30,000 year old Brazilian artifacts

[hardaker]

30,000 year old Brazilian artifacts throw wrench in theory humans first arrived in Americas 12,000 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/09/3 ... years-ago/
Niede Guidon is heroic! She practices real science: evidence first, then theory.
Heard rumors that the Santa Fe conference, Paleoamerican Odyssey, will not be discussing any sites beyond 25k; presumably, this will include Monte Verde 2's 33k dates.
Thank You Murphy!
Chris

[Tiompan]

30,000 year old Brazilian artifacts throw wrench in theory humans first arrived in Americas 12,000 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/09/3 ... years-ago/
Niede Guidon is heroic! She practices real science: evidence first, then theory.

Chris

What is the evidence to support the dates ?

George

[shawomet]

Guess we need to look at her publications, no evidence as such described in the article. How were the paintings dated? Also, mentions ceramics as included among the artifacts. 30,000 year old ceramics??!!

[Cognito]

From the Athena Review: http://www.athenapub.com/10pfurad.htm

"Pedra Furada in northeastern Brazil represents possibly the oldest known human site in the Americas. Since C-14 dates of 48-32,000 BP were reported in a Nature article (Guidon and Delibrias 1986), the site’s Paleoindian components have been highly controversial, challenged (though not refuted) by many North American researchers (e.g. Meltzer, Adovasio, and Dillehay 1994)."

Early entry into the area across the Atlantic would be relatively simple since the ocean currents transport anything floating from the west coast of Africa to northern Brazil. Dating is always a problem, but technologies are improving and Pedra Furada will probably be found to be an early entry point for migration into the Americas.

I just love the explanation that percussion flakes with ripples can be formed by falling rocks. Does anyone realize how rare that would be? Talk to any flint knapper who will tell you, "Nature don't do that, dude!"

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi all -

This is a good place to post this:

http://paleoamericanodyssey.com/

Enjoy

[Minimalist]

"Nature don't do that, dude!"

Certainly not more than once. I remember Charlie Hatchett telling me one time that he looked for a minimum of six flakes off a stone just to dismiss the "geofact" claim.

I miss Charlie.

[kbs2244]

I think it is interesting that the major nay sayers are North American.
(A polite way of saying U S)

Maybe there is a favoritism toward the Bering walking theory, or the westward North Atlantic receding glacier boat theory, because it makes “us first?”

I would dismiss the plea for tourism as a needed sop to the various agencies that need some excuse for their money spent on the site.
The old “What are going to get for this?” question never goes away.

It is why we get these headline grabbing news releases from various locations, even when there is nothing exciting to report.

[Minimalist]

Agreed. I think the proponents of Clovis-First have been Americans.

[Cognito]

Agreed. I think the proponents of Clovis-First have been Americans.

Such as Stuart Fiedel and even Jared Diamond. They still maintain that there are no
sites pre-dating Clovis. Somewhat like Michael Mann defending his hockey stick.

Reminds me of the song by Kenny Rogers ...

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run."

Time to give it up, guys ... Clovis is dead ... Get a clue!
Apparently, neither Stuart nor Jared listen to Kenny.

Michael's a special case.

[shawomet]

Agreed. I think the proponents of Clovis-First have been Americans.

There really does seem to be a disconnect between NA and SA archaeologists, both groups working on early sites. And more early dates in SA then in NA. Yet, Dillehay is American and Monte Verde one of the first pre-Clovis sites finally accepted.
But not yet the 30,000+ dates from Monte Verde.

[Cognito]

There really does seem to be a disconnect between NA and SA archaeologists...

Chris might be able to weigh in on this, but I have never communicated with a SA archaeologist who possessed the Clovis First bias so evident with some NA archaeologists.

[hardaker]

"but I have never communicated with a SA archaeologist who possessed the Clovis First bias so evident with some NA archaeologists."
my guess is, if they bucked the Clovis First idea, most of their research dollars from prestigious foundations/sources would dry up.
[Dillehay is on record saying he wished his 33k dates would go away. When he first did his work down there, wasn't he working at a Chilean university?]

[shawomet]

But that bias has seriously eroded by now, and maybe the Paleoamerican Odyssey will further that trend. And maybe there is another bias involved. Maybe American, meaning US, archaeologists, just feel they speak for the hemisphere and always have. Maybe, in hindsight, NA archaeologists have just been talking to themselves. Doesn't the Pacific kelp highway route remove the insistence on migration only when an ice free corridor existed? Don't early sites in western SA, in hindsight, make more sense, not less? And Africa to Brazil should not be a great shock either. Old ideas and paradigms finally lose their grip once and for all when it's last dominant proponents pass away. I don't know when we'll stop learning on this subject, but I believe we're on an irreversible path at this point. And probably more open ended then most realize. Should be fun. We know it will be contentious, LOL, but we can look forward to the surprises, IMHO.

[Cognito]

Dillehay is on record saying he wished his 33k dates would go away. When he first did his work down there, wasn't he working at a Chilean university?

Actually, I think he was a Kansas at the time. Here is his response to Stuart Fiedel's criticism of Monte Verde back in 1999: http://www.uky.edu/Projects/MonteVerde/

Of course, Haynes and Fiedel couldn't bring themselves to admitting that Clovis First was a dead paradigm. The requiem occurred when the Soviet Union opened up and no Clovis points were to be found in Siberia. Game over.

Shawomet ... it may not be an accident that the oldest sites are found in SA, and that cities began there. Further, the oldest mine in the Americas is found north of Monte Verde: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-06/1 ... le/2363962