Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Everdred

Humans were in Eastern U.S. 18,000+ years ago

677 posts in this topic

From a 2010 paper: http://si-pddr.si.ed..._et_al_2010.pdf

fGYVOIz.png

Qsspw.png

Securely dated artifacts by two methods (OSL and carbon) to 18+kya, possibly even older. Unlike some other pre-Clovis sites, these are unambiguously of human manufacture and demonstrate some affinity with later Clovis tools.

In addition to this site, during this weekend's Paleoamerica Odyssey conference another site was mentioned as yielding a similar date:

ovKPmmW.png

Hopefully more info will be forthcoming in the next months.

There are, of course, other more recent pre-Clovis sites like Cactus Hill (Virginia) and Meadowcroft Rockshelter (Pennsylvania) which attest to a continued pre-Clovis presence of people with a toolkit arguably ancestral to Clovis.

The archaeologists involved with the first two finds are proponents of the Solutrean hypothesis, which suggests some people of the European (France/Spain) Solutrean culture made their way across the Atlantic following the edge of the ice. I hope this thread can discuss this and other possible explanations for the early human presence in the Eastern U.S.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool post ill be researching it to base my opinions thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some images of tools from the other sites mentioned for comparison:

Meadowcroft Rockshelter (PA):

I657j.png

bxYJW.png

Cactus Hill (VA):

OsRmF.png

I don't think it's at all a stretch to say these show affinity with the earlier tools shown in the original post.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea they were called GODS

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dates in question are well within the possibility of an early migration from Asia, rather than supporting the European "Solutrean Hypothesis". It is estimated an ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran Ice Sheets opened as early as 21-23 kybp, allowing animal and human migration into the American continent.

Still quite remarkable that evidence of such an early habitation remains, and was found.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the heck of it, i am posting a link i posted in the "Humans were in Brazil , 30,000 years ago" thread

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2012/08/a-world-without-a-west-the-out-of-america-theory-and-eurocentric-cosmologies/

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/out-of-america-family-of-hypotheses/

The second article linked above has four hypothesis

I. Out-of-America, with human origins from New World primates. This idea was first put forth by the Argentinian anthropologist and paleobiologist, Florentino Ameghino (1854-1911). Dismissed by Ales Hrdlicka and the rest of the scientific community, the New World primate (Platyrrhine) origin of modern humans is now championed by Alvah Hicks, a California-based self-taught anthropologist and a one-time member of the Mother Tongue group. He was profiled in the Los Angeles Times in 1993. Out-of-America I has no fossil evidence to support it. This may not be the most serious argument against it because, up until 2005, we didn’t have any fossil remains of African apes either and we still have no gorilla fossils. And the primate fossil record in the New World is poor compared with other mammals:

Link
II. Out-of-America, with human origins from an East Eurasian hominid. According to this version of the Out-of-America hypothesis, behaviorally and anatomically modern humans, aka “we,” originated from a population of East Eurasian humans such as Neanderthals (whose geographic reach stretched all the way to the Altai Mountains in southern Siberia and, possibly, beyond the Arctic Circle in the northwestern Urals), Homo erectus or Denisovans (the newly-discovered hominid species attested through a tooth and a pinkie from the Denisova Cave, South Siberia). Between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, a subset of this original hominid population migrated to the New World (via the Bering Strait Land Bridge), where speciation into modern humans occurred. While, under out-of-America II, the unique social behaviors shared between modern humans and New World primates (pair bonding, paternal investment, cooperative breeding and speech) are interpreted as homoplasies, the fact that such key aspects of human social and cognitive behavior are shared with Platyrrhines suggests that the immediate ancestors of modern humans were exposed to the same New World environment as the New World monkeys.
Link
III. Out-of-America at the end of the most recent Ice Age. This model presupposes that the New World was peopled by behaviorally and anatomically modern humans significantly earlier than the Clovis archaeological horizon, e.g., 40-20,000 years ago. But then, at the end of the recent Ice Age, New World populations moved back toward Alaska and spilled over into Northeast Asia. This idea was put first forth by the father of American anthropology, Franz Boas. More recently, biological anthropologist Peter Brown hypothesized that such a back-migration from North America to East Asia may have brought the Mongoloid phenotype to the Old World. A Holocene back-migration from the New World to the Old World is consistent with both Out-of-America I (see Hicks, Alvah M. 1998. Alternative Explanations for Similarities between Native Americans and Siberians // Human Biology 70 (1): 137-139) and Out-of-America II. Out-of-America III is very much defensible archaeologically, as Clovis seems to have originated from the Buttermilk Complex in Texas (15,500 YBP) and fluted projectile points appear in Alaska (Mesa, Serpentine Hot Springs) and Northeast Asia (Uptar) at much later dates. A number of mtDNA (A2a, C1a), Y-DNA (Q1a3a1) and microsatellite (9-repeat allele at microsatellite D9S1120) lineages also seem to have leaked to Siberia from the New World (see Tamm et al. “Beringian Standstill and Spread of Native American Founders”; Kemp & Schurr, “Ancient and Modern Genetic Variation in the Americas”), which means archaeology, paleobiology and genetics are in good alignment on this issue. But nobody has so far formalized these recent findings into a theory. Academic scholars’ hesitation may stem from the fact that if a back migration happened at a time when America was presumably colonized, then science is short of data illustrating how and when the colonization of the New World happened.
Link
IV. Out-of-America, with human origins from an East Eurasian hominid and with a “back-migration” at the end of the most recent Ice Age. The marriage of Out-of-America II with out-of-America III results in a model whereby there were two migrations out of America – in the Late Pleistocene and in the Early Holocene. The Early Holocene migration out of North America into North(east) Asia may have also affected Central and South America, which can account for some of the genetic homogenization observed in American Indians and for some pan-American phenotypical traits such as broad skulls and shovel-shaped incisors. The traits that are usually considered as evidence of an Asian origin of American Indians are hereby re-interpreted as evolving in northern North America or in the Beringian refugium at the end of the Ice Age and re-expanding, with the retreat of the glaciers, all the down way into island Southeast Asia on the Old World side and South America on the New World side. The signal of American Indian genetic homogeneity often reported by genetic labs may be the result of gene flow from North to South America replacing more divergent and ancient lineages.
Link

The 1st two hypothesis are largely implausible.

The 3rd hypothesis is implausible by a lesser degree compared to the 1st two.

The 4th hypothesis could be plausible.

What are your opinion on the 4th hypothesis mentioned above?

Maybe we should invite Mr. German Dziebel to discuss these theories here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the heck of it, i am posting a link i posted in the "Humans were in Brazil , 30,000 years ago" thread

http://anthropogenes...ic-cosmologies/

http://anthropogenes...-of-hypotheses/

The second article linked above has four hypothesis

Link

Link

Link

Link

The 1st two hypothesis are largely implausible.

The 3rd hypothesis is implausible by a lesser degree compared to the 1st two.

The 4th hypothesis could be plausible.

What are your opinion on the 4th hypothesis mentioned above?

Maybe we should invite Mr. German Dziebel to discuss these theories here.

The fourth hypothesis is just as flawed as the other three, examples of which can be seen here:

1) No physical remains have been found of any hominid in the Americas pre-dating the Last Glacial Maximum.

2) No evidence of any mitochondrial (mtDNA) or Y Chromosome DNA haplogroups predating the maternal haplogroup L or paternal haplgroups A00/A0 have ever been found in the Americas.

3) The fourth hypothesis (as well as the other three) of human origins runs contrary to the evidence of modern human technologies being employed as part of the Arabian Nubian Complex Sites in southern Arabia, Yemen and Oman circa 106,000 BP. Also of note, genetic evidence* of anatomically modern humans interbreeding with archaic forms of humans in Africa predate any timeframe of an Out-of-America origin as well.

* http://www.pnas.org/.../15123.full.pdf

4) Both Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA haplogroups are evidenced as having originated in, and radiated outward from, Africa which runs contrary to any genetic origin being presented as coming from the Americas.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dates in question are well within the possibility of an early migration from Asia, rather than supporting the European "Solutrean Hypothesis". It is estimated an ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran Ice Sheets opened as early as 21-23 kybp, allowing animal and human migration into the American continent.

Still quite remarkable that evidence of such an early habitation remains, and was found.

From what I've read, the ice-free corridor opened around 12-13kya and took a thousand or more years to become habitable, which is why most reputable archaeologists now endorse the coastal migration theory instead. I suppose it may have also been open to some extent prior to the last glacial maximum, but even then I'd think coastal migration was more likely.

More generally, though, I think the lack of older evidence on the Western coast is a bit troubling. I think the oldest tools found in the West are from Paisley Caves, Oregon, and they're only slightly pre-Clovis. Perhaps some underwater archaeology will uncover older evidence along the ice-age coasts, but at the moment I don't think the Solutrean hypothesis can be easily dismissed as a plausible explanation for the very old pre-Clovis finds in the East. Certainly, though, I wouldn't expect migration from Asia to start any later than about 16kya, allowing for 1,000 or so years to make it down to the well-established Monte Verde site in Chile (though, more realistically, I'd tack on an extra millennium or two).

For the heck of it, i am posting a link i posted in the "Humans were in Brazil , 30,000 years ago" thread

http://anthropogenes...ic-cosmologies/

http://anthropogenes...-of-hypotheses/

The second article linked above has four hypothesis

Link

Link

Link

Link

The 1st two hypothesis are largely implausible.

The 3rd hypothesis is implausible by a lesser degree compared to the 1st two.

The 4th hypothesis could be plausible.

What are your opinion on the 4th hypothesis mentioned above?

Maybe we should invite Mr. German Dziebel to discuss these theories here.

Certainly I'm not opposed the idea of pre-Clovis migration, nor am I opposed to a bit of back migration, but I don't think the evidence (some of which cormac already mentioned) supports the 4th hypothesis. The mention of shovel-shaped incisors struck me as particularly odd, since that's a line of evidence I often see cited in support of multi-regionalism, since it's a trait that was present in Asian erectus as well. I think it's safe to say it evolved in Asia, be it from mixing with the remnants of erectus or just similar environmental pressures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fourth hypothesis is just as flawed as the other three, examples of which can be seen here:

1) No physical remains have been found of any hominid in the Americas pre-dating the Last Glacial Maximum.

2) No evidence of any mitochondrial (mtDNA) or Y Chromosome DNA haplogroups predating the maternal haplogroup L or paternal haplgroups A00/A0 have ever been found in the Americas.

3) The fourth hypothesis (as well as the other three) of human origins runs contrary to the evidence of modern human technologies being employed as part of the Arabian Nubian Complex Sites in southern Arabia, Yemen and Oman circa 106,000 BP. Also of note, genetic evidence* of anatomically modern humans interbreeding with archaic forms of humans in Africa predate any timeframe of an Out-of-America origin as well.

* http://www.pnas.org/.../15123.full.pdf

4) Both Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA haplogroups are evidenced as having originated in, and radiated outward from, Africa which runs contrary to any genetic origin being presented as coming from the Americas.

cormac

On the other hand, the debating technique of some modern social activists does argue for a link with the howler monkey. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, the debating technique of some modern social activists does argue for a link with the howler monkey. :P

In the same way as many fringe "theories" are much like a chimpanzee slinging poo. :lol:

cormac

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another site I want to bring up is the Topper site, also on the East coast, which has received some occasional media attention due to the lead archaeologist's insistence that the site presents evidence of a human presence 50kya. This site in SC shows significant stratification, including levels of more recent amerindians as well as Clovis levels. Beneath the Clovis levels the excavators have identified additional layers which may contain evidence of human occupation. The upper pre-Clovis layer is dated around 15kya, possibly extending as old as 20kya. The lower layer is dated to c. 50kya, but could be older as 50kya is around the upper limit of radiocarbon dating.

The peer-reviewed paper on the dating of the site can be found here:

http://csfa.tamu.edu...009-36-1300.pdf

While the layers themselves are firmly dated, that the finds are in fact evidence of human presence is the contentious issue. One claim is of a possible hearth from the 50kya layer, but in fact it is probably not a hearth (quoting from the peer-review paper I linked above):

Goodyear defined this as feature 91 and suggested that this may represent a hearth-like feature (Goodyear, 2005b). Although the plant remains were black, there is no evidence the plant material had been combusted or that the plant fossils had been emplaced secondarily into the fluvial sands. The organic carbon rich lens was lithologically conformable vertically and horizontally with enclos-ing stream channel sands, there was no evidence of heat-caused oxidation (hematite development) in sand immediately below the organic matter, and the plant remains were soft , retained excellent cellular structure, and reacted immediately and strongly with weak KOH used during the radiocarbon pretreatment process.

The other evidence for human occupation is the presence of possible tools, most of which came from the upper 15kya layer, but some of which came from the lower 50kya layer. But they haven't been firmly established as actual tools (quoting from the same paper):

The Topper and Big Pine Tree sites are important Paleoamerican sites that contain Clovis through Late Prehistoric archaeological components. Hypothesized pre-Clovis artifacts derive from several stratigraphic units below the Clovis horizon at Topper. However, the anthropogenic origin of the ‘‘Topper assemblage’’ has yet to be adequately demonstrated and it may be natural in origin. Unlike the changing cultural assemblages of the late Pleistocene and Holocene components of the Topper site, the ‘‘Topper assemblage’’ is highly diachronous, spanning between >50,000 and 15,000 yr B.P. with no change in technology. Further studies are needed to resolve the origin of the ‘‘Topper assemblage’’.

The Topper excavations actually have a website with some images of the tools: http://allendale-exp...eum/museum.html

But here's a pretty nice image of some of them:

4D4vG.png

It's not hard to see why these artifacts are questioned, as they certainly look like plausible geofacts. However. the lead archaeologist (Goodyear) claims to see wear marks that demonstrate usage. Still, I think these most likely are geofacts, both because of form and because I think such old dates are quite a stretch.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post!

Dennis Stanford was the very archeologist I was talking about in the other thread. Tony Bonofiglio backs him. I think Jay Custer ( who he cites) is on the fence. I've never read any of his stuff citing the Solutrean Theory or hear him talk about it with members of the ASNJ or at the Cumberland County Prehistory Museum when he stops by but he does agree with me about a early "Coastal Migration Theory" and that humans could of migration across the South Central U.S. and down the Western side of South America about 25,000 years ago.

According to Bonofiglio there was no Delaware River or Bay prior to the Glacier Lake Hudson flood and that the Hudson River cut New Jersey in half diagonally and emptied into the Chesapeake. He and Jack Cresson have been hunting Pre-Clovis sites in the higher portions of the Pine Barrens around thermokarst basins that haven't "swamped over".

Bonofiglio found flood sediments as far as Virginia from glacial flooding and is a good geologist too so they probably stand a chance.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can`nt see how anyone can claim humans were in the Americas that long ago, until there are some human bones found dated to the same time.The topper tools are not really tools, but appear to nature made.So far the oldst bones found are in the Yucatan

http://news.national...-skeletons.html

Most environments in the Eastern U.S. are too damp, sandy and acidic to really preserve bones. The only old bones found in New Jersey or Delaware were carbonized from cooking and cremations. Although some Adena/ Middlesex bones were preserved through contact with copper ornaments.

I just identified a contact era grave that did not have any bones. It just was parts of a gun barrel, 3 gun flints, a patch knife blade and some glass beads and copper staining. There might of been some shell beads (wampum) but they were just white stains of some chalky material. On top of it the whole area was chewed up by a disk harrow and under plow for the last 200 years so the poor guy probably became "bone meal fertilizer".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just because humans were here 50,000 years ago, doesn't mean they survived and flourished...it could have been one or two bands of hunters blown out from europe. Made it here. Lived for a few generations then died out. That'd explain things imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just because humans were here 50,000 years ago, doesn't mean they survived and flourished...it could have been one or two bands of hunters blown out from europe. Made it here. Lived for a few generations then died out. That'd explain things imho.

They can find dino bones from million of years ago, until they can find humans bones and there would at least a few tribes of them, I`d go with what is found so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can find dino bones from million of years ago, until they can find humans bones and there would at least a few tribes of them, I`d go with what is found so far.

So you'll go with the fact that humans were here earlier then thought. That settles that :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can find dino bones from million of years ago, until they can find humans bones and there would at least a few tribes of them, I`d go with what is found so far.

They can find so many dinosaur bones because they existed for many millions of years, thus increasingly the likelihood of remains fossilizing. Modern humans have only been around 200k years, and therefore remains are quite sparse in comparison. Stone tools are instead used as the most complete record of human occupation as they'll never decay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can find dino bones from million of years ago, until they can find humans bones and there would at least a few tribes of them, I`d go with what is found so far.

Dinos were around for like 200 Million years ? .... Humans.. 200,000? So there has been a Lot more time and opportunities for the right conditions to preserve dino bones?

* Everdred beat me to it by 1 minute

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys that doesn't convince me:) They can find hominid bones of millions of year ago in the world, our ancestors, surely they can find the more modern humans that have only been around 200k years in the Americas if there are any.:)I go what is found so far.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080903-oldest-skeletons.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys that doesn't convince me:) They can find hominid bones of millions of year ago in the world, our ancestors, surely they can find the more modern humans that have only been around 200k years in the Americas if there are any.:)I go what is found so far.

http://news.national...-skeletons.html

There just might of been at one time. Destruction of archeological sites is a rule in North America and at one time you had Ales Hrdlicka at the Smithsonian destroying or countering any evidence for prehistoric man here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this article and thought that I would add it to the thread.

Gulf exploration yields evidence of raw materials used by early Americans

jmccr8

Underwater archeologists are going to open many doors and Adovasio is a good one. 'Lost World' by Tom Koppel is a good basic book on the subject He's also a proponent of the Coastal Migration Theory or "Kelp Road"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Piney,

Yes I find this area of research both interesting and exciting,I will be watching for more published research on this subject in the future.Thanks for the referral on the book and Tom Koppel.

jmccr8

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.