17 replies to this topic

[the L]

http://www.smithsoni...html?c=y&page=1


Recent scientific findings date their arrival earlier than ever thought, sparking hot debate among archaeologists

Long article.

[Everdred]

Long article, but good article.  I hadn't even heard of the Page-Ladson site.

Clearly the "Clovis First" theory is dead.

[Scepticus]

Hi L

In the last couple of years this have been debated heavily, its not just this sink hole which shows evidence for humans in America 14-15.000 years ago

There's so much evidence pointing in the direction that humans have at least been in the Americans for 14-15.000 years.

Here are 2 videos i quickly could find. I don't have a lot of time right now, but if anyone wants more evidence just say so and i'll find it when i have time.

Edited by Scepticus, 05 February 2013 - 02:16 PM.

[Abramelin]

Everdred, on 05 February 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Long article, but good article.  I hadn't even heard of the Page-Ladson site.

Clearly the "Clovis First" theory is dead.

Of course it is: even the Monte Verde (Chile) finds antedate the Clovis-first theory.

[DieChecker]

Agree that Clovis is no longer the Standard. There is obviously evidence of human activities in the Americas before them.

There still are some Total Fringe guys out there however who can pick up a handful of freshly crushed gravel and find "spearpoints", "arrowheads", "axes" and "knives".

When looking at Pre-Clovis sites/papers/articles it is good to be somewhat Skeptical and actually use some judgement.

[TheSearcher]

As far as I know the Clovis theory has been, disproven in the opinion of many archaeologists, by several archaeological discoveries.  This was because of sites like Cactus Hill in Virginia, Paisley Caves in the Summer Lake Basin of Oregon, the Topper site in Allendale County, South Carolina, the Friedkin site in Texas, Monte Verde, in Chile, to name but a few.

The Pedra Furada site in Chile, which contained human remains and hearths, preceded the Clovis culture and the other sites already mentioned, by 19,000 to 30,000 years. Having said this, this particular site has become an issue of contention between North American archaeologists and counterparts from Europe. For some reason north American archaeology considers anything older than 10,000 years suspicious.

[the L]

TheSearcher, on 06 February 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

As far as I know the Clovis theory has been, disproven in the opinion of many archaeologists, by several archaeological discoveries.  This was because of sites like Cactus Hill in Virginia, Paisley Caves in the Summer Lake Basin of Oregon, the Topper site in Allendale County, South Carolina, the Friedkin site in Texas, Monte Verde, in Chile, to name but a few.

The Pedra Furada site in Chile, which contained human remains and hearths, preceded the Clovis culture and the other sites already mentioned, by 19,000 to 30,000 years. Having said this, this particular site has become an issue of contention between North American archaeologists and counterparts from Europe. For some reason north American archaeology considers anything older than 10,000 years suspicious.

Thats true. That doesnt have nothing with scepticism. Rather ignorance.

[cormac mac airt]

TheSearcher, on 06 February 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

As far as I know the Clovis theory has been, disproven in the opinion of many archaeologists, by several archaeological discoveries.  This was because of sites like Cactus Hill in Virginia, Paisley Caves in the Summer Lake Basin of Oregon, the Topper site in Allendale County, South Carolina, the Friedkin site in Texas, Monte Verde, in Chile, to name but a few.

The Pedra Furada site in Chile, which contained human remains and hearths, preceded the Clovis culture and the other sites already mentioned, by 19,000 to 30,000 years. Having said this, this particular site has become an issue of contention between North American archaeologists and counterparts from Europe. For some reason north American archaeology considers anything older than 10,000 years suspicious.

I'd say it's more like 15,000+ BP (13,000+ BC) as even genetic studies support an earlier date than the 10,000 BP (8000 BC) date you're thinking of.

cormac

[TheSearcher]

the L, on 06 February 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

Thats true. That doesnt have nothing with scepticism. Rather ignorance.

I find it silly they act like this, if evidence shows it's older than 10.000 years, I don't see why they just can't sodding accept it.

cormac mac airt, on 06 February 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

I'd say it's more like 15,000+ BP (13,000+ BC) as even genetic studies support an earlier date than the 10,000 BP (8000 BC) date you're thinking of.

cormac

I was rather thinking 19,000 to 30,000 years, not 10,000, I think you misunderstood. The 10,000 is what the US archeologists see as limit and anything older is suspicious to them.

[cormac mac airt]

TheSearcher, on 06 February 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

I find it silly they act like this, if evidence shows it's older than 10.000 years, I don't see why they just can't sodding accept it.



I was rather thinking 19,000 to 30,000 years, not 10,000, I think you misunderstood. The 10,000 is what the US archeologists see as limit and anything older is suspicious to them.

Sorry Searcher. Your wording appeared to suggest otherwise (at least to me) so that's why I said what I did. That aside, the real problem IMO isn't archaeological/genetic findings dating to before 10,000 BP, since we now know there was a pre-Clovis period, but the claims from some sites that push dates past the 15,000 BP mark like the 19,000 to 30,000 BP mark you mention. That's when it appears to become a real problem.

cormac

[Everdred]

Well, the unfortunate reality is that there are still American archaeologists that scoff at pre-Clovis finds, though the number is dwindling (but there will always be a few too stuck in their ways).  It should be noted, though, that Clovis itself dates c. 13500 BP, so the limit isn't quite as bad as 10000 BP.

[TheSearcher]

cormac mac airt, on 07 February 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

Sorry Searcher. Your wording appeared to suggest otherwise (at least to me) so that's why I said what I did. That aside, the real problem IMO isn't archaeological/genetic findings dating to before 10,000 BP, since we now know there was a pre-Clovis period, but the claims from some sites that push dates past the 15,000 BP mark like the 19,000 to 30,000 BP mark you mention. That's when it appears to become a real problem.

cormac

Ah ok, I get what you mean now. For me it's simple, if the science, after several verifications and tests, show that it is older than 10,000 or 13,500 years, then that is it. Simple. this however is my opinion and others might think differently.

[Everdred]

TheSearcher, on 06 February 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

The Pedra Furada site in Chile, which contained human remains and hearths, preceded the Clovis culture and the other sites already mentioned, by 19,000 to 30,000 years. Having said this, this particular site has become an issue of contention between North American archaeologists and counterparts from Europe. For some reason north American archaeology considers anything older than 10,000 years suspicious.

Pedra Furada is an interesting site, but it's highly problematic.  Its later material, which includes rock art, good artifacts, and even human remains, do substantiate a significant human presence in the area for a long period.  But the more extreme dates (some of which go back to the limits of carbon dating c.50-60kya) are less easy.  They involve charcoal and questionable artifacts.  The former doesn't necessarily derive from humans since fires start naturally, while the latter are often ambiguous.  So many scholars dismiss these as natural fires and geofacts, which isn't surprising given that the excavations occurred 20+ years ago in Brazil.

But another difficulty is in the larger chronology.  How did modern humans get there that fast?  According to the available archaeological evidence, It was only ~40kya that modern humans made it to Europe and Australia, and ~30kya for Siberia.

So either the Pedra Furada dates are wrong, or they represent evidence for an earlier species of Homo in the New World.

[cormac mac airt]

TheSearcher, on 07 February 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

Ah ok, I get what you mean now. For me it's simple, if the science, after several verifications and tests, show that it is older than 10,000 or 13,500 years, then that is it. Simple. this however is my opinion and others might think differently.

And the problem there, as Everdred has alluded to, is that the further back in time one goes the harder it is to separate artifacts from geofacts. Particularly when that is the only evidence that exists in support of human usage and origin, then it really has to be questioned if the evidence is actually what it's claimed to be.

BTW, a recent study has pushed the question of Neanderthal's extinction back to c.50,000 BP, which is when modern humans are believed to have began migrating from Africa/Arabia into Eurasia. With this in mind and knowing that no verified anatomically modern human remains have been found in the Americas before the ancestral Native American migrations, this would appear to be another nail in the coffin for early humans having been here as early as 30,000 BP.

cormac

[Tesla II]

Lool! Humans were present on American soil as long they have been on European or Asian..  They were called Indians when first British scum sailed over seas and wiped them out..Ha first example of invasion! Yet it wasnt, it was an escape of few smart people from British supression... How long were they there before first expedition landed  is a matter of archaeology, there are probably some good research results from people trying to find that out.

Maybe this will help.