Bison Bones Bolster Idea Ice Age Seafarers First To Americas

The NationalPost ^ | 3-24-2008 | Randy Boswell - Can West News Service

[blam]

Recently, I read that most of the Clovis points found are to the east of the Mississippi River, they were only made for 150 years and the youngest one ever found is 12,900 years old.

Archaeologist Dennis Sanford believes the Clovis Point makers were from Europe and the survivors from the catastrophe in 12,900 began making the Folsom point because all the big mammals were dead and Clovis points weren't needed.

[blam]

GGG Ping.

[Coyoteman]

Cool!

[wolfcreek]

Got this off another thread (Thanks to gleeaikin)

“The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes”, Firestone, et al., 2006, hypothesizes a 300 mile diameter snowball crashing into what became Hudson Bay about 13,000 years ago, destroying the Clovis Indian culture, decimating the large mammal population, and precipitating the 1,000 years of cold called the Younger Dryas.”

[Red_Devil 232]

I watched a program on the History channel, I believe it was titled "10,000 B.C.", this past weekend that postulated that the Clovis Point makers were from Europe. The oldest points being found in Va. that were similar to points found in France.

Very interesting and informative program.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks Blam. Looks like a GREAT start to another week of GGG! To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[blam]

"I watched a program on the History channel, I believe it was titled "10,000 B.C.", this past weekend that postulated that the Clovis Point makers were from Europe. The oldest points being found in Va. that were similar to points found in France."

That was a very up to date program and contained the most up to date information and theories...I do recommend viewing it. One of the scientists was the author of this article: Immigrants From The Other Side (Clovis Is Solutrean?)

[blam]

"“The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes”, Firestone, et al., 2006, hypothesizes a 300 mile diameter snowball crashing into what became Hudson Bay about 13,000 years ago, destroying the Clovis Indian culture, decimating the large mammal population, and precipitating the 1,000 years of cold called the Younger Dryas.”"

Read Firestone here:

Comet Theory Collides With Clovis Research, May Explain Disappearance of Ancient People

[wintertime]

ping

[Grimmy]

Wasn’t the ocean level lower during the period of initial migration? I’ve heard that mentioned from several sources but I’m not a sciencer so no real clue what’s valid or not.

If it is true, then all this back and forth about when and how in the migration is just the yammering of prancing dilettantes. If archaeologists wont go to where the evidence is, then they’re just pretending to be sciencers.

[Coyoteman]

Wasn’t the ocean level lower during the period of initial migration? I’ve heard that mentioned from several sources but I’m not a sciencer so no real clue what’s valid or not.

Yes. That is why there was land between Siberian and Alaska, where now there is the Bering Straight. Sea levels were lower by some 400+ feet at the height of the last ice age.

If it is true, then all this back and forth about when and how in the migration is just the yammering of prancing dilettantes. If archaeologists wont go to where the evidence is, then they’re just pretending to be sciencers.

False. (I am a "sciencer" so I do have a clue).

The standard theory of human migration to the Americas has involved the land bridge. As research progressed, and dating became more accurate, the date of that land bridge grew younger, while the dates of archaeological sites in South American grew older. Pretty soon these two events merged, showing that there had to be other sources of humans coming into the Americas.

The early coastal migration is one such source; people came from the vicinity of Alaska and traveled down the west coasts of both North and South America before the poor folks trudging through Canada got very far. The current discussions of Clovis and connections to Europe are still another possibility for migration to the east coast. And there are other possibilities as well.

As far as "yammering of prancing dilettantes," "if archaeologists wont go to where the evidence is," and "they’re just pretending to be sciencers" -- I strongly suggest you put a cork in it. I have been a professional archaeologist for a lot of years and we're doing the best we can.

But if you think you can do better, get out there and do something. Maybe you could be a "sciencer" someday too!

[rdl6989]

I saw that. Very interesting.

[Grimmy]

Nope. I’ll never be a scientist. And, for exactly the reasons you point out in replying to my comment. I’m way too impatient, not willing to dig deeply into background info, etc etc.

Now, an attempt at a serious question...

If the land bridge was a result of the massive ice caps, how did those traveling across reach the land bridge through the ice fields?

The question comes from vague recollections of descriptions of the ice fields extending all the way down to the current New York city area in the North America region. Also, some about the ice fields being massive enough to gouge out the great lakes basins.

Was that a different ice age? Or did I get wires crossed somewhere?

[Coyoteman]

If the land bridge was a result of the massive ice caps, how did those traveling across reach the land bridge through the ice fields?

The question comes from vague recollections of descriptions of the ice fields extending all the way down to the current New York city area in the North America region. Also, some about the ice fields being massive enough to gouge out the great lakes basins.

You are correct about the ice fields. But folks were already in Alaska some 30,000 or so years ago, before the heaviest ice. Some areas of Alaska or "Beringia" were not covered with ice, so people survived. Then, near the end of the last ice age there opened up a corridor between Alaska and the continental US. This is what allowed the land migration to take place while there was still a lot of ice around elsewhere.

Starting about the same time folks headed down the coast in watercraft. They were a lot quicker, but that migration didn't get too far inland.

[Caramelgal]

The early coastal migration is one such source; people came from the vicinity of Alaska and traveled down the west coasts of both North and South America before the poor folks trudging through Canada got very far.

Since sea levels were lower during this period due to heavy glaciation it would make sense that the overland route across Canada would have been a very arduous and slow going journey to say the least. And there is some evidence based on the study of coast marine and fauna life dating to the period of the earliest American and South American human settlements found thus far, that suggests that due to warmer and favorable ocean currents, the coastal route would have been much more hospitable and very feasible.

"People coming down the coast could have been doing the coastal equivalent of island-hopping," he says. "We are not envisioning a coastline bordered by towering walls of well-established ice. Conditions were highly variable along the coast and I think that there were some significant open areas. Early travellers were familiar with such environments in areas to the north, so this was nothing new."

Such “island hopping” would not have required sophisticated boat building or navigational skills. And given the choice between trudging across thousands of miles of frozen glaciers on foot and tracking Mammoth or Bison over such harsh terrain or going by boat; hugging the warmer coastline and hunting in grasslands and fishing and gathering abundant marine life, I think I’d rather take the boat.

[Grimmy]

Most of my concept and/or understanding comes from Discovery type “science” programming, so please, don’t hesitate to laugh out loud where appropriate...

But, in regards to the reasoning for not moving inland much distance during the boat migration, I had seen a program that said that was due, probably, to the mega-fauna such as what they called the “God Bear”, the saber tooth cat, and the dire wolf. Is there anything to that? Or was it the usual over simplified “for tv” stuff that often gets put out?

Also, is there any real solid evidence to a land bridge migration? I would assume that the mammoth and such type critters being distributed on both sides of the water would indicate such a thing, but has anything been discovered that pegs it as a certainty?

And, for general comm purposes:
Sciencer = Bureaucrat. Science is a job that requires no boat rocking and never indulges in consensus bucking.
Sciencian = Fundamental worshiper of the image of science. No questions asked. Devotion to whomever dominates in the academic cult of personality.
Scientist = the people that make it work and all too often get passed over in credit and reward for Sciencers and Sciencians.

Other than that, I was just being my usual snarky self. I like science, just don’t have the head for it.

[Coyoteman]

...don’t hesitate to laugh out loud where appropriate...

But, in regards to the reasoning for not moving inland much distance during the boat migration, I had seen a program that said that was due, probably, to the mega-fauna such as what they called the “God Bear”, the saber tooth cat, and the dire wolf. Is there anything to that? Or was it the usual over simplified “for tv” stuff that often gets put out?

Probably more that they were very used to making their living on the coast and moving inland would have required a lot of new adaptations. When all of your tools are adapted to fishing, shellfish gathering, and sea mammal hunting certainly the larger inland animals would have been a challenge. Deer would have been easy, and the small critters even easier.

Also, is there any real solid evidence to a land bridge migration? I would assume that the mammoth and such type critters being distributed on both sides of the water would indicate such a thing, but has anything been discovered that pegs it as a certainty?

There is plenty of good evidence for the land migration, both for humans and for earlier critters. With the latest DNA studies, they are now working on the exact order of the migrations (both of humans and animals), and the routes each population took.

And, for general comm purposes:
Sciencer = Bureaucrat. Science is a job that requires no boat rocking and never indulges in consensus bucking.
Sciencian = Fundamental worshiper of the image of science. No questions asked. Devotion to whomever dominates in the academic cult of personality.
Scientist = the people that make it work and all too often get passed over in credit and reward for Sciencers and Sciencians.

Fair enough! (But you left out underpaid.)

Other than that, I was just being my usual snarky self. I like science, just don’t have the head for it.

I won't laugh at any serious question. Snarky is fine, but I reserve the right to bite back!

[Coyoteman]

I agree with both of your points.

In addition to islands, you would have had river mouths with sandbars as potential stopping-off places. The farther south, the more favorable these would have been even during the ice age.

[gleeaikin]

Re “yammering.”

It seems that European trained anthropologists and paleontologists have tended to ignore the possibilities of underwater research for the Ice Age periods. I don’t know whether this is tunnel vision or lack of grant money to explore under water which can be quite expensive. Graham Hancock has done a lot to spark interest in searching underwater with his books and he has a Graham Hancock Forum. I think that treasure hunter Ballard has gone in with some academic types on a project to explore off shore of Texas in the Caribbean.

[wolfcreek]

“10,000 B.C.”

I saw that too. One thing I found interesting was the 2 or 3 foot layers of sediment left over from the Younger-Dryas period, covering the Clovis evidence.

This makes me wonder how deep/far should scientist dig to uncover evidence of past civilizations. Seems most are satisfied with shallow digs that only go back a few tens of thousands of years or looking for specimens uncovered in more ancient rock by erosion.

It's possible, with all the catastrophic events through history, evidence of man past may be lost forever. Aside from the fragments found now and then, we may never know how advanced man became between mass extinction events.