Archaeologica.org

This is the first news release I have seen on this expedition.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 070909.php

They are off the Tampa/St Pete area at the shelf edge on the west coast of FLA.
This is in the famous "Florida Springs" area.

Most of the state of Georgia drains into this area via “underground rivers.”
There are fresh water springs 4 and 5 miles off the current shore.

The old beach would be a terrific place to look.

The Topper site is right up the Savannah River....perfect inland transportation route for people with boats. If the shoreline was lower the Savannah would have been even bigger.

kbs2244 wrote:This is the first news release I have seen on this expedition.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 070909.php

They are off the Tampa/St Pete area at the shelf edge on the west coast of FLA.
This is in the famous "Florida Springs" area.

Most of the state of Georgia drains into this area via “underground rivers.”
There are fresh water springs 4 and 5 miles off the current shore.

The old beach would be a terrific place to look.

Finally they're putting 2 and 2 together.

This group is looking at the west coast of FLA, in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Savanna River is north of FLA on the Atlantic side.
By boat, you would have to go around the whole state of FLA.
Not that it couldn't be done.
And if you had already sailed the North Atlantic, it would seem like a vacation cruise.

kbs2244 wrote:This group is looking at the west coast of FLA, in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Savanna River is north of FLA on the Atlantic side.
By boat, you would have to go around the whole state of FLA.
Not that it couldn't be done.
And if you had already sailed the North Atlantic, it would seem like a vacation cruise.

Without a detailed citation, I'll simply state that Clovis came up from South America.

The geological history of the Savannah River area is more complex than simply a sea rise.
There's several feet of impact mega-tsunami sediment separating Savanna River culture from later cultures.

I thought the big thing about the Savanna River site was they are into pre-Clovis stuff.

That is what is fueling the European origin, east to west, ice floe coasting, theory.

This news release doesn’t say if they even found anything.
Just that they are looking.

The thing with Topper is that when Goodyear reached the "Clovis" layer he kept digging and found earlier levels. The same general thing happened at Meadowcroft in Pennsylvania.

One does sort of begin to wonder what would happen if more "Clovis" sites were dug deeper. As Hardaker pointed out in his book, for a long time one of the surest methods to professional suicide was to tell The Club that you were going to look for "pre-Clovis" artifacts.

kbs2244 wrote:This news release doesn’t say if they even found anything.
Just that they are looking.

The news value in that news release, imo, is that it says where they are looking! Finally in the right place: off shore, on the edge of the continental shelf. If there is anything to be found, it is there! They've always been looking on today's landmass, which was far from the coastline in those days: 20,000, 100,000, or even 1,000,000 years BCE. So it was the wrong place to look as 95% of hominid hunter-gatherers lived and migrated along the coastlines of the era. And the coastlines of those eras are today faaar out to sea and under 300/400 feet of seawater.

I agree fully RS.
And in my mind it is one of the best places to look.
You would have the normally peaceful Gulf for fishing.
The plains of north FLA for hunting.
And lots of fresh water because this is the area of big springs in FLA.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

kbs2244 wrote:This news release doesn’t say if they even found anything.
Just that they are looking.

The news value in that news release, imo, is that it says where they are looking! Finally in the right place: off shore, on the edge of the continental shelf. If there is anything to be found, it is there! They've always been looking on today's landmass, which was far from the coastline in those days: 20,000, 100,000, or even 1,000,000 years BCE. So it was the wrong place to look as 95% of hominid hunter-gatherers lived and migrated along the coastlines of the era. And the coastlines of those eras are today faaar out to sea and under 300/400 feet of seawater.

This comment:

But, last summer's pivotal underwater exploration in the Gulf of Mexico led by Mercyhurst College archaeologist Dr. James Adovasio yielded evidence of inundated terrestrial sites that may well have supported human occupation more than 12,000 years ago, and paved the way for another expedition this July.

suggests that last year's effort was more in the way of an archaeological survey to identify likely spots. Hopefully now it is time to start checking out those "inundated terrestrial sites."

kbs2244 wrote:I thought the big thing about the Savanna River site was they are into pre-Clovis stuff.

That is what is fueling the European origin, east to west, ice floe coasting, theory.

This news release doesn’t say if they even found anything.
Just that they are looking.

The racism in this is apparent. No, those people could not have come from Africa, they had to come from Europe. In the meantime, the well documented finds from Brazil are ignored entirely.

Rokcet Scientist wrote: The news value in that news release, imo, is that it says where they are looking! Finally in the right place: off shore, on the edge of the continental shelf. If there is anything to be found, it is there! They've always been looking on today's landmass, which was far from the coastline in those days: 20,000, 100,000, or even 1,000,000 years BCE. So it was the wrong place to look as 95% of hominid hunter-gatherers lived and migrated along the coastlines of the era. And the coastlines of those eras are today faaar out to sea and under 300/400 feet of seawater.

Here we can agree, RS.

One huge problem is doing archaeology at 350 foot depth. Unless there are"surface" finds, I don't see how they are going to be able to recover much - unless they can identify pit traps/slaughter sites, or perhaps submerged salt licks, or small ideal camping areas near river mouths, or fresh water springs near what was then the coast.

I am sceptical of any crossing earlier than 45,000 BCE or so, so that would be the time frame I would suggest looking at. Certainly the 20,000 BCE geography should yield results.

I would like to request that someone work on the "rehabilitation" of Frank Hibben, who was crucified for his work on Pre-Clovis, and unable to defend himself due to wounds suffered in World War 2 while defending the country in which we live.

E.P. Grondine wrote:
Here we can agree, RS.

Well, whaddayaknow! See what a simple nap can do: it can even make omniscient moral high ground holders agree with immoral and insane liars.
Or maybe the supply of fine 1992 Chateau Migraine is temporarily out?

But it's probably a trap.

“The racism in this is apparent. No, those people could not have come from Africa, they had to come from Europe. In the meantime, the well documented finds from Brazil are ignored entirely.”

I hope you didn’t mean that personally E.P.

I didn’t say I subscribed to the theory.
Just that it is there.
I am open to many ideas.

But N A is a big place.
There is no reason we couldn’t have Europeans coasting southwards along the Atlantic
And South Americans (or Africans) island hopping the Caribbean and the Gulf coast into northwest FLA.

kbs2244 wrote:There is no reason we couldn’t have Europeans coasting southwards along the Atlantic
And South Americans (or Africans) island hopping the Caribbean and the Gulf coast into northwest FLA.

And the proto-Indians coming across the Bering Strait. And the Hokkaido Japanese coast hopping along the Aleutians. And the Polynesians island hopping the Pacific from the west. And, and, and.

And they're all true.