Re: Why are the sites in North and South America with claims for great age all on the East side?

On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:29:27 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Taking Meadowcroft, Topper, Pedra Furada, the Clovis sites in the
Chesapeake area as being evidence, why are there no comparable sites
on the West Coast and the Great Plains? The first three claim age
beyond that claimed for the paleo-Indian migration, the Clovis sites
are on the "wrong" side of the continent, engendering theories of
cross-Atlantic migration.

Is there any logical explanation for this or is it just chance that
the migrants traveled until they ran out of room?

Why are the great majority of the prehistoric sites in Europe in the
Med and SW-France? Because the climate was more hospitable.

I have little knowledge of the climate in the US during the ice age, I
just know that the Death Valley was a shallow lake from 60kbp to
35kbp, and a deep lake until 10kbp whence it fell dry; and today's
Salt Lake is the sorry leftover of the once-giant Lake Bonneville. So
there was more water in the West than there is today. Still, the SE
must have been the most hospitable region then.

my 2cents,
Hayabusa

.

Relevant Pages