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

From: Dar Habel (Dar_83001_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/28/05 

Date: 28 Mar 2005 11:11:52 -0800

G Horvat wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2005 08:54:07 -0800, "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >G Horvat wrote:
> [...]
[more snippage]
> >> 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.

Are you sure about that? Those Columbia Plateau people you referenced
must have been pretty busy. Microblades are thought most often used as
inserts on hafted projectiles or knives. There's an awful lot of sites
that have an awful lot of these in the Upper Paleolithic and
Mesolithic/Neolithic Old World at various times over a period of the
last 40,000 years (and some that are older, though in volume
insignificant compared to the 40,000 year timeframe). In the New
World, we have sites for less than half that time, and from a
population that has to be many times smaller. I seriously doubt total
number volume of microblades in the Americas outnumbers the Old World
by a million to one, or for that matter, I wonder if the Americas even
outnumber,in reality, beyond volumes published in American
archaeological accounts read by Western researchers as opposed to
volumes published in obscure Russian and Central European journals not
read by American archaeological researchers. In any case, I'd like
some numbers for this voluminous American production vis-a-vis Old
World volume before I'll accept this as established, and before my
vessels burst from high blood pressure.

  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.
>
> If this is true, then it requires an explanation. If more Old World
> populations made microblades than New World, why is the volume
greater
> in the Americas?

My question also. Lee says we can answer the question ourselves, but
my guess is that the answer (if true) lies in the biases associated
with reported volumes and the bias in readership of said reports. Not
many American researchers read Russian reports, in which most Diuktai
site report information is published. Mostly, in French and English,
all we get is digested synthesis.

Dar

>
> When I inquire about distributions, I'm usually referring to
> geographic ones. How widespread are they (in frequencies worth
> mentioning)?
>
> Another question comes to mind. Since, to my knowledge, most
> archaeologists think microblade technology was dropped in NW Canada,
> how do they explain the presence of microblades elsewhere in the New
> World?
>
> Gisele

Relevant Pages
Loading