Archaeologica.org

Spam.

My web sites are definitely not spam. Take a look at them and make up your own mind.

I will always reply here with civility and respect. I hope others do the same.

Mike Ruggeri

Ye Gods Mike, you've been busy.
I'll study that lot later.

Roy.

I do not know the rules about posting the same missive on two topic sites here but there are a couple of topic sites discussing Pre-Clovis, so I will post these at both of them;

1) The discovery of seaweed on tools and habitation sites at Monte
Verde, Chile have now been radio-carbon dated at 14,000 years ago, the same dates as the footprints and artifacts Dillehay found at Monte
Verde years ago.

Here is the URL for an article on that discovery;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... t-american...

2) The discovery of human coprolites at Paisley Cave, Oregon also
dated recently at 14,500 years ago.

Here is the URL for an article on that discovery;
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... weboldpoop...

3) And now mammoths in association with real tools found in Kenosha with the mammoths dated at 14,500 years ago.

Then the question is; how long did it take humans by way of canoe,
traveling by traditional fission-fusion patterns of hunters/gatherers,
to get to Oregon, across North America to Wisconsin and to Southern
Chile. Obviously, first entry into North and then South America had to
have begun long before 14,500 years ago to have humans in Chile,
Wisconsin and Oregon by 14,500 years ago. But the three discoveries I
have mentioned are the ones that are the most compelling by way of
proof of Pre-Clovis.

I am aware that many are absolutely convinced that the much earlier dates claimed at the Topper Site and Meadowcroft Rock Shelter are real and I understand why.

I always await independent verification for extraordinary claims.

Having said that, here are my feelings;

I will repeat the point I made earlier that the proven materials at Monte Verde and Paisley Cave and in Wisconsin of a human presence at 14,500 years ago opens the obvious scenario that these human artifacts could not have been found there unless the humans began traveling from Asia and entered the Americas long before.

Beyond that are the statements made by linguistic researchers that the several hundred distinct languages that existed in the New World by the time of European entry could not have evolved into that many
distinct languages without men having been in the New World going back to 40,000-50,000 years ago. No one has argued with the linguistic math of these statements but archaeologists still await evidence in hand.

There has also been some scattered studies based on the genetics of
modern day Latin Americans and Native Americans that point to their
ancestry in the Americas going back to 40,000-50,000 BC. But those
studies are contradicted by other genetic studies.

I think it is obvious that the humans in Oregon, Chile and Wisconsin
who lived there 14,500 years ago were descendants of immigrants who entered the New World long before. There is no way that they could have been found in these places without a much earlier entry.
And the dates of 40,000-50,000 BC for the first entry, given
everything we know, does not seem out of the question.

There has been so much science fiction archaeology in print over the
years that I can understand the care any serious researcher is going
to take in saying that outright without organic evidence rightly dated
and confirmed by independent observers who are objective and careful.

Mike Ruggeri

Mike Ruggeri's Pre-Clovis and Clovis World
http://tinyurl.com/2m8725

Breaking Pre-Clovis and Clovis News
http://community-2.webtv.net/Topiltzin- ... index.html

The time scale you refer to Mike has been raised here before as one of the most damning arguments against the later date for man's entry.
It's so blindingly obvious that one has to wonder why some will stick to 'Clovis first', can't they see they have no argument against the time scale?

Roy.

Digit wrote:The time scale you refer to Mike has been raised here before as one of the most damning arguments against the later date for man's entry.
It's so blindingly obvious that one has to wonder why some will stick to 'Clovis first', can't they see they have no argument against the time scale?

Roy.

Who is sticking to Clovis first besides Stanford?

michaelruggeri wrote:I do not know the rules about posting the same missive on two topic sites here but there are a couple of topic sites discussing Pre-Clovis, so I will post these at both of them;

1) The discovery of seaweed on tools and habitation sites at Monte
Verde, Chile have now been radio-carbon dated at 14,000 years ago, the same dates as the footprints and artifacts Dillehay found at Monte
Verde years ago.

Here is the URL for an article on that discovery;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... t-american...

2) The discovery of human coprolites at Paisley Cave, Oregon also
dated recently at 14,500 years ago.

Here is the URL for an article on that discovery;
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... weboldpoop...

3) And now mammoths in association with real tools found in Kenosha with the mammoths dated at 14,500 years ago.

Then the question is; how long did it take humans by way of canoe,
traveling by traditional fission-fusion patterns of hunters/gatherers,
to get to Oregon, across North America to Wisconsin and to Southern
Chile. Obviously, first entry into North and then South America had to
have begun long before 14,500 years ago to have humans in Chile,
Wisconsin and Oregon by 14,500 years ago. But the three discoveries I
have mentioned are the ones that are the most compelling by way of
proof of Pre-Clovis.

I am aware that many are absolutely convinced that the much earlier dates claimed at the Topper Site and Meadowcroft Rock Shelter are real and I understand why.

I always await independent verification for extraordinary claims.

Having said that, here are my feelings;

I will repeat the point I made earlier that the proven materials at Monte Verde and Paisley Cave and in Wisconsin of a human presence at 14,500 years ago opens the obvious scenario that these human artifacts could not have been found there unless the humans began traveling from Asia and entered the Americas long before.

Beyond that are the statements made by linguistic researchers that the several hundred distinct languages that existed in the New World by the time of European entry could not have evolved into that many
distinct languages without men having been in the New World going back to 40,000-50,000 years ago. No one has argued with the linguistic math of these statements but archaeologists still await evidence in hand.

There has also been some scattered studies based on the genetics of
modern day Latin Americans and Native Americans that point to their
ancestry in the Americas going back to 40,000-50,000 BC. But those
studies are contradicted by other genetic studies.

I think it is obvious that the humans in Oregon, Chile and Wisconsin
who lived there 14,500 years ago were descendants of immigrants who entered the New World long before. There is no way that they could have been found in these places without a much earlier entry.
And the dates of 40,000-50,000 BC for the first entry, given
everything we know, does not seem out of the question.

There has been so much science fiction archaeology in print over the
years that I can understand the care any serious researcher is going
to take in saying that outright without organic evidence rightly dated
and confirmed by independent observers who are objective and careful.

Mike Ruggeri

Mike Ruggeri's Pre-Clovis and Clovis World
http://tinyurl.com/2m8725

Breaking Pre-Clovis and Clovis News
http://community-2.webtv.net/Topiltzin- ... index.html

Mike -

All I can say is YESSS!

Point being, for any of your referenced societies,

There had to be precursor societies, which,

Given the shift in sea levels after the fact of

Original coastal occupation

We may never really know.

So your thought of actual, organic verification is a very long shot.

However, The Club is really talking out of both sides of their mouth

On this one,

As they are arguing that America was unoccupied until

A magical, fully formed culture - Clovis -

Arrived fully formed in a matter of geological minutes

Over the entire North American continent, on foot.

They dismiss the entire concept of precursor cultures

On a spurious theory of the rate of transitional glacial climate change,

Disregarding entirely the sea as an avenue of transportation.



Desperation, most likely, at this point.


I think you would agree with me that there

Were multiple earlier occupations of the American continent;

Clovis stands as a legitimate placeholder in that sequence,

But not as the "first people".




hoka hey


john

Who is sticking to Clovis first besides Stanford?

Most of the educational establishments that I'm aware of.

Roy.

None of the ones in the NW US are. I bet it's less prevalent than a lot of you think. A decade ago, yeah that was the case in at least some places. You don't see it in the journals either, well except for Stanford.

Knuckle sandwhich wrote:

Digit wrote:The time scale you refer to Mike has been raised here before as one of the most damning arguments against the later date for man's entry.
It's so blindingly obvious that one has to wonder why some will stick to 'Clovis first', can't they see they have no argument against the time scale?

Roy.

Who is sticking to Clovis first besides Stanford?

Nice discussion but Stanford is not a Clovis First proponent. I'm not sure he ever was. Since the confirmation of Dillehay's data at Monte Vrede, there are no Clovis Firsters.

A History Channel program about the First Americans originally was aired about a year and a half ago. In it Stanford gave enthusiastic support to Adovasio and Goodyear in their search for pre-clovis artifacts. Min may still have that show archived - I don't know.

And although paleolithic seafaring has been a hot topic in this forum for a long time, the subject is gaining interest and acceptance in the mainstream community since the Monte Verde findings were accepted.

For over 100 years however, researchers have lost all future funding and sometimes their careers when they sought to publish pre-clovis evidence. Some of these people are on the internet today discussing the evidence. So it's a great time for science now.

Yeah, you are right, he's probably better defined as a Solutrean firster and a proponent of marine adaption in the paleolithic. But more precisely, evolutionary archaeology theory.

Min may still have that show archived - I don't know

Yep, burned to a DVD along with a bunch of others.

Digit wrote:

Who is sticking to Clovis first besides Stanford?

Most of the educational establishments that I'm aware of.

Roy.

Unfortunately, it takes time to re-write the text books but, as Beagle notes, the internet has become the great equalizer.

Minimalist wrote:

Digit wrote:

Who is sticking to Clovis first besides Stanford?

Most of the educational establishments that I'm aware of.

Roy.

Unfortunately, it takes time to re-write the text books but, as Beagle notes, the internet has become the great equalizer.

Min i have to say that for once you are wrong. The italicized part at least. Ask any current college student how often there are new versions of the text they need.

Granted most of those new editions have no significant change in content, but with today's textbook industry it would not take much to get outdated information updated. It still comes down to the stodginess of the educational institutions which, of course, are firmly rooted in the past.

Granted most of those new editions have no significant change in content

Exactly. College books have always been about money.

Maybe they need to adopt new text books that weren't written by the old warhorses?