🚀 go-pugleaf

Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<Dy2ec.6517$K_.207639@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> Dar_83001@yahoo.com (Daryl Habel) says  in
> news:d24f0b9f.0404100947.54a0af68@posting.google.com:
>
> > for a history of the controversy.  The article agrees with
> > Art Dyke's evaluation.
>
> Thanks, I see some contractions in the conclusions but probably
> this is expected.

Yes, it almost reads like the authors totally diregard the possibility
of a pre-20 kyr BP colonization of the Americas via central Canada,
further assuming that since southern migration through central Canada
was blocked either by closure of the glaciers or (if not totally
closed) uninhabitable terrain from ca. 20-13 kyr BP (adjust to your
preference), then by last resort humans *must* have colonized by the
coastal (what JC-M calls the "wet") hypothesis to account for Monte
Verde. I don't necessarily oppose the "wet" hypothesis, but I don't
think the "dry" hypothesis is dead, either.

Dar
....