🚀 go-pugleaf

paleocity@hotmail.com (Lee Olsen) wrote in message news:<40a73547.0404301814.190b734c@posting.google.com>...
> "Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote....
>
> <snip>
>
> Daryl Krupa summed up the geology of the Chobot's site: "There is no
> reason to believe that the Chobots have found material under glacial
> till."
>
> I'm summing up the artifacts, that were claimed to be found under the
> glacial till, as geofacts.

  Just to be perfectly clear, Lee,
I can't see how the material above the artifacts could be accurately
described as "glacial till". Buck Lake sits on a thick bed of till,
and the best guess is that there was only a single glacial advance
into that area (and only a single glacial advance into the whole
"ice-free corridor" area, for that matter).
  I.e., whatever is above the artifacts is not glacial till, and so
there is no reason to believe that the Chobots found a pre-glacial
campsite.
  In that case, they need not be geofacts, but rather might quite
possibly be ordinary post-glacial artifacts, somewhere between 12,000
and 20 years old.

> If you are interested, I can try scanning the complete MT article (as
> a PDF) and sending it to you. Then you can see the "alleged artifacts"
> for yourself.

  I'm interested; the local library throws out a Mammoth Trumpets older
than a year.
  How big would the PDF file be?
 (I'd like some warning if it's in the megabyte range).

  As an aside, Val, I had a chance meeting with a local physical
anthropologist / archeologist, who informed me that the present
head of the Alberta Archaeological Survey has done some work on
the Chobot site. I'll be contacting him next week, to hear what
he thinks of it.

Daryl Krupa