The (Clovis-First) Empire Strikes Back

[Rokcet Scientist]

An eternal problem with text books, kb. They don't self-destruct.

If Kindle gets a hold on the market, they will!

[uniface]

We (Firestone and Topping) presented 7 definite Paleo-Indian sites with "extremely young" radiocarbon dates: Gainey, Leavitt, Zander, Thedford, Potts, Alton and Grant Lake. As a factual matter there "is" a pattern to abnormally young dates in the Great Lakes region of North America. The sources for these dates were documented thoroughly, and clearly presented in the article. Among Paleo-Indian specialists (relatively few), this pattern is well-known.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:PWX ... =firefox-a

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nucbtrev.doc.

[uniface]

Radiocarbon dating does work, but the evidence at hand strongly suggests (if not proves) that before ~ 12,500 yrs BP nobody can say much of anything at all about "real dates" because of the production of 14C in a younger direction. This raises the interesting possibility, suggested as far back as the 1960's, that Paleo-Indian actually is a Mousterian (European) tradition. Mousterian toolkits remained virtually unchanged for about 200,000 years (depending on which sources indicate what dates) while later prehistoric toolkits persisted (in terms of style) for perhaps ~ 500 yrs. Most importantly, again as noted in the web-published piece, if the dates for Lewisville are as old as the most recent radiocarbon dates suggest, and lignite was NOT in the firepits), then as two world-class scholars have concluded that the only difference between European Solutrean and American Paleo-Indian are identical with the once exception of "fluting" not present in Solutrean, then the most logical conclusion is that European Solutrean derived from a longstanding American Mousterian tradition when those American Mousterians (and I am NOT saying Neanderthals) crossed back across the North Atlantic. In that event, which I believe to be the case, we (or I) are/am ruffling feathers but so be it.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-rev ... centReview

[Minimalist]

European Solutrean derived from a longstanding American Mousterian tradition when those American Mousterians (and I am NOT saying Neanderthals) crossed back across the North Atlantic. In that event, which I believe to be the case, we (or I) are/am ruffling feathers but so be it.

"Ruffling feathers?" More like driving orthodoxy stark, raving, nuts!

Keep up the good work.

[E.P. Grondine]

Radiocarbon dating does work, but the evidence at hand strongly suggests (if not proves) that before ~ 12,500 yrs BP nobody can say much of anything at all about "real dates" because of the production of 14C in a younger direction. This raises the interesting possibility, suggested as far back as the 1960's, that Paleo-Indian actually is a Mousterian (European) tradition. Mousterian toolkits remained virtually unchanged for about 200,000 years (depending on which sources indicate what dates) while later prehistoric toolkits persisted (in terms of style) for perhaps ~ 500 yrs. Most importantly, again as noted in the web-published piece, if the dates for Lewisville are as old as the most recent radiocarbon dates suggest, and lignite was NOT in the firepits), then as two world-class scholars have concluded that the only difference between European Solutrean and American Paleo-Indian are identical with the once exception of "fluting" not present in Solutrean, then the most logical conclusion is that European Solutrean derived from a longstanding American Mousterian tradition when those American Mousterians (and I am NOT saying Neanderthals) crossed back across the North Atlantic. In that event, which I believe to be the case, we (or I) are/am ruffling feathers but so be it.

Thanks for the link to the doc. Once again, either neutron production from hypervelocity impact is shown, or the neutrons coming from a nearby supernova. Based on distribution, I'd go with the first, with KIscoty as a likely impact point.

Watch out for European bias. During the period of the development of palaeo-anthropology, there has been too little excavation done in China and Russia due to the chaos in those areas.

One would assume that if this hypothesis were true, there would have been at least a C mt DNA survival in Europe. There is none to my knowledge.

Also watch out for the ice sheet bias. Who would go on an ice sheet? What foods?

We also know little of the North West coast of Africa.

Pedra Furada in Brazil shows a crossing from the African coast about 35,000 BCE, but these peoples' migration north is shown by fluting, and as seen from the Yuchi and Ocanachee those peoples were ethnically distinct.

[uniface]

[ One more -- I love this stuff !! And all things Paleoindian ]

For example, at the Gainey site in Michigan a 2880 yr B.P. radio-carbon date was reported, while the thermoluminescence date for that site is 12,400 yr B.P. Other anomalous dates found at Leavitt in Michigan, Zander and Thedford in Ontario, Potts in New York, Alton in Indiana . . . The Grant Lake Paleoindian site is most remarkable because its 160 [rc] yr B.P. age is nearly contemporary . . .

The 39,000 yr B.P. date proposed for the Gainey site is consistent with the prevailing opinion among many archaeologists about when the Americas were populated. It is also commensurate with dates for South American sites and with a Mousterian toolkit tradition that many see as the Paleoindian precursor. The proposed date for the Gainey site also falls closer in line with the radiocarbon date for a Lewisville, Texas, Paleoindian site of 26,610 ± 300 yr B.P. and radio-carbon dates as early as c. 20,000 yr B.P. for Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Since the Lewisville and Meadowcroft sites were likely exposed at the same time to thermal neutrons, we estimate that their dates should be reset to c. 55,000 yr B.P. and c. 45,000 yr B.P., respectively . . . Dates for North American sites should generally be reset by up to 40,000 years, depending on latitude and overburden.

http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/messageb ... ch=asearch

[Minimalist]

Also watch out for the ice sheet bias. Who would go on an ice sheet? What foods?

Good point, EP. Everything I've ever read suggests that the area right next to a glacier would be cold and dry and not conducive to the growth of heavy vegetation needed to sustain large herbivores. The animals, being smarter than the humans, would head south in search of food. One also must logically assume that the predators (2 and 4 legged) would tag along behind them.

The obvious exception would be sea-based hunters of marine mammals along the edge of the ice sheets. But even in that case, the hunters would be following the prey.

Applied to North America, why would anyone be looking to hang out in Ohio or NY during the last glacial maximum? The Gulf Coast area would have been far more reasonable.

[E.P. Grondine]

[ One more -- I love this stuff !! And all things Paleoindian ]

For example, at the Gainey site in Michigan a 2880 yr B.P. radio-carbon date was reported, while the thermoluminescence date for that site is 12,400 yr B.P. Other anomalous dates found at Leavitt in Michigan, Zander and Thedford in Ontario, Potts in New York, Alton in Indiana . . . The Grant Lake Paleoindian site is most remarkable because its 160 [rc] yr B.P. age is nearly contemporary . . .

The 39,000 yr B.P. date proposed for the Gainey site is consistent with the prevailing opinion among many archaeologists about when the Americas were populated. It is also commensurate with dates for South American sites and with a Mousterian toolkit tradition that many see as the Paleoindian precursor. The proposed date for the Gainey site also falls closer in line with the radiocarbon date for a Lewisville, Texas, Paleoindian site of 26,610 ± 300 yr B.P. and radio-carbon dates as early as c. 20,000 yr B.P. for Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Since the Lewisville and Meadowcroft sites were likely exposed at the same time to thermal neutrons, we estimate that their dates should be reset to c. 55,000 yr B.P. and c. 45,000 yr B.P., respectively . . . Dates for North American sites should generally be reset by up to 40,000 years, depending on latitude and overburden.

http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/messageb ... ch=asearch

uniface, with your focus on an early peopling of the Americas, you're loosing sight of the real problems:
1) nearby supernova, and the threat they present to people living on planet Earth
2) impact events, and the threat they present to people living on planet Earth.

Determining these threats are the true value of this work to society as a whole; it's not simply to satisfy your own curiosity.

It would appear that neutrons from both throw off RC dates. The degree perhaps depends on over burden (protection) from supernova neutrons, and perhaps distance from impact neutrons for the second. The second hypothesis, assuming one of the comet pieces hit at Kiscoty, Alberta, that may explain the low dates for the northern sites.

In any case, anthropologists are going to be stuck trying to get hard dates, and these effects are going to have to be analyzed before any sort of early dating system can be set up. Your comment about distance and overburden are spot on. You can't just pull out an arbitrary number like 40,000 years and bandy it about.

Again, you'll have to show DNA evidence to back up your ice sheet hypothesis, and as I mentioned before there has been a lack of excavation in East Asia in modern times. Any C mt DNA in Europe?

I myself can't see why anyone would move onto the edge of an ice sheet. In my opinion.

[uniface]

You can't just pull out an arbitrary number like 40,000 years and bandy it about.

Well, (to the extent that it matters), sure you can. Assuming you're trying to reconcile US Paleo with its European cousins, that would be your working hypothesis, with the C14 clock re-set as your dynamic. Whether or not it's capable of being "proven" or not, especially given current technological limitations, is moot. If pre-Clovis in the US isn't "proven" by now, good luck with matters older than that !

with your focus on an early peopling of the Americas, you're loosing sight of the real problems:
1) nearby supernova, and the threat they present to people living on planet Earth
2) impact events, and the threat they present to people living on planet Earth.

Matter of perspective, E. P. I've worked in state prisons for the last twenty years. Seen staff attacked by inmates life-flighted out, watched people die, the works. It hardens you, maybe. If we get fried, we get fried. Nobody here gets out alive anyhow, so big whoop. But I would like a better handle on Paleo before I check out. Soup to nuts. That's why I'm here. Taking notes on your postings that bear on prehistory for all I'm worth.

And if I ever get a little bit ahead, your book's on my short list.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I myself can't see why anyone would move onto the edge of an ice sheet. In my opinion.

If that's where the food is, that's where people go. And the edge of the (sea) ice shelf is where the food was. Plenty of protein-rich sea mammals, auks, and fish. Much easier to hunt/catch, with less risk, than megafauna. With much more nutritional value than megafauna. Megafauna that went extinct anyway, so that homo needed other food sources: seafood! Found on the edge of the (sea) ice shelf.

[Minimalist]

The beat goes on....


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... tions.html

A comet impact didn't set off a 1,300-year cold snap that wiped out most life in North America about 12,900 years ago, scientists say.

Though no one disputes the frigid period, more and more researchers have been unable to confirm a 2007 finding that says a collision triggered the change, known as the Younger Dryas.

[kbs2244]

That guy at NG must feel like he is reporting a tennis match.

[Minimalist]

That guy at NG must feel like he is reporting a tennis match.

[Digit]

I'd dearly like to know how you'd get on and off the ice shelf, or haul a dead Seal up onto it though.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

How do the Inuit do it?