🚀 go-pugleaf

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<BA8lc.1780$a47.488@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "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

Well, I've been waiting all my life for such an occurrence. It hasn't
happened yet IMO, and I'm starting to run out of time.

> 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.

I ran into a problem, see my post to Daryl today.

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 8-)  And the Dead Sea scrolls sat around unpublished for how long?

Totally the opposite situation. Once amateurs found the respective
sites and notified the proper authorities, action was taken with the
Dead Sea scrolls and was not at the Chobot find. The difference being
that the scrolls were recognized as valuable and the Chobot site
geofacts were not. It took legitimate time to piece together the 10s
of thousands of fragments of some of the scrolls and decode them
properly. How long does it take to look at a geofact?

>
> 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. . . ;-)

 Right, this may be of some interest to you if you haven't seen it
before....

http://www.friendsofpast.org/forum/mother.html
"It has been estimated that between 60 and 75 percent of work
completed in the field by professional archaeologists is not
reported."

Now, supposing this is true, take those that are reported and consider
the ones that contain directly contrary evidence or opposite
conclusions drawn from the same data. Then consider the few that
contain errors that aren't noticed because the other 60 to 75 %
haven't been reported. Now what are you getting for your dollar?

>
> Regards
> bk

"Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<Hyvkc.305139$Pk3.52671@pd7tw1no>...
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40a73547.0404170954.768bad49@posting.google.com...
> > "Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>  news:<ozzfc.129780$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?

You are assuming that the Chobot's finds were actually artifacts. If
they are geofacts, who cares that they were found  "middling around
the center of one of those moraines"?

>
> > > 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? ;)

You were the one who posted that MT article to this group, I didn't ;)
and I did specify "too much" above, which doesn't mean every article
published in MT is junk science.

>
> > > 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?

Hard to say until a legitimate dig is done on the site. From the sound
of Daryl's post today, this isn't going to happen any time soon.

>
> > >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?

 Kanzi is a chimp that makes chimpofacts by throwing rocks around
until he gets one with a sharp edge, just like a glacier makes
geofacts.

> 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?
> ;)

Well, you have three people now that are telling you that the alleged
artifacts from the alleged "under the moraine" are probably not
artifacts at all.

>
> > > 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... :)

The Center for the Study of the First Americans is a legitimate
science-group, doing a legitimate service that makes legitimate
mistakes at times. This doesn't mean all their publications are bad,
far from it, but I don't think calling attention to themselves with
articles better printed in the National Enquirer will help their cause
much.

>
> Val

icycalmca@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa) wrote in message news:<c70365ef.0405101757.d9b471@posting.google.com>...
> 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.

OK, so there is three of us, so far, that are not impressed by the
"alleged" artifacts. But even if we are wrong, it still would leave
this tremendous gap in proficiency between those "alleged under the
moraine" and those found higher where there is no doubt that they are
legitimate artifacts. Another words, why would these first pioneers to
the Americas suddenly revert back to 'worse than Oldowan' lithic
capabilities in total? To be sure, in many given sites, there will
always be a certain amount of junk found with the legitimate
material. But in this case, with all of the hundreds of artifacts
found, none at the early level are unequivocal artifacts. This alone
puts a strain on my imagination.

>   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.

In all fairness to the CFSFA, even when they do print junk, it's my
opinion that they will print counter views if they are sent to them.
They really can't publish the other side of a controversy if they dont
have it (but yes, they should have checked this one out further before
printing that story). In the case of your Alberta Archaeological
survey guy, it sounds like he figured the whole thing was such a joke
it wasn't worth his time to respond to MT.

>   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.

Worse is the fact that MT made a big issue out of the wonderful
activities of the Chobots, when in reality the Chobots were doing
nothing more than pot-hunting.

> 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;

Have you seen:

Kehoe, Thomas
     1966 The Distribution and Implications of Fluted Points in
Saskatchewan, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp 530-539

Neat paper.... worth looking at.

> 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.

Oops, I did send you the pictures (w/o the text) just after your last
post. I did not receive a 'can not deliver notice' so I assumed you
did get them. A few days later I received three cannot deliver
messages (they bounced because their mailboxes were full) from people
who I don't  know, and certainly didn't send any emails to. One of
these returned messages had a attachment with a virus that my
anti-virus  software picked up, one was just a simple request for
information with no attachment and the other I just deleted. Sounds
like a virus pirate has grabbed my Hotmail ID.

>
> > 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,

Did the Alberta Archaeological survey guy mentioned anything about the
alleged Clovis level or the Clovis-like point picture in the MT
article?

> Daryl Krupa

paleocity@hotmail.com (Lee Olsen) wrote in message news:<40a73547.0405110958.75710005@posting.google.com>...
....
> OK, so there is three of us, so far, that are not impressed by the
> "alleged" artifacts. But even if we are wrong, it still would leave
> this tremendous gap in proficiency between those "alleged under the
> moraine" and those found higher where there is no doubt that they are
> legitimate artifacts. Another words, why would these first pioneers to
> the Americas suddenly revert back to 'worse than Oldowan' lithic
> capabilities in total? To be sure, in many given sites, there will
> always be a certain amount of junk found with the legitimate
> material. But in this case, with all of the hundreds of artifacts
> found, none at the early level are unequivocal artifacts. This alone
> puts a strain on my imagination.

Don't know if it applies in this case, but there are precedents for
loss of technology by AMH in extreme environments. Jared Diamond in
Guns, Germs & Steel discusses e.g. Tasmanian aborigines & Chatham
Islanders (hunter-gatherers descended from New Zealand Maori - Chatham
Islands are SE of NZ).

As re the Tasmanians, after being cut off from the Australian mainland
by rising sea levels ca. 10KYA, their population declined from perhaps
50,000 to 5,000, & their toolkit became greatly simplified (e.g. lost
the skill of making ground stone tools I think. Can't recall the exact
details.)

One interesting aspect when whites arrived was a major cultural taboo
against eating fish. Diamond suggests that with such a low population,
death by drowning was too great a risk, so they gave up fishing. Not
totally sure I accept this argument but it's interesting anyway...

Ross Macfarlane

"Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c70365ef.0404301458.7da95a84@posting.google.com...
> "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...

I apologize for taking so long to reply. 'Life' is getting in the way.  :)

> <snip>
[snip]
> > >   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.

So you mean that the slab was pushed up, then removed by glaciation?  That
doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the descriptions of the area though,
does it?

> > >   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.

Still haven't heard back, I'm sure I will though...  :)

[snip]
> > > 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

These areas that we have been talking about, were rapidly populated shortly
after the glaciers retreated.  I am really starting to think that the idea
that the Americas were populated from the south to the north, rather than
the other way around, may have some merit.  ;)  Outa my league though...

I have alot on my plate right now, and not very happy about it.  I'm
thinking of wiping it clean, and have aspirations of returning to university
in the fall, and will, if everything works out well...

I'm in Calgary...    (go! Flames go!)     :)

Val

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40a73547.0405110943.334b29d6@posting.google.com...
> "Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<Hyvkc.305139$Pk3.52671@pd7tw1no>...
> > "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:40a73547.0404170954.768bad49@posting.google.com...
> > > "Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >  news:<ozzfc.129780$Ig.92682@pd7tw2no>...
> > > <snip>
> > > >
[snip]
>> > 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?
>
> You are assuming that the Chobot's finds were actually artifacts. If
> they are geofacts, who cares that they were found  "middling around
> the center of one of those moraines"?
>
I was speaking generally, and not necessarily about the Chobot's site
specifically...  I wouldn't assume anything about North American anything.
I've never studied it.  I was asking.  My study areas have been in Africa
and India:  the Miocene apes (anth) and Indus Valley (arky).  :)

[snip]
> > > 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? ;)
>
> You were the one who posted that MT article to this group, I didn't ;)
> and I did specify "too much" above, which doesn't mean every article
> published in MT is junk science.

Like I said Lee, I just stumbled arcross the article, and thought that it
fit in with the discussion going on here, and so posted it.  Anything is
better than those soggy conversations and I wanted it to continue...  :)

> > > > 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?
>
> Hard to say until a legitimate dig is done on the site. From the sound
> of Daryl's post today, this isn't going to happen any time soon.

Understandably.  The fluted point though...  ?

> > > >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?
>
>  Kanzi is a chimp that makes chimpofacts by throwing rocks around
> until he gets one with a sharp edge, just like a glacier makes
> geofacts.

> > 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?
> > ;)
>
> Well, you have three people now that are telling you that the alleged
> artifacts from the alleged "under the moraine" are probably not
> artifacts at all.

Got it.  What are the 'cultural soils' they are talking about below?

> > > > 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... :)
>
> The Center for the Study of the First Americans is a legitimate
> science-group, doing a legitimate service that makes legitimate
> mistakes at times. This doesn't mean all their publications are bad,
> far from it, but I don't think calling attention to themselves with
> articles better printed in the National Enquirer will help their cause
> much.

You like punching holes in baloons too, don't you? ;)

So does the oldest stuff in the area (the corridor) remain at about 8 to10
kya?  Or is the site at Taber older than that?

Val

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> 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.
>
> 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.

Yes, I'm interested, but only mildly so.  Please don't go to any trouble.

Val

"Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<xP8rc.546603$Ig.496790@pd7tw2no>...
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Yes, I'm interested, but only mildly so.  Please don't go to any trouble.

Val:
  If they're pics from the Mammoth Trumpet article, I don't think that
you'd be missing much.
  Some of the 'artifacts' seem to be quartzite cobbles with impact scars
entirely coincident with fracturing by glacial action, just like you'd
see in lots of gravel pits where they're mining preglacial gravel,
e.g. Tertiary hilltop deposits, terraces and valley fills.
  I've seen similar fracturing in situ in a pit face,and one pit near
Villeneuve (NW of Edmonton, in buried-valley fill) had fracture planes
that extended through multiple beds, with fractures in individual
cobbles and pebbles lined up with the fracture planes.
  It is likely that some of the 'artifacts' were quarried by glacial
ice out of old North Saskatchewan valley fill or from an old river
terrace, then transported some tens of kilometres SW or SE to Buck Lake,
and fractured either in original position or along the way.

Daryl Krupa

"Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<0P8rc.516273$Pk3.514673@pd7tw1no>...

  <snip>

>The fluted point though...  ?

They are calling it a preform. It was not unusual for Clovis to flute
preforms, but this means the finished point would have ended up even
smaller. The Chobot fluted preform/point(?) is simply too small to be
convincing.

A fluted point was found at the Charlie Lake site in northeast British
Columbia, that is thought to be younger than Clovis, and Charlie Lake
is considerably north of the Chobot site. So the Chobot
preform/point(?) would not be unique anyway, assuming it is a fluted
preform/point.


<snip>
>  What are the 'cultural soils' they are talking about below?

Don't know. I think Daryl pretty much trashed the site geology.
As far as the weathered appearance of the later points at the site:
 1. could look that way because they are made of quartzite.
 2. or a combination of both weathering and being made of quartzite.

<snip>

> So does the oldest stuff in the area (the corridor) remain at about 8 to10
> kya?

I was referring to the age of the  legitimate artifacts pictured in
the MT article as 8-10 kya, which seem to be of the Western Stemmed
Tradition.  There are classic Clovis finds in the southern part of the
corridor and Clovis-like and stemmed points as far north as Charlie
Lake (all poorly dated). Then there is a gap of 'old sites' between
Charlie Lake and Bluefish Caves.

>Or is the site at Taber older than that?

Taber is too controversial for me :-)
>
> Val

"Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<_N8rc.546597$Ig.438731@pd7tw2no>...
> "Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c70365ef.0404301458.7da95a84@posting.google.com...
> > "Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>  news:<yyvkc.325239$oR5.317119@pd7tw3no>...
> > > "Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c70365ef.0404160003.28dc5c2b@posting.google.com...
>
> I apologize for taking so long to reply. 'Life' is getting in the way.  :)
>
> > <snip>
>  [snip]
> > > >   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.
>
> So you mean that the slab was pushed up, then removed by glaciation?
> That doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the descriptions of the
> area though, does it?

  Okay, forget the slab-excavation-and-relocation possibility
for the origin of Buck Lake. It's not likely.
  What happened with Buck Mountain, to the north of BuckLake, is
about a square mile of sandstone bedrock froze onto the bed of
the glacier above, tightly enough that when the glacier advanced
(temporarily, in the general retreat of the ice margin)
that slab was moved to the southwest, up and over the sandstone
bedrock infront of it, leaving a sandstone hill overlooking
what would later be Buck Lake.
  I should not have mentioned the somewhat unlikely possibility
that Buck Lake was where a similar slab used to be before it was
removed by the same sort of glacial action.
  The Buck Lake basin may have been enlarged and deepened by such
an action, but it is in line with a mapped preglacial valley, so
we should just consider it to be a low spot in that preglacial
valley trace. That's the most likely explanation for its existence.
  I'm sorry to have been a source of confusion.

<snip>
> These areas that we have been talking about, were rapidly populated shortly
> after the glaciers retreated.  I am really starting to think that the idea
> that the Americas were populated from the south to the north, rather than
> the other way around, may have some merit.  ;)  Outa my league though...
>
> I have alot on my plate right now, and not very happy about it.  I'm
> thinking of wiping it clean, and have aspirations of returning to university
> in the fall, and will, if everything works out well...
>
> I'm in Calgary...    (go! Flames go!)     :)

Val:
  Superfan phones a radio station talk show,
apologises for his very low, hoarse shouted-out voice,
and intones in a basso growl,
"Go, Flames, GO!"
  Somebody immediately calls in and asks why they are
putting through calls from the Prince of Darkness.

Daryl Krupa