🚀 go-pugleaf

Roger Bagula wrote:
>> The mammoth bone was dated at 24,500 years old,
>> making the Bluefish Cave sites the oldest find of humans in North
>> America.
>>
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/bluefishcaves.html
>>
>> --
>> Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula
>> tftn@earthlink.net, 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 92040-2905,tel:
>> 619-5610814 : URL :  http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn
>> URL :  http://victorian.fortunecity.com/carmelita/435/

Roger, did Jacques Cinq-Mars publish anything on this in a peer reviewed
article?

Jois

The 24,500 year old mammoth bone interpreted as a bone core-tool with
a refitted bifacially trimmed flake is published with photos and
drawings in:

Cinq-Mars J and Morlan RE (1999). Bluefish Caves and Old Crow Basin: A
New Rapport. In: R. Bonnichsen & KL Turnmire (eds.) Ice Age Peoples of
North America: Environments, Origins and Adaptations of the First
Americans. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press - Centre for the
Study of the First Americans. pp. 200-212.

There is, at Bluefish Caves, some evidence consisting of small pieces
of stone interpreted as retouching debris and cutmarked bones
scattered about in the loess dating to between ca. 19-13 kyr BP, as
well as more solid evidence of the Paleo-Arctic microblade tradition,
in the form of whole artifacts dating to the same period as those
found in Alaska (ca. 11-10 kyr BP).  This evidence is not fully
documented in the above reference, but I'm sure Cinq-Mars has
published some articles on these, also.

But....there are no human fossils from Bluefish Caves.  Adovasio calls
it "one of those [sites] that will not go away".  My opinion
(worthless) is that it is pre-Clovis, but who knows by how much?

Dar

"firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<jtydnXfBJaR1HO3d4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
> Roger Bagula wrote:
> >> The mammoth bone was dated at 24,500 years old,
> >> making the Bluefish Cave sites the oldest find of humans in North
> >> America.
> >>
>  http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/bluefishcaves.html
> >>
> >> --
> >> Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula
> >> tftn@earthlink.net, 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 92040-2905,tel:
> >> 619-5610814 : URL :  http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn
> >> URL :  http://victorian.fortunecity.com/carmelita/435/
>
> Roger, did Jacques Cinq-Mars publish anything on this in a peer reviewed
> article?
>
> Jois

Dear firstjois,
I'm not going to get beat up over this!
I just ran down the Scientific  American articles where the spineless
author ( Evan Hadingham) still was a Clovis "believer" after presenting
evidence against his own position. He isn't actually a scientist, but a
"popularizer" type.
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?show=Trade%20Paper:Used:0806119195:19.50
http://www.theskyscrapers.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/433
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/colloquia/spring02/Hadingham.html
All he did was mention the name of the cave and the mammoth bone
in the article.
If anthropologists weren't such an underclass in science, they would
have written their own article. People who spend a lot of research time
sifting old dirt aren't usually well respected when they fight endless
meaningless battles with each other over datings they don't mostly
understand the technology of?
They ( Clovis "believers") seem to be actively trying to suppress the
publishing of any new results and have the "high ground" of editorships
of the major journals? In other sciences when this happens, people
usually have to start their own journals to get new work published and
past the ossified old guard.
firstjois wrote:
> Roger Bagula wrote:
>
>>>The mammoth bone was dated at 24,500 years old,
>>>making the Bluefish Cave sites the oldest find of humans in North
>>>America.
>>>
>>
> http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/bluefishcaves.html
>
>>>--
>>>Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula
>>>tftn@earthlink.net, 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 92040-2905,tel:
>>>619-5610814 : URL :  http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn
>>>URL :  http://victorian.fortunecity.com/carmelita/435/
>>
>
> Roger, did Jacques Cinq-Mars publish anything on this in a peer reviewed
> article?
>
> Jois
>
>

Daryl Habel wrote:
>> The 24,500 year old mammoth bone interpreted as a bone core-tool with
>> a refitted bifacially trimmed flake is published with photos and
>> drawings in:
>>
>> Cinq-Mars J and Morlan RE (1999). Bluefish Caves and Old Crow Basin:
>> A
>> New Rapport. In: R. Bonnichsen & KL Turnmire (eds.) Ice Age Peoples
>> of
>> North America: Environments, Origins and Adaptations of the First
>> Americans. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press - Centre for the
>> Study of the First Americans. pp. 200-212.
>>
>> There is, at Bluefish Caves, some evidence consisting of small pieces
>> of stone interpreted as retouching debris and cutmarked bones
>> scattered about in the loess dating to between ca. 19-13 kyr BP, as
>> well as more solid evidence of the Paleo-Arctic microblade tradition,
>> in the form of whole artifacts dating to the same period as those
>> found in Alaska (ca. 11-10 kyr BP).  This evidence is not fully
>> documented in the above reference, but I'm sure Cinq-Mars has
>> published some articles on these, also.
>>
>> But....there are no human fossils from Bluefish Caves.  Adovasio
>> calls
>> it "one of those [sites] that will not go away".  My opinion
>> (worthless) is that it is pre-Clovis, but who knows by how much?
>>
>> Dar
>>
[snip]

Thanks, Dar, I looked and couldn't find anything.  The Yahoo site where J
C-M used to post is no longer available and isn't available via archived
files either.

Jois

Dar_83001@yahoo.com (Daryl Habel) says  in
news:d24f0b9f.0404051605.10400146@posting.google.com:

> The 24,500 year old mammoth bone interpreted as a bone
> core-tool with a refitted bifacially trimmed flake is
> published with photos and drawings in:
>
> Cinq-Mars J and Morlan RE (1999). Bluefish Caves and Old
> Crow Basin: A New Rapport. In: R. Bonnichsen & KL Turnmire
> (eds.) Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments,
> Origins and Adaptations of the First Americans. Corvallis:
> Oregon State University Press - Centre for the Study of the
> First Americans. pp. 200-212.
>
> There is, at Bluefish Caves, some evidence consisting of
> small pieces of stone interpreted as retouching debris and
> cutmarked bones scattered about in the loess dating to
> between ca. 19-13 kyr BP, as well as more solid evidence of
> the Paleo-Arctic microblade tradition, in the form of whole
> artifacts dating to the same period as those found in
> Alaska (ca. 11-10 kyr BP).  This evidence is not fully
> documented in the above reference, but I'm sure Cinq-Mars
> has published some articles on these, also.
>
> But....there are no human fossils from Bluefish Caves.
> Adovasio calls it "one of those [sites] that will not go
> away".  My opinion (worthless) is that it is pre-Clovis,
> but who knows by how much?

Dar,
  I see you have decided to come down into the trenches
with the serfs. lol. Are the bluefish caves on the east side or
south side of the glaciation line that prevented entry into the
central part of canada. I think we have had this conversation
before and the basic conclusion is that people reached the
region but later had to retreat.

--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/

Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<wGmcc.25020$vo5.780439@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> Dar_83001@yahoo.com (Daryl Habel) says  in
> news:d24f0b9f.0404051605.10400146@posting.google.com:
>
> > The 24,500 year old mammoth bone interpreted as a bone
> > core-tool with a refitted bifacially trimmed flake is
> > published with photos and drawings in:
> >
> > Cinq-Mars J and Morlan RE (1999). Bluefish Caves and Old
> > Crow Basin: A New Rapport. In: R. Bonnichsen & KL Turnmire
> > (eds.) Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments,
> > Origins and Adaptations of the First Americans. Corvallis:
> > Oregon State University Press - Centre for the Study of the
> > First Americans. pp. 200-212.
> >
> > There is, at Bluefish Caves, some evidence consisting of
> > small pieces of stone interpreted as retouching debris and
> > cutmarked bones scattered about in the loess dating to
> > between ca. 19-13 kyr BP, as well as more solid evidence of
> > the Paleo-Arctic microblade tradition, in the form of whole
> > artifacts dating to the same period as those found in
> > Alaska (ca. 11-10 kyr BP).  This evidence is not fully
> > documented in the above reference, but I'm sure Cinq-Mars
> > has published some articles on these, also.
> >
> > But....there are no human fossils from Bluefish Caves.
> > Adovasio calls it "one of those [sites] that will not go
> > away".  My opinion (worthless) is that it is pre-Clovis,
> > but who knows by how much?
>
> Dar,
>   I see you have decided to come down into the trenches
> with the serfs. lol. Are the bluefish caves on the east side or
> south side of the glaciation line that prevented entry into the
> central part of canada. I think we have had this conversation
> before and the basic conclusion is that people reached the
> region but later had to retreat.

Bluefish and Old Crow are north of the central part of Canada
where the "ice-free corridor" between the Cordellerian
and Greenland glaciations existed.  I think it more accurate to
say that the Bluefish region and the "corridor" was potentially
habitable from at least 40-50,000 years ago until Clovis times.  If
the corrider "closed" it was not until after about 20,000 years ago
and (if closed) did not re-open until about Clovis times.  The
"corridor" is a moot question before and after 20-12 kyr BP, but if
people managed to reach Bluefish/Old Crow 40-25,000 years ago,
there is no "glaciation" reason why they would necessarily have to
retreat.  And before "closure" there's no reason why they could
not use central Canada as a route south.  Bluefish/Old Crow were
never covered by the late Wisconsin glaciation (LGM).

"firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<eoednRb-V7sLsO_dRVn-tA@comcast.com>...

> Thanks, Dar, I looked and couldn't find anything.  The Yahoo site where J
> C-M used to post is no longer available and isn't available via archived
> files either.
>
> Jois

Palanth at Yahoo is gone, but Jacques posts at Palanth.com "forum" as
an adjunct to an Internet journal he is trying to get started.  He
moderates the forum with Greg Laden and I'm also moderator.

Dar

Dear Daryl Habel,
Thanks for uploading the paper to someplace I could read it.
The blades seem to be definitely of the Aurignacian tradition and not
the much later Clovis blades.
Daryl Habel wrote:
> Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<wGmcc.25020$vo5.780439@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>Dar_83001@yahoo.com (Daryl Habel) says  in
>>news:d24f0b9f.0404051605.10400146@posting.google.com:
>>
>>
>>>The 24,500 year old mammoth bone interpreted as a bone
>>>core-tool with a refitted bifacially trimmed flake is
>>>published with photos and drawings in:
>>>
>>>Cinq-Mars J and Morlan RE (1999). Bluefish Caves and Old
>>>Crow Basin: A New Rapport. In: R. Bonnichsen & KL Turnmire
>>>(eds.) Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments,
>>>Origins and Adaptations of the First Americans. Corvallis:
>>>Oregon State University Press - Centre for the Study of the
>>>First Americans. pp. 200-212.
>>>
>>>There is, at Bluefish Caves, some evidence consisting of
>>>small pieces of stone interpreted as retouching debris and
>>>cutmarked bones scattered about in the loess dating to
>>>between ca. 19-13 kyr BP, as well as more solid evidence of
>>>the Paleo-Arctic microblade tradition, in the form of whole
>>>artifacts dating to the same period as those found in
>>>Alaska (ca. 11-10 kyr BP).  This evidence is not fully
>>>documented in the above reference, but I'm sure Cinq-Mars
>>>has published some articles on these, also.
>>>
>>>But....there are no human fossils from Bluefish Caves.
>>>Adovasio calls it "one of those [sites] that will not go
>>>away".  My opinion (worthless) is that it is pre-Clovis,
>>>but who knows by how much?
>>
>>Dar,
>>  I see you have decided to come down into the trenches
>>with the serfs. lol. Are the bluefish caves on the east side or
>>south side of the glaciation line that prevented entry into the
>>central part of canada. I think we have had this conversation
>>before and the basic conclusion is that people reached the
>>region but later had to retreat.
>
>
> Bluefish and Old Crow are north of the central part of Canada
> where the "ice-free corridor" between the Cordellerian
> and Greenland glaciations existed.  I think it more accurate to
> say that the Bluefish region and the "corridor" was potentially
> habitable from at least 40-50,000 years ago until Clovis times.  If
> the corrider "closed" it was not until after about 20,000 years ago
> and (if closed) did not re-open until about Clovis times.  The
> "corridor" is a moot question before and after 20-12 kyr BP, but if
> people managed to reach Bluefish/Old Crow 40-25,000 years ago,
> there is no "glaciation" reason why they would necessarily have to
> retreat.  And before "closure" there's no reason why they could
> not use central Canada as a route south.  Bluefish/Old Crow were
> never covered by the late Wisconsin glaciation (LGM).

After some net research these blades look more like a Chatelperronian
than an Aurignacian tool kit ( too primative ?).

Roger L. Bagula wrote:
> Dear Daryl Habel,
> Thanks for uploading the paper to someplace I could read it.
> The blades seem to be definitely of the Aurignacian tradition and not
> the much later Clovis blades.
> Daryl Habel wrote:
>
>> Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:<wGmcc.25020$vo5.780439@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>>> Dar_83001@yahoo.com (Daryl Habel) says  in
>>> news:d24f0b9f.0404051605.10400146@posting.google.com:
>>>
>>>> The 24,500 year old mammoth bone interpreted as a bone
>>>> core-tool with a refitted bifacially trimmed flake is
>>>> published with photos and drawings in:
>>>>
>>>> Cinq-Mars J and Morlan RE (1999). Bluefish Caves and Old
>>>> Crow Basin: A New Rapport. In: R. Bonnichsen & KL Turnmire
>>>> (eds.) Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments,
>>>> Origins and Adaptations of the First Americans. Corvallis:
>>>> Oregon State University Press - Centre for the Study of the
>>>> First Americans. pp. 200-212.
>>>> There is, at Bluefish Caves, some evidence consisting of
>>>> small pieces of stone interpreted as retouching debris and
>>>> cutmarked bones scattered about in the loess dating to
>>>> between ca. 19-13 kyr BP, as well as more solid evidence of
>>>> the Paleo-Arctic microblade tradition, in the form of whole
>>>> artifacts dating to the same period as those found in
>>>> Alaska (ca. 11-10 kyr BP).  This evidence is not fully documented in
>>>> the above reference, but I'm sure Cinq-Mars
>>>> has published some articles on these, also.
>>>>
>>>> But....there are no human fossils from Bluefish Caves. Adovasio
>>>> calls it "one of those [sites] that will not go
>>>> away".  My opinion (worthless) is that it is pre-Clovis,
>>>> but who knows by how much?
>>>
>>>
>>> Dar,
>>>  I see you have decided to come down into the trenches
>>> with the serfs. lol. Are the bluefish caves on the east side or south
>>> side of the glaciation line that prevented entry into the central
>>> part of canada. I think we have had this conversation before and the
>>> basic conclusion is that people reached the region but later had to
>>> retreat.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bluefish and Old Crow are north of the central part of Canada
>> where the "ice-free corridor" between the Cordellerian
>> and Greenland glaciations existed.  I think it more accurate to
>> say that the Bluefish region and the "corridor" was potentially
>> habitable from at least 40-50,000 years ago until Clovis times.  If
>> the corrider "closed" it was not until after about 20,000 years ago
>> and (if closed) did not re-open until about Clovis times.  The
>> "corridor" is a moot question before and after 20-12 kyr BP, but if
>> people managed to reach Bluefish/Old Crow 40-25,000 years ago, there
>> is no "glaciation" reason why they would necessarily have to
>> retreat.  And before "closure" there's no reason why they could
>> not use central Canada as a route south.  Bluefish/Old Crow were
>> never covered by the late Wisconsin glaciation (LGM).
>
>

Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<wGmcc.25020$vo5.780439@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
<snip>

> Dar,
>   I see you have decided to come down into the trenches
> with the serfs. lol. Are the bluefish caves on the east side or
> south side of the glaciation line that prevented entry into the
> central part of canada. I think we have had this conversation
> before and the basic conclusion is that people reached the
> region but later had to retreat.

  Bluefish Caves, and the Porcupine River valley, were not on
the east side or the south side.
  They were west of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, and do not seem
to have ever been glaciated.
  To the left of "Yukon", here:

http://www.kskeefe.com/History/images/beringia.gif

  Please not that the Laurentide Ice Sheet was not so extensive as
shown in the map, 25,000 years ago.

Daryl Krupa
(no relation)

On 5 Apr 2004 17:05:51 -0700, Dar_83001@yahoo.com (Daryl
Habel) wrote:

>The 24,500 year old mammoth bone interpreted as a bone core-tool with
>a refitted bifacially trimmed flake is published with photos and
>drawings in:
>
>Cinq-Mars J and Morlan RE (1999). Bluefish Caves and Old Crow Basin: A
>New Rapport. In: R. Bonnichsen & KL Turnmire (eds.) Ice Age Peoples of
>North America: Environments, Origins and Adaptations of the First
>Americans. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press - Centre for the
>Study of the First Americans. pp. 200-212.
>
>There is, at Bluefish Caves, some evidence consisting of small pieces
>of stone interpreted as retouching debris and cutmarked bones
>scattered about in the loess dating to between ca. 19-13 kyr BP, as
>well as more solid evidence of the Paleo-Arctic microblade tradition,
>in the form of whole artifacts dating to the same period as those
>found in Alaska (ca. 11-10 kyr BP).  This evidence is not fully
>documented in the above reference, but I'm sure Cinq-Mars has
>published some articles on these, also.
>
>But....there are no human fossils from Bluefish Caves.  Adovasio calls
>it "one of those [sites] that will not go away".  My opinion
>(worthless) is that it is pre-Clovis, but who knows by how much?

Thanks Dar for uploading the material in the Aux group.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/files/Papers/PDF/
[sign in required]

 I would reply to you there but Yahoo is definitely on the
fritz. From what I am reading the thinking has not changed.
Bluefish and Old Crow lie on the far eastern boundary of
Beringia and as such was the farthest east site that was
accessible from 30 kya to ~12 kya.

  The dating in the 28 kya range seems to coincide with a
period of warmer temperatures, but that ice-free corridor
was still closed. During the cooler period that followed, to
18 kya, do we estimate that these hunters retreated south,
perished only to return 15kya (or others return)?

Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@att.net.spam> wrote in message news:<dq1e70d1oeua1du6rtm7bef34eqshmr29h@4ax.com>...
<snip>
>  I would reply to you there but Yahoo is definitely on the
> fritz. From what I am reading the thinking has not changed.
> Bluefish and Old Crow lie on the far eastern boundary of
> Beringia and as such was the farthest east site that was
> accessible from 30 kya to ~12 kya.

  Check out this abstract, of an article headed by Art Dyke,
the most eminent guy re: North American glacial limits:

http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/DykeTheThe.html

"The Laurentide and Innuitian ice sheets during the Last Glacial
Maximum"
....
"Ice advanced to its Late Wisconsinan (stage 2) limit in
the northwest, south, and northeast about 23-24 14C ka BP
 and in the southwest and far north about 20-21 14C ka BP."

  I.e., there was an "ice-free corridor" east of the Rockies
before 24 14C ka BP.
  I referred you to that abstract last September.
  You replied with a seried of younger dates for glacial maximum:

"I have heard of different dates in the literature from 16 to
20 kya, 18 to 16 kya etc. I think in europe glaciation
peaked 16 to 18 kya, in siberia from 18 to 19 kya. And if
native americans are mooroned on their backsides it hardly
matters when it was in canada."

  To see the entire article, especially Fig. 3, where you can see
"The probable interstadial ice margin at 27–30 14C ka BP
approximately follows the margin of the Canadian Shield."
  And below that on p. 14,
"AMS 14C dates on wood redeposited in
glaciofluvial sediment along the upper Mackenzie River,
well behind the LGM limit, indicate that
ice-free conditions existed there
until at least 27.2 14C ka BP (Smith, 1992)."

  On p. 25:
"Taking the current suite of apparently reliable
radiocarbon dates at face value, the Laurentide
ice margin may then have reached its maximum
as early as 24 14C ka BP in the Mackenzie Lobe"

  And on p. 26:
"Our review thus demonstrates that the period of
maximum ice extent in North America generally
encompasses the interval from ~24/21 to 14 14C ka BP"

  Re: date of recession of that northwestern ice, p. 15 has:
"the earliest date on recession that appears acceptable is
16,200 +/-150 14C yr BP (RIDDL-765) on bone of
an extinct horse from colluvial sand overlying till on
Hershel Island, Yukon Territory, which is part of
the terminal moraine (Harington, 1989).
Otherwise, there is no firm radiocarbon evidence of
significant regional recession of the Mackenzie Lobe
until 14,400 +/-180 14C yr BP (GSC-1792),
a date on peat overlying till."

http://www.geo.oregonstate.edu/people/faculty/clark_publications/Dykeetal-QSR2002.pdf

OR

http://tinyurl.com/2gys2

  If you are referring to the work of Alejandra Duk-Rodkin
in the lower Mackenzie valley,
then that has been disputed and revised, mainly because
her 30 ka BP date was only a maximum age for glacial advance
east of Bluefish Caves:

http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/JacksonThePaleontologists.html
"The ice-free corridor revisited"
....
"Regional mapping of this area by GSC geologists
Alejandra Duk-Rodkin and Owen Hughes in the 1980s and 1990s
determined that the limit of the Laurentide Ice Sheet
from the last glacial maximum represented the alltime limit
of glacial ice cover.
Furthermore, they cited evidence that suggested that the
maximum push of the ice sheet into the front (Canyon) ranges
of the Mackenzie Mountains occurred as early as 30,000 years
before present as determined by radiocarbon dating (YBP).
However, a revisiting of the chronology of the maximum advance
of the Laurentide Ice Sheet in this region by Arthur Dyke of GSC
and university colleagues in 2002 concluded that
the maximum advance was more likely in the range of
about 21,000 YBP, which is compatible with the last glacial maximum."

>   The dating in the 28 kya range seems to coincide with a
> period of warmer temperatures, but that ice-free corridor
> was still closed.
<snip>

  Sorry, it had not yet been closed, at 28 kya.
  And there are many indications that it was not closed, ever,
before somewhere around 21-24 ka BP.

Daryl Krupa

Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zsTdc.4521$K_.136571@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> icycalmca@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa) says  in
> news:c70365ef.0404092336.33a0afb8@posting.google.com:
>
> >>   The dating in the 28 kya range seems to coincide with a
> >> period of warmer temperatures, but that ice-free corridor
> >> was still closed.
> > <snip>
> >
> >   Sorry, it had not yet been closed, at 28 kya.
> >   And there are many indications that it was not closed,
> >   ever,
> > before somewhere around 21-24 ka BP.
>
> It seemed odd it would be closed during a warm period but
> open in colder periods. What do you think the basis was of the
> 30 kya date on closing?

See:
http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/feb04/feature_Revisited.html

for a history of the controversy.  The article agrees with Art Dyke's evaluation.

Dar
>
> --
> Philip
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
> Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
> Evol. of Xchrom.
> http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
> Pal. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
> Sci. Arch. Aux
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/

icycalmca@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa) says  in
news:c70365ef.0404092336.33a0afb8@posting.google.com:

>>   The dating in the 28 kya range seems to coincide with a
>> period of warmer temperatures, but that ice-free corridor
>> was still closed.
> <snip>
>
>   Sorry, it had not yet been closed, at 28 kya.
>   And there are many indications that it was not closed,
>   ever,
> before somewhere around 21-24 ka BP.

It seemed odd it would be closed during a warm period but
open in colder periods. What do you think the basis was of the
30 kya date on closing?

--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/

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
....

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.

--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/

Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<BScec.8232$K_.256725@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> Dar_83001@yahoo.com (Daryl Habel) says  in
> news:d24f0b9f.0404102150.6c3469dc@posting.google.com:
>
> > Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in
> > message
> > news:<Dy2ec.6517$K_.207639@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne
> > t>...
> >> 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.
>
> Well the dry hypothesis would fit better with a post 11.5 kya
> colonization.

Or equally well with a pre-24 kya colonization.
>
> I think the genetic connection between lowland south americans
> and ryukyu/(non-Kor elements in Japanese) HLA and the fact that
> the earlist bonafida finds are on south america are what lend
> me to support the wet route.

As I said before, I don't necessarily oppose the coastal hypothesis.
I'm sure the route was used for the expansion of what Jonathon Kingdon
described as the "strandloper" adaptation in his book "Self Made Man".
 All the way from Africa sometime around 100,000 years ago to the
Americas sometime around 13,000 years ago.  But I question that the
earliest bonafide finds in South America are Monte Verde and the two
coastal sites discovered a couple of years ago, and even in Central
America and the United States (Meadowcroft, for instance) there are
other pre-13 kyr sites "that will not go away" as Adovasio has been
quoted. And I'm equally sure that land migrations took place all over
Eastern and Western Beringia, probably in both directions, sometime
after 20 kyr ago.  The questions have always been...when?..and was
this the first?

The Yana RHS site near the Arctic coast of Western Beringia (mentioned
briefly in Hoffecker & Elias paper in your files) has been confirmed
at 27 kyr (14C) years, and has bone tools similar to Clovis.  It
sticks out like a sore thumb because the bone tools are twice as old
as the Clovis bone foreshafts and there's nothing like it in between
(both chronological and archaeological).  At the other end is the
Monte Verde "older occupation site" with a bifacial hanaxe dated
33,000 BP.  No one's been able to find anything wrong with Dillehey's
excavation, but he won't make waves about the 33 kyr date because, it
too sticks out like a sore thumb with nothing between there and
Siberia like it.

> From the japanese perspective there
> was some kind of advanced maritime capability, otherwise how
> does one explain all the deep sea fish skeleta in japanese
> camps. It stands to reason that any people who put themselves in
> the ocean, who have good boats will occasionally be blown away.

Yes, as you and I have discussed concerning the material culture
(pottery and lithics) similarities
between the Amur River people and those of northern Japan (Hokkaido)
between about 18-13 kyr ago, I read something recently about discovery
of this fishing adaptation along the coast of the Russian Far East
opposite Japan.

>
> What I think is compelling is this, even though the evidence for
> the clearing of the ice free corridor is 11 to 12 kya, the first
> evidence is in the 10 kya range, and dubious in terms of
> direction.

True, but much evidence probably got scoured away by the Late
Wisconsin Glacial.

> In fact it may have taken a serious climate change to
> permit travel even though the corridor was open simply due to
> the complexity of the terrain in the corridor and the marginal
> climate. It is concievable that it was open during the glacials
> but simply was impassible for other reasons for non-adaptive
> bipeds.

I agree.  But none of this contradicts a pre-20 kyr dispersal from the
Yukon through central Canada.

Dar
>
> --
> Philip
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
> Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
> Evol. of Xchrom.
> http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
> Pal. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
> Sci. Arch. Aux
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/

Dar_83001@yahoo.com (Daryl Habel) says  in
news:d24f0b9f.0404102150.6c3469dc@posting.google.com:

> Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in
> message
> news:<Dy2ec.6517$K_.207639@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne
> t>...
>> 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.

Well the dry hypothesis would fit better with a post 11.5 kya
colonization.

I think the genetic connection between lowland south americans
and ryukyu/(non-Kor elements in Japanese) HLA and the fact that
the earlist bonafida finds are on south america are what lend
me to support the wet route. From the japanese perspective there
was some kind of advanced maritime capability, otherwise how
does one explain all the deep sea fish skeleta in japanese
camps. It stands to reason that any people who put themselves in
the ocean, who have good boats will occasionally be blown away.

What I think is compelling is this, even though the evidence for
the clearing of the ice free corridor is 11 to 12 kya, the first
evidence is in the 10 kya range, and dubious in terms of
direction. In fact it may have taken a serious climate change to
permit travel even though the corridor was open simply due to
the complexity of the terrain in the corridor and the marginal
climate. It is concievable that it was open during the glacials
but simply was impassible for other reasons for non-adaptive
bipeds.

--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/

"Daryl Habel" <Dar_83001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d24f0b9f.0404102150.6c3469dc@posting.google.com...

Snippage. . . .

> 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
> ...

Just a stray thought. . . . . . While we can come up with all sorts
of scenarios that could account for humans being at Monte Verde
at the early dates involved, which of the theories is MOST
consistent with the severe lack of human habitation at earlier
dates, further north?  Any significant migration down through the
"heartland" of North America, through central and South America
as far south as Chile would be hard to imagine without leaving
some obvious traces.  If you sift that migratory path to the
continental shelf (that would have been exposed during glacial
periods), you not only have a means of transportation, but also
an explaination for the lack of modern evidence.  (While I
MIGHT be able to credit some of that lack of evidence to
the Clovis-first "mafia" and their ideas of PCness, I really do
believe that if it was there someone would have found it and said
so!)

It may not be dead, but. . . . . do I hear an ever so slight gasp
for air somewhere in there!  ;-)

Regards
bk

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<N9dec.3382$l75.1363@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "Daryl Habel" <Dar_83001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d24f0b9f.0404102150.6c3469dc@posting.google.com...
>
> Snippage. . . .
>
> > [Dar:] 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.
>
> {bk:] Just a stray thought. . . . . . While we can come up with all sorts
> of scenarios that could account for humans being at Monte Verde
> at the early dates involved, which of the theories is MOST
> consistent with the severe lack of human habitation at earlier
> dates, further north?  Any significant migration down through the
> "heartland" of North America, through central and South America
> as far south as Chile would be hard to imagine without leaving
> some obvious traces.  If you sift that migratory path to the
> continental shelf (that would have been exposed during glacial
> periods), you not only have a means of transportation, but also
> an explaination for the lack of modern evidence.  (While I
> MIGHT be able to credit some of that lack of evidence to
> the Clovis-first "mafia" and their ideas of PCness, I really do
> believe that if it was there someone would have found it and said
> so!)
>
> It may not be dead, but. . . . . do I hear an ever so slight gasp
> for air somewhere in there!  ;-)

[Dar:]  Good post, but....All it takes is for a breath of fresh air
and a new discovery to keep a hypothesis alive. I support the coastal
route (see my post to Phil), but accept that *all* routes were used at
some time or another, so I'm not dismissing a "dry" route through
central Canada prior to 20 kyr BP.  The Yana RHS site on the northern
Siberian Arctic at 27,000 BP is the first site discovered in Beringia
pre-dating the Dyuktai (Beringian paleoarctic) tradition of 18-10 kye
BP.  It says people were above the Arctic Circle in Western Beringia
27,000 years ago.  The bone foreshafts are manufactured with the same
technology asd the Clovis bone foreshafts from Anzick, Wenatachee,
etc.  The lithic technology, however, has a distinct Middle
Paleolithic aspect (bifacial, no microblades).  They have a good
series of coherent conventional 14C and AMS 14C dates (about
half-dozen of them).  Now something might be wrong with the
interpretation of the archaeology, but no one has refuted it yet with
any other argument except "there's nothing else like it, so therefore
it must not be true").  The same is true of Dillehay's Monte Verde 33
kyr occupation site.  No one can find anything "wrong" with it, but
"there's nothing else like it, so therefore it must not be true."  I
don't buy into that line of thought, and would prefer a site or date
to be rejected on better evidence than "it must not be true".

Dar
>
> Regards
> bk

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<N9dec.3382$l75.1363@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "Daryl Habel" <Dar_83001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d24f0b9f.0404102150.6c3469dc@posting.google.com...
>
> Snippage. . . .
>
> > 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
> > ...
>
> Just a stray thought. . . . . . While we can come up with all sorts
> of scenarios that could account for humans being at Monte Verde
> at the early dates involved, which of the theories is MOST
> consistent with the severe lack of human habitation at earlier
> dates, further north?

1) "Scenarios" are not evidence.

2) Since there hasn't been  one iota of repeatable evidence (darn old
science requirement) to confirm Monte Verde, then the severe  lack of
human habitation at earlier dates, further north are no more troubling
than the severe lack of human habitation at earlier dates, further
south.

>  Any significant migration down through the
> "heartland" of North America, through central and South America
> as far south as Chile would be hard to imagine without leaving
> some obvious traces.

Not if your unproven assumption is wrong, and if it is wrong, then the
problem goes away and there are obvious traces in abundance.

>  If you sift that migratory path to the
> continental shelf (that would have been exposed during glacial
> periods), you not only have a means of transportation, but also
> an explaination for the lack of modern evidence.

The Canadian government  has been sifting mud off the Queen Charlottes
and so far 9300 B.P. is the best they can do for a path.
Human remains on Prince of Wales Island is a little older at about
10,000 B.P. These dates are no older than inland dates.

>  (While I
> MIGHT be able to credit some of that lack of evidence to
> the Clovis-first "mafia" and their ideas of PCness, I really do
> believe that if it was there someone would have found it and said
> so!)
>
> It may not be dead, but. . . . . do I hear an ever so slight gasp
> for air somewhere in there!  ;-)

The burden of proof falls on the proponent of the anomaly, in your
case Monte Verde, not on  proven science.

>
> Regards
> bk

In sci.anthropology.paleo,          Lee Olsen created a message ID
news:40a73547.0404111937.3c89e602@posting.google.com:

> The Canadian government  has been sifting mud off the Queen Charlottes
> and so far 9300 B.P. is the best they can do for a path.
> Human remains on Prince of Wales Island is a little older at about
> 10,000 B.P. These dates are no older than inland dates.

This is not fair in the sense that the coverage of archaeological sites
above sea level is probably 10E3 to 10E6 more active than those between
-200 and -350 MSL where one would expect the most prominent sites to be.
The canadian govenment can scour all they want, but unless sea levels
drop by 350 I really don't expect you will see any -MSL recoveries of any
early dates.
  But the facts still stand. By HLA and looking at the diversification of
HLA in south america, The lowland south american population appears to be
the oldest, and when compared to other peoples of the world these have
the best matches with Ryukyuans and the non-Kor components within
Japanese, both peoples had probably the top-level maritime capability,
definable by 28kya.

--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/

DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net

Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam> wrote in message news:<Xns94C967498A869prd@128.249.2.19>...
> In sci.anthropology.paleo,          Lee Olsen created a message ID
> news:40a73547.0404111937.3c89e602@posting.google.com:
>
> > The Canadian government  has been sifting mud off the Queen Charlottes
> > and so far 9300 B.P. is the best they can do for a path.
> > Human remains on Prince of Wales Island is a little older at about
> > 10,000 B.P. These dates are no older than inland dates.
>
> This is not fair in the sense that the coverage of archaeological sites
> above sea level is probably 10E3 to 10E6 more active than those between
> -200 and -350 MSL where one would expect the most prominent sites to be.

Not if the inland sites have been altered also, mainly by melt water
from the glaciers.

> The canadian govenment can scour all they want, but unless sea levels
> drop by 350 I really don't expect you will see any -MSL recoveries of any
> early dates.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF15/1579.html

http://gom.nrcan.gc.ca/pdf/PDF_Day1/Barrie_Regional%20Mapping_Queen-Charlotte-Basin.pdf

http://www.geotimes.org/feb04/feature_Quest.html
"Although researchers have cored and dated numerous resource-rich
coastal zones in the Queen Charlotte Islands region that would have
made excellent early habitation sites, many sites are now drowned and
difficult to access. Nevertheless, definitive evidence of early
coastal migrants may not be long in coming."

"In December 2003, some of the co-authors and others published an
article in Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences that reveals hundreds of
kilometers of reconstructed paleocoastlines that coincide with
present-day exposed land. It is along these landscapes that possible
early archaeological sites may be located."

As you can see by the URLs, they aren't going about this in a
haphazard manner and not all Pleistocene coastal areas are under 300 m
of water.

> But the facts still stand. By HLA and looking at the diversification of
> HLA in south america, The lowland south american population appears to be
> the oldest,

By how much? What other groups is this compared against?

> and when compared to other peoples of the world these have
> the best matches with Ryukyuans and the non-Kor components within
> Japanese, both peoples had probably the top-level maritime capability,
> definable by 28kya.
>
> --
> Philip
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
> Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
> Evol. of Xchrom.
> http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
> Pal. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
> Sci. Arch. Aux
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
>
> DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net

Dar_83001@yahoo.com (Daryl Habel) wrote in message news:<d24f0b9f.0404102150.6c3469dc@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> 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.

Dar:
  Yes, though they give a fair precis of Jim Burns' work, their
conclusion re: the pre-Late-Wisconsinan persistence of an
"ice-free corridor" seems to contradict Burns' conclusion
(and the same conclusion drawn by other working with
pre-Late-Wisonsinan deposits and fossils elsewhere in Alberta).

  Burns and others:
"These ages plus others from locations northwest and south of Edmonton
indicated that the last Laurentide Ice Sheet was
the only continental ice sheet ever to inundate the Edmonton area and,
by inference, reach the eastern margin of the Cordillera to the west."

  Jackson and Wilson:
"The weight of evidence therefore seems to point to the fact that
the ice-free corridor was a transient feature at best,
of late Pleistocene age."

  The companion article re: the "wet" hypothesis, supposedly by
Hetherington (and others, including Wilson) at
http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/feb04/feature_Quest.html
has some odd bits that contradict what Hetherington wrote elsewhere,
so maybe Jackson is the victim of bad ghostwriting.
  My critique of that Geotimes article is here:
http://tinyurl.com/3hghk
  I see that Wilson's Douglas College (where he is Chair of the
Geology Department), has no graduate courses in geology.
  Perhaps he is the weak link in the popular science reporting?

  Whatever, Geotimes is not a great source of detailed info.

> I don't necessarily oppose the "wet" hypothesis, but
> I don't think the "dry" hypothesis is dead, either.

  My sentiments, exactly.

Daryl Krupa

Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zsTdc.4521$K_.136571@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> icycalmca@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa) says  in
> news:c70365ef.0404092336.33a0afb8@posting.google.com:
>
> >>   The dating in the 28 kya range seems to coincide with a
> >> period of warmer temperatures, but that ice-free corridor
> >> was still closed.
> > <snip>
> >
> >   Sorry, it had not yet been closed, at 28 kya.
> >   And there are many indications that it was not closed,
> >   ever,
> > before somewhere around 21-24 ka BP.
>
> It seemed odd it would be closed during a warm period but
> open in colder periods.

Philip:
  Yes, that would indeed seem odd, and I have not seen indications
that that was so.
  Perhaps you should show me where you get your information on
Quaternary paleoclimate, and then I might be able to resolve
the apparent discrepancy.

> What do you think the basis was of the 30 kya date on closing?

  It was reported as a date on organics below till, and below
a proglacial lake dammed by the last advance.
  The sedimentary environment was interpreted as being in contact
with glacial ice at the time of deposition of the organics, i.e.
just before the proglacial lake filled up and started overflowing
westward.
  That interpretation was disputed by Dyke, who did not see why
the organics could not have been deposited well before ice
advanced into the area, i.e. he thought that the organics gave
a maxiuum age for glacial advance, but not an exact age.
  Other dates in the region contradict the 30 ka age for ice advance,
as described by Dyke, et al. at the URL I cited earlier,
at the bottom of p. 13
(that's the page before the figure I suggested you look at):

http://tinyurl.com/2gys2

"The older age assignment is based on several radiocarbon dates
in the 30–40 14C ka BP range on plant material
below drift near the glacial limit and
below sediments of Glacial Lake Old Crow, which formed in
unglaciated Yukon Territory
[near Bluefish Caves, BTW]
when ice stood at the limit and blocked eastward drainage.
However, these dates do not necessarily closely limit
the age of the last ice advance.
In fact, the youngest dated material
below Glacial Lake Old Crow sediments is
a mammoth tusk with AMS dates of [25 14C ka BP and 24 14C ka BP].
Furthermore, a continuous series of AMS mammal bone collagen dates
between 24 and 40 14C ka BP from Old Crow Basin
precludes existence of the lake during that interval and the
abrupt termination of the series at ~24 14C ka BP likely signifies
flooding of the basin, as suggested by Thorson and Dixon (1983)."

  Now that you have read what Dyke wrote, has your question on
the 30 ka date been answered?

Daryl Krupa

Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<BScec.8232$K_.256725@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

<snip>
> In fact it may have taken a serious climate change to
> permit travel even though the corridor was open simply due to
> the complexity of the terrain in the corridor and the marginal
> climate. It is concievable that it was open during the glacials
> but simply was impassible for other reasons for non-adaptive
> bipeds.

  The trouble with that scenario is that the pre-Late-Wisconsinan
gravels, near Edmonton and elsewhere in Alberta, indicate that
there was a diverse megafaunal assemblage here until about 20 ka BP.
  The middle Wisconsinan ice margin of the LIS (Laurentide Ice Sheet)
was similar to the LIS margin about 10 ka BP.
  If the bipeds were adapted to hunting megafauna in sub-Arctic
climates at about 24 ka BP, they could get through. If they weren't
adapted to hunting megafauna in sub-Arctic climates, they couldn't.
  I seem to recall that evidence from the Old World suggests that
bipeds were adapted to hunting megafauna in sub-Arctic climates at
about that time.

Daryl Krupa

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<N9dec.3382$l75.1363@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

<snip>
> Just a stray thought. . . . . . While we can come up with all sorts
> of scenarios that could account for humans being at Monte Verde
> at the early dates involved, which of the theories is MOST
> consistent with the severe lack of human habitation at earlier
> dates, further north?  Any significant migration down through the
> "heartland" of North America, through central and South America
> as far south as Chile would be hard to imagine without leaving
> some obvious traces.  If you sift that migratory path to the
> continental shelf (that would have been exposed during glacial
> periods), you not only have a means of transportation, but also
> an explaination for the lack of modern evidence.  (While I
> MIGHT be able to credit some of that lack of evidence to
> the Clovis-first "mafia" and their ideas of PCness, I really do
> believe that if it was there someone would have found it and said
> so!)

  I like the theory that the sites most likely to have had evidence
of human habitation at earlier dates, further north, have been
plowed up by glaciers, covered with loess, scoured out by glacial
meltwater, buried under alluvium, mined for marl or bat guano, or
maybe never had anything that could easily be recognised as having
been the result of early human activity before it was irrevocably
disturbed by modern humans and their advanced technology.

Daryl Krupa


> It may not be dead, but. . . . . do I hear an ever so slight gasp
> for air somewhere in there!  ;-)
>
> Regards
> bk

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40a73547.0404111937.3c89e602@posting.google.com...
Snippage. . . . .

> > Just a stray thought. . . . . . While we can come up with all sorts
> > of scenarios that could account for humans being at Monte Verde
> > at the early dates involved, which of the theories is MOST
> > consistent with the severe lack of human habitation at earlier
> > dates, further north?
>
> 1) "Scenarios" are not evidence.

ABSOLUTELY not!

My meaning above was that there are a host of different possiblities,
none with compelling evidence supporting them as THE  one-and only
path of the first humans to the Americas.  They are "POSSIBILITIES",
nothing more.  However, if given a set of possibilities it does not mean
that each and every one must be considered equally probable.  You
might even call it "circumstancial evidence" when some of the "curious
issues" turn out to favor one concept or another, not that one tiny
shread of rigorous evidence could not upset that applecart.  The severe
lack of hard, fully documented, seriously-pre-Clovis evidence in this
ice free corridor and south of it, is nothing more than a "curious issue".

>
> 2) Since there hasn't been  one iota of repeatable evidence (darn old
> science requirement) to confirm Monte Verde, then the severe  lack of
> human habitation at earlier dates, further north are no more troubling
> than the severe lack of human habitation at earlier dates, further
> south.

Hmmmmm. . . . Im confused.  Does "repeatable evidence" in this sense
mean other "pre-Clovis" settlements of about the same age?  Or does it mean
repeatable and consistent C14 dating of the organic material, or ????

If the later, I would offer up some of the other sites in N. America,
including Saltville and Cactus Hill in Virginia, Topper site in S. Carolina,
and maybe even Meadowcroft. Pedra Furada from Brazil, Pikimackay
Cave, and possibly Quebrada Jaguay and Quebrada Tacahuay in Peru,
and Im certain that there are a few more (perhaps awaiting publishing?).

IF the latter, although I cant find it right now, I seem to remember that
there were several samples of the abundant organic material at Monte
Verde sent to several different labs for confirmation.  (if my memory is
failing me, I would have to say that Im surprised that such findings
were not cross-checked by different labs.)

> >  Any significant migration down through the
> > "heartland" of North America, through central and South America
> > as far south as Chile would be hard to imagine without leaving
> > some obvious traces.
>
> Not if your unproven assumption is wrong, and if it is wrong, then the
> problem goes away and there are obvious traces in abundance.

True.  But without evidence I was just advancing hypotheses, sort of
tossing the linguini at the wall and seeing if it sticks.  At least to me,
the "land only" hypothesis just ends up behind the stove every time!

8-)

> >  If you sift that migratory path to the
> > continental shelf (that would have been exposed during glacial
> > periods), you not only have a means of transportation, but also
> > an explaination for the lack of modern evidence.
>
> The Canadian government  has been sifting mud off the Queen Charlottes
> and so far 9300 B.P. is the best they can do for a path.
> Human remains on Prince of Wales Island is a little older at about
> 10,000 B.P. These dates are no older than inland dates.

Sorry, left out the "H", make that "shift" for that hypothetical migratory
path.

> >  (While I
> > MIGHT be able to credit some of that lack of evidence to
> > the Clovis-first "mafia" and their ideas of PCness, I really do
> > believe that if it was there someone would have found it and said
> > so!)
> >
> > It may not be dead, but. . . . . do I hear an ever so slight gasp
> > for air somewhere in there!  ;-)
>
> The burden of proof falls on the proponent of the anomaly, in your
> case Monte Verde, not on  proven science.
>

Again we are in absolute agreement that the "proof" does not lie with
the established theory.  Proof must lie with the contender.  Could be
wrong, but there might just be some proof lying around in places like
the Channel Islands (off the coast of California), in Monte Verde, in
Pedra Furado or the coastal caves of Peru.  Right now the odds
are getting pretty long on "Clovis First", and maybe even a bit of
teetering in there for the "land bridge only" answer as well.

Regards
bk

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<P9Hec.5907$zj3.3283@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40a73547.0404111937.3c89e602@posting.google.com...
> Snippage. . . . .
>
> > > Just a stray thought. . . . . . While we can come up with all sorts
> > > of scenarios that could account for humans being at Monte Verde
> > > at the early dates involved, which of the theories is MOST
> > > consistent with the severe lack of human habitation at earlier
> > > dates, further north?
> >
> > 1) "Scenarios" are not evidence.
>
> ABSOLUTELY not!
>
> My meaning above was that there are a host of different possiblities,
> none with compelling evidence supporting them as THE  one-and only
> path of the first humans to the Americas.  They are "POSSIBILITIES",
> nothing more.  However, if given a set of possibilities it does not mean
> that each and every one must be considered equally probable.  You
> might even call it "circumstancial evidence" when some of the "curious
> issues" turn out to favor one concept or another, not that one tiny
> shread of rigorous evidence could not upset that applecart.  The severe
> lack of hard, fully documented, seriously-pre-Clovis evidence in this
> ice free corridor and south of it, is nothing more than a "curious issue".

OK, I like "circumstantial evidence" as well as the next person. If a
person has enough circumstances, then at *some point* it becomes
overwhelming evidence. Your "POSSIBILITIES, nothing more" above are
equal only if you ignore factual evidence, and only then does the
issue become a "curious issue."

Another words, land-based-big-game hunters are in Alaska at many sites
that are at least contemporaneous with Clovis in the lower 48. One
does not have to assume lanceolate points as one has to assume the
existence of sea going vessels. There are no seagoing vessel dates
that match the land based dates in Alaska.

The way I see it, the equations look like this:
1) For the boat hypothesis you have assumption (boats) X wrong time
(10 kya) ='s circumstantial possibility.

2) For the inland route you have hard evidence (lanceolate points) X
right time (11+ kya) ='s circumstantial possibility.

These two possibilities do not look equal to me. The coastal
proponents need an early date somewhere on the coast to even things
out.

>
> >
> > 2) Since there hasn't been  one iota of repeatable evidence (darn old
> > science requirement) to confirm Monte Verde, then the severe  lack of
> > human habitation at earlier dates, further north are no more troubling
> > than the severe lack of human habitation at earlier dates, further
> > south.
>
> Hmmmmm. . . . Im confused.  Does "repeatable evidence" in this sense
> mean other "pre-Clovis" settlements of about the same age?  Or does it mean
> repeatable and consistent C14 dating of the organic material, or ????

Convincing evidence would be "or ????"

>
> If the later, I would offer up some of the other sites in N. America,
> including Saltville and Cactus Hill in Virginia, Topper site in S. Carolina,
> and maybe even Meadowcroft. Pedra Furada from Brazil, Pikimackay
> Cave, and possibly Quebrada Jaguay and Quebrada Tacahuay in Peru,
> and Im certain that there are a few more (perhaps awaiting publishing?).

All these sites have one thing in common, they are all different from
each other, or they are so non-diagnostic and have so little evidence
of a culture they can't be attributed to anything. How many different
industrial traditions can you have occupying first place?  The more
you have the more anomalous the problem becomes, some of these have to
be wrong (they all can't be first), but which one?

>
> IF the latter, although I cant find it right now, I seem to remember that
> there were several samples of the abundant organic material at Monte
> Verde sent to several different labs for confirmation.  (if my memory is
> failing me, I would have to say that Im surprised that such findings
> were not cross-checked by different labs.)

So many complaints have been filed against Monte Verde, it seems to me
the only way to discuss it would be to go through the problems point
by point. A good starting place would be Fiedel and his Scientific
American (1999) article and Dillehay's rebuttal.

>
> > >  Any significant migration down through the
> > > "heartland" of North America, through central and South America
> > > as far south as Chile would be hard to imagine without leaving
> > > some obvious traces.
> >
> > Not if your unproven assumption is wrong, and if it is wrong, then the
> > problem goes away and there are obvious traces in abundance.
>
> True.  But without evidence I was just advancing hypotheses, sort of
> tossing the linguini at the wall and seeing if it sticks.  At least to me,
> the "land only" hypothesis just ends up behind the stove every time!
>
> 8-)

How, by stacking assumptions?   This makes the "wet" route an equal
possibility?

>
> > >  If you sift that migratory path to the
> > > continental shelf (that would have been exposed during glacial
> > > periods), you not only have a means of transportation, but also
> > > an explaination for the lack of modern evidence.
> >
> > The Canadian government  has been sifting mud off the Queen Charlottes
> > and so far 9300 B.P. is the best they can do for a path.
> > Human remains on Prince of Wales Island is a little older at about
> > 10,000 B.P. These dates are no older than inland dates.
>
> Sorry, left out the "H", make that "shift" for that hypothetical migratory
> path.

Still, hypothetical does not cancel lanceolate points and earlier
dates.

>
> > >  (While I
> > > MIGHT be able to credit some of that lack of evidence to
> > > the Clovis-first "mafia" and their ideas of PCness, I really do
> > > believe that if it was there someone would have found it and said
> > > so!)
> > >
> > > It may not be dead, but. . . . . do I hear an ever so slight gasp
> > > for air somewhere in there!  ;-)
> >
> > The burden of proof falls on the proponent of the anomaly, in your
> > case Monte Verde, not on  proven science.
> >
>
> Again we are in absolute agreement that the "proof" does not lie with
> the established theory.  Proof must lie with the contender.

Which is exactly what it says in the Cactus Hill monograph, if you
would like a more professional opinion.

> Could be
> wrong, but there might just be some proof lying around in places like
> the Channel Islands (off the coast of California), in Monte Verde, in
> Pedra Furado or the coastal caves of Peru.  Right now the odds
> are getting pretty long on "Clovis First", and maybe even a bit of
> teetering in there for the "land bridge only" answer as well.

Well, the world has been holding its breath since 1928 for irrevocable
evidence to prove otherwise, I guess waiting another  75 years won't
hurt anything :-)

>
> Regards
> bk

In sci.anthropology.paleo,Lee Olsen created a
message ID news:40a73547.0404130939.41295504
@posting.google.com:

> The way I see it, the equations look like this:
> 1) For the boat hypothesis you have assumption (boats) X
> wrong time (10 kya) ='s circumstantial possibility.

28 kya ryukyu- first culture in southern chain, even at the
glacial minima in sea level no land connection. Large deep
sea fish bones in Japan. Skull found in ryukyu chain, looks
like negroid/austronesian 18 kya. HLA for ryukyuan and taiwan
aboriginals as well as non-kor components of Japanese show
affinity for low land south americans, who show 10 kya
negroid/austronesian skulls, earliest settlements in ecuador,
best evidence in the least researched americans area, south
america. Lets not fail to mention Parham and Ohta, that
within the americans the south american lowlanders, by far,
show the most diversified HLA suggesting that they are not
recent but early settlers, earlier in fact than the
Ainu/Kor/Amur river peoples who probably did take an inland
route, Later.

> 2) For the inland route you have hard evidence (lanceolate
> points) X right time (11+ kya) ='s circumstantial
> possibility.

Yes, see above, for a second wave.

> These two possibilities do not look equal to me. The
> coastal proponents need an early date somewhere on the
> coast to even things out.

Not really. The coastal proponents have ryukyu and the
genetic affinities of south americans with ryukyuans. Ryukyu
28 kya demand boat ability, likewise cultural features of
early Jomon and the development of shell culture in southern
Japan that is contiguous with ryukyuan complete with shell
seaweed harvesting hooks and fishing hooks suggest that
indeed that ryukyu/southern Jomon had an advanced maritime
culture.

The very worst problem with your hypothesis however if you
have put me in a situation to defend Bob, those are very poor
circumstances indeed. ;^)>

--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Sci. Arch. Aux
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/

DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net

"Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c70365ef.0404122219.86130be@posting.google.com...
Snip. . .

>   I like the theory that the sites most likely to have had evidence
> of human habitation at earlier dates, further north, have been
> plowed up by glaciers, covered with loess, scoured out by glacial
> meltwater, buried under alluvium, mined for marl or bat guano, or
> maybe never had anything that could easily be recognised as having
> been the result of early human activity before it was irrevocably
> disturbed by modern humans and their advanced technology.
>
> Daryl Krupa

Well, thats possible.  But lets think about it for a moment.  If this
migration occurred lets say 60kya, there would be several glacial
advances between then and now and a lot of "earthmoving"
could have occured.  If I go back 30kya, there is progressively
fewer "advances", and more of a pseudo "static situation" and retreat
of the glaciers, right?  How does that get you "plowed under"?

As for the possible interference by modern humans and such,. . .
would not that same agent have destroyed all evidence of Folsom
and Clovis as well?

Regards
bk

Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam> wrote in message news:<Xns94CA98C5A72A5prd@128.249.2.19>...
> In sci.anthropology.paleo,Lee Olsen created a
> message ID news:40a73547.0404130939.41295504
> @posting.google.com:
>
> > The way I see it, the equations look like this:
> > 1) For the boat hypothesis you have assumption (boats) X
> > wrong time (10 kya) ='s circumstantial possibility.
>
> 28 kya ryukyu- first culture in southern chain, even at the
> glacial minima in sea level no land connection. Large deep
> sea fish bones in Japan. Skull found in ryukyu chain, looks
> like negroid/austronesian 18 kya. HLA for ryukyuan and taiwan
> aboriginals as well as non-kor components of Japanese show
> affinity for low land south americans,

HLA affinity is not a cultural connection.

> who show 10 kya
> negroid/austronesian skulls,

Well, I like your date here, but I assume you mean Neves and his
*opinion* about the
"negroid/austronesian skulls." Steele and Powell (1994), Ozolins
(1999) and Cunningham and Jantz (2003) all agree there are certainly
differences amongst the skulls in the Americas, but that the reasons
for these differences are unclear. Choosing one side of an ongoing
debate because you happen to like it is weak at best.

> earliest settlements in ecuador,
> best evidence in the least researched americans area, south
> america.

Another 'hiding in the jungle negative evidence' argument.

> Lets not fail to mention Parham and Ohta, that
> within the americans the south american lowlanders, by far,
> show the most diversified HLA suggesting that they are not
> recent but early settlers,

I see, so after 18 thousand years of a successful maritime legacy,
they suddenly (for no apparent reason) dropped this proven lifestyle
and escaped into the jungles without leaving so much as a trace of
either their path or their former culture.

> earlier in fact than the
> Ainu/Kor/Amur river peoples who probably did take an inland
> route, Later.

The ancestors of these people, IMO, may be  good candidates for the
Sooners.

>
> > 2) For the inland route you have hard evidence (lanceolate
> > points) X right time (11+ kya) ='s circumstantial
> > possibility.
>
> Yes, see above, for a second wave.

One founding wave or several waves is something that really hasn't
been determined yet, so arguing one side or the other is just opinion
at this point.

>
> > These two possibilities do not look equal to me. The
> > coastal proponents need an early date somewhere on the
> > coast to even things out.
>
> Not really. The coastal proponents have ryukyu and the
> genetic affinities of south americans with ryukyuans. Ryukyu
> 28 kya demand boat ability,

Not really. Sailing around Japan's bays in cockleshells is not the
same as sailing around the Pacific Ocean. Your argument is like
claiming the WWII Germans, with their V-2 rockets, got to the moon.

> likewise cultural features of
> early Jomon and the development of shell culture in southern
> Japan that is contiguous with ryukyuan complete with shell
> seaweed harvesting hooks and fishing hooks suggest that
> indeed that ryukyu/southern Jomon had an advanced maritime
> culture.

And this advanced maritime culture got lost in the South American
jungles leaving no trace.

>
> The very worst problem with your hypothesis however if you
> have put me in a situation to defend Bob, those are very poor
> circumstances indeed. ;^)>

No, actually we were discussing which  route was used, not the genetic
or cultural background of those who took them, although that was a
secondary issue.
You are hopping around from 28k to 10k. You really need to isolate
some sort of time frame for these lost in the jungle types.

The very worst problem with your hypothesis is the huge gaps in the
time line. And even if your group of Pygmies washed up onto  the
Aleutians accidentally by boat, it doesn't follow they could have
gotten the rest of the way south by the same method.

You still didn't answer the question about your "The lowland south
american population appears to be  the oldest" And I asked "by how
much?" Is this expressed as a percentage against some other groups in
the Americas?

>
> --
> Philip
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
> Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
> Evol. of Xchrom.
> http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
> Pal. Anth. Group
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Sci. Arch. Aux
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
>
> DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<O13fc.6756$zj3.3903@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c70365ef.0404122219.86130be@posting.google.com...
> Snip. . .
>
> >   I like the theory that the sites most likely to have had evidence
> > of human habitation at earlier dates, further north, have been
> > plowed up by glaciers, covered with loess, scoured out by glacial
> > meltwater, buried under alluvium, mined for marl or bat guano, or
> > maybe never had anything that could easily be recognised as having
> > been the result of early human activity before it was irrevocably
> > disturbed by modern humans and their advanced technology.
> >
> > Daryl Krupa
>
> Well, thats possible.  But lets think about it for a moment.
> If this migration occurred lets say 60kya,
> there would be several glacial advances between then and now
> and a lot of "earthmoving" could have occured.
> If I go back 30kya, there is progressively fewer "advances", and
> more of a pseudo "static situation" and retreat of the glaciers,
> right?

  The timing of Early Wisconsinan advance and recession
is not well-dated, and its extent varied:
in some places (western side of LIS)
it was less extensive than the Late Wisconsinan advance,
and in other places
it was more extensive than the Late Wisconsinan advance.
  The Middle Wisconsinan interstadial
("period of reduced ice extent within a generally glacial time")
lasted from _roughly_ 50-25 ka BP.
  So, at 60 ka BP, conditions would be cold and glacial, but
there was probably an ice-free strip between the LIS and the Rockies.
  After that, the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS)
retreated to the Canadian Shield, and
a wide ice-free strip existed east of the Rockies,
including at 30 ka BP.
  After that, the LIS expanded,
probably reaching farther west than ever before, and
coalesced with overflow from the Cordilleran Ice Sheet (CIS),
which was spilling over mountain passes through the Rockies
from British Columbia.

> How does that get you "plowed under"?

  I was positing migration into North America on foot
during the Middle Wisconsinan interstadial.
  After that initial migration,
ice advanced over the migration path,
and also over other potentially inhabited areas
south and southeast of the LIS.
  Glacier advance usually involves removal of the pre-existing
surface materials. That is what I meant by "plowed up".
  I don't know how that gets me '"plowed under"'.

> As for the possible interference by modern humans and such,. . .
> would not that same agent have destroyed all evidence of Folsom
> and Clovis as well?

  No, not necessarily; Clovis and Folsom people may have found that
areas that are not well-suited to agriculture today
(or other means of disturbance)
were well-suited to them; e.g., in New Mexico.
  Also, Clovis and Folsom material would be nearer
the surface of the soil, and so easier to notice.
  Older material would have had more opportunity to be
damaged beyond recognition, buried beyond easy retrieval, or
disturbed by later humans (with "modern" humans I suppose I would
include agricultural societies before Columbus crashed the party).

Daryl Krupa

"Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c70365ef.0404122219.86130be@posting.google.com...
> "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<N9dec.3382$l75.1363@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>   I like the theory that the sites most likely to have had evidence
> of human habitation at earlier dates, further north, have been
> plowed up by glaciers, covered with loess, scoured out by glacial
> meltwater, buried under alluvium, mined for marl or bat guano, or
> maybe never had anything that could easily be recognised as having
> been the result of early human activity before it was irrevocably
> disturbed by modern humans and their advanced technology.
>
> Daryl Krupa

I am not knowledgable about North America at all, so this little report from
2000 is probably old hat...  But apparently not every thing gets chewed up
by those glaciers:

http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.html?a'

"
Perhaps there is a new source of data that can illuminate the pre-glacial
period: Chobot Site FfPq-3. In 1983 and 1984 the Chobots investigated the
cobble beads. Moraines had formed over the cobble beads, presumably from the
glacial episode that closed the ice-free corridor. On top of the moraine
deposits they found artifacts of Clovis culture that undoubtedly date to a
period after 14,000 years ago, when the climate had improved and burgeoning
vegetation could have supported animal life. But they also found artifacts
under the moraines. What is more astonishing, they have found two layers of
cultural soils under the cobble beds. It would appear that humans have
subsisted here, or at least passed through on their search for better
climes, well before Clovis."


Val

<snip>
"Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<ozzfc.129780$Ig.92682@pd7tw2no>...

> I am not knowledgable about North America at all, so this little report from
> 2000 is probably old hat...  But apparently not every thing gets chewed up
> by those glaciers:
>
> http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.html?a'
>
> "
> Perhaps there is a new source of data that can illuminate the pre-glacial
> period: Chobot Site FfPq-3. In 1983 and 1984 the Chobots investigated the
> cobble beads. Moraines had formed over the cobble beads, presumably from the
> glacial episode that closed the ice-free corridor. On top of the moraine
> deposits they found artifacts of Clovis culture that undoubtedly date to a
> period after 14,000 years ago, when the climate had improved and burgeoning
> vegetation could have supported animal life. But they also found artifacts
> under the moraines. What is more astonishing, they have found two layers of
> cultural soils under the cobble beds. It would appear that humans have
> subsisted here, or at least passed through on their search for better
> climes, well before Clovis."
>
> Val:
  More here:

http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.html?a&&h=buck

"During the construction of the parking area on adjacent lot #12, a
Clovis layer was found on top of sharp blackish gray sand soil 43 cm
below the surface. Under the Clovis layer, 58 cm below the surface in
organically rich soil, the Chobots found a group of flake tools."

  That's the best description you'll get; it says nothing about
anything under till, and quartzite flakes can be created by glacial
action.
  I've been on a dig that recovered quartzite flakes on top of glacial
material on adjacent Buck Mountain.
  From what I've seen around Buck Lake, I don't think that it's likely
that the cobble beds (not "beads") around the lake predate the glacial
till ("moraine"),
though I suppose it's possible.
  I've never seen a good description of the site; maybe I should phone
them.

Daryl Krupa

<snip>
"Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<ozzfc.129780$Ig.92682@pd7tw2no>...

> I am not knowledgable about North America at all, so this little report from
> 2000 is probably old hat...  But apparently not every thing gets chewed up
> by those glaciers:
<snip>

Val:
  I've reviewed my notes and maps on the area, which can be seen in Fig. 1, here:

http://alms.biology.ualberta.ca/DwnldDocs/LakeWatchRpts/Buck%2001.pdf

  The Chabots are on the east side of the lake,
between the lake and the hook-shaped access road
(directly above the word "SCALE", and left of "To Winfield").

  The site's geomorphology is 'way too complicated to easily explain,
and I must admit to frustration in trying to do so.
  Please bear with me, and I hope that what you see below isn't
too boring to follow.

  Buck Lake probably started out as a subglacial meltwater channel,
near the margin of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, during glacial retreat.
That might explain an accumulation of cobble stones in its shoreline
material, which are found as an ancient hilltop gravel deposit in
the hills to the south, but which are also found in younger
pre-glacial-North-Saskatchewan-River gravels.
  The glacial till ("moraine") might have been deposited from
the overlying ice after the meltwater channel was abandoned.

  It's possible that the Buck Lake basin was excavated by glacial
meltwater in an area with a pre-existing gravel cover, and it is also
possible that the Buck Lake basin is a remnant of a pre-glacial river
valley, so there is a possibility that a pre-glacial campsite on
cobble gravel happened to survive that excavation.
  But it's much more likely that any campsite in the area would have
been related to the lake, after deglaciation.
  After the local area was deglaciated, ice to the east was still
blocking drainage from the North Saskatchewan valley, so
Glacial Lake Drayton Valley was created, depositing sand along
the river valley and all around Buck Lake.
  The terraces are the result of level changes in Buck Lake since
deglaciation, as Buck Lake Creek, its outlet, cut a course to the
North Saskatchewan River This process would have been delayed at
times by beaver dams, no doubt, and dams may even have temporarily
raised lake level.
  Wave-washing of shoreline materials removed the finer material,
leaving the cobble stones behind in a beach.
  Lake ice could then have thrust or carried those cobbles up over
other near-shore material, and might also have pushed up other
moraine-like material over the cobbles.

  The "moraine" supposedly draping over the beach cobbles might also
be glacial till washed down from the slopes above. Certainly the
sand-over-organics sequence described reflects sandy material
(local bedrock is Tertiary sandstone) that was either washed out or
blown out of the till and glacial lake sediments and redeposited in
a depression that had previously been accumulating organic material
(peat).

  Add to that the effects of glaciotectonic thrusting: Buck Mountain,
to the northeast, is a several-hundred-feet-thick stack of slabs of
local bedrock thrust up as they froze onto the sole of the glacial ice,
and Buck Lake may be the result of removal of such a slab.

  The sketchy site description in _The Mammoth Trumpet_ doesn't begin
to describe the complications in the local geological history.
  I've been trying for years to work up a reasonable geomorphological
history of the Buck Mountain area, and I keep running up against a
brick wall of inadequate information.
  The sedimentary environment was too chaotic, variable, and energetic
for easy explanation, so one can hardly blame the Alberta Archaeological
Survey (now defunct) for not spending scarce resources on the site.
  Of course, one cannot fault the Chabots for their enthusiasm, either.
  If the organics associated with the rock flakes could be dated, then
that might be useful. But there is a very large possibility of
contamination from human activity (e.g. septic tank material), so
even if a Mid-Wisconsinan date was produced, it could be argued that
it had been skewed. Besides that, fine coal particles are abundant in
material derived from the local bedrock; separating out those particles
from a bulk sample of peat would be very difficult, if not impossible.

  I'm sorry; the possibilities of a pre-glacial campsite surviving at
that location are small, smaller than at most places in Alberta, and
the chances of securely dating it are even smaller.

Lamenting the demise of organised geoarchaeological investigation here,
Daryl Krupa

icycalmca@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa) wrote in message news:<c70365ef.0404160003.28dc5c2b@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
>   Buck Lake probably started out as a subglacial meltwater channel,
<snip>
>   It's possible that the Buck Lake basin was excavated by glacial
> meltwater in an area with a pre-existing gravel cover, and it is also
> possible that the Buck Lake basin is a remnant of a pre-glacial river
> valley, so there is a possibility that a pre-glacial campsite on
> cobble gravel happened to survive that excavation.

  Correction:
Buck Lake is mapped as part of a north-flowing pre-glacial stream channel,
but the channel is covered with about 100 ft. / 30 m of glacial till;
a band of glacial lake sediment about 1/4 mile / 400 m wide and
more than 3 ft. / 1 m thick, on top of the till, surrounds the lake, and
might be said to extend further from the lake shore.
  The slopes immediately above the lake, as far as about 300 ft. / 100 m
from the lake, might be considered to be related to the modern lake, and
not to the older and wider glacial lake.

>   But it's much more likely that any campsite in the area would have
> been related to the lake, after deglaciation.

  This is still my opinion.
  There is no reason to believe that the Chobots have found material
under glacial till.

  One more item:
  The Triassic-age fossils mentioned cannot have come from local bedrock,
as the nearest Triassic exposure is in the Rocky Mountains; they may have
eroded out of material washed down the North Saskatchewan River before
glaciation.

With apologies for serial self-reply offenses,
Daryl Krupa

"Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c70365ef.0404141030.1cde056a@posting.google.com...
Snippage. . . .

> > Well, thats possible.  But lets think about it for a moment.
> > If this migration occurred lets say 60kya,
> > there would be several glacial advances between then and now
> > and a lot of "earthmoving" could have occured.
> > If I go back 30kya, there is progressively fewer "advances", and
> > more of a pseudo "static situation" and retreat of the glaciers,
> > right?
>
>   The timing of Early Wisconsinan advance and recession
> is not well-dated, and its extent varied:
> in some places (western side of LIS)
> it was less extensive than the Late Wisconsinan advance,
> and in other places
> it was more extensive than the Late Wisconsinan advance.
>   The Middle Wisconsinan interstadial
> ("period of reduced ice extent within a generally glacial time")
> lasted from _roughly_ 50-25 ka BP.
>   So, at 60 ka BP, conditions would be cold and glacial, but
> there was probably an ice-free strip between the LIS and the Rockies.
>   After that, the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS)
> retreated to the Canadian Shield, and
> a wide ice-free strip existed east of the Rockies,
> including at 30 ka BP.
>   After that, the LIS expanded,
> probably reaching farther west than ever before, and
> coalesced with overflow from the Cordilleran Ice Sheet (CIS),
> which was spilling over mountain passes through the Rockies
> from British Columbia.
>
> > How does that get you "plowed under"?
>
>   I was positing migration into North America on foot
> during the Middle Wisconsinan interstadial.
>   After that initial migration,
> ice advanced over the migration path,
> and also over other potentially inhabited areas
> south and southeast of the LIS.
>   Glacier advance usually involves removal of the pre-existing
> surface materials. That is what I meant by "plowed up".
>   I don't know how that gets me '"plowed under"'.

OK down to the last.  EVEN if the central prarie areas were
rich in human "artifacts" prior to the last glacial advance, AND
all of those artifacts were sucked up into the glacial flow, you
would be finding treasure troves of stone tools (with no real
provenance) in the glacial leftovers.  Sort of like the meteors
that end up concentrated in spots in Antarctica, these tools
would show up at the margins of the once glacial regions.

We have the glacial moraines aplenty, but I dont know of any that
have an overabundance of deeply emplanted human tools.  Do you?

> > As for the possible interference by modern humans and such,. . .
> > would not that same agent have destroyed all evidence of Folsom
> > and Clovis as well?
>
>   No, not necessarily; Clovis and Folsom people may have found that
> areas that are not well-suited to agriculture today (or other means of
> disturbance) were well-suited to them; e.g., in New Mexico.

Actually, even though Clovis is indusputably a town in New
Mexico, Clovis points and such have been found with comparitive
abundance just about anywhere in continental N. America except
for the northern 1/4 or so.

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/manarchnet/chronology/paleoindian/clovis2.html

>   Also, Clovis and Folsom material would be nearer
> the surface of the soil, and so easier to notice.

And therefore much easier to disturb?

>   Older material would have had more opportunity to be
> damaged beyond recognition, buried beyond easy retrieval, or
> disturbed by later humans (with "modern" humans I suppose I would
> include agricultural societies before Columbus crashed the party).

Ive got to disagree with you there!  ANYTHING closer to the surface
is by definition much easier to be destroyed or damaged by intentional
or accidental human interference.  Think about it for a while.  Primative
farming disturbed the soil only down to about 6-8 inches at most.  Until
steel plows came along, 1 ft of burial was just about absolute protection.
Even then, penetrating deeper than 1 ft with subsoiling rigs STILL stirrs
the surface at least as much as the underlayment.

Anything on the suface is of course also succeptable to someone just
plain picking it up!

Regards
bk

"Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<ozzfc.129780$Ig.92682@pd7tw2no>...
<snip>
>
> I am not knowledgable about North America at all,

And you will surely stay that way if you  get too much of your
information from Mammoth Trumpet :-)

> so this little report from
> 2000 is probably old hat...

So, more like old garbage...

What you linked to is only the an inset to the article itself, sort of
a lead-in.

> But apparently not every thing gets chewed up
> by those glaciers:

No, just a perfect example of what happens to ordinary rock that gets
chewed up by those glaciers.

>
> http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.html?a'
>
> "
> Perhaps there is a new source of data that can illuminate the pre-glacial
> period:

Perhaps.... but not likely at the Chobot's property.

> Chobot Site FfPq-3. In 1983 and 1984 the Chobots investigated the
> cobble beads.

The spelling errors are probably from the scanner program, these
errors do not appear in the original MT article.

> Moraines had formed over the cobble beads, presumably from the
> glacial episode that closed the ice-free corridor. On top of the moraine
> deposits they found artifacts of Clovis culture

If the lone fluted artifact pictured in the Mammoth Trumpet article is
representative of what the Chobot's are claiming as the "Clovis
culture," then no Clovis level exists on their property, because that
not a Clovis point.

>that undoubtedly date to a
> period after 14,000 years ago, when the climate had improved and burgeoning
> vegetation could have supported animal life. But they also found artifacts
> under the moraines.

Kanzi is making better quality artifacts than those shown in the
article, i.e., those labeled "under the moraines." The artifacts that
are not geofacts and found at higher levels at the site are probably
in the 10k range or younger.

> What is more astonishing, they have found two layers of
> cultural soils under the cobble beds. It would appear that humans have
> subsisted here, or at least passed through on their search for better
> climes, well before Clovis."

What is really astonishing is that MT would link their name to a site
like this in the first place.

Mammoth Trumpet is a news magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal and
this was the first issue by a new editor, maybe that is their excuse.

>
>
> Val

"Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<yyvkc.325239$oR5.317119@pd7tw3no>...
> "Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c70365ef.0404160003.28dc5c2b@posting.google.com...

<snip>

> >   It's possible that the Buck Lake basin was excavated by glacial
> > meltwater in an area with a pre-existing gravel cover, and it is also
> > possible that the Buck Lake basin is a remnant of a pre-glacial river
> > valley, so there is a possibility that a pre-glacial campsite on
> > cobble gravel happened to survive that excavation.
>
> Okay, I hope I'm following this correctly..  The pre-glacial campsite on
> cobble gravel would be the one that they say is "under the moraine"?

  Yes, that would be the one, except that the "moraine" is
not a glacial moraine, and it is exceedingly unlikely that
the campsite is actually preglacial.

> >   But it's much more likely that any campsite in the area would have
> > been related to the lake, after deglaciation.
>
> Even though its "under the moraine"?

  It's not a moraine. It's much more likely to be a deposit related
to a higher lake level than when the campsite was occupied, i.e.
a beach deposit.
  Beavers have a great effect on such systems with their dams, e.g..

> I have seen the fairly recent
> (5-6 years ago) "gravel flows" just east, outside of Banff National
> Park...  Is there evidence of such at Buck Lake as well?

  No such evidence. There's really not enough slope angle for such
a mass-movement feature to develop, but slopewash may have brought
some material to the lakeshore from the surrounding lake-eroded banks.
But not a gravel flow.

> >   After the local area was deglaciated, ice to the east was still
> > blocking drainage from the North Saskatchewan valley, so
> > Glacial Lake Drayton Valley was created, depositing sand along
> > the river valley and all around Buck Lake.
> >   The terraces are the result of level changes in Buck Lake since
> > deglaciation, as Buck Lake Creek, its outlet, cut a course to the
> > North Saskatchewan River This process would have been delayed at
> > times by beaver dams, no doubt, and dams may even have temporarily
> > raised lake level.
> >   Wave-washing of shoreline materials removed the finer material,
> > leaving the cobble stones behind in a beach.
> >   Lake ice could then have thrust or carried those cobbles up over
> > other near-shore material, and might also have pushed up other
> > moraine-like material over the cobbles.
> >
> >   The "moraine" supposedly draping over the beach cobbles might also
> > be glacial till washed down from the slopes above.
>
> Ah, ha!  This would be the "gravel flow" then...

  Yes, that is the most likely explanation.
  That or material scoured up from the lake bottom (maybe from an
older, lower beach deposit) and pushed up on shore by wind-driven
lake ice.

> > Certainly the
> > sand-over-organics sequence described reflects sandy material
> > (local bedrock is Tertiary sandstone) that was either washed out or
> > blown out of the till and glacial lake sediments and redeposited in
> > a depression that had previously been accumulating organic material
> > (peat).
> >
> >   Add to that the effects of glaciotectonic thrusting: Buck Mountain,
> > to the northeast, is a several-hundred-feet-thick stack of slabs of
> > local bedrock thrust up as they froze onto the sole of the glacial ice,
> > and Buck Lake may be the result of removal of such a slab.
>
> I'm not sure I understand this...

  It's just like the process that thrust up the Rocky Mountains, actually.
  If you want a better explanation, please ask here.

> >   The sketchy site description in _The Mammoth Trumpet_ doesn't begin
> > to describe the complications in the local geological history.
> >   I've been trying for years to work up a reasonable geomorphological
> > history of the Buck Mountain area, and I keep running up against a
> > brick wall of inadequate information.
> >   The sedimentary environment was too chaotic, variable, and energetic
> > for easy explanation, so one can hardly blame the Alberta Archaeological
> > Survey (now defunct) for not spending scarce resources on the site.
>
> I have asked a geologist friend for info, (I've waited for days just to find
> out he's on holidays and won't be back until mid-May...)  If I get anything
> from him I'll send it along. :)

  That would be appreciated, thanx.

> >   Of course, one cannot fault the Chabots for their enthusiasm, either.
> >   If the organics associated with the rock flakes could be dated, then
> > that might be useful. But there is a very large possibility of
> > contamination from human activity (e.g. septic tank material), so
> > even if a Mid-Wisconsinan date was produced, it could be argued that
> > it had been skewed. Besides that, fine coal particles are abundant in
> > material derived from the local bedrock; separating out those particles
> > from a bulk sample of peat would be very difficult, if not impossible.
> >
> >   I'm sorry; the possibilities of a pre-glacial campsite surviving at
> > that location are small, smaller than at most places in Alberta, and
> > the chances of securely dating it are even smaller.
> >
> > Lamenting the demise of organised geoarchaeological investigation here,
> > Daryl Krupa
>
> Thanks for the info Daryl.  I knew there was a reason that I did my best to
> stay out of North American arky and anth....  :)   It seems mighty
> frustrating.   However, I happen to live in the so-called ice-free corridor
> of Alberta, and one can't study arky and anth around here without learning
> ~something~ of the area.  :)
>
> Now I will ask:  Hasn't there also been something that was found under the
> moraines that are called the Cypress Hills?

  Yes, preglacial megafauna bones have been found there in preglacial
gravels, and in the Hand Hills, and near Edmonton.
  I am in Edmonton. Whereabouts are you, please?

Daryl Krupa

"Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c70365ef.0404160003.28dc5c2b@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
> "Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<ozzfc.129780$Ig.92682@pd7tw2no>...
>
> > I am not knowledgable about North America at all, so this little report
from
> > 2000 is probably old hat...  But apparently not every thing gets chewed
up
> > by those glaciers:
> <snip>
>
> Val:
>   I've reviewed my notes and maps on the area, which can be seen in Fig.
1, here:
>
> http://alms.biology.ualberta.ca/DwnldDocs/LakeWatchRpts/Buck%2001.pdf
>
>   The Chabots are on the east side of the lake,
> between the lake and the hook-shaped access road
> (directly above the word "SCALE", and left of "To Winfield").
>
>   The site's geomorphology is 'way too complicated to easily explain,
> and I must admit to frustration in trying to do so.
>   Please bear with me, and I hope that what you see below isn't
> too boring to follow.
>
>   Buck Lake probably started out as a subglacial meltwater channel,
> near the margin of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, during glacial retreat.
> That might explain an accumulation of cobble stones in its shoreline
> material, which are found as an ancient hilltop gravel deposit in
> the hills to the south, but which are also found in younger
> pre-glacial-North-Saskatchewan-River gravels.
>   The glacial till ("moraine") might have been deposited from
> the overlying ice after the meltwater channel was abandoned.
>
>   It's possible that the Buck Lake basin was excavated by glacial
> meltwater in an area with a pre-existing gravel cover, and it is also
> possible that the Buck Lake basin is a remnant of a pre-glacial river
> valley, so there is a possibility that a pre-glacial campsite on
> cobble gravel happened to survive that excavation.

Okay, I hope I'm following this correctly..  The pre-glacial campsite on
cobble gravel would be the one that they say is "under the moraine"?

>   But it's much more likely that any campsite in the area would have
> been related to the lake, after deglaciation.

Even though its "under the moraine"?  I have seen the fairly recent (5-6
years ago) "gravel flows" just east, outside of Banff National Park...  Is
there evidence of such at Buck Lake as well?

>   After the local area was deglaciated, ice to the east was still
> blocking drainage from the North Saskatchewan valley, so
> Glacial Lake Drayton Valley was created, depositing sand along
> the river valley and all around Buck Lake.
>   The terraces are the result of level changes in Buck Lake since
> deglaciation, as Buck Lake Creek, its outlet, cut a course to the
> North Saskatchewan River This process would have been delayed at
> times by beaver dams, no doubt, and dams may even have temporarily
> raised lake level.
>   Wave-washing of shoreline materials removed the finer material,
> leaving the cobble stones behind in a beach.
>   Lake ice could then have thrust or carried those cobbles up over
> other near-shore material, and might also have pushed up other
> moraine-like material over the cobbles.
>
>   The "moraine" supposedly draping over the beach cobbles might also
> be glacial till washed down from the slopes above.

Ah, ha!  This would be the "gravel flow" then...

> Certainly the
> sand-over-organics sequence described reflects sandy material
> (local bedrock is Tertiary sandstone) that was either washed out or
> blown out of the till and glacial lake sediments and redeposited in
> a depression that had previously been accumulating organic material
> (peat).
>
>   Add to that the effects of glaciotectonic thrusting: Buck Mountain,
> to the northeast, is a several-hundred-feet-thick stack of slabs of
> local bedrock thrust up as they froze onto the sole of the glacial ice,
> and Buck Lake may be the result of removal of such a slab.

I'm not sure I understand this...

>   The sketchy site description in _The Mammoth Trumpet_ doesn't begin
> to describe the complications in the local geological history.
>   I've been trying for years to work up a reasonable geomorphological
> history of the Buck Mountain area, and I keep running up against a
> brick wall of inadequate information.
>   The sedimentary environment was too chaotic, variable, and energetic
> for easy explanation, so one can hardly blame the Alberta Archaeological
> Survey (now defunct) for not spending scarce resources on the site.

I have asked a geologist friend for info, (I've waited for days just to find
out he's on holidays and won't be back until mid-May...)  If I get anything
from him I'll send it along. :)

>   Of course, one cannot fault the Chabots for their enthusiasm, either.
>   If the organics associated with the rock flakes could be dated, then
> that might be useful. But there is a very large possibility of
> contamination from human activity (e.g. septic tank material), so
> even if a Mid-Wisconsinan date was produced, it could be argued that
> it had been skewed. Besides that, fine coal particles are abundant in
> material derived from the local bedrock; separating out those particles
> from a bulk sample of peat would be very difficult, if not impossible.
>
>   I'm sorry; the possibilities of a pre-glacial campsite surviving at
> that location are small, smaller than at most places in Alberta, and
> the chances of securely dating it are even smaller.
>
> Lamenting the demise of organised geoarchaeological investigation here,
> Daryl Krupa

Thanks for the info Daryl.  I knew there was a reason that I did my best to
stay out of North American arky and anth....  :)   It seems mighty
frustrating.   However, I happen to live in the so-called ice-free corridor
of Alberta, and one can't study arky and anth around here without learning
~something~ of the area.  :)

Now I will ask:  Hasn't there also been something that was found under the
moraines that are called the Cypress Hills?

Val

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40a73547.0404170954.768bad49@posting.google.com...
> "Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<ozzfc.129780$Ig.92682@pd7tw2no>...
> <snip>
> >
> > I am not knowledgable about North America at all,
>
> And you will surely stay that way if you  get too much of your
> information from Mammoth Trumpet :-)

I'm not knowledgable through choice...  Just happened across the article
looking for an answer to something else.  If you'd noticed, Daryl had
already brought up and discussed the site, but I didn't realize that the
Chobot site was the same Buck Lake site he mentioned.

> > so this little report from
> > 2000 is probably old hat...
>
> So, more like old garbage...

Okay...

> What you linked to is only the an inset to the article itself, sort of
> a lead-in.
>
> > But apparently not every thing gets chewed up
> > by those glaciers:
>
> No, just a perfect example of what happens to ordinary rock that gets
> chewed up by those glaciers.

So...  Does that mean that you know how deep those glaciers dug into the
previous surface?  And if something is found middling around the center of
one of those moraines, could it be considered to have been from before the
glaciers decended?

> > http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.html?a'
> >
> > "
> > Perhaps there is a new source of data that can illuminate the
pre-glacial
> > period:
>
> Perhaps.... but not likely at the Chobot's property.
>
> > Chobot Site FfPq-3. In 1983 and 1984 the Chobots investigated the
> > cobble beads.
>
> The spelling errors are probably from the scanner program, these
> errors do not appear in the original MT article.

Hmmm.  So you don't recommend the magazine, but you read it yourself? ;)

> > Moraines had formed over the cobble beads, presumably from the
> > glacial episode that closed the ice-free corridor. On top of the moraine
> > deposits they found artifacts of Clovis culture
>
> If the lone fluted artifact pictured in the Mammoth Trumpet article is
> representative of what the Chobot's are claiming as the "Clovis
> culture," then no Clovis level exists on their property, because that
> not a Clovis point.

And since you are knowlegable about these points, what is it
representative of?

> >that undoubtedly date to a
> > period after 14,000 years ago, when the climate had improved and
burgeoning
> > vegetation could have supported animal life. But they also found
artifacts
> > under the moraines.
>
> Kanzi is making better quality artifacts than those shown in the
> article, i.e., those labeled "under the moraines." The artifacts that
> are not geofacts and found at higher levels at the site are probably
> in the 10k range or younger.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here.  What would it
matter that someone today can make better artifacts than what was found?
Those labeled "under the moraines" would probably be older than the 10 ky
you have given for dates of those found "at higher levels" wouldn't they?
;)

> > What is more astonishing, they have found two layers of
> > cultural soils under the cobble beds. It would appear that humans have
> > subsisted here, or at least passed through on their search for better
> > climes, well before Clovis."
>
> What is really astonishing is that MT would link their name to a site
> like this in the first place.
>
> Mammoth Trumpet is a news magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal and
> this was the first issue by a new editor, maybe that is their excuse.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here either...  So they are a news
magazine.  Why is it so astonishing that they would report on an
interesting, controversial site?  Sounds to me like a way to draw attention
to themselves... :)

Val

"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.

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.

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

icycalmca@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa) wrote in message news:<c70365ef.0405012130.53218553@posting.google.com>...
> 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).

Just to be perfectly clear, Daryl, I don't have a clue about the
geology of the site.

>   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.

Judging by the artifacts that are claimed to be old, I would say they
didn't find a pre-glacial campsite either.

>   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.

Not one of the artifacts pictured from the claimed pre-glacial level
would be considered an artifact out of context. They look more like,
well, Calico Hills artifacts.

>
> > 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.

Excuse #41

>   How big would the PDF file be?
>  (I'd like some warning if it's in the megabyte range).

About 12 MB.  If it would help, I could break it down and send  one
page (3MB) at a time.

>
>   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

When the East Wenatchee cache was found here in Washington, anthros
from all over the United States descended  like locusts, just as fast
as they could get a plane ticket to the site. They fought over who was
going to get to do the dig and most of it was done on a volunteer
basis. I would think that after 20 years, if the Chobot site was
legit, someone would have done a dig and published something by now.

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40a73547.0405020708.42acf673@posting.google.com...
SNippage. . .

> Not one of the artifacts pictured from the claimed pre-glacial level
> would be considered an artifact out of context. They look more like,
> well, Calico Hills artifacts.
>

The problem with the Calico Hills artifacts, aside from the age, is the less
than unequivocable provenance.  Im thinking that what would be required for
people to start accepting such early dates for  finds in N. America might be
some fairly clean, unequivocable artifacts or some skeletal material or. . .
.. anyway, somthing that could not credibly be attached to "natural
phenomena.

With finds that are even remotely associated with glacial deposits, there is
always going to be the "reasonable doubt" that they could be either natural
artifacts of the grinding along the bottom of the glacier OR simply later
artifacts that were plowed into earlier remains.

Snippage. . .

> >   How big would the PDF file be?
> >  (I'd like some warning if it's in the megabyte range).
>
> About 12 MB.  If it would help, I could break it down and send  one
> page (3MB) at a time.
>

Any chance you could post that puppy to one of the Yahoo groups?  Even 3mb
tends to choke a lot of email servers.

> >
> >   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
>
> When the East Wenatchee cache was found here in Washington, anthros
> from all over the United States descended  like locusts, just as fast
> as they could get a plane ticket to the site. They fought over who was
> going to get to do the dig and most of it was done on a volunteer
> basis. I would think that after 20 years, if the Chobot site was
> legit, someone would have done a dig and published something by now.

8-)  And the Dead Sea scrolls sat around unpublished for how long?

Wonder how much NSF money (aka US taxpayers money!) has gone into valuable
research that is STILL sitting on some desk awaiting the "right time" to let
the rest of the world in on the discoveries.  Old story, pet peeve. . . ;-)

Regards
bk

paleocity@hotmail.com (Lee Olsen) wrote in message news:<40a73547.0405020708.42acf673@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> Just to be perfectly clear, Daryl, I don't have a clue about the
> geology of the site.

  Okay, soon you will:

  Mapped as 50-100 feet of glacial till, from a single advance,
draped over a pre-glacial valley. over that is a thin drape of
glaciolacustrine sediment. Glacial material in the area is
predominantly derived from the local Tertiary sandstone bedrock,
with an admixture of quartzite cobbles quarried from alluvial gravel.
  There is some evidence of windblown sand having been a factor
during the warm, dry period in the mid-Holocene, when sand dunes
were active throughout the region.
  To the north and east are hills made up of sandstone that had been
picked, moved, and stacked by glacial action. The nearest, Buck
Mountain, would have been an excellent lookout point, and material
similar to the Chobot finds have been found at the summit (probably
debitage).
  Further back is a belt of mutiple bedrock thrusts that include
Cretaceous coal; that brought the coal near the surface, and that
belt of near-surface coal is being strip-mined.
  To the south are hills of Tertiary sandstone bedrock.
  The lake basin itself is shallow, with gently-sloping rolling plain
surrounding; adjacent to the lake are low terraces, with occasional
short, steep banks next to the lake shore. Lake floor is sandy.
  The outlet stream is narrow, winding, and easily dammed by beavers;
there is abundant evidence that they controlled lake level in the past.
  The lake and its outlet run along the pre-glacial valley alignment,
i.e. an ancient tributary running north to the North Saskatchewan River
from those southern hills.

<snip>
> About 12 MB.  If it would help, I could break it down and send
> one page (3MB) at a time.
<snip>

  One page at a time, I can handle, but I would prefer you adopt
Keeter's idea and post it to a Yahoo site. 12 Mb is too much for me.

Thanx for whatever you do,
Daryl Krupa

Daryl Krupa wrote:
[snip]

>>> About 12 MB.  If it would help, I could break it down and send
>>> one page (3MB) at a time.
>> <snip>
>>
Just checking up on you, Daryl, the 6th ed. of Acrobat Reader now allows
you to cut and paste to clipboard sections of a PDF file so you can print
just the conclusion or the chart or whatever instead of the whole document
or whole page.  Truly cool beans!

Jois
--
>Standing on the bottom doesn't require energy.
Marco 012704

"firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<nqmdnRjvpqg6EwrdRVn-iQ@comcast.com>...
> Daryl Krupa wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >>> About 12 MB.  If it would help, I could break it down and send
> >>> one page (3MB) at a time.
> >> <snip>
> >>
> Just checking up on you, Daryl, the 6th ed. of Acrobat Reader now allows
> you to cut and paste to clipboard sections of a PDF file so you can print
> just the conclusion or the chart or whatever instead of the whole document
> or whole page.  Truly cool beans!

Jois:
  Yep, I been doin dat fer a wielnow.
  Tanks anyways, but dose images ain't valeable on de Knett.

Sorry, gotta run, dat manur'll cake up if I leve in in da garden
in da rain, so out I goes to turn it in out in da rain ...

Daryl Krupa
Cursing this chickenshit job I got myself into ...

paleocity@hotmail.com (Lee Olsen) wrote in message news:<40a73547.0405020708.42acf673@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> Not one of the artifacts pictured from the claimed pre-glacial level
> would be considered an artifact out of context. They look more like,
> well, Calico Hills artifacts.

  I have spoken with the Alberta Archaeological survey guy who did
the Chobot investigation, and he has provided me with a photocopy of
the The Mammoth Trumpet article.
  I agree with you that the artifacts pictured are not particularly
impressive, and do not indicate a pre-glacial occupation, and so
does the archaeologist.
  He also indicated that their respect for The Mammoth Trumpet
plummeted when that article appeared, as they felt that it was
one-sided, ill-informed, and contained some errors of fact,
partly because The Mammoth Trumpet never contacted them before
that story appeared.
  The story refers to a lack of funding being the problem stopping
further investigation; in the case of the Survey, it seems that the
major reason they did not investigate further was that they had
higher-priority sites to investigate. The Chobot site was not deemed
to be interesting enought to warrant further expenditure.
  It would seem that Chobot was not satisfied with the assessment
his site received from the official archaeologists, and chose to
pursue his campaign elswhere.

  Re: the cobble layer at Buck Lake, my best guess is that it
relates to an early high level of the lake after deglaciation,
either as a beach deposit of Glacial Lake Drayton Valley
(a large lake in the North Sakatchewan valley whose maximum level
was higher than that of the modern Buck Lake), or
a highstand of Buck Lake after Laurentide ice had receded further
and G.L. Drayton Valley had drained.
  The dark material below could be coal-rich sands derived from
either glacial lake sediments or local erosion of glacial till.

  The ice-free corridor map in the story is not quite like any
other I've seen; anyways, it would only depict conditions
during a short time period, and definitely not preglacial
or Full Glacial conditions.

> > > 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.

<snip>
  Thanks, but i don't think that I need the pictures anymore,
if they came from The Mammoth Trumpet.

> I would think that after 20 years, if the Chobot site was
> legit, someone would have done a dig and published something by now.

  it was not impressive enough for the site investigator to take time
out from his other duties to write up a report suitable for publishing,
assuming that there was enough information about the site to warrant a
separate article of its own, and it does not seem that that is the case.

Hoping that this has helped to clear up some things,
Daryl Krupa