New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters

User avatar
Cognito
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by Cognito »

It is likely that a group of hominids evolved in the Black Sea region.

It is also likely that the rise is sea levels following the melt caused by the Holocene Start Impact Event breached the Bosphorus and flooded this area. So it was not dust from the HSIE that was the primary factor noticed there, but rather the comet would have been seen, the fragments would have seen, the sound of the impacts would have been heard, and the "nuclear" winter that followed must have killed off any local megafauna through starvation.

Then a flood came much later.
It has been my observation that half of the world's genetic haplotypes originate in the Caucusus/Black Sea region. Populations could have been sequested there in LGM refugia prior to their dispersal by mega-floods heading down the Aral-Caspian-Black Sea spillways. At one point for a few thousand years, Lake Baikal flowed all the way to the Mediterranean. A good incubator for a maritime group.
Here's the Black Sea flooding I was speaking of:
http://paleogeo.org/flood_en.html

You have to remember that 14C datings were really screwed up ca. 10,875 BCE,
most likely as a result of the Holocene Start Impact Event.
As you know, the Russians have provided an excellent explanation of the geology of the Ponto-Caspian area prior to, during and after the LGM ... it was a different world with considerable marine resources ... until Altaic mega-floods came crashing through the region after the BIG MELT. :shock:
Natural selection favors the paranoid
User avatar
circumspice
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by circumspice »

uniface wrote:But reality WILL intrude :mrgreen:

Although it must get tedious for some of us to keep reading this, the issue here is the INFORMATION. NOT the Source of it. :wink:
Geopolymer concrete was, to the Egyptians, a secret of great military importance . . . Using it, they were able to quickly and efficiently raise defensive fortresses with walls of any height and thickness. It was a building material of the majority of the grandiose structures of Egypt . . .

Joseph Davidovits has studied . . . this construction material . . . It turned out that the mud from the Nile River contains alumina, which is an important constituent component . . . Another component is sodium carbonate, which exists in large quantities in the Egyptian deserts and salt lakes. The rest of the components necessary for geopolymerization are in abundance.

Joseph Davidovits' proposals find convincing support. On the blocks that are located on the upper tiers of the pyramids are found the impressions of mats on their surfaces. This means that the builders made forms using mats and filled them with concrete. Simple and effective. No building technology is needed which is capable of locating large-tonnage blocks. One can make a block, for example of 500 tonnes, since it is only necessary to pour the concrete quickly, without interruption.

While studying examples of blocks, Joseph Davidovits discovered hairs in one of them. Three laboratories where he turned with a request to determine what it is answered ambiguously: "A small filament from three organic fibers, most likely hairs." The presence of hairs in natural limestone has been ruled out. Limestone was formed nearly 50 million years ago on the bottom of the ocean . . .

The reaction of the Egyptologists to Joseph Davidovits' discoveries was a curious one. In 1982, the well-known Egyptologist, Phillippe Lauer presented the chemist two examples of stones from the pyramids of Cheops and Teti and demanded evidence that they are artificial. As a result of chemical analysis in two different laboratories it was discovered unambiguously that the examples are made from artificial stone and are not fragments of natural rock. They contain chemicals which are not encountered in rock . . .

Geopolymer concrete allows unraveling also the numerous mysteries of the Egyptian stone articles which also are considered ancient. For example, stone amphora. They were made supposedly of diorite, one of the hardest of stones. Modern sculptors do not even try to use it. The Egyptian craftsmen, not having according to traditional views, anything besides copper chisels, nevertheless used it constantly. And achieved incredible results with it !

. . . There is direct evidence that many Egyptian statues were made from geopolymer concrete. The "unfinished head of the Queen Nefertiti," which has become a standard for feminine beauty for all time, is well known to everyone. It is considered that the sculpture was made from natural stone . . . But what do we see ? A seam goes along the line of symmetry of Nefertiti's head, along the middle of the forehead, through the tip of the nose and along the middle of the chin. Such a seam could have arisen only if the sculpture had been cast in a form made beforehand, It is done the same way today when mass-producing anything molded. That is, the form is created from two or more sectional parts, a liquid mass is poured inside, and when the mass hardens, the parts which comprise the mold are separated. Seams remain along the joints which are then ground down. The basic technology involved has not changed in many centuries.

. . . One more fact that is mysterious for the traditionalists. It is a question of the so-called Egyptian stone engraving. The engraving possesses truly unbelievable properties. While studying it, Joseph Davidivits discovered that the instrument with the aid of which the inscriptions were made supposedly went into the stone so assuredly that it left no chips and no burrs. The bottom of the inscriptions is completely even and smooth, without traces of the cutting edge of the instruments. And the grains of the granite were not destroyed ! But this result cannot be duplicated today even if one cuts the inscriptions with an extra-hard cutting tool.

In fact, there are no mysteries here. The inscriptions were not carved, but embossed in the still soft geopolymer concrete. Therefore, hard specks that were encountered simply were pressed into the soft mass without any damage.
Robert Grishin and Vladimir Melamed, The Medieval Empire of the Israelites (New Tradition Sociological Society, 2003. pp. 126-132).


The argument for the so-called geopolymer concrete construction technique is ludicrous and senseless.

If the ancients did indeed have the technology to produce cast stone that is indistinguishable from natural stone, then why in the hell would they dig quarries in the local area? Just for show? :roll:
No-one invests in that type of expensive, labor intensive project when a cheaper, less labor intensive alternative is available. It's human nature to seek the easier, less expensive alternative method.
All of the sites that have been claimed to have been built with 'geopolymer concrete' construction have nearby quarries. Explain that. :roll:

Next fantasy?
"Nothing discloses real character like the use of power. It is easy for the weak to be gentle. Most people can bear adversity. But if you wish to know what a man really is, give him power. This is the supreme test." ~ Robert G. Ingersoll

"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope
uniface

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by uniface »

:lol:

Civilisations are not static.

This country went from making things from iron (and mining it) to plastic in 150 years.

The time span in Egypt was what ?

The question you didn't ask answers itself. :wink:

The assumption that reality must verify current assumptions about it proves unfounded.
E.P. Grondine

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by E.P. Grondine »

Since you are both doing your damnedest to avoid the fact of 95% of the people in North America were killed by impact 13,000 years ago,

And are trying to escape thinking about it by bringing up other phenomenon instead,
here's something completely off topic for you:

Image

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :twisted:
User avatar
Ernie L
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by Ernie L »

Image
Regards Ernie
uniface

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by uniface »

Not so, E.P.

300 years ago there was a small group of violinmakers in Cremona, Italy who made instruments that cannot be equalled today. The best of them sell for $10 Million and up. The ex-Vieuxtemps Guarneri del Gesu was on the market @ $18 Million. And sold. :shock:

It does not follow that technological progress and the accomplishments that it enables is either linear or cumulative. That supposition is projecting the Darwinian Cave Man into the picture. Advances appear in history. And disappear again.

Core/Blade technology was widespread in North America at the edge of the Holocene. And then disappeared. For the most part, it re-appeared with Hopewell -- after a hiatus of around 10,000 years.

Assumptions drawn from the supposition that nothing is lost in time are not grounded in experience.
uniface

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by uniface »

Since you are both doing your damnedest to avoid the fact of 95% of the people in North America were killed by impact 13,000 years ago . . .
I've been trying to research the history of core/blade technology at and shortly after the Younger Dryas recently. In the course of that, I've read a bunch of accounts. The Executive Summary : the population decline in the Northeast was catastrophic. A 2,000 year period in New York (e.g.) is an archaeological void.

On the other hand, in North Carolina, the population increased steadily from Clovis on through time without interruption. The same appears to have been the case in Illinois-Indiana-Ohio on down into the South.
User avatar
Farpoint
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:53 am
Location: Madison, Ohio

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by Farpoint »

population chart from Meeks and Anderson 2012

Image

Also from Anderson et al and the PIDBA site:

The Effect of the Younger Dryas on Paleoindian Occupations in Southeastern North America

I did not know about the dirth of information from New York, interesting.

From page 9 of Wittke et al 2013:
Beneath the flight path of the impactor fragments, thermal radiation
from the air shocks was intense enough to melt Fe-rich and
Si-rich surficial sediments, transforming them into lechatelierite-rich
melt-glass and spherules at >2,200 °C. Multiple airbursts/impacts
over a wide area can account for the heterogeneity of the melt
materials. In addition, high temperatures may have produced
spherules and melt-glass by incinerating vegetation within the fireballs
and shock fronts. High-velocity winds and attenuated air shocks
lofted the melted material into the upper atmosphere, where highaltitude
winds transported them over a wide area. As previously
suggested (7), nanodiamonds potentially formed from vaporized
carbon within localized, transiently anoxic regions of the shock front.
This impact model is speculative because the exact nature of airbursts
is poorly constrained. For example, the complexity of airburst
phenomena is only hinted at by the recent hydrocode modeling of
Boslough and Crawford (65), who concluded that more realistic
airburst simulations are needed to understand the phenomenon.
So, no crater is postulated. I suppose that if the proposed impactor was ices of ammonia, carbon dioxide, and water that it could explain the carbon 14 anomaly from the constant exposure to cosmic rays reacting with the nitrogen in the ammonia, but how well that would work in space rather than an atmosphere for the production of thermal neutrons I'm not sure.
I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must ask the right question.

"The track of a glacier is as unmistakable as that of a man or a bear, and is as significant and trustworthy as any other legible inscription"
John Strong Newberry; 1873
E.P. Grondine

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by E.P. Grondine »

Farpoint wrote:population chart from Meeks and Anderson 2012

Image

Also from Anderson et al and the PIDBA site:

The Effect of the Younger Dryas on Paleoindian Occupations in Southeastern North America

I did not know about the dirth of information from New York, interesting.

From page 9 of Wittke et al 2013:
Beneath the flight path of the impactor fragments, thermal radiation
from the air shocks was intense enough to melt Fe-rich and
Si-rich surficial sediments, transforming them into lechatelierite-rich
melt-glass and spherules at >2,200 °C. Multiple airbursts/impacts
over a wide area can account for the heterogeneity of the melt
materials. In addition, high temperatures may have produced
spherules and melt-glass by incinerating vegetation within the fireballs
and shock fronts. High-velocity winds and attenuated air shocks
lofted the melted material into the upper atmosphere, where highaltitude
winds transported them over a wide area. As previously
suggested (7), nanodiamonds potentially formed from vaporized
carbon within localized, transiently anoxic regions of the shock front.
This impact model is speculative because the exact nature of airbursts
is poorly constrained. For example, the complexity of airburst
phenomena is only hinted at by the recent hydrocode modeling of
Boslough and Crawford (65), who concluded that more realistic
airburst simulations are needed to understand the phenomenon.
So, no crater is postulated. I suppose that if the proposed impactor was ices of ammonia, carbon dioxide, and water that it could explain the carbon 14 anomaly from the constant exposure to cosmic rays reacting with the nitrogen in the ammonia, but how well that would work in space rather than an atmosphere for the production of thermal neutrons I'm not sure.

Hi Farpoint -

Thanks for the links.

First off, it appears likely that photons in impact events are raised to an energy level sufficient to split the nucleus of an atom (now known as "nucleons") into protons and neutrons.

This likely explains the changes in 14C and 10Be production seen in the data.

We now have an intial maping of the impactites, with their distribution, given in the paper above.

While it is true that melts can be produced by air bursts and fires under an entery path, that is not all that happened...

I myself have a nice crater candidate now, but need about $10,000 to document it.

There are other crater candidates which others are working on.
Lloydminster in Canada looks promising, but when that occured is still open; it may precede the HSIE.

You have to separate the Holocene Start Impact Event into 4 Phases:
1) The "Nuclear" Winter Phase. Mega-fauna starve to death in instant climate collapse.
2) The "Melt" Phase. Warming triggered by impact. Properity as survivors rebound.
3) The "Drainage" Phase. Lower temperatures in North America and Europe caused by the drainage of glacial melt waters.
Survivors retreat to warmer zones.
4) The "Holocene Warming" Phase. Ice sheets continue to shrink, sea levels continue to rise.

Members of Kennett's team documented (1) through Redstone (?) points, if I remember correctly.
Sorry, but I do not have a easy link at hand for that study

What is easier to track is quarry usage, which allows you to identify the refugia of Phase 1.
Further, many of the First Peoples memories of the HSIE also include memories of their own refugia,
which makes Impact an incredbily useful tool for resolving NAGPRA issues.
User avatar
Farpoint
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:53 am
Location: Madison, Ohio

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by Farpoint »

I have not discovered papers showing a Be10 signal at YD onset. That doesn't mean there aren't any, I just have not found them.
I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must ask the right question.

"The track of a glacier is as unmistakable as that of a man or a bear, and is as significant and trustworthy as any other legible inscription"
John Strong Newberry; 1873
E.P. Grondine

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by E.P. Grondine »

Hi uniface -

What Tony DeRegnaucourt told me was that only the Dalton and Fort Paine quarries continued in use in the east
during Phase 1.
Afterwards, Agate Basin forms predominate in the west.

Both seem to check out.

Like I said, I myself have a crater candidate, but need $10,000 to document it.
You have not seen it, but it is different from the garbage suggestions posted by idiots and fantasists on the net.
E.P. Grondine

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by E.P. Grondine »

Farpoint wrote:I have not discovered papers showing a Be10 signal at YD onset. That doesn't mean there aren't any, I just have not found them.
Some of the usual apocalyptic nuts appropriated this chart from Firestone's earlier work in the Mammoth Trumpet:

Image

Either the spike after 50,000 BP or the spike before 40,000 BP is likely to be from "Meteor" Crater.
The area around Barringer Crater needs to be checked for "unusual" isotopes.

There are later iron asteroid impacts in "Alaska" and "Siberia" aligned with other spikes before the HSIE.

[But then getting back on topic:
I have to note that Giorgio is having way more "fun" than I am. :?

Image


Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, but never on Sunday,
Giorgio must be worn out. :lol:

Sadly, the circular astroblemes are not left over from Ancient Alien wars with nuclear weapons. :roll:

I doubt if Giorgio has to talk to his fans afterwards. :|
Instead, that's when I have to put up with them. :evil: ]
uniface

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by uniface »

I did not know about the dirth of information from New York, interesting.
The Early Archaic Period and the “Missing 2000 Years” in Hudson Valley Prehistory
Edward V. Curtin wrote:On September 16, 2011, Kerry Nelson and I enjoyed the hospitality of the Incorporated Orange County Chapter, New York State Archaeological Association at their monthly meeting in Middletown, New York. I gave a talk on “The Missing 2000 Years”. This is the period associated with Kirk Corner-Notched, Palmer, St. Charles, and perhaps other projectile point types. These point types are relatively rare in New York State, but when found indicate evidence of human occupation following the end of the Paleoindian period about 10,000 years ago.

The “Missing 2000 Years” refers to the period 8,000-10,000 years before present (BP). The former New York State Archaeologist Robert E. Funk (2004:130) used this concept to refer to the poorly known Early Archaic period. It pertains to evidence of occupation earlier than the widespread evidence of bifurcated base projectile points. Bifurcated base projectile points were in use in eastern New York by approximately 8,000 BP, and some early bifurcates may fill part of the chronological gap after 8,500 years BP.

In the 1960s, Funk (1966:246-252) grappled with the implications of a similar 2,000 year gap in the prehistoric record of the Hudson valley, perceived then as the period between the Laurentian tradition and the Paleoindians, about 7,000-9,000 BP as reckoned at that time (research since the 1960s has refined the chronology earlier than the Laurentian, and pushed the poorly known Early Archaic period about 1,000 years deeper into the past).

Bucking more established positions, Funk (1966) argued that Early Archaic cultures must have been present in the Northeast, but were undocumented except for rare bifurcated base points and Plano-like, unfluted, lanceolate points (often referred to as late Paleoindian points). Based upon intriguing discoveries at Sylvan Lake Rockshelter (east of Poughkeepsie), Funk (1966:246-252) developed the hypothesis that the typical projectile points of the Early Archaic period would be early side-notched points that resemble Laurentian tradition point types such as Otter Creek and Brewerton Side-Notched (also see Justice 1987:61-62). Although Funk (1966) documented an assemblage with Otter Creek-like points apparently older than about 7,000 years at Sylvan Lake Rockshelter, additional evidence this old involving the Laurentian tradition (or an immediate ancestor) has been lacking at other New York sites.

Meanwhile, a more clear chronology involving stemmed, bifurcated base, and corner-notched points has been developed, largely based upon Funk’s (1993) research in the Susquehanna valley. At the same time, a complex of early side-notched points has been identified in parts of the Southeast (Anderson and Sassaman 1996; Sherwood et al 2004). Since the known Northeastern Early Archaic point forms generally have Southeastern cognates, it seems a fair question to ask whether evidence of early side-notched points also occurs in the Northeast, but may be “hiding in plain sight” if these points have been misidentified as more familiar Late Archaic point types (this harkens to Funk’s 1966 position, and the somewhat similar view expressed by Justice 1987:61-62).

My talk in Middletown on September 16 examined some of the evidence for the cultures or cultural phases that seem to have been present in the Hudson valley 8,000-10,000 years ago. Much of the evidence I presented derives from archaeological surveys and excavations conducted in the Greene County Towns of Coxsackie and New Baltimore, while some evidence was presented from Moreau in Saratoga County, and Guidlerland in Albany County. Some of the Early Archaic point types that have been found in the Hudson valley include Kirk and Palmer Corner-Notched (prevalent about 9,000 BP); and Dalton or similar triangular points (about 10,000 BP). Rare examples of Agate Basin or other Plano-like points have been recovered (suspected age, 9,500-10,000 BP). Certain corner-notched points with deeply concave bases may by intermediate between the Dalton and Palmer-Kirk types (see Ward and Davis 1999:53-54). Certain side-notched points are suspected of being very early (9,000-10,000 years old) due to association with Early Archaic corner-notched points, or the presence of Early Archaic technical attributes such as end-thinning, pronounced opposite face, alternate-edge beveling, or blunting of the base by burin removal (Justice 1987).

Although a general, time-sequence involving some of the point types can be constructed, extending from Dalton-like triangular (10,000 BP) to Kirk-like corner-notched (9,000 BP) to bifurcated base point types (8,000 BP; Funk 1991:53), some of the point type variability may signify traces of cultural diversity as the geographical ranges of Late Paleoindian and Early Archaic cultures overlapped across the Hudson valley (see Petersen 2004); or as migrating Early Archaic populations with different concepts about projectile points coalesced into new societies.
http://curtinarchaeology.com/blog/2011/ ... rehistory/
uniface

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by uniface »

More directly to the point :

Paleoindian to Archaic in Saratoga County, New York

Edward V. Curtin wrote:Archaeologists cite 10,000 radiocarbon years Before Present (BP) as the end of the Paleoindian period and the beginning of the Archaic. This reflects a certain reality in the approximate timing of technological change in many regions, but as a year 10,000 BP is arbitrary. In northern New York cultures using lanceolate projectile points, most often called Paleoindian, persisted after 10,000 BP, while in much of the Hudson and Susquehanna valleys cultures using notched, Early Archaic points appeared about the same time. This has been stated succinctly by James Petersen (2004:xviii):

Early Archaic remains are seemingly coeval with Late Paleoindian remains before 9000 B.P., occurring near the coast at Staten Island, in the lower Hudson, and in the New York portions of the Susquehanna and Allegany valleys…

Petersen also indicated that while the Early Archaic appeared by 10,000 BP in the mentioned southern areas (as well as points south), in northern areas of the Northeast the Early Archaic emerged between 8000 and 9000 BP, replacing a longer-lingering, Late Paleoindian culture.

Arguably, the period from 9,000-10,000 years ago has the greatest lack of archaeological data of any period of New York State prehistory (the still more mysterious first half of the period once referred to as “The Missing 2,000 Years”; Funk 2004:130).

Considering the calibration of radiocarbon to calendar years, the period from 9000-10,000 radiocarbon years BP is actually a 1,400 year interval, from circa 10,085-11,485 calendar years BP. Thus, this period of the earliest Archaic is indeed a long time lacking important archaeological data. The gap in available information is especially felt in areas south of the somewhat better-documented occurrence of post-10,000 BP Late Paleoindian cultures in the St. Lawrence River-Lake Champlain-northern New England region.

What kinds of projectile points did the earliest Archaic cultures use? How, by their artifacts, may we find them? In New York State the answer may include triangular projectile points unknown in familiar typologies such as Ritchie (1971). Or, the earliest Archaic points may resemble later triangular points, so that their actual antiquity usually goes unnoticed. A group of triangular points from the lower Hudson region provides an example. At Hunter Brook Rockshelter, Hunterbrook Triangle projectile points were found deeper than an Early Archaic period (Palmer type) projectile point (Wingerson and Wingerson 1976), suggesting an age probably greater than 9,000 years for triangular projectile points. Triangular points likely dating to the same period were also found at the Turkey Swamp site in New Jersey (Cavallo 1981).

Robert E. Funk (1991, 2004) focused on the possibility that the earliest Archaic in New York may be characterized by triangular, eared triangular, and weakly notched triangular points that resemble, and thus are easily confused with projectile point types of later periods.

Considering the likely early appearance of triangular projectile points in the Northeast, Funk (1991:60) discussed how closely Northeastern Late Archaic point types such as Brewerton Eared Triangle and Beekman Triangle resemble so called ”Transitional Paleo” points of the Southeast, implying that when found, some of the earliest Archaic projectile points may be mistaken for Late Archaic period points. Funk included the apparently early triangular points within a hypothetical phase or tradition he referred to as “Triangular Dalton”, equivalent to the Dalton horizon in the Southeast.

The Dalton horizon is considered to be late Paleoindian or Early Archaic by different investigators. Many assign a range of about 10,000-10,500 BP to the Dalton horizon, despite numerous radiocarbon dates that suggest it may be younger (Goodyear 1982). Alternatively, Funk (1991:59) has argued that a more accurate chronology may be 9000-9700 BP, based on well-reported data from Oklahoma and Illinois. More recent data from Dust Cave, Alabama suggest that a 10,000-10,500 BP age may pertain to Dalton occupation there. However, the occurrence of projectile point types considered “Middle Paleoindian” in the same soils at Dust cave as the Dalton points indicates that the Dalton points cannot be dated distinctly from possibly earlier occupations (Sherwood et al 2004). The issue remains unresolved, while the known Paleoindian chronology in the Northeast suggests that Funk’s view may be more accurate in this region.

A site in Saratoga County, New York has produced the kind of intriguing artifact assemblage that may be attributable to the earliest Archaic in the region. Indeed, I argue that it contains a very Early Archaic sub-assemblage representing Funk’s hypothetical Triangular Dalton phase. The site’s other sub-assemblage includes a fluted point preform reflecting an earlier Paleoindian occupation (although the specific Paleoindian cultural phase or sub-period is unknown). It is not certain that the fluted point preform is associated with a larger assemblage, but it was found in a location spatially differentiated from the apparent Early Archaic assemblage, in an area with somewhat different lithic attributes.

I refer to this location simply as the Crooked Point site. Although the site was archaeologically excavated and then built upon several years ago, it would still be unacceptable (and illegal) for individuals to trespass into it or adjoining locations for some unauthorized searching or digging.

The spatially distinct areas of the site include a small area of highly concentrated flaked debris from tool manufacture and repair, and a larger surrounding area of lower flake debris density. The fluted point preform was found in the area of lower flake density, about 15 meters (50 feet) southwest of the high density flake concentration. The majority of the projectile points and tools found at the site occur in close spatial association with the flake concentration. Both the flake concentration and the majority of stone tools occur within an area of less than 40 square meters.

One of the differences between the lower and higher debitage density areas is found in the percentage of large chert flakes, which is much higher in the lower density area (44% of flakes larger than 1.5 cm compared to 22% in the high density area). This reflects working with larger pieces of chert in the lower density area, and is most likely associated with stone tool manufacturing, and/or the production of relatively large flakes for expedient cutting and scraping. Since relatively few of the large flakes in either area were use as expedient tools (about 3-4%), it is most likely that the large flakes were produced as by-products of forming stone tools from cores and bifaces brought to the site.

The lower percentage of large chert flakes (and conversely, the higher percentage of small chert flakes) in the higher density area reflects less tool manufacture and more tool sharpening and repair (This is because more refined work yields smaller pieces of stone waste). Thus, the spatial division between lower and higher artifact density is correlated with different kinds work. Whether or not this reflects different stages of work performed in different places during one period of occupation, or multiple occupations at different periods by different kinds of work parties cannot be determined due to the sparse evidence of an early period of occupation.

Nonetheless, the close spatial association between the numerous tools found within the area of artifact concentration seems to indicate one period of occupation in this small part of the site. This is the assemblage that I feel represents a very Early Archaic occupation. It contains the following formally manufactured artifact types:

1 asymmetrical, triangular, end-thinned projectile point
1 weakly side-notched, mildly serrated triangular projectile point
2 base fragments of side-notched projectile points
12 bifaces
19 biface fragments
1 thumbnail-type endscraper
2 perforators, reamers, or narrow-bit scrapers
13 gravers
2 compound gravers/spokeshaves
The end-thinning of the asymmetrical triangular point might also be thought of as mini-fluting, hearkening to Paleoindian and Dalton technology. The eared, weakly side-notched triangular point provokes further consideration of Funk’s statement of expectations concerning the earliest, Dalton-equivalent Archaic in upstate New York. Traces of serration, often considered diagnostic of Dalton and other Early Archaic technology, remains on the side-notched point’s blade.

The assemblage is particularly interesting for the diversity of the stone assemblage, indicating that a range of activities was performed at the site, including weapon repair and probably hide working, among others. Hunting forays in the area likely were based at this site. The large number of gravers is very interesting, as it appears to indicate that engraving was an intensely pursued activity at this site. The long, narrow tools shaped like perforators resemble artifacts referred to as drills associated with the earliest Archaic assemblage at the Shawnee-Minisink site in Pennsylvania (McNett 1985:95; also see the illustrated “Early Early” Archaic graver in McNett’s same photo).

How typical is this site of the earliest Archaic? To answer this question, additional information is needed to confirm the age estimate between 9,000 and 10,000 radiocarbon years BP. At this time, the site’s age is an educated guess. Confirmation of age may eventually come in the form of other, similar artifact assemblages or projectile point types that can be radiocarbon-dated reliably at other sites. Should the age estimate for this assemblage prove accurate, the availability of information from other sites will help to understand activity variation among the sites of this period.
http://curtinarchaeology.com/blog/2013/ ... -new-york/
uniface

Re: New PNAS paper on the Holocene Start Impact Event

Post by uniface »

What Tony DeRegnaucourt told me was that only the Dalton and Fort Paine quarries continued in use in the east
during Phase 1.
Afterwards, Agate Basin forms predominate in the west.

Both seem to check out.
FWIW, I've suspected a glitch in the transmission there since reading your book. This is why : Fort Paine is a type of chert (actually, a geological formation that's exposed here and there going Northward up the Appalachians from Alabama). The best of it is very good quality chert indeed. As I understand it (and I'm not a geologist nor interested enough in geology to get on top of what all's involved) some outcroppings of it have different names assigned (e.g., Hopkinsville Chert, which is a variety of Ste. Genevieve Chert, which, I think is Ft. Paine formation).

The other principal paleo chert used in that general area was Dover Chert. It, too, was a Paleo mainstay. Stuff like Paoli Chert figures into the picture as well. But what isn't clear (to me, at least) is whether this was a stand-alone variety or a subspecies of one of the big two flying under independent colors.

Dalton was a culture (a different technology -- note that core/blade technology seems to be absent entirely in it -- with a different adaptation to the environment) that followed the Paleo era, although people sometimes assign it to Late Paleo. But overall, it seems to mark the beginning of geographically limited territoriality in time, where (in contrast to the Paleo era when people were wide-ranging) one band settled an area and made do with whatever resources it provided them. It contrasts with Clovis also in being geographically limited rather than pan-continental. (Beginning with Early Archaic, cultural territories begin to shrink. And shrink. And shrink).

"Dalton" is, of course, also a point type.

The stinky part is that nobody seems to be pursuing the Late Paleo era with much enthusiasm. Sites are very few, and a lot of changes (starting with climate) were going on during it. Late Paleo in the SE pretty much correlates with the "missing 1,400 years in New York). I believe it was Tankersley (The Archaeology of Kentucky -- an Update) that noted that the shift from Early Paleo (essentially Clovis) (Yahnig's Little River Complex for example) to Middle Paleo (frustratingly undescribed other than to note an increase in the prevalence of limaces and spurred, triangular endscrapers) also marks a shift to a wider range of lithic materials. (One of which would be Buffalo River Chert. But if that's a variety of Fort Paine, we're back to square one . . .) (LOTS of terminological confusion). And, going by examples of Late Paleo points & tools I've seen (Quad, Beaver Lake, et al.), they were pretty much using whatever chert was handy and usable.

Agate Basin (another point type) was one of a number of cultures (or whatever it's hip to call them this week) that evolved in the West and drifted (North) Eastward during what Dragoo insightfully characterised as the Aquaplano era. The pluvial lakes & grasslands in the West were tuning into deserts, and the fauna following the retreating margin of habitability. (People naturally following the animals). It's thus that you end up with native Western point types like Angostura, Agate Basin, Eden and Folsom points in Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri & even further (North)East. Archaeologically, it's a black hole and pretty much lives up to the Marine Core's famous "Cluster Experience" description of such an event overall.

Temporally, in the West, Folsom marks the end of Paleo, while at least some others properly fall under the Paleoarchaic heading (or should). In the East, along with HiLo, Holcombe and the rest, it seems to be what's currently called Late Paleo.

At any rate, that's the backdrop against which your statement appears. It's not a "criticism" of it.
Post Reply