| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:43 am Post subject: PRE-CLOVIS IN WISCONSIN |
 |
|
Listeros,
Wooly mammoth skeletons that were found on the John Hebior farm in
Kenosha, Wisconsin had primitive stone knives found in connection with
them which were used to scrape meat from the bones of the mammoths.
The mammoth bones which have knife cut marks on them have been dated
to 12,500 BCE and thus, the knives are Pre-Clovis and in Wisconsin.
This is another piece of evidence that humans were in North America
before the last Ica Age.
WISN.com, a Milwaukee ABC affliate, has the story here and a video of
the broadcast of the story;
http://www.wisn.com/news/16923542/detail.html
Mike Ruggeri
Mike Ruggeri>s Pre-Clovis and Clovis World
http://tinyurl.com/2m8725
Breaking Pre-Clovis and Clovis News
http://community-2.webtv.net/Topiltzin-2091/MikeRuggerisPre/index.html |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: PRE-CLOVIS IN WISCONSIN |
|
|
On Jul 22, 12:43 am, michaelrugg...@mac.com wrote:
[quote]Listeros,
Wooly mammoth skeletons that were found on the John Hebior farm in
Kenosha, Wisconsin had primitive stone knives found in connection with
them which were used to scrape meat from the bones of the mammoths.
The mammoth bones which have knife cut marks on them have been dated
to 12,500 BCE and thus, the knives are Pre-Clovis and in Wisconsin.
This is another piece of evidence that humans were in North America
before the last Ica Age.
WISN.com, a Milwaukee ABC affliate, has the story here and a video of
the broadcast of the story;
http://www.wisn.com/news/16923542/detail.html
Mike Ruggeri
Mike Ruggeri>s Pre-Clovis and Clovis Worldhttp://tinyurl.com/2m8725
Breaking Pre-Clovis and Clovis Newshttp://community-2.webtv.net/Topiltzin-2091/MikeRuggerisPre/index.html
[/quote]
Well, first of all, you do a real service for the archaeological
community.
-----
Would you be willing to speculate how early the evidence
shows for pre-Clovis - how far back in time?
Just a rough estimate would do.
David Christainsen |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:00 am Post subject: Re: PRE-CLOVIS IN WISCONSIN |
|
|
On Jul 22, 1:34 pm, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 12:43 am, michaelrugg...@mac.com wrote:
Listeros,
Wooly mammoth skeletons that were found on the John Hebior farm in
Kenosha, Wisconsin had primitive stone knives found in connection with
them which were used to scrape meat from the bones of the mammoths.
The mammoth bones which have knife cut marks on them have been dated
to 12,500 BCE and thus, the knives are Pre-Clovis and in Wisconsin.
This is another piece of evidence that humans were in North America
before the last Ica Age.
WISN.com, a Milwaukee ABC affliate, has the story here and a video of
the broadcast of the story;
http://www.wisn.com/news/16923542/detail.html
Mike Ruggeri
Mike Ruggeri>s Pre-Clovis and Clovis Worldhttp://tinyurl.com/2m8725
Breaking Pre-Clovis and Clovis Newshttp://community-2.webtv.net/Topiltzin-2091/MikeRuggerisPre/index.html
Well, first of all, you do a real service for the archaeological
community.
-----
Would you be willing to speculate how early the evidence
shows for pre-Clovis - how far back in time?
Just a rough estimate would do.
David Christainsen
[/quote]
David,
Thanks for your kind words. In the last year, there have been 3
significant pieces of evidence for Pre-Clovis settlement.
1) The discovery of seaweed on tools and habitation sites at Monte
Verde, Chile have now been radio-carbon dated at 14,000 years ago, the
same dates as the footprints and artifacts Dillehay found at Monte
Verde years ago.
Here is the URL for an article on that discovery;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080508-first-americans.html
2) The discovery of human coprolites at Paisley Cave, Oregon also
dated recently at 14,500 years ago.
Here is the URL for an article on that discovery;
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004322592_weboldpoop03m.html
3) And now these mammoths and tools found in Kenosha.
So the ones that certainly look real go back 14,500 years.
Then the question is; how long did it take humans by way of canoe,
traveling by traditional fission-fusion patterns of hunters/gatherers,
to get to Oregon, across North America to Wisconsin and to Southern
Chile. Obviously, first entry into North and then South America had to
have begun long before 14,500 years ago to have humans in Chile,
Wisconsin and Oregon by 14,500 years ago. But the three discoveries I
have mentioned are the ones that are the most compelling by way of
proof of Pre-Clovis and no claimed discoveries earlier than that have
the proof necessary to really change that 14,500 years ago date.
The work being done at the Topper Site and at Meadowcroft rock shelter
may at some point present earlier evidence and the chief
archaeologists at those two sites have long claimed they feel they
have established proof going back to 20,000 years ago.
Mike Ruggeri |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tom McDonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:30 am Post subject: Re: PRE-CLOVIS IN WISCONSIN |
|
|
michaelruggeri@mac.com wrote:
[quote]Listeros,
Wooly mammoth skeletons that were found on the John Hebior farm in
Kenosha, Wisconsin had primitive stone knives found in connection with
them which were used to scrape meat from the bones of the mammoths.
The mammoth bones which have knife cut marks on them have been dated
to 12,500 BCE and thus, the knives are Pre-Clovis and in Wisconsin.
This is another piece of evidence that humans were in North America
before the last Ica Age.
WISN.com, a Milwaukee ABC affliate, has the story here and a video of
the broadcast of the story;
http://www.wisn.com/news/16923542/detail.html
[/quote]
As a Wisconsinite, this pleases me. It will please me more if the
dating is confirmed, and the cut marks and tools hold up to
further scrutiny.
But the Kenosha County sites seem to be pretty solid, so far.
Found this from _Science_, 7/30/2004, Vol. 305 Issue 5684, p590-590:
"Sites near Kenosha "may be the best preClovis sites in North
America," says team leader Michael Waters of Texas A&M University
in College Station. Even pre-Clovis skeptic Stuart Fiedel, an
archaeologist with the Louis Berger Group in Washington, D.C.,
agrees that "the Kenosha sites are high up on my radar screen. On
the face of it, they seem to be one of the best cases [of
pre-Clovis evidence]."
"Archaeologists long thought that America was first settled by
the Clovis hunters, who crossed the Bering Strait and moved south
through an ice-free corridor around 11,500 radiocarbon years ago.
Then in recent years dozens of sites in both North and South
America pointed to an even older human occupation. But each
pre-Clovis site has been bitterly contested (Science, 2 March
2001, p. 1730), and a handful of influential archaeologists
believes that definitive pre-Clovis evidence is lacking. "One of
my problems with the [pre-Clovis] position is that the sites that
it is founded on are still dubious," says Fiedel.
"Hence the excitement over the sites near Kenosha. In 1990, an
amateur archaeologist found butcher marks on mammoth bones stored
at a local historical museum; archaeologists later excavated at
two sites, those of the Schaefer and Hebior mammoths. These
mammoth bones are so well preserved that collagen could be
extracted from inside the bone for radiocarbon dating, yielding
dates of about 12,500 radiocarbon years ago, 1000 years before
the Clovis people. And a handful of crude stone tools — unlike
the elegant spear points of the Clovis people — were recovered
under the bone piles. All in all, the sites are unique, with
"unequivocal stone tools [and] excellent dates," says Waters."
If Waters and Fiedel both think there is something interesting
there, I think we are likely to have some fun.
Also, anent the recent discussion of Dr. Janke>s study of the
late Pleistocene sand island remnants in northern Indiana: if the
dating of the Hebior mammoth holds up, then the southern margin
of the rump Lake Michigan was at least a bit farther north than
Kenosha (just south of Milwaukee) by ca. 14,500 ya.
Should someone tell Janke, do you think? :-) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Daryl Krupa
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: Re: PRE-CLOVIS IN WISCONSIN |
|
|
On Jul 22, 6:30 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
<snip>
[quote]Also, anent the recent discussion of Dr. Janke>s study of the
late Pleistocene sand island remnants in northern Indiana: if the
dating of the Hebior mammoth holds up, then the southern margin
of the rump Lake Michigan was at least a bit farther north than
Kenosha (just south of Milwaukee) by ca. 14,500 ya.
Should someone tell Janke, do you think? :-)
[/quote]
Tom:
No, the southern edge of the future Lake Michigan was at
Chicago, where its oulet to the Mississippi was located.
The southern margin of the ice sheet was near Green Bay, then.
Look here, at the map to the right of the one at the bottom left of
the array of maps:
http://apps1.gdr.nrcan.gc.ca/mirage/show_image_e.php?client=mrsid2&id=214399&image=gscof_1574_e_2003_mn01.sid
OR
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2pknoz
- Daryl Krupa |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tom McDonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:08 am Post subject: Re: PRE-CLOVIS IN WISCONSIN |
|
|
Daryl Krupa wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 6:30 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
snip
Also, anent the recent discussion of Dr. Janke>s study of the
late Pleistocene sand island remnants in northern Indiana: if the
dating of the Hebior mammoth holds up, then the southern margin
of the rump Lake Michigan was at least a bit farther north than
Kenosha (just south of Milwaukee) by ca. 14,500 ya.
Should someone tell Janke, do you think? :-)
Tom:
No, the southern edge of the future Lake Michigan was at
Chicago, where its oulet to the Mississippi was located.
The southern margin of the ice sheet was near Green Bay, then.
Look here, at the map to the right of the one at the bottom left of
the array of maps:
http://apps1.gdr.nrcan.gc.ca/mirage/show_image_e.php?client=mrsid2&id=214399&image=gscof_1574_e_2003_mn01.sid
OR
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2pknoz
[/quote]
You are correct, Sir! Slip of the fingers, meant to say 'southern
margin of the ice sheet'. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: PRE-CLOVIS IN WISCONSIN |
|
|
On Jul 23, 12:00 am, michaelrugg...@mac.com wrote:
[quote]...
So the ones that certainly look real go back 14,500 years.
Then the question is; how long did it take humans by way of canoe,
traveling by traditional fission-fusion patterns of hunters/gatherers,
to get to Oregon, across North America to Wisconsin and to Southern
Chile. Obviously, first entry into North and then South America had to
have begun long before 14,500 years ago to have humans in Chile,
Wisconsin and Oregon by 14,500 years ago. But the three discoveries I
have mentioned are the ones that are the most compelling by way of
proof of Pre-Clovis and no claimed discoveries earlier than that have
the proof necessary to really change that 14,500 years ago date.
The work being done at the Topper Site and at Meadowcroft rock shelter
may at some point present earlier evidence and the chief
archaeologists at those two sites have long claimed they feel they
have established proof going back to 20,000 years ago.
...
[/quote]
Where plenty of controversy gets generated -
Harumi Fujita
40,000-YEAR-OLD DATES FROM ESPIRITU SANTO SITE
http://pweb.jps.net/~dlaylander/interview.fujita1.htm
---
Silvia Gonzalez
U54B-02
http://tinyurl.com/6kxcq4
---
Niède Guidon
Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C3%A8de_Guidon
-----
My observation over time is that most sci.archers are
somewhat reluctant to get into free-swinging debate
on this pre-Clovis matter.
Yet, I really would appreciate incisive and candid
comment on the specific work of these 3 archaeologists.
The reason is that I am intensely interested in whether
the hypothesis can be nailed down that man entered
the Americas before 40,000 BC for sure, probably
earlier to 50,000 BC.
Opinions, please - how strong is the evidence?
David Christainsen |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: PRE-CLOVIS IN WISCONSIN |
|
|
On Jul 25, 10:14 am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 23, 12:00 am, michaelrugg...@mac.com wrote:
...
So the ones that certainly look real go back 14,500 years.
Then the question is; how long did it take humans by way of canoe,
traveling by traditional fission-fusion patterns of hunters/gatherers,
to get to Oregon, across North America to Wisconsin and to Southern
Chile. Obviously, first entry into North and then South America had to
have begun long before 14,500 years ago to have humans in Chile,
Wisconsin and Oregon by 14,500 years ago. But the three discoveries I
have mentioned are the ones that are the most compelling by way of
proof of Pre-Clovis and no claimed discoveries earlier than that have
the proof necessary to really change that 14,500 years ago date.
The work being done at the Topper Site and at Meadowcroft rock shelter
may at some point present earlier evidence and the chief
archaeologists at those two sites have long claimed they feel they
have established proof going back to 20,000 years ago.
...
Where plenty of controversy gets generated -
Harumi Fujita
40,000-YEAR-OLD DATES FROM ESPIRITU SANTO SITEhttp://pweb.jps.net/~dlaylander/interview.fujita1.htm
---
Silvia Gonzalez
U54B-02http://tinyurl.com/6kxcq4
---
Niède Guidon
Wikipedia articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C3%A8de_Guidon
-----
My observation over time is that most sci.archers are
somewhat reluctant to get into free-swinging debate
on this pre-Clovis matter.
Yet, I really would appreciate incisive and candid
comment on the specific work of these 3 archaeologists.
The reason is that I am intensely interested in whether
the hypothesis can be nailed down that man entered
the Americas before 40,000 BC for sure, probably
earlier to 50,000 BC.
Opinions, please - how strong is the evidence?
David Christainsen
[/quote]
David,
There have been claims made in South America and also at the Topper
Site in the US of evidence pointing to a 40,000-50,000 BC presence.
But nothing organic has been found yet that could be radio-carbon
dated to those dates. No human fossils, food evidence, only tools that
may or may not be as old as claimed and that await independent
verification and study.
Having said that, I will repeat the point I made earlier that the
proven materials at Monte Verde and Paisley Cave and in Wisconsin of a
human presence at 14,500 years ago opens the obvious scenario that
these human artifacts could not have been found there unless the
humans began traveling from Asia and entered the Americas long before.
Beyond that are the statements made by linguistic researchers that the
several hundred distinct languages that existed in the New World by
the time of European entry could not have evolved into that many
distinct languages without men having been in the New World going back
to 40,000-50,000 years ago. No one has argued with the linguistic math
of these statements but archaeologists still await evidence in hand.
There has also been some scattered studies based on the genetics of
modern day Latin Americans and Native Americans that point to their
ancestry in the Americas going back to 40,000-50,000 BC. But those
studies are contradicted by other genetic studies.
I think it is obvious that the humans in Oregon, Chile and Wisconsin
who lived there 14,500 years ago were descendants of immigrants who
entered the New
World long before. There is no way that they could have been found in
these places without a much earlier entry.
And the dates of 40,000-50,000 BC for the first entry, given
everything we know, does not seem out of the question.
There has been so much science fiction archaeology in print over the
years that I can understand the care any serious researcher is going
to take in saying that outright without organic evidence rightly dated
and confirmed.
Mike Ruggeri |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Daryl Krupa
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: PRE-CLOVIS IN WISCONSIN |
|
|
On Jul 25, 9:14 am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
[quote]The reason is that I am intensely interested in whether
the hypothesis can be nailed down that man entered
the Americas before 40,000 BC for sure, probably
earlier to 50,000 BC.
Opinions, please - how strong is the evidence?
[/quote]
It is possible that such people travelled southward from Alaska
through the ice-free land that existed west of the Laurentide Ice
Sheet
before about 25,000 years ago, i.e. nearly all of Alberta and British
Columbia.
The question to be answered regarding the three sites you pointed to
is,
"Have artifacts been found there, or geofacts?"
Without human remains, or unquestionable artifacts,
the identification of a site as being occupied by human beings is a
matter of
personal opinion.
Gonzalez got the age of the volcanic ash at her site wildly wrong,
and
discounted the likely possibility that they "footprints" she found in
the
(welded by temperatures hot enough to melt glass!) ash were
modern digging marks.
Google Scholar has no publications by Harumi regarding the caves
near La Paz that she says are human occupation sites.
Pedro Furada is still worth paying attention to, however.
- Daryl Krupa |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:42 am Post subject: Re: PRE-CLOVIS IN WISCONSIN |
|
|
On Jul 25, 7:40 pm, Daryl Krupa <icycal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 9:14 am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
The reason is that I am intensely interested in whether
the hypothesis can be nailed down that man entered
the Americas before 40,000 BC for sure, probably
earlier to 50,000 BC.
Opinions, please - how strong is the evidence?
It is possible that such people travelled southward from Alaska
through the ice-free land that existed west of the Laurentide Ice
Sheet
before about 25,000 years ago, i.e. nearly all of Alberta and British
Columbia.
The question to be answered regarding the three sites you pointed to
is,
"Have artifacts been found there, or geofacts?"
Without human remains, or unquestionable artifacts,
the identification of a site as being occupied by human beings is a
matter of
personal opinion.
Gonzalez got the age of the volcanic ash at her site wildly wrong,
and
discounted the likely possibility that they "footprints" she found in
the
(welded by temperatures hot enough to melt glass!) ash were
modern digging marks.
Google Scholar has no publications by Harumi regarding the caves
near La Paz that she says are human occupation sites.
Pedro Furada is still worth paying attention to, however.
- Daryl Krupa
[/quote]
Thanks, Daryl.
You gave exactly the kind of feedback I was asking for.
Ditto for Mike.
David Christainsen |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
