Digit wrote:I have to agree gentlemen, the Asian technology seems to be very different. My problem is that the native Americans are so obviously Mongol, but with little technological evidence to support an Asian diaspora.
There seems to a conflict here.
The excavations at Zhoukoudian that revealed Peking Man show, according to Chinese researchers, continous occupation of the site from 460000yrs ago to 230000yrs ago, with an increase in brain case size taking place throughout that time span.
After various naming exercises of course, Peking Man, and others are now classified as HSE. The Chinese, and the earlier excavators, have recovered stone tools from the site that are totally different to the much later micro-lithic examples common in northern Asia, but which appear to be identical to Charlie's recoveries.
The Chinese have stated in the past that the Asiatic people owe their physical differences, according to their belief, that they evolved from HSE without at first being exposed to HSS.
Applying Occam's Razor would lead me to assume that NA was initially colonised by HSE with a later overlay of HSS.
Right or wrong I know not, but it fits.
Digit wrote:
The Chinese, and the earlier excavators, have recovered stone tools from the site that are totally different to the much later micro-lithic examples common in northern Asia, but which appear to be identical to Charlie's recoveries...
...Applying Occam's Razor would lead me to assume that NA was initially colonised by HSE with a later overlay of HSS.
Right or wrong I know not, but it fits.
The Chinese have stated in the past that the Asiatic people owe their physical differences, according to their belief, that they evolved from HSE without at first being exposed to HSS.
Fred Budinger believes that the tools being excavated at Calico are similar in age and technology to those found at HSE sites in Asia. He is hoping to find bones that will substantiate this connection.
Sticking to what seems logical Charlie I'll go further. The natives of Papua and Oz are physically very different to most other people.
They have been in effect isolated from contamination by HSS for at least 60000yrs.
Assuming their home land was Africa, and they reached Oz by simply drifting there without being under any pressure, they probably took many thousands of years to get there.
Their physical differences would be simply explained by their being HSE.
As HSE is supposed to have evolved into HSS at what point did that occur? If we had an unbroken line of HSE skeletons at what point would the experts say this one is HSE and this one is HSS?
If we had HSE's DNA how much would it differ from ours I wonder? Late HSE's apparently had a brain size little different to our own.
We share our home with stupid Boxer bitch, how would her DNA differ from a Wolfhound's?
I'm pretty sure that your finds will either be classified as accidental fractures or the handiwork of HSE.
And I know where my money is.
The Chinese have stated in the past that the Asiatic people owe their physical differences, according to their belief, that they evolved from HSE without at first being exposed to HSS.
Fred Budinger believes that the tools being excavated at Calico are similar in age and technology to those found at HSE sites in Asia. He is hoping to find bones that will substantiate this connection.
Interestingly, a peculiar tool called a skreblo is found in Asia, at Calicio and here in Texas.
Rokcet Scientist wrote:
Equally ideal for an atlatl's dart!
Do we know Clovis used the hunting bow and arrows?
Clovis preceded the bow and arrow by about 1750 years.
1750? That's pretty specific, Frank. I wasn't aware that 1) the 'emergence' of Clovis (points) had been dated so precisely, or 2) that the occurrence of the bow in NA had so precisely been dated.
How?
That's why I said "about". By analizing point types they have determined that the bow appeared here in NA about AD 300-600. Clovis was out of use long before that. I did leave off a zero. It was more like 14,500 years, give or take a century. Large points were simply too heavy to use for arrows as they would ruin the trajectory. Charlie has studied that era (clovis) more than I have.
Last edited by Frank Harrist on Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Digit wrote:Sticking to what seems logical Charlie I'll go further. The natives of Papua and Oz are physically very different to most other people.
They have been in effect isolated from contamination by HSS for at least 60000yrs.
Assuming their home land was Africa, and they reached Oz by simply drifting there without being under any pressure, they probably took many thousands of years to get there.
Their physical differences would be simply explained by their being HSE.
As HSE is supposed to have evolved into HSS at what point did that occur? If we had an unbroken line of HSE skeletons at what point would the experts say this one is HSE and this one is HSS?
If we had HSE's DNA how much would it differ from ours I wonder? Late HSE's apparently had a brain size little different to our own.
We share our home with stupid Boxer bitch, how would her DNA differ from a Wolfhound's? I'm pretty sure that your finds will either be classified as accidental fractures or the handiwork of HSE.
And I know where my money is.
Erectus and/or Neanderthal seem to be likely candidates.
Anybody know when humans first appeared in Hawaii and other polynesian places??????
Also there have been aborigine type skulls found in south america. They are said to predate any mongoloid type skulls. My point in all this is that people probably came here from many different places at many different times. The club would disagree. If there really is a club.
Frank Harrist wrote:
Clovis preceded the bow and arrow by about 1750 years.
1750? That's pretty specific, Frank. I wasn't aware that 1) the 'emergence' of Clovis (points) had been dated so precisely, or 2) that the occurrence of the bow in NA had so precisely been dated.
How?
That's why I said "about". By analizing point types they have determined that the bow appeared here in NA about AD 300-600. Clovis was out of use long before that. I did leave off a zero. It was more like 17,500 years, give or take a century. Large points were simply too heavy to use for arrows as they would ruin the trajectory. Charlie has studied that era (clovis) more than I have.
I agree, Frank. The vast majority of Clovis points seem too large for an arrow. Also, the tips seem much thicker and rounded than an arrowpoint, perhaps to withstand the heavier impact of an atlatl launch and heavier spearshaft. Confirmed arrowpoints seem to be much smaller and lighter.
A full size clovis was too large even for an atlatl dart point which were not very much larger than arrow points. What people around here call "bird points" were actually arrow points. Most others found were atlatl dart points. Arrow points were small and/or elongated and light weight. A reworked and almost used up clovis might work for a dart point. Not likely, however. They were for thrusting spears, not throwing spears. They were more like a knife on a stick. Not good for launching in any manner.
Cognito wrote:Most Asians, most Native Americans and HE also share the common trait of shovel-shaped incisors.
Whatever does the Out of Africa Club say about that?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Well, I don't agree with that definitive of a statement. Mike Collins and an associate hand-launched Clovis tipped spears at a flesh simulation (some kind of heavy gel material), and the Clovis points seemed to do quite well. Do you remember which video that was, Min. One of the PBS documentaries you sent me, when Gault was being discussed?
