are not sure why this is so, just ask and I will explain. Paul. > >> This is silly. (a) Who would want to make > >> a camp site -- with their infants and small > >> children -- on the top of high cliff overlooking > >> the sea You really need to learn to read before posting. I did not use the word CAMP anywhere. You just imagined I did. > From your words quoted above > > >> > Here sites related to maritime use should still be found. > > What do you think might constitute (your > word) "sites" ? Not all sites are CAMP sites, got it? > > On Feb 28, 8:21 am in this thread, Lee Olsen wrote: > > "Sea mammal hunters use high ground to spot their game, where are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > walks along a cliff to spot seals on rocks below, > how do they create "sites" ? Did I use the word WALKS someplace? Please cite that place. > And, apart from that, why should they leave > valuable artefacts behind when they prospect > in this manner ? Did I use the word VALUABLE someplace? Please cite where that was. What you really need to do is go back to school and try to stay awake this time. > <snip> > > But the Continental Shelf is not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > at some distance from land, so > I don't know what you're talking about. > Please tell us what you were talking about, > and what it was that the sea was just as close to. Yes, not very well written on my part. I just thought of something else, so I will comment more over on Pete's reply to this. > - > Daryl Krupa On Feb 23, 6:09 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > New evidence -- Clovis people not first to populate North America > COLLEGE STATION -- The belief that the Clovis People were the first to populate North America some 11,500 years ago has been widely challenged in recent years, and a Texas A&M University anthropologist has found evidence he says could be the final nail in the coffin for the Clovis first model. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Posted by > Robert Karl Stonjek Greeting's Im new to this group and as well this topic I would like to thank Robert for sharing the wonderful perspectives of > Michael Waters, director of the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M It is a great arguement or therory if you will Allow referral as such. I am in the total belief of clovis not being the first. however as Dr.waters argument of in which as to why the pacific coast was travled as fast cannot concede to racing in front of the pacific north and southern were into the last of the iceage. in what could have created the land bridge from russian to Alaskan coast to bring the clovis tools here and so agree with a lot of Dr. Waters but cannot oblidge the concept being laid to the speed of clovis movements south But to help furthur aide his ideas I can reflect that as today we have found on the Atlantic coast that a land bridge from europe the first Ice age columbus'es as early as 7000 yrs. earlier than the land bridge across to Alaska... In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 1 Mar 2007 15:19:04 -0800, Professor <slprofessor@gmail.com> sez: >On Feb 23, 6:09 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> Posted by >> Robert Karl Stonjek >Greeting's Im new to this group and as well this topic >I would like to thank Robert for sharing the wonderful [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >the first Ice age columbus'es as early as 7000 yrs. >earlier than the land bridge across to Alaska... Sorry, I find your prose almost impenetrable, some of the sentences I cannot parse at all. However, I can make two points which may form something like a response: 1) travel down the west coast does not require a land bridge, as it was (would have been) accomplished by coastal watercraft; 2) there has not been anything like a land bridge across the atlantic for something like 100 million years. What there was at the height of glaciation was a solid icepack across the north atlantic, which would have had big ribbons of glacier-berg here and there, extending out from Greenland, Newfoundland, and Iceland, and some parts of the british isles. It is not clear that this would constitute a surface which could be traversed on foot, even were one to somehow have enough food and supplies to make the journey. However, coasting by kayak along the southern fringe might be a much more tractable proposition, with potentially a rich fauna living along the floes. Signature========================================================================== vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.