| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » New evidence -- Clovis people not first to populate North Am
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| nickname |
 Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 1:43 pm, "john...@aol.com" <jgi...@pwi.net> wrote:
Quote: On Feb 25, 5:50 am, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Day Brown wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Day Brown wrote:
But Nova reported the other night that 25% of mtDNA among the Ojibwa
was Soulutrian.
(snip), Oh well, if Nova says it, it must be true - TV is a reliable
source.
Almost as good as Hollywierd!
+ Spizney wannabee +
Quote: We see the Ainu, who remained islolated on Hokkaido for millennia
retaining a unique genetic endowment. If they ever get any DNA from
the Kennebic man, I'd like to know if he had Ainu markers.
All modern (except proven recent admixture) Native Americans and all
ancient skeletons that have been tested so far are A,B,C,D, and X.
What would the Ainu have to do with anything? If you go back far
enough in time we are all related.
Chatters did one of those analyses on the skull of KM, and found
it wasn't much like any modern, but came closest to the Polynesians,
though the Ainu were somewhat closer than other moderns.
REgards
John GW. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Roger Bagula |
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Solutrean knappers, Stanford points out, not only created the same
kinds of weapons and tools as Clovis knappers, they used identical
techniques--pressure flaking, overshot (outre passé) flaking, heat
treating, basal grinding. And Solutrean sites are thousands of years
older than Clovis sites.
http://www.primtech.net/Summer2003/Solutreanartifacts.htm
http://www.arrowheadsonline.com/pages/clovis1.htm
http://www.arrowheadsonline.com/pages/angostura1.htm
_/*In Europe by the time of Clovis other kinds of techniques had been
invented.
Pressure flaking seems to this day to be the best way to work flint and
other very hard rocks. Individual flint knappers in each type seem to
develop their own "style"
much like artists.( even in modern imitators you can sometimes tell who
did the point).*/_
http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.php?a=47
Clovis and Solutrean: Is There a Common Thread?
by James M. Chandler
Clovis-First
In 1933 previously unseen bifacially flaked points bearing distinctive
flutes were unearthed in Colorado; the label "Clovis" was applied when
the same beautiful points were later found at Clovis, N.M. In the
decades following, the Clovis-First theory dominated the Late-Entry
school of archaeology about how the Americas were peopled. Advocates
proposed that the first migrants from Northeast Asia crossed the frozen
Bering Land Bridge, colonizing the Hemisphere in their north-to-south
travel from the Arctic to the tip of South America. The proposed
migration was supported when expertly crafted fluted points and bifaces
suddenly appeared across North America at sites radiocarbon dated
between 10,800 and 11,500 years ago.
Archaeologists like a good argument. Early-Entry proponents (Alan Bryan
and Ruth Gruhn are notable examples) have long maintained that the first
migrants, possibly seafarers, arrived in the New World much earlier than
Clovis times, perhaps 50,000 years ago. Other experts have proposed
still other routes at different times in prehistory.
Clovis-First boosters had to leap many hurdles in their path. Beringia
was a forbidding place during the Ice Age, hostile to humans and
animals. Assuming a band of migrants made the crossing, in order to
reach the temperate regions of North America they would have depended on
an Ice-free Corridor between the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice
sheets--a theoretical avenue that geological research indicates was
closed between 28,000 and 13,000 years ago.
The final hurdle was just too tall to be leaped. In 1997 a group of
experts convened in Chile. After investigating the evidence firsthand,
they agreed that the radiocarbon record of the Monte Verde site was
accurate. Monte Verde, 10,000 km south of Colorado and New Mexico, is
1,000 years older than Clovis. The theory that the New World was
colonized from Beringia southward didn't square with the prediction that
Clovis was ancestral to Monte Verde. These developments have led
specialists to rethink how the Americans were peopled.
The Clovis-First model wedded to the Beringian passage is, according to
CSFA Director Rob Bonnichsen, "not only dead, but ready for burial!" But
the Clovis culture still figures prominently in theories about the
original peopling of the Americas.
Solutrean and Clovis Connection
At the Clovis and Beyond Conference in Santa Fe in 1999, Smithsonian
archaeologist Dennis Stanford and colleague Bruce Bradley, a respected
lithic specialist, rocked the archaeological community with their theory
that the Americas were peopled by migrants from Europe. Stanford, for
decades a faithful disciple of the Clovis-First doctrine, became
persuaded by the extraordinary similarity of the lithic techniques of
the Clovis and Solutrean cultures. (Although Solutrean takes its name
from the village of Solutré in southwest France, Clovis-like stone tools
and weapons are found in an area extending into Spain and Portugal.)
Solutrean knappers, Stanford points out, not only created the same kinds
of weapons and tools as Clovis knappers, they used identical
techniques--pressure flaking, overshot (outre passé) flaking, heat
treating, basal grinding. And Solutrean sites are thousands of years
older than Clovis sites.
The Solutrean migration theory carries with it a new set of questions
begging answers. Chief among them is, How did they get here?
The Clovis-First and Solutrean migration theories by no means exhaust
the hypotheses that archaeologists and anthropologists today propose
about how the Americas were peopled. South American scientists, freed of
the dominant Clovis-First model, are investigating evidence of early
Americans in the Southern Cone with renewed energy. Argentinian scholar
Augusto Cardich is looking with interest at a possible migration by
Australians across the South Atlantic! ("The First Americans: Were They
Australians?" Mammoth Trumpet 16-2.) And researchers of the stature of
Marta Lehr and Walter Neves note that early Native Americans share
certain similarities with South Pacific populations.
These are exciting times to be an archaeologist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
pete wrote:
Quote: In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 28 Feb 2007 08:21:25 -0800,
Clovis has washed up from unknown sources on beaches from out at sea,
so Clovis has been demonstrated offshore, where are the pre-Clovis
artifacts, why don't they wash up also?
I'm rather interested in that. I know you've mentioned before
points being exposed in shoreline sediments, but are you
Here are some coastal Clovis sites to look at.
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=4|13
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=4|18
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=1|19
The Clovis points found in Venezuela are also coastal Caribbean, but
were found on a very narrow peninsula, the article I have doesn't say
if they were on a beach or not.
Quote: suggesting that Clovis points have been found which have
apparently come from sub-sea-level sites? Doesn't this push
their inception date back?
First someone is going to have to prove anyone came down the coastal
route for sure. Then dating underwater sites will be even harder to do
than on land, so who knows? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Professor |
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 23, 6:09 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
Quote: New evidence -- Clovis people not first to populate North America
COLLEGE STATION -- The belief that the Clovis People were the first to populate North America some 11,500 years ago has been widely challenged in recent years, and a Texas A&M University anthropologist has found evidence he says could be the final nail in the coffin for the Clovis first model.
Michael Waters, director of the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M, is the lead author of the paper "Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas," that appears in the Feb. 23 (Friday) issue of Science.
Waters' paper revises the original dates for the Clovis time period, suggesting that humans likely inhabited the Americas before Clovis, who have long been considered to be the first inhabitants of the New World.
"It was always argued that Clovis represented the first people who came to the Americas," Waters says. "The new dating that we did indicates that the Clovis Complex ranges from 11,050 to 10,900 radiocarbon years before the present."
"Slowly but surely, archaeologists have been questioning whether Clovis represents the earliest people to enter the Americas."
To properly understand the age of Clovis, Waters and co-author Thomas Stafford of Stafford Research Laboratories in Colorado, tested samples from various Clovis sites in an effort to re-date some of what Waters says were poorly dated sites.
Because of technological advances, Waters says that he and Stafford were able to more precisely pinpoint the dates for some of the more than 25 dated Clovis sites that were excavated in North America.
"Many of these radiocarbon dates were run back in the 1960s and 1970s when radiocarbon technology wasn't what it is today," says Waters. "Many of the dates obtained from these sites had ranges on them of plus or minus 250 years. We can now get to plus or minus 30 years."
What Waters and Stafford found when they did their testing were radiocarbon dates that showed the Clovis time range wasn't as long as had been previously thought. Their tests placed the Clovis time frame between 11,050 radiocarbon years before present to approximately 10,800 radiocarbon years before present.
"It was a surprise," Waters says of the results. "And I think people are going to be surprised by the dates."
Waters says those dates show that Clovis was no more than 200 to 400 calendar years long, making it almost impossible for the Clovis people to spread as far as previously thought in such a short time span. They would, at most, have had to be prehistoric jet-setters to cover the ground in this amount of time.
"Once you realize that the Clovis Complex dates much younger than previously thought and that Clovis has a much shorter duration than we thought, you have to ask how could people, in such a short period of time, reach the tip of South America." Waters says. "It doesn't make any kind of anthropological sense that these people could have been moving that fast, nor would they have wanted to move that fast. And it seems highly unlikely, given 20 generations, they could have made it that far that quickly."
To re-date the sites, Waters requested samples for dating from different researchers who had excavated Clovis sites. He then sent the radiocarbon samples to Stafford who put them through a process where the bone is dissolved and bone collagen is extracted.
The collagen was put in a molecular sieve where it worked its way down through the sieve. Once this was complete, Stafford was left with purified amino acids from the bone. The highly chemically-pure sample was processed into a target and dated using an atomic accelerator.
The revised ages that Waters and Stafford obtained overlap dates from a number of North American sites that are technologically and culturally not Clovis sites, further bringing into question whether the Clovis People were the first humans in the Americas.
"The long-range implications of our study is that it will get scientists looking for pre-Clovis evidence with a lot more vigor and thinking differently about Clovis," Waters says. "This will force us to develop a new model to explain the peopling of the Americas."
Source: Texas A&M Universityhttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/tau-nec022007.php
--
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
Greeting's Im new to this group and as well this topic
I would like to thank Robert for sharing the wonderful
perspectives of > Michael Waters, director of the
Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M
It is a great arguement or therory if you will
Allow referral as such. I am in the total belief of clovis
not being the first. however as Dr.waters argument
of in which as to why the pacific coast was travled as fast
cannot concede to racing in front of the pacific north and southern
were into the last of the iceage. in what could have created the
land bridge from russian to Alaskan coast to bring the clovis
tools here and so agree with a lot of Dr. Waters but cannot oblidge
the concept being laid to the speed of clovis movements south
But to help furthur aide his ideas I can reflect that as today
we have found on the Atlantic coast that a land bridge from europe
the first Ice age columbus'es as early as 7000 yrs.
earlier than the land bridge across to Alaska... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Daryl Krupa |
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:51 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 1118
|
On Feb 28, 9:21 am, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Quote: But the Continental Shelf is not
the same distance from land
now
everywhere on the Iberian Peninsula,
so the sea in some areas was
just as close (or within reason) then as it is now.
snip
Lee, please give us your definition of "continental shelf".
The standard definition has the continental shelf
immediately adjacent to land, but you would have it
at some distance from land, so
I don't know what you're talking about.
Perhaps you have confused "continental shelf"
(the part of the sea floor immediately
adjacent to the seashore that has been either
exposed land or shallow water at some time in the past)
with "continental slope"
(the other margin of the continental shelf, where
water depth increases rapidly, and slope angles are
much steeper than on the continental shelf above
or the abyssal plains below).
Please tell us what you were talking about,
and what it was that the sea was just as close to.
-
Daryl Krupa |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| rmacfarl |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 1, 7:11 pm, "Daryl Krupa" <icycal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Feb 27, 9:28?pm, vinc...@triumfunspam.ca (pete) wrote:
snip>> Anyway, I select this excerpt from a post quoting:
"Constructing the Solutrean Solution
Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley
Smithsonian Institution
University of Exeter
" [...] a connecting ice bridge
eliminated the necessity of a 4,000-mile blue voyage
between Lisbon and New York City.
The southern margin of this ice bridge was a relative rich environment
inhabited by migrating sea mammals, birds, and fish attracting Solutrean
people. [...]"
snip
There are at least three big problems with this "ice bridge" idea:
1) The ice is frozen saltwater, so is not a source of drinking water;
I didn't reckon this was right, so I checked:
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Re-St/Sea-Water-Freezing-of.html
"
As sea water freezes, salt is excluded, because salt has a different
crystalline structure: it forms cubic crystals (with four sides)
whereas ice is hexagonal, or six-sided. (A close look at tiny
snowflakes will reveal their hexagonal form.) So pockets of brine form
within the ice; they refuse to freeze, because of the high salinity.
The brine then slowly leaches out of the bottom of the forming ice and
drips into the ocean below. Thus sea ice, when melted, is considerably
fresher than the original sea water from which it formed...
"
Quote: 2) The ice does not contain a source of raw material for tools and
shelter;
3) Heat is hard to come by at the ice edge.
-
Daryl Krupa |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| rmacfarl |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 1, 7:11Â pm, "Daryl Krupa" <icycal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Feb 27, 9:28?pm, vinc...@triumfunspam.ca (pete) wrote:
snip>> Anyway, I select this excerpt from a post quoting:
"Constructing the Solutrean Solution
Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley
Smithsonian Institution
University of Exeter
" [...] a connecting ice bridge
eliminated the necessity of a 4,000-mile blue voyage
between Lisbon and New York City.
The southern margin of this ice bridge was a relative rich environment
inhabited by migrating sea mammals, birds, and fish attracting Solutrean
people. [...]"
snip
 There are at least three big problems with this "ice bridge" idea:
1) The ice is frozen saltwater, so is not a source of drinking water;
I didn't reckon this was right, so I checked:
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Re-St/Sea-Water-Freezing-of.html
"
As sea water freezes, salt is excluded, because salt has a different
crystalline structure: it forms cubic crystals (with four sides)
whereas ice is hexagonal, or six-sided. (A close look at tiny
snowflakes will reveal their hexagonal form.) So pockets of brine
form
within the ice; they refuse to freeze, because of the high salinity.
The brine then slowly leaches out of the bottom of the forming ice
and
drips into the ocean below. Thus sea ice, when melted, is
considerably
fresher than the original sea water from which it formed... For
instance, when frozen at an air temperature of −40°C (−40°F), the
salinity of the ice is about 10 percent. But when frozen at an air
temperature of −6°C (21°F), the salinity of the ice is only about 4
percent. Such ice is fresh enough to use as drinking water; in fact,
in spring, polar bears often drink the water in melting ponds on ice.
When sea ice melts in the summer, the meltwater forms a relatively
fresh surface layer that lies above the saltier ocean water,
maintaining the halocline, and allowing easier freezing the next
winter
..
"
Ross Macfarlane
Quote: 2) The ice does not contain a source of raw material for tools and
shelter;
3) Heat is hard to come by at the ice edge.
-
Daryl Krupa |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| pete |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
on 1 Mar 2007 08:30:26 -0800, Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez:
Quote: OK Pete, what do these points look like to you, all the same, all
different, some the same or what?
I don't claim to be any sort of expert in points - the other pete
has a much better grasp of this. But, seeing as you've asked:
Quote: http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q26/LeeAO/Smalltriangularlike.jpg
None of these look like either the classic Clovis or Solutrean
that I'm aware of. Nor do they appear to be all of the same
type - the thin leaflike point on the left, and the larger
one on the far right, look most reminiscent of Clovis, and
I might entertain the likelihood that they are somehow
related to it in some way, though that's with some hesitation,
as with only one view offered for the RH one, I can't judge
its thickness.
The top picture really clearly shows both the similarities and
differences between S & C. The overshot flaking is clearly visible
on both, and while the choice of material is probably in large
part due to coincidence of availability, it really makes the
similarity more striking. The top 2/5ths of the S point could
be changed into a twin of the Clovis with very little effort.
Quote: Stanford and Bardley's key similarity (but not only) between Clovis
and the Solutrean is the overshot technique. See anything that would
make this an overshot point?
The middle row of line drawings show no overshot flaking, and the
thick bodies make them appear completely different. Now, I have
no idea what auxiliary tools beyond the diagnostic archetype points
were associated with each tradition, so it may be that some of
these items appear in the kits of either or both, but except for
the second from right, I wouldn't place any of these close to
either diagnostic point on a technology development family tree.
As to the bottom set of photos, the shadows seem to suggest thick
bodies. None show overshot flaking, but if it is thin enough, the
largest one looks like it could be fit into a lineage with Clovis if
enough intermediate styles were found to link them.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Professor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 1, 12:48 pm, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: pete wrote:
In sci.anthropology.paleo, on 28 Feb 2007 08:21:25 -0800,
Clovis has washed up from unknown sources on beaches from out at sea,
so Clovis has been demonstrated offshore, where are the pre-Clovis
artifacts, why don't they wash up also?
I'm rather interested in that. I know you've mentioned before
points being exposed in shoreline sediments, but are you
Here are some coastal Clovis sites to look at.
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=4|13
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=4|18
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?n=1|19
The Clovis points found in Venezuela are also coastal Caribbean, but
were found on a very narrow peninsula, the article I have doesn't say
if they were on a beach or not.
suggesting that Clovis points have been found which have
apparently come from sub-sea-level sites? Doesn't this push
their inception date back?
First someone is going to have to prove anyone came down the coastal
route for sure. Then dating underwater sites will be even harder to do
than on land, so who knows?
Hello Lee and thanks for your imput I do pray for your understanding
my questions and as for my truly not understanding of your input of
the replies you have made here.
But can you posibly pass on more a educated response to the
the former replies...
Please and Thank You in advance... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| johnwl4@aol.com |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 1, 9:42 pm, "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
Such ice is fresh enough to use as drinking water; in fact,
Quote: in spring, polar bears often drink the water in melting ponds on ice.
When sea ice melts in the summer, the meltwater forms a relatively
fresh surface layer that lies above the saltier ocean water,
maintaining the halocline, and allowing easier freezing the next
winter
.
"
Ross Macfarlane
Believe whalers used to use it.
Regards
John GW |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| johnwl4@aol.com |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 2, 1:16 pm, "john...@aol.com" <jgi...@pwi.net> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 1, 9:42 pm, "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
Such ice is fresh enough to use as drinking water; in fact,> in spring, polar bears often drink the water in melting ponds on ice.
When sea ice melts in the summer, the meltwater forms a relatively
fresh surface layer that lies above the saltier ocean water,
maintaining the halocline, and allowing easier freezing the next
winter
.
"
Ross Macfarlane
Believe whalers used to use it.
Regards
John GW
Oops - make that sealers, though I imagine whalers in the Atlantic
did some, and perhaps the Franklin and Amundson expeditions.
REgards
John GW |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
pete wrote:
Quote: I might entertain the likelihood that they are somehow
related to it in some way, though that's with some hesitation,
Close enough, that was the correct answer.
I need to get some opinions over on MAAT, so it may be a while before
I can get back over here with a key as to where they are all from. I
also need to do some more scanning, I didn't get all the points I
wanted into that frame. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| nickname |
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mac, couple of errors and a qualifier to your ref.
10% should be 10 parts per thousand
4% should be 4 parts per thousand
Saltwater is about 3.5% salt
[These corrections are at bottom of the ref. page]
and you didn't include this blurb:
"Ice floes and other forms of sea ice are less salty than the sea
water from which they formed, owing to a process known as brine
rejection. Yet sea ice still is too salty to be melted for human
consumption. Only icebergs, which are derived from glaciers, are
composed of fresh-water ice".
[Which is why I think it's possible though unlikely that Tasmanians
could have drifted to Chile/Peru]
Sea ice may or may not be too salty to consume, depending on
temperature that the ice formed. Keep in mind that people sweat and
pee losing salts which need to be replenished.
DD
On Mar 1, 9:42 pm, "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 1, 7:11 pm, "Daryl Krupa" <icycal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:28?pm, vinc...@triumfunspam.ca (pete) wrote:
snip>> Anyway, I select this excerpt from a post quoting:
"Constructing the Solutrean Solution
Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley
Smithsonian Institution
University of Exeter
" [...] a connecting ice bridge
eliminated the necessity of a 4,000-mile blue voyage
between Lisbon and New York City.
The southern margin of this ice bridge was a relative rich environment
inhabited by migrating sea mammals, birds, and fish attracting Solutrean
people. [...]"
snip
There are at least three big problems with this "ice bridge" idea:
1) The ice is frozen saltwater, so is not a source of drinking water;
I didn't reckon this was right, so I checked:http://www.waterencyclopedia..com/Re-St/Sea-Water-Freezing-of.html
"
As sea water freezes, salt is excluded, because salt has a different
crystalline structure: it forms cubic crystals (with four sides)
whereas ice is hexagonal, or six-sided. (A close look at tiny
snowflakes will reveal their hexagonal form.) So pockets of brine
form
within the ice; they refuse to freeze, because of the high salinity.
The brine then slowly leaches out of the bottom of the forming ice
and
drips into the ocean below. Thus sea ice, when melted, is
considerably
fresher than the original sea water from which it formed... For
instance, when frozen at an air temperature of −40°C (−40°F), the
salinity of the ice is about 10 percent. But when frozen at an air
temperature of −6°C (21°F), the salinity of the ice is only about 4
percent. Such ice is fresh enough to use as drinking water; in fact,
in spring, polar bears often drink the water in melting ponds on ice.
When sea ice melts in the summer, the meltwater forms a relatively
fresh surface layer that lies above the saltier ocean water,
maintaining the halocline, and allowing easier freezing the next
winter
.
"
Ross Macfarlane
2) The ice does not contain a source of raw material for tools and
shelter;
3) Heat is hard to come by at the ice edge.
-
Daryl Krupa |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pete,
What I'm doing is running artifacts together from several different
sites. Stanford and Bradley are claiming that artifact similarities
are enough to link the Solutrean to Cactus Hill and Meadowcroft.
However, there is another not so well known hypothesis by Georges
Pearson that claims Clovis can be traced to similar artifacts found in
Alaska.
The idea of the test is to see who may have the closer fit. Neither
side has enough artifacts to statistically claim anything positive.
Personal opinion is about all they have, sort of a Rorschach Test in a
way.
Which two artifacts do you think would be the closest match? The photo
is a little fuzzy, but good enough for this test.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q26/LeeAO/BTBF1.jpg
If you are interested in reading Pearson's paper I can email it to you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| pete |
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
on 5 Mar 2007 20:15:30 -0800, Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez:
Quote: Pete,
What I'm doing is running artifacts together from several different
sites. Stanford and Bradley are claiming that artifact similarities
are enough to link the Solutrean to Cactus Hill and Meadowcroft.
However, there is another not so well known hypothesis by Georges
Pearson that claims Clovis can be traced to similar artifacts found in
Alaska.
The idea of the test is to see who may have the closer fit. Neither
side has enough artifacts to statistically claim anything positive.
Personal opinion is about all they have, sort of a Rorschach Test in a
way.
Which two artifacts do you think would be the closest match? The photo
is a little fuzzy, but good enough for this test.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q26/LeeAO/BTBF1.jpg
You mean which two of the three would I most suspect were linked
closely in a technology development tree? Without any other
examples to look at, and without any sense of the 3D shape
of the objects (fairly substantial caveats), I would tend
to group the centre and right objects together. The one on
the left looks unfinished, really.
Quote: If you are interested in reading Pearson's paper I can email it to you.
If it's not too arcane, as I'm pretty much a layman at this,
I would be rather interested. However, I am finding myself
rather unexpectedly busy lately; for some reason they seem to
be inclined to saddle me with extended responsibilities here
lately, which is why I wasn't writing this reply yesterday,
so it may be a while before I make my way through it, if
it's large and dense.
I am still always curious about damn near everything, and
there is never enough time to absorb it all.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:45 pm
|
|