Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:51 am
I have agreat respect for oral traditions Monk, but of course it's just as easy to hand down an untruth as the truth.
Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
I agree - but these people believed it before any "modern" scientist devised the land bridge theory. You think they developed their own land bridge theory? Or, maybe they were making the trip by boat routinely for hundreds of years or longer? Why didn't they believe, the people on the other side, descended from them?Digit wrote:I have agreat respect for oral traditions Monk, but of course it's just as easy to hand down an untruth as the truth.
More on the Walker site.Community members got answers Feb. 8 to some of their questions about the recently-discovered archaeological site near the Walker Area Community Center (WACC).
But answers to other questions — like what comes next and how to protect the site, will have to wait, at least for now.
As will the major question in everyone's mind: Do the artifacts actually date back to 13,000 to 15,000 before present (BP)?
The first Walker Hill Informational Forum was presented by Leech Lake Heritage Sites (LLHS) staff, who made the discovery.
More on Waters' study.That now appears in doubt, as Stafford and Waters have succeeded in dating five of the remaining sites more accurately thanks to improvements in the technology of radiocarbon dating. Using atomic accelerators and collagen purified in molecular sieves, the two found that the Clovis artifacts they dated all occurred within 11,050 radiocarbon years to 10,800 radiocarbon years before present. "Just a duration of about 200 years with a maximum duration of 350," Waters says.
That means Clovis sites are contemporaneous with some undisputed sites in South America and younger than some in North America. It also makes it difficult to understand how an ancient people could have spread so far in such a limited amount of time, let alone how the Clovis point [see image above] people could have spread throughout the U.S. "That raises the question: Is it a people or a technology?" Waters asks. "That kind of rapid spread of technology is almost unprecedented. Metallurgy moved very quickly, gunpowder and things like that, but that was a different time."
but that was a different time."
Just wanted to relate that I travel to rural Alaskan villages from time to time. On one occaision, I attended a potlatch where 3 villages gathered in one place for dancing and food. I was able to observe a few Yupik (Inuit Eskimos in northern Alaska, Yupik Eskimos in the south - very similar) families represented by three generations: grandparents, parents, and adult children. The transformation generation to generation was striking. Grandparents tended to be very short, stocky, often bow-legged and their faces were broad and flat but with angular cheek bones and jaws. The adult children tended to be two or more heads taller, much slimmer, and their faces had much softer, rounder, more oriental features. Parents were in between. Remarkable differences in just three generations that I am sure are reflected in their skeletal structure. All because of changes - not of a genetic nature - but in diet and health care.Charlie Hatchett wrote:I agree. Something to keep in mind.Which again raises the idea of common heritage I think.
I believe I read somewhere that Neanderthals were much like Inuits?