Re: Humans In NorthAm a-one, anda two anda three Thousand Years Before Clovis

On Apr 13, 1:06 am, Daryl Krupa <icycal...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 12, 2:55 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

Reports
Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the
Americas
Michael R. Waters1* and Thomas W. Stafford, Jr.2
<snip>
Personally, I think there is a long ways
to go before jumping to conclusions about these dates.

  Ah, so it would not be copacetic to conclude that
it's not just coincidence that
the new date for oldest Clovis
is not older than oldest Ushki?
  Nu?
  Or am I being too negative? ;-^

- Daryl Krupa

Forgetting for a moment the RCYBP, corrected dates, ka., years ago
jargon:

Goebel et al. 2003:504
"The new dates from component 7 at Ushki
show that this Siberian bifacial industry cannot
by itself be the long-sought Clovis antecedent.
Instead component 7 is coeval with
the end of Clovis in North America. Thus, we
are faced with an apparent dilemma in solving
the Clovis-origins question, because there
is now no clearly identifiable progenitor in
Siberia."
25 JULY 2003 VOL 301 SCIENCE

Goebel et al 2008:1500
Fig 3
Here again, they have Ushki dated younger than the
the oldest Clovis.
14 MARCH 2008 VOL 319 SCIENCE

They do have the two complexes in correct chronological order, Clovis
slightly
older than Ushki in both papers (Fig 5 2003, Fig 3 2008). My gripe
with the 2003 paper
is with their misidentification of the lithics, not their dating or
comparisons of dates with Clovis.
If you see a problem with how the terminology is expressed in URLs, I
will be happy to leave
that up to you to argue, (with others :-)

I like how Michael Collins, in his latest papers, places the
uncorrected rcybp with the
adjusted or corrected dates in parentheses in the same sentence, which
makes it hard to confuse
the two. In secondary articles I doubt if many will take the time and
space to do this, thus adding
to confusion.
.

Relevant Pages

  • the final nail in the Clovis first coffin,"
    ... KAZINFORM - The so-called Clovis people, known for their distinctive spearheads, were not the first humans to set foot in the Americas after all, a new study says. ... Archaeological evidence of human occupation in South America also dates to the same time as the Clovis-culture materials. ... "The Clovis-first model says it would have taken anywhere from 700 to 1,000 years for people to reach the southern tip of South America," Waters said. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • A Review of Goebel, Waters, and ORourkes 2008 Paper
    ... Modern Humans in the Americas ... Beringia to the Americas sometime after 16,500 years ago. ... Clovis were derived from an Upper Paleolithic population on the ... questions remain about the origin of the reported artifacts. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Single Founding Migration, Beringian Standstill, no need for Solutreans
    ... theory of why there are so many Clovis points in the Chesapeake Bay ... did appreciate how Dennis Stanford made a cameo and explained his ... Americas are associated with a type of stone tools found in Clovis, ... Europeans made boats and crossed the Atlantic to the Americas. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Humans In NorthAm a-one, anda two anda three Thousand Years Before Clovis
    ... Goebel and Waters that you recommended to us without ... It would appear to me that your problem is with Michael Waters, ... Ushki-5, Kamchatka, and the Peopling of the Americas ... Clovis, the earliest unequivocal culture in North America, dated to as ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • New evidence -- Clovis people not first to populate North America
    ... who had to get past the Clovis First people for grants. ... Michael Waters, director of the Center for the Study of the First ... suggesting that humans likely inhabited the Americas before Clovis, ... Stafford of Stafford Research Laboratories in Colorado, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast