Posted on 11/21/2015 10:27:26 AM PST by SunkenCiv
The stone tools discovered by the team were similar to what Dillehay had previously found at Monte Verde. Many were simple unifacial tools -- meaning they were worked on only one side of the stone, to create a sharp edge -- though some of the younger tools and projectile points indicate bifacial technologies...
The bones tended to be small fragments, broken and scorched, indicating that the animals had been cooked. They often came from very large animals, like prehistoric llamas or mastodons, as well as smaller creatures like prehistoric deer and horses. The Monte Verde site was unlikely to have been able to support the kind of vegetation that those animals needed to eat, so they were likely killed and butchered elsewhere. The objects were radiocarbon dated and most were found to range in age from more than 14,000 to almost 19,000 years old.
The wide scattering suggests that the people who created these features were nomadic hunter-gatherers who might have camped for only a night or two before moving on... Dillehay believes that they may have come through Monte Verde because the terrain was more walkable than the surrounding bogs and wetlands, and because it provided access to stone to make tools.
A key goal during this visit was to better understand the geological and environmental context of the site. At the end of the last ice age, Monte Verde was a sandur plain -- a runoff area situated about six kilometers away from a glacier, crisscrossed by a network of shallow streams and brooks fed by rain washing off the glacier, as well as melting snow. It was also a time marked by volcanic activity and a gradually warming climate, as the last glaciers began to retreat.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.vanderbilt.edu ...
What do you make of the R1b in the eastern US. That’s the first time I’ve ever seen that noted.
The Monte Verde site was unlikely to have been able to support the kind of vegetation that those animals needed to eat,”
BUT
‘the terrain was more walkable than the surrounding bogs and wetlands...it was a runoff area...crisscrossed by a network of shallow streams and brooks fed by rain washing off the glacier, as well as melting snow.”
Does the description sound like it is logical? I don’t think you’d have hunters going too far away to hunt and then drag the meat back home to eat?
You Got Me Interested in this stuff.
1. There was contact between cultures in Europe and North America.
2. Most estimates of the time the world was settled is BS.
3: The out of Africa Theories has some serious problems.
Both links report:
Your query returned no results.
But I do remember reading your and Blam's extraordinary articles on the subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.