Archaeologica.org

deleted

deleted

deleted

Charlie Hatchett wrote:Just watched America's Stone Age Explorers, Min.

Excellente.

Thanks, Bro.

Feeling a little bit of vindication, there?

Regarding the Mammoth extinction, I've never felt that humans were responsible for that. There were dramatic climate changes at that time - two of them actually - that resulted in the extinction of all North American megafauna.

Can't recall where I saw it....might have been Guns, Germs and Steel...but the author made the case that megafauna had survived previous climate changes prior to 11,000 BC thus he was perfectly willing to accept that humans were responsible because they were the random element. He was a firm Clovis-Firster, though which means he'd probably hanging his head in shame somewhere about now.

Nonetheless, the argument he makes is not invalid. Perhaps what we are dealing with is an example of humans providing the tipping point which was not present during earlier climate fluctuations. They killed enough animals to prevent them from surviving the climate changes as they had before.

Two things:

1) The Pre-Clovis work of Michael Waters will be part of the Archaeologica/Archaeology Channel news audio broadcast this week. The script was written this evening and should be available by about Tuesday. Here's the link:

http://www.archaeologychannel.org/AudioNews.asp

2) Charlie-when you hit page 100, start volume II of this topic. I should have split it a long time ago, but I didn't want Min to get lost. (Just kidding Bob!)

deleted

deleted

MichelleH wrote:Two things:

I should have split it a long time ago, but I didn't want Min to get lost.

Can't recall where I saw it....might have been Guns, Germs and Steel...but the author made the case that megafauna had survived previous climate changes prior to 11,000 BC thus he was perfectly willing to accept that humans were responsible because they were the random element. He was a firm Clovis-Firster, though which means he'd probably hanging his head in shame somewhere about now.

Min, that was Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs and Steel". I'm not sure whether he's given up on Clovis first, but he should.

Roger that, Bro. An advanced, inplace, social network would be necessary to get the new technology distributed, in 200-400 years, to all 48 contiguous states.

Finally, an approach that makes sense. Now maybe scientists can spend time examining pre-Clovis paleo artifacts. With Goodyear claiming 50,000bp for Topper that would be a decent, non-disputed benchmark. Unless, of course Charlie, if your site is far older in which case we'll whine and complain that the Club, Part II is screwing us!

Yes, Cogs. One must beware of this phenomenon, courtesy of the late Art Buchwald.

“If you attack the establishment long enough and hard enough, they will make you a member of it.”

It isn't too hard to envision The Club seeking to compromise a bit and move back to 15,000 BC or so, thereby, preventing further erosion of their position.

As Charlie has pointed out, however, they no longer have control over the source of information.

It isn't too hard to envision The Club seeking to compromise a bit and move back to 15,000 BC or so, thereby, preventing further erosion of their position.

It's funny that they pushed Clovis up to 10,800, but give no alternative as to who these new people are that are dating to 15,000. The Lindenmier site in Colorado is a folsom site that dates to 13,000bce. Their so confused right now they don't know what the hell to do! The sad part is Clovis first has totally ruined, lost, or deliberlatly hidden so much evidence that we may never know the truth. We need to start looking at hundred's of thousands of years and start to get a chronology of these people. hominids, species or whatever we want to call them to prove our point.

Seems to me that virtually all contested artifacts/sites will have to be subjected to the same state-of-the-art dating techniques to straighten all this out.

I recall, during one of the interminable debates with Arch, that a 2004 C14 finding on the High Chronology-Low Chronology debate within Palestinian archaeology found that the technique had gone as far as it could because the +/- range was simply too close to the dating discrepancy between the two sides. That is progress....after a fashion.