Re: OT: Malhi, Eshleman, haplogroup A, language, time, and direction.....

From: Lee Olsen (paleocity_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/27/05 

Date: 27 Mar 2005 08:54:07 -0800

G Horvat wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2005 19:32:53 -0800, "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >G Horvat wrote:
> [...]
> >> Is this description of the distribution accurate?
> >>
> >> "The use of microblades is quite common throughout
> >> Europe and Asia, but it is a technology that is rare - virtually
> >> nonexistent - in the Americas."
> >
> >The first thing I do is look at the REFERENCES CITED at the end.
> >In this case they are nearly nonexistent. How many references does
he
> >give at the end of that statement? Such a bold proclamation ought to
> >have at least 3-I see zero.
> >Compared to all the flakes and all the tools ever made during the
stone
> >age, microblade % is virtually nonexistent period. I fail to see
what
> >his point is.

First, thank you for the data, now all I have to do is figure out where
Poverty Point and Cahokia are in relation to your data (and see if
haplogroup A is involved to any great extent).

> It wasn't a "point". It was worded like a fact.

The words "virtually nonexistent" are 100% factually false.

>
> How would you describe the distribution of microblades in the
> Americas?

One can look at it two ways. In total volume, the number of
microblades produced in the Americas probably out numbers the total
number made in the Old World by a million to one. If one takes the
total number of individual sites where microblades have been found, or
separate groups of people, bands, tribes etc., who used microblades,
then just the opposite pattern is true, the Old World wins hands down.

So it just depends on what kind of data a person wants to look at. But
to say "virtually nonexistent" is sheer stupidity. This leads me to
believe that particular professor should think about a new
career----like picking up aluminum cans along side the freeways or
something.

>
> Gisele

Relevant Pages