Lawrence Guy Straus, David J. Meltzer and Ted Goebel
http://www.smu.edu/anthro/faculty/dmeltzer/pdf%20files/World_Archaeology_2005_Ice_Age_Atlantis.pdf

...

David Christainsen

Tom McDonald wrote: on, 03/05/2008 16:55:
Peter Alaca wrote:
Doug Weller wrote: on, 03/05/2008 15:47:
On Sat, 03 May 2008 15:29:49 +0200, in sci.archaeology, Peter Alaca
wrote:

David wrote: on, 03/05/2008 15:09:
b) what was the mode of human travel to the southern end of South
America?
Mopeds?
Inline skates would be more likely.
Only for the northern leg.
I thought the Monopeds only had one leg?

Which brings us to the correct answer: hopping.

...
What was your question?

On May 3, 2:17 pm, "Johansson Inger E" <1732johans...@telia.com
wrote:
David:
a) grow up.

Why the ad hominen attack?

b) learn to analyse texts by scholars if you can't learn how to do proper
studies yourself.

You are forgetting that on sci.arch we are entitled to ask questions.

particularly
when Solutrean boat engineering was known to be non-existent.

On May 4, 2:33 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:



On May 4, 11:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 2:07 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 10:31 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 12:42 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 7:33 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 10:13 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 3, 7:43 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev... at (no spam) sum.co.nz> wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2008 06:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Lee Olsen

paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

--- snip ----

particularly
when Solutrean boat engineering was known to be non-existent.

I remember reading somewhere of evidence for hunting of moose/reindeer
in lakes and swamps with the hypothesis that the hunters used boats
made from inflated deer skin.
What I am not certain of is whether or
not this could have applied to solutreans.

Eric Stevens

I just rechecked a dept chart for the Gibraltar area. At LGM several
small islands
would have been visible in the straits. This would have required
anyone wishing to cross
into Africa only a couple of open water distances of ca. 3 km and one
of ca. 1 km.

Even with the simplest of bullboats, for example, it seems like a
paltry feat for someone
with the tech to cross the Atlantic to have gotten to Africa first.

OTOH, the California channel islands, twice the distance of the
Gibraltar Strait, were
reached by the Arlington Springs people soon after arrival into the
Americas.

The only logical explanation I can see for this dilemma is the
Solutreans had no interest
in boats and the Arlington Springs people did.

Well, the Arlington people had come from Beringa and went as far as
Monte Verde, if the DNA is a proper clue. They knew their boats.

Assuming all dates are taken face value, then it would appear these
intrepid
boaters were going the wrong way, since Monte Verde is older than
Groundhog
Bay and On-Your-Knees Cave.

Then you don't remember that about 100 miles of the Alaska-British
Columbia shoreline is now underwater?

Then you don't remember the SA shoreline was also underwater and many
dates
on the shoreline (where it is now) are older than those up north
where the shoreline
is now? Do you believe in special pleadings?

I don't understand the question and I doubt you do.

You probably also forgot that the influence of marine adapted peoples
can reach as
much as a couple hundered miles inland, and they also utilise higher
elevations in coastal areas
that were not covered by the rising sea levels.
You probably also forgot that a Canadian Coastguard research vessel
has been dredging
offshore in your "British Columbia shoreline is now underwater?" and
so far haven't found
anything dated to older than Groundhog Bay.
IOW, the buried by rising sealevel argument is as stinky as a brown
turd.

The question is

Why are you ignorant of the literature when there is such good
information available
at local libraries?

You would know best.

Ever try blind archaeology? Reach down 300 feet and don't look. I
measure the area under examination as about 150,000 square miles. I
would be surprised if they found anything.

On May 4, 2:55 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:





On May 4, 2:33 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 11:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 2:07 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 10:31 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 12:42 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 7:33 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 10:13 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 3, 7:43 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev... at (no spam) sum.co.nz> wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2008 06:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Lee Olsen

paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

  --- snip ----

particularly
when Solutrean boat engineering was known to be  non-existent.

I remember reading somewhere of evidence for hunting of moose/reindeer
in lakes and swamps with the hypothesis that the hunters used boats
made from inflated deer skin.
What I am not certain of is whether or
not this could have applied to solutreans.

Eric Stevens

I just rechecked a dept chart for the Gibraltar area. At LGM several
small islands
would have been visible in the straits. This would have required
anyone wishing to cross
into Africa only a couple of open water distances of ca. 3 km and one
of ca. 1 km.

Even with the simplest of bullboats, for example, it seems like a
paltry feat for someone
with the tech to cross the Atlantic to have gotten to Africa first.

OTOH, the California channel islands, twice the distance of the
Gibraltar Strait, were
 reached by the Arlington Springs people soon after arrival into the
Americas.

The only logical explanation I can see for this dilemma is the
Solutreans had no interest
 in boats and the Arlington Springs people did.

Well, the Arlington people had come from Beringa and went as far as
Monte Verde, if the DNA is a proper clue. They knew their boats.

Assuming all dates are taken face value, then it would appear these
intrepid
boaters were going the wrong way, since Monte Verde is older than
Groundhog
Bay and  On-Your-Knees Cave.

Then you don't remember that about 100 miles of the Alaska-British
Columbia shoreline is now underwater?

Then you don't remember the SA shoreline was also underwater and many
dates
 on the shoreline (where it is now) are older than those up north
where the shoreline
is now? Do you believe in special pleadings?

I don't understand the question and I doubt you do.

You probably also forgot that the influence of marine adapted peoples
can reach as
much as a couple hundered miles inland, and they also utilise higher
elevations in coastal areas
 that were not covered by the rising sea levels.
You probably also forgot that a Canadian Coastguard research vessel
has been dredging
offshore in your "British Columbia shoreline is now underwater?" and
so far haven't found
anything dated to older than Groundhog Bay.
IOW, the buried by rising sealevel argument is as stinky as a brown
turd.

The question is

Why are you ignorant of the literature when there is such good
information available
 at local libraries?

You would know best.

Ever try blind archaeology? Reach down 300 feet and don't look. I
measure the area under examination as about 150,000 square miles. I
would be surprised if they found anything.

You being the expert on shit in archaeology I guess you assume the
Paisley poop was put there by a group or individual coming up from
Monte Verde from Antarctica or someplace 14,300 years ago.

My
experience teaches me that such would dissolve in the smallest amount
of water and 300 feet should be enough in any case.

On May 4, 1:24 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:



On May 4, 2:55 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 2:33 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 11:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 2:07 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 10:31 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 12:42 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 7:33 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 10:13 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 3, 7:43 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev... at (no spam) sum.co.nz> wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2008 06:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Lee Olsen

paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

--- snip ----

particularly
when Solutrean boat engineering was known to be non-existent.

I remember reading somewhere of evidence for hunting of moose/reindeer
in lakes and swamps with the hypothesis that the hunters used boats
made from inflated deer skin.
What I am not certain of is whether or
not this could have applied to solutreans.

Eric Stevens

I just rechecked a dept chart for the Gibraltar area. At LGM several
small islands
would have been visible in the straits. This would have required
anyone wishing to cross
into Africa only a couple of open water distances of ca. 3 km and one
of ca. 1 km.

Even with the simplest of bullboats, for example, it seems like a
paltry feat for someone
with the tech to cross the Atlantic to have gotten to Africa first.

OTOH, the California channel islands, twice the distance of the
Gibraltar Strait, were
reached by the Arlington Springs people soon after arrival into the
Americas.

The only logical explanation I can see for this dilemma is the
Solutreans had no interest
in boats and the Arlington Springs people did.

Well, the Arlington people had come from Beringa and went as far as
Monte Verde, if the DNA is a proper clue. They knew their boats.

Assuming all dates are taken face value, then it would appear these
intrepid
boaters were going the wrong way, since Monte Verde is older than
Groundhog
Bay and On-Your-Knees Cave.

Then you don't remember that about 100 miles of the Alaska-British
Columbia shoreline is now underwater?

Then you don't remember the SA shoreline was also underwater and many
dates
on the shoreline (where it is now) are older than those up north
where the shoreline
is now? Do you believe in special pleadings?

I don't understand the question and I doubt you do.

You probably also forgot that the influence of marine adapted peoples
can reach as
much as a couple hundered miles inland, and they also utilise higher
elevations in coastal areas
that were not covered by the rising sea levels.
You probably also forgot that a Canadian Coastguard research vessel
has been dredging
offshore in your "British Columbia shoreline is now underwater?" and
so far haven't found
anything dated to older than Groundhog Bay.
IOW, the buried by rising sealevel argument is as stinky as a brown
turd.

The question is

Why are you ignorant of the literature when there is such good
information available
at local libraries?

You would know best.

Ever try blind archaeology? Reach down 300 feet and don't look. I
measure the area under examination as about 150,000 square miles. I
would be surprised if they found anything.

You being the expert on shit in archaeology I guess you assume the
Paisley poop was put there by a group or individual coming up from
Monte Verde from Antarctica or someplace 14,300 years ago.

They sure didn't get to Paisley by boat. Try wiping your ass with
paper instead
of your hands, then maybe you would stop stinking up the forum with
your posts.

My
experience teaches me that such would dissolve in the smallest amount
of water and 300 feet should be enough in any case.

You are off a little with your connection between the dates and the
minus 300 foot
water level. The 300 feet would be at LGM, not during the period of
the dates
at OYKC or Monte Verde.

I haven't seen a *good* chart for Alaska, but I would suspect at 14
or 13 kya the levels
would have been nowhere near your claimed "about 100 miles of the
Alaska-British
Columbia shoreline."

At LGM Washington had about an extra c 30 miles, by Clovis times only
about a third of that would
have been left.

BTW, glad you brought up Paisley. If you have the paper, take a good
look at the stratigraphy.
Several places they have c 6 inches of sedements representing a little
over 1000 years in two places
(zero to 1 and between 7 and 6). Then from his number 6 down to 3
(over half a meter of depth) that is actually
an inverted date, or to round things off, over half meter represents
no time at all. I hope his final site
report has a good explanation for this discrepancy, or he will be
needing a roll of toilet paper just like you.

On May 4, 5:21 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:





On May 4, 1:24 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 2:55 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 2:33 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 11:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 2:07 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 10:31 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 12:42 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 7:33 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink..net> wrote:

On May 4, 10:13 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 3, 7:43 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev... at (no spam) sum.co.nz> wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2008 06:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Lee Olsen

paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

  --- snip ----

particularly
when Solutrean boat engineering was known to be  non-existent.

I remember reading somewhere of evidence for hunting of moose/reindeer
in lakes and swamps with the hypothesis that the hunters used boats
made from inflated deer skin.
What I am not certain of is whether or
not this could have applied to solutreans.

Eric Stevens

I just rechecked a dept chart for the Gibraltar area. At LGM several
small islands
would have been visible in the straits. This would have required
anyone wishing to cross
into Africa only a couple of open water distances of ca. 3 km and one
of ca. 1 km.

Even with the simplest of bullboats, for example, it seems like a
paltry feat for someone
with the tech to cross the Atlantic to have gotten to Africa first.

OTOH, the California channel islands, twice the distance of the
Gibraltar Strait, were
 reached by the Arlington Springs people soon after arrival into the
Americas.

The only logical explanation I can see for this dilemma is the
Solutreans had no interest
 in boats and the Arlington Springs people did.

Well, the Arlington people had come from Beringa and went as far as
Monte Verde, if the DNA is a proper clue. They knew their boats.

Assuming all dates are taken face value, then it would appear these
intrepid
boaters were going the wrong way, since Monte Verde is older than
Groundhog
Bay and  On-Your-Knees Cave.

Then you don't remember that about 100 miles of the Alaska-British
Columbia shoreline is now underwater?

Then you don't remember the SA shoreline was also underwater and many
dates
 on the shoreline (where it is now) are older than those up north
where the shoreline
is now? Do you believe in special pleadings?

I don't understand the question and I doubt you do.

You probably also forgot that the influence of marine adapted peoples
can reach as
much as a couple hundered miles inland, and they also utilise higher
elevations in coastal areas
 that were not covered by the rising sea levels.
You probably also forgot that a Canadian Coastguard research vessel
has been dredging
offshore in your "British Columbia shoreline is now underwater?" and
so far haven't found
anything dated to older than Groundhog Bay.
IOW, the buried by rising sealevel argument is as stinky as a brown
turd.

The question is

Why are you ignorant of the literature when there is such good
information available
 at local libraries?

You would know best.

Ever try blind archaeology? Reach down 300 feet and don't look. I
measure the area under examination as about 150,000 square miles. I
would be surprised if they found anything.

You being the expert on shit in archaeology I guess you assume the
Paisley poop was put there by a group or individual coming up from
Monte Verde from Antarctica or someplace 14,300 years ago.

They sure didn't get to Paisley by boat. Try wiping your ass with
paper instead
of your hands, then maybe you would stop stinking up the forum with
your posts.

My
experience teaches me that such would dissolve in the smallest amount
of water and 300 feet should be enough in any case.

You are off a little with your connection between the dates and the
minus 300 foot
 water level. The 300 feet would be at LGM, not during the period of
the dates
at OYKC or Monte Verde.

I haven't seen a *good* chart for  Alaska, but I would suspect at 14
or 13 kya the levels
would have been nowhere near your claimed "about 100 miles of the
Alaska-British
Columbia shoreline."

At LGM Washington had about an extra c 30 miles, by Clovis times only
about a third of that would
have been left.

BTW, glad you brought up Paisley. If you have the paper, take a good
look at the stratigraphy.
Several places they have c 6 inches of sedements representing a little
over 1000 years in two places
(zero to 1 and between 7 and 6). Then from his number 6 down to 3
(over  half a meter of depth) that is actually
an inverted date, or to round things off, over  half meter represents
no time at all. I hope his final site
report has a good explanation for this discrepancy, or he will be
needing a roll of toilet paper just like you.

Wanna bet?

The caves are on the edge of a giant lake, since dried up,


The Paisley Caves are located in the Summer Lake Basin north of
Paisley in south-central Oregon. The site is composed of 8 caves and
rockshelters in a west facing ridge of scoriacious basalt.

Cut by waves at the height of the Pleistocene, these caves lie at an
elevation of 4520 ft. above two prominent beach lines cut into the
talus slope. As lake levels fell at the end of the Pleistocene the
current Summer Lake Basin was hydrographically separated from the
Chewaucan Basin sometime between 17,000 and 18,000 cal. BP. Water
levels in both basins continued to fall until about 14,500 cal. BP
when a resurgence in the Chewaucan Basin caused lake levels to rise
above the 4388 ft. sill separating the two basins. The Chewaucan River
then breached the gravel fan separating the two basins and began
flowing north into the Summer Lake Basin. Over the next 2000 years
high lake stands established prominent shorelines at elevations of
roughly 4330, 4360, and 4380 ft. During much of this period water
stood within one mile of the Paisley Caves, making occupation of the
caves substantially more attractive than it has been since.

http://www.uoregon.edu/~ftrock/paisley_caves_description.php- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 4, 2:33 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:



On May 4, 5:21 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 1:24 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 2:55 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 2:33 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 11:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 2:07 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 10:31 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 12:42 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 7:33 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 10:13 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 3, 7:43 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev... at (no spam) sum.co.nz> wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2008 06:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Lee Olsen

paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

--- snip ----

particularly
when Solutrean boat engineering was known to be non-existent.

I remember reading somewhere of evidence for hunting of moose/reindeer
in lakes and swamps with the hypothesis that the hunters used boats
made from inflated deer skin.
What I am not certain of is whether or
not this could have applied to solutreans.

Eric Stevens

I just rechecked a dept chart for the Gibraltar area. At LGM several
small islands
would have been visible in the straits. This would have required
anyone wishing to cross
into Africa only a couple of open water distances of ca. 3 km and one
of ca. 1 km.

Even with the simplest of bullboats, for example, it seems like a
paltry feat for someone
with the tech to cross the Atlantic to have gotten to Africa first.

OTOH, the California channel islands, twice the distance of the
Gibraltar Strait, were
reached by the Arlington Springs people soon after arrival into the
Americas.

The only logical explanation I can see for this dilemma is the
Solutreans had no interest
in boats and the Arlington Springs people did.

Well, the Arlington people had come from Beringa and went as far as
Monte Verde, if the DNA is a proper clue. They knew their boats.

Assuming all dates are taken face value, then it would appear these
intrepid
boaters were going the wrong way, since Monte Verde is older than
Groundhog
Bay and On-Your-Knees Cave.

Then you don't remember that about 100 miles of the Alaska-British
Columbia shoreline is now underwater?

Then you don't remember the SA shoreline was also underwater and many
dates
on the shoreline (where it is now) are older than those up north
where the shoreline
is now? Do you believe in special pleadings?

I don't understand the question and I doubt you do.

You probably also forgot that the influence of marine adapted peoples
can reach as
much as a couple hundered miles inland, and they also utilise higher
elevations in coastal areas
that were not covered by the rising sea levels.
You probably also forgot that a Canadian Coastguard research vessel
has been dredging
offshore in your "British Columbia shoreline is now underwater?" and
so far haven't found
anything dated to older than Groundhog Bay.
IOW, the buried by rising sealevel argument is as stinky as a brown
turd.

The question is

Why are you ignorant of the literature when there is such good
information available
at local libraries?

You would know best.

Ever try blind archaeology? Reach down 300 feet and don't look. I
measure the area under examination as about 150,000 square miles. I
would be surprised if they found anything.

You being the expert on shit in archaeology I guess you assume the
Paisley poop was put there by a group or individual coming up from
Monte Verde from Antarctica or someplace 14,300 years ago.

They sure didn't get to Paisley by boat. Try wiping your ass with
paper instead
of your hands, then maybe you would stop stinking up the forum with
your posts.

My
experience teaches me that such would dissolve in the smallest amount
of water and 300 feet should be enough in any case.

You are off a little with your connection between the dates and the
minus 300 foot
water level. The 300 feet would be at LGM, not during the period of
the dates
at OYKC or Monte Verde.

I haven't seen a *good* chart for Alaska, but I would suspect at 14
or 13 kya the levels
would have been nowhere near your claimed "about 100 miles of the
Alaska-British
Columbia shoreline."

At LGM Washington had about an extra c 30 miles, by Clovis times only
about a third of that would
have been left.

BTW, glad you brought up Paisley. If you have the paper, take a good
look at the stratigraphy.
Several places they have c 6 inches of sedements representing a little
over 1000 years in two places
(zero to 1 and between 7 and 6). Then from his number 6 down to 3
(over half a meter of depth) that is actually
an inverted date, or to round things off, over half meter represents
no time at all. I hope his final site
report has a good explanation for this discrepancy, or he will be
needing a roll of toilet paper just like you.

Wanna bet?

How much?



The caves are on the edge of a giant lake, since dried up,

The Paisley Caves are located in the Summer Lake Basin north of
Paisley in south-central Oregon. The site is composed of 8 caves and
rockshelters in a west facing ridge of scoriacious basalt.

Cut by waves at the height of the Pleistocene, these caves lie at an
elevation of 4520 ft. above two prominent beach lines cut into the
talus slope. As lake levels fell at the end of the Pleistocene the
current Summer Lake Basin was hydrographically separated from the
Chewaucan Basin sometime between 17,000 and 18,000 cal. BP. Water
levels in both basins continued to fall until about 14,500 cal. BP
when a resurgence in the Chewaucan Basin caused lake levels to rise
above the 4388 ft. sill separating the two basins. The Chewaucan River
then breached the gravel fan separating the two basins and began
flowing north into the Summer Lake Basin. Over the next 2000 years
high lake stands established prominent shorelines at elevations of
roughly 4330, 4360, and 4380 ft. During much of this period water
stood within one mile of the Paisley Caves, making occupation of the
caves substantially more attractive than it has been since.

Water "within one mile" away from the caves does not date the
stratigraphy levels
inside the caves. The lake level only tells you about when the caves
were cut.



http://www.uoregon.edu/~ftrock/paisley_caves_description.php-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 4, 6:24 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:





On May 4, 2:33 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 5:21 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 1:24 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 2:55 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 2:33 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 11:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 2:07 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 10:31 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:

On May 4, 12:42 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 7:33 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 4, 10:13 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 3, 7:43 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev... at (no spam) sum.co.nz> wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2008 06:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Lee Olsen

paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

  --- snip ----

particularly
when Solutrean boat engineering was known to be  non-existent.

I remember reading somewhere of evidence for hunting of moose/reindeer
in lakes and swamps with the hypothesis that the hunters used boats
made from inflated deer skin.
What I am not certain of is whether or
not this could have applied to solutreans.

Eric Stevens

I just rechecked a dept chart for the Gibraltar area. At LGM several
small islands
would have been visible in the straits. This would have required
anyone wishing to cross
into Africa only a couple of open water distances of ca. 3 km and one
of ca. 1 km.

Even with the simplest of bullboats, for example, it seems like a
paltry feat for someone
with the tech to cross the Atlantic to have gotten to Africa first.

OTOH, the California channel islands, twice the distance of the
Gibraltar Strait, were
 reached by the Arlington Springs people soon after arrival into the
Americas.

The only logical explanation I can see for this dilemma is the
Solutreans had no interest
 in boats and the Arlington Springs people did.

Well, the Arlington people had come from Beringa and went as far as
Monte Verde, if the DNA is a proper clue. They knew their boats.

Assuming all dates are taken face value, then it would appear these
intrepid
boaters were going the wrong way, since Monte Verde is older than
Groundhog
Bay and  On-Your-Knees Cave.

Then you don't remember that about 100 miles of the Alaska-British
Columbia shoreline is now underwater?

Then you don't remember the SA shoreline was also underwater and many
dates
 on the shoreline (where it is now) are older than those up north
where the shoreline
is now? Do you believe in special pleadings?

I don't understand the question and I doubt you do.

You probably also forgot that the influence of marine adapted peoples
can reach as
much as a couple hundered miles inland, and they also utilise higher
elevations in coastal areas
 that were not covered by the rising sea levels.
You probably also forgot that a Canadian Coastguard research vessel
has been dredging
offshore in your "British Columbia shoreline is now underwater?" and
so far haven't found
anything dated to older than Groundhog Bay.
IOW, the buried by rising sealevel argument is as stinky as a brown
turd.

The question is

Why are you ignorant of the literature when there is such good
information available
 at local libraries?

You would know best.

Ever try blind archaeology? Reach down 300 feet and don't look. I
measure the area under examination as about 150,000 square miles.. I
would be surprised if they found anything.

You being the expert on shit in archaeology I guess you assume the
Paisley poop was put there by a group or individual coming up from
Monte Verde from Antarctica or someplace 14,300 years ago.

They sure didn't get to Paisley by boat. Try wiping your ass with
paper instead
of your hands, then maybe you would stop stinking up the forum with
your posts.

My
experience teaches me that such would dissolve in the smallest amount
of water and 300 feet should be enough in any case.

You are off a little with your connection between the dates and the
minus 300 foot
 water level. The 300 feet would be at LGM, not during the period of
the dates
at OYKC or Monte Verde.

I haven't seen a *good* chart for  Alaska, but I would suspect at 14
or 13 kya the levels
would have been nowhere near your claimed "about 100 miles of the
Alaska-British
Columbia shoreline."

At LGM Washington had about an extra c 30 miles, by Clovis times only
about a third of that would
have been left.

BTW, glad you brought up Paisley. If you have the paper, take a good
look at the stratigraphy.
Several places they have c 6 inches of sedements representing a little
over 1000 years in two places
(zero to 1 and between 7 and 6). Then from his number 6 down to 3
(over  half a meter of depth) that is actually
an inverted date, or to round things off, over  half meter represents
no time at all. I hope his final site
report has a good explanation for this discrepancy, or he will be
needing a roll of toilet paper just like you.

Wanna bet?

How much?

The caves are on the edge of a giant lake, since dried up,

The Paisley Caves are located in the Summer Lake Basin north of
Paisley in south-central Oregon. The site is composed of 8 caves and
rockshelters in a west facing ridge of scoriacious basalt.

Cut by waves at the height of the Pleistocene, these caves lie at an
elevation of 4520 ft. above two prominent beach lines cut into the
talus slope. As lake levels fell at the end of the Pleistocene the
current Summer Lake Basin was hydrographically separated from the
Chewaucan Basin sometime between 17,000 and 18,000 cal. BP. Water
levels in both basins continued to fall until about 14,500 cal. BP
when a resurgence in the Chewaucan Basin caused lake levels to rise
above the 4388 ft. sill separating the two basins. The Chewaucan River
then breached the gravel fan separating the two basins and began
flowing north into the Summer Lake Basin. Over the next 2000 years
high lake stands established prominent shorelines at elevations of
roughly 4330, 4360, and 4380 ft. During much of this period water
stood within one mile of the Paisley Caves, making occupation of the
caves substantially more attractive than it has been since.

Water "within one mile" away from the caves does not date the
stratigraphy levels
inside the caves. The lake level only tells you about when the caves
were cut.

http://www.uoregon.edu/~ftrock/paisley_caves_description.php-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tell that to the guy in charge.  here's the whole site. Lot's of
reading material for you.

http://www.uoregon.edu/~ftrock/paisley_caves_description.php- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

...
I thought the Monopeds only had one leg?

On May 7, 2:43 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev... at (no spam) sum.co.nz> wrote:


JEEZ!

Don't any of you guys know how to SNIP?

Eric Stevens

If you don't like it, try a killfile. The topic is way over your
capacity for understanding
to begin with, since it was actually about archaeology.

Would you like me to snip your balls?