Re: REPOST: Re: Siberian Arctic site dated to 27,000 BP
From: Philip Deitiker (Donevenask_at_worlnet.att.net)
Date: 03/21/05
- Next message: Daryl Krupa: "Re: REPOST: Re: Siberian Arctic site dated to 27,000 BP"
- Previous message: Daryl Krupa: "Re: REPOST: Re: Siberian Arctic site dated to 27,000 BP"
- In reply to: Daryl Krupa: "Re: REPOST: Re: Siberian Arctic site dated to 27,000 BP"
- Next in thread: Michael Clark: "Re: REPOST: Re: Siberian Arctic site dated to 27,000 BP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 04:48:39 GMT
"Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> says in
news:1111377779.912230.209480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> " Conclusions
> Two possible interpretations of the contrast in archaeological
> records between the U.S.A. and the other two
> regions spring to mind:
> 1. If humans had been present in the U.S.A. before the
> Last Glacial Maximum, they would probably have
> shown up much as they do in Australia or in Europe.
> They may have arrived a couple of thousand years before
> the first Clovis sites, but a presence as far back as 25,000
> or even 35,000 b.p. seems implausible.
No seems about it, is implausible.
> 2. There are two very different standards of evidence
> in use; either American archaeologists are being too
> strict or Australian and European archaeologists are being
> too lax.
Australian archaeologist like Thorne believe that arrivale at VLM is
80 kya. The problem with the archaeology in australia is different
from the new world simply because the level of artifacts being left
at 25 kya, particularly for arctic cultures are more noticible than
what is required to survive in an equitorial region.
> There seems no compelling reason to think
> that this is the case, as the academic traditions on each
> of the three continents have similar histories and recent
> common origins, but it should be considered as a possibility.
> There may be a need to bring Australian and
> European archaeologists to consider a range of American
> site data and vice versa to provide an independent viewpoint
> and some standardization of quality of evidence.
> Taking the three archaeological records at face value,
> however, the case for human colonization of the Americas
> during the period around 40,000-25,000 b.p. does not
> look to be a strong one.
> Seen from the perspective of the Australian and European
> records, and assuming that the generally accepted
> early dates for Australia and Europe are mostly correct,
> a great deal of special pleading seems necessary to explain
> the absence of an utterly convincing archaeological
> record in the U.S.A. before the Last Glacial Maximum
> on the assumption that humans were present. By the
> principle of Occam's Razor, it seems best to assume that
> humans were probably not present in North America
> before 25,000-15,000 b.p. and most likely arrived towards
> the end of this period, when high-latitude environments
> across Beringia became warmer and moister. "
The europeans not only exclude dates thousands of years in advance,
but it is hard to get them to accept dates 100s of years before the
first 'homo sapiens' sites around 34 kya. Whereas the molecular
suggests there should be older sites in iberia, it does not suggest
that those sites are neccesarily easily studied. The fact it does
suggest specifically iberia and sardinia places the burden of these
early sites from africa on research into coastal or submerged
regions.
-- Philip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ____Groups_____ Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/ ____Sites_____ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
- Next message: Daryl Krupa: "Re: REPOST: Re: Siberian Arctic site dated to 27,000 BP"
- Previous message: Daryl Krupa: "Re: REPOST: Re: Siberian Arctic site dated to 27,000 BP"
- In reply to: Daryl Krupa: "Re: REPOST: Re: Siberian Arctic site dated to 27,000 BP"
- Next in thread: Michael Clark: "Re: REPOST: Re: Siberian Arctic site dated to 27,000 BP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|