Here's an interesting read for those interested in the peopling of the Americas. This is the latest paper on the earliest evidence from the Gault Site in Texas. The stratigraphy and dating look solid:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/7/eaar5954.full

The critical factor is they are based on "the last exposure to sunlight," and huge "margins of error" are a factor.

>>These OSL ages range from 21.7 ± 1.4 ka to 16.7 ± 1.1 ka and, within error, are in the expected stratigraphic order (Fig. 4 and table S1). On the basis of the results of OSL dating presented here, we find a mean age for the Gault Assemblage (n = 4) of 18.5 ± 1.5 ka.

Ah, I see Stanford's name is among the citations for works consulted.

Now tell us about those "Solutreans" again... He keeps claiming they arrived here ~20,000 years ago, honest.

And never mind that the DNA from the "Anzick Clovis Child" showed that it belonged to a population that was ancestral to all Native Americans...

This has nothing to do with Solutreans or DNA.

And the OSL dates for the Clovis layer above the Gault layer are accurate. The stratigraphy and dates are consistent.

Thanks, Richard.

Very interesting.

He matriculated in grad school in Massachusetts; Harvard, I believe, and he once challenged a poster with "Because you say so?"

A link from the bibliography of the article you linked; this one has a March, 2018 publication date...

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6381/1224?ijkey=5f8a1e489eefd6ca23865dc6728ea849df037c42&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

>>Arrival Routes of First Americans Uncertain

>>Contrary to Braje et al., genetic evidence indicates that Native American ancestors diverged from Siberian populations ∼24,900 to ∼18,400 years ago, followed by population expansion into the Americas ∼16,000 to ∼13,500 years ago (1). Only two Native American lineages have been identified south of Beringia: a northern lineage constrained to northern North America, and a southern lineage directly linked with Clovis—the earliest unequivocal widespread cultural manifestation south of the ice sheets (2). Thus, a Native American lineage in the Americas between 25,000 and 15,000 years ago is inconsistent with current data. There is no consensus on the validity of purported pre–16,000-year-old sites, which vary in accurate dating, unambiguous artifacts, and clear association between them (3). Moreover, there are few technological connections among 16,000- to 13,500-year-old pre-Clovis sites, or with later Paleoindian artifacts; thus, the relationships between these sites and later Native Americans remain ambiguous.

And as I noted, the DNA of the Anzick Clovis Child showed it belonged to a group ancestral to all Native Americans...

>>The coastal colonization route Braje et al. advocate remains a viable hypothesis for a later arrival date, but several issues should be addressed (4). Despite the rise of sea levels in the Holocene, much of the late Pleistocene coast from Puget Sound to Alaska remains above sea level (5), yet surveys have failed to discover coastal sites securely dated older than 12,500 years ago (4).

>>Braje et al. suggest that stemmed projectile points in different contexts provide evidence for a coastal expansion before 16,000 years ago, but this is not a consensus view. Stemming is a widespread form of weapon design that was innovated numerous times and thus cannot be used to argue for cultural affiliation. No technological analysis has established a valid connection between these disparate assemblages, and there remains debate on the dating of North American stemmed points (11) because most securely dated sites are younger than Clovis.

>>Braje et al. assert that there is near complete agreement among archaeologists on these issues. However, the most recent survey (12) showed that archaeologists are divided, with many thinking that both interior and coastal routes were used, and expressing skepticism about several proposed pre-Clovis sites. Genetic and archaeological data suggest expansion from Siberia into the Americas around 16,000 to 13,500 years ago, consistent with terrestrial and/or coastal migrations. This evidence base explains the absence of consensus among scientists regarding both routes and timing of the peopling of the Americas.

Absences of consensus, eh? Whatever does that mean? (big smiley face)

Richard provides us with an article from ScienceAdvances which describes the debate over Clovis and then goes on to provide new findings to help clarify the truth.

You intimate that Richard is wrong and, in support of your position, cite one of the papers that the ScienceAdvances article explicitly challenges. That makes no sense. Your article is earlier, and less informed, than Richard's. You are effectively using Newton to debunk Einstein.

That argument is on a par with claiming, as you did above, that problems with the DNA evidence and the Solutrean hypothesis disprove an argument that does not rely on those things.

<<Absences of consensus, eh? Whatever does that mean? (big smiley face)>>

It means that some people are so entrenched in an outdated paradigm that they refuse to look at the evidence directly in front of their noses. (big smiley face).

And that evidence is, the presence of a proper stratigraphic juxtaposition of a pre-clovis cultural layer beneath a clovis layer. That is not only in proper geomorphological context, but is also supported by the OSL dates. Dates that also are accurate for the stratigraphically correct clovis and archaic horizons above it.

I've excavated enough sites that that alone convinces me that this is a pre-clovis occupation. The dirt doesn't lie, and DNA has nothing to do with it.

Read my one-liner above about where my material comes from...

/clinical voice on (and yes, I have grad work and internships in that field)

An element of narcissism--which is what is being tossed at us--is an insistence that one adopts the purveyor's point of view rather than have the option of considering alternative hypotheses. Quite often it's accompanied by perceptual distortions and denial (your behavior is pretty telling on that one, honest), and met with hostility when challenged.

Now try speaking to Stanford and his Solutreans again rather than attempting to shove it aside and change the subject.

I don't buy the Solutrean bit either. But we've been over that before.

And no, the dirt doesn't talk to me. But I do understand archaeological context. It's a big part of what archaeologists do.

Oh, and thanks for the free psych evaluation.

None of which changes the fact that the Gault site has a pre-clovis component.

My source/friend on RFM who sent me this one noted that it's behind a paywall, so I can't link it, and I'll just quote from it under "Fair Use" regulations (and no, I don't mean BYU's FAIR :-)

• Pre-Clovis in Texas? A critical assessment of the “Buttermilk Creek Complex”

Journal of Archaeological Science

• Juliet E. Morrowa, Stuart J. Fiedel, Donald L. Johnson, Marcel Kornfeld, Moye Rutledge,W. Raymond Wood © 2012

ABSTRACT

• Lithic artifacts from the lowest strata of the Debra L. Friedkin site, located on Buttermilk Creek in central Texas, have been interpreted as an undisturbed pre-Clovis assemblage (Waters et al., 2011a). Stone tools and debitage were recovered from sediments stratified just below diagnostic Clovis artifacts and dated by OSL to between 13.2 and >15.5 cal kya. Invoking commonly observed cultural and natural site formation processes, we offer an alternative explanation of the “Buttermilk Creek Complex” as a Clovis assemblage in secondary association with the dated sediments.


• The chronostratigraphic position of the sediments underlying diagnostic Clovis and Folsom artifacts is sufficient to indicate that their age exceeds 13 kya. However, we note that the reported OSL dates have large standard errors and have been corrected by some unstated increment relying on an untestable assumption about the sediments’ water content over the millennia since their deposition (Waters et al., 2011a SOM, p. 6).

(See my comment above on the same "large errors")

• These problematic dates raise the possibility of systematic over-estimation of other ages. In any case,we focus in the following remarks not on the age of the sediments (arguably less than 14 kya, given their error factors) but that of the artifacts they contain and on the nature of the shrinking-swelling soil, known as a Vertisol (USDA-NRCS, 2010:33), in which they occur.

• In conclusion, we have provided evidence that negates the three assumptions underlying identification of the BCC assemblage as pre-Clovis. First, the OSL dates for the associated sediments do not provide a precise age for the BCC assemblage. Second, our analysis of the debitage distribution suggests that some artifacts have drifted downward through the sedimentary deposits; this raisesdoubts about the primary association of artifacts and their present stratigraphic context. Third, the BCC assemblage does not differ significantly from known Clovis assemblages. Consequently, we question the identification of the BCC complex as a pre-Cloviscultural manifestation.

Using a 2012 study to challenge a 2018 publication.

Brilliant.

And there you go again...

/Gipper voice off

I note once more you've avoided addressing the particulars...

I'd offer my "Remedial Critical Writing Voice" as well and suggest you try addressing the subject, but you haven't demonstrated you possess the critical analytic skills to accomplish such a feat.

And on a second reading, kindly provide any evidence for that 2018 date you're claiming somebody offered. The article clearly mentioned the 2011 dates as well as others. And please avoid "prevaricating" in the future...

(not gonna happen folks)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2018 04:47PM by SL Cabbie.

Started to put a response in the wrong spot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2018 05:22PM by Richard the Bad.

Science Advances 11 Jul 2018:
Vol. 4, no. 7, eaar5954
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aar5954

Hi Cabbie,

Yes I am familiar with that paper, and I'm pretty close with one of the authors. However, it doesn't actually address the Gault Site, and the newer findings there. I'll be seeing Marcel later this month, I'll ask him what he thinks about it then.

It's hard to comprehend this info with as little knowledge as some of us have. Would it be possible for you to give a down and dirty lesson in the migration and peopling of North America - such that you would give to a class of 4th graders?

Save the DNA for another lesson. Just tell us the time lines and major theories and upon what evidence they are based.

Thanks.

I'll jump in here, auntsukey. As a professional archaeologist, Richard is the expert on this subject. The rest of us are rank amateurs.

That said, your question is a simple one and I'll venture a simple answer subject to correction by those more educated than I.

The old paradigm is "Clovis-First." It posits that Siberians crossed through Beringia and into Alaska roughly when the ice age lowered water levels covering that region and thereby enabled passage. These proto-Native Americans could not enter North America proper due to the ice sheets that separated Beringia-Alaska from the rest of the continent. Then an ice-free north-south corridor opened up in the center of North America, allowing migration down into what is now the United States and then everywhere else. The date for the establishment of this Clovis settlement south of the ice sheets is roughly 13,000 years ago.

That paradigm was dominant for decades but evidence has gradually accumulated that there were other colonies of Native Americans in various parts of the Americas before the 13,000 timeline. This has led to various theories about how and when the pre-Clovis peoples arrived, but those aren't relevant to the present thread.

What is happening here is that SL Cabbie is insisting that Clovis-First is still the "consensus" and that Richard's new studies showing pre-Clovis settlements are bad. The truth is that the pre-Clovis evidence has mounted quite considerably and many (if not most) serious archaeologists now speak of a "post-Clovis consensus."

In this case Richard has presented a study by credible scientists discussing solid archaeological evidence of settlement before Clovis. SL Cabbie is attempting to persuade us not to accept that evidence basically because it is incompatible with the theory he still embraces.

Nope, I read it.

That was exactly the framework I was needing.

Being intrigued but not knowing much science, it's easy to get confused. And not knowing who exactly knows what is also confusing. I'm not on here enough to know whom to ask questions of. I know SL Cabbie discusses this subject from time to time and I addressed my question to him but I'm very happy for you to have answered it. I'll pay more attention now to Richard.

Thanks again.

And you too SL Cabbie.

And I'm a simple science writer who does understand DNA science, possesses well-honed research skills from an MA program, and I also have grad credentials addressing the sort of denial that is being presented here.

With Monte Verde, a group of scientists led by Dennis Stanford* "authenticated" some "pre-Clovis" findings in 1999. A scientist named Stuart Fiedel took Tom Dillehay (who excavated the wet site) to task; it got explosive, and that's the way the controversy stands right now (with Dillehay now doing some revisions on MV "dating" even though no less than Anna C. Roosevelt said outright, "Monte Verde is not a pre-Clovis site."

Richard insisted some time ago that Roosevelt's claims had been refuted but failed to provide anything credible from any sources, peer-reviewed or otherwise. Roosevelt's video on "The Peopling of South America" is available on YouTobe, and she brings up the subject of Monte Verde.

There remains, despite his--and Lot's Wife's--stubborn insistence to the contrary, a group of very credible sorts who question the presence of pre-Clovis populations in either North or South America. Our friend Kerry, aka FlattopSF, sent me a book from the Harvard bookstore on the subject that I've stuck in a corner somewhere (The book is "Bones" by Elaine Dewar (2001). Far out! I just found my copy, and from p. 95, Roosevelt notes, "There are no authorities. You're going to have to be the authority." The volume includes the controversy over Kennewick Man (proven to be Native American by Willerslev; the nuclear DNA from the Anzick Clovis Child was also shown to be from a population ancestral to all North and South Americans; it seems there's very little in the way of "authentic pre-Clovis DNA" as far as I can tell). And I corresponded with Gary Haynes last year, now retired from the U of Nevada, Reno, who replied to the question "Were there pre-Clovis," and he noted, "Probably is the safest answer."

Per Richard's own words, "Archaeology is not a science; it's a discipline that uses science." *Note, however, when I brought up Dennis Stanford's "Solutrean Silliness" as an example questioning Stanford's judgment, he resorted to a "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain act" in answer to that charge.

Like I said, I have clinical training--grad level--in denial, and, IMO, you can take that analysis to the bank. The ten dollar clinical term is "cognitive dissonance."

And right now, Richard is an archaeologist who's engaging in politics, and not science.

Canard upon canard.

1) Richard presented a study in support of the growing pre-Clovis consensus. You replied by bringing in DNA and other things that have nothing to do with the article. Those objections are useless in this context. A proposition that does not depend on genetics cannot be disproved through genetic analysis.

2) You say that despite Lot's Wife's "stubborn insistence to the contrary, a group of very credible sorts [still] question the presence of pre-Clovis populations. . ." I never challenged that. I have no doubt that there are still credible sorts who question the pre-Clovis view. I'd add, however that the verb "question" is a lot softer than "deny." The Clovis-First crowd, excepting possibly you, aren't very confident anymore.

4) You refer us for evidence for your Clovis-First belief to Gary Haynes. According to your account, Haynes was asked "were there pre-Clovis" and answered that "'Probably' is the safest answer." Haynes thus says that Richard is "probably" right and you are "probably" wrong.

3) You cite a book written in 2001--as if nothing relevant has happened in the intervening 17 years--that "There are no authorities. You're going to have to be the authority." Surely that is nonsense generally and in specific. There are experts; there are authorities. If one wants to ignore all the research and all the expertise that has accumulated since 2001, he is free to do so.

But obscurantism isn't a great way to discover truth.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2018 05:35PM by Lot's Wife.

I don't want to derail this conversation, but I MUST point out that 'obscurantism' is what we used to call a belief in playing hide-'n-go-seek.

I felt it was important...


I also wondered about the "Probably" answer to the pre-Clovis question... Was it a trick? By answering 'probably', did he think it would make the pre-Clovis people go away? What was the point of the answer if it wasn't to convey an actual meaning?

Pressed by Mr. O'Dawg, I looked Haynes up. It turns out he is on Richard's side and does not agree with SL Cabbie that Clovis came first.

"We've known there's pre-Clovis for a long time," says Gary Haynes of the University of Nevada, Reno.

https://archive.archaeology.org/1201/trenches/clovis_buttermilk_creek_manis_mastodon.html

Haynes' research has recently been focused more on the linkages between pre-Clovis cultures and Clovis. The assumption, obviously, is that there were pre-Clovis peoples.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2055556315Z.00000000016?journalCode=ypal20

So Haynes personally goes substantially further than saying there were "probably" pre-Clovis migrations. He accepts those migrations as "known" and has based his subsequent work on that assumption.

Sheesh, I don't have to go looking for this material; it shows up if you wait long enough...

Uh, about that "bone projectile point" in the Mastodon's back...

It's about a quarter inch in diameter, honest.

That one's just a tiny bit personal; I brought that up a few years ago when I was reviewing "Pre-Clovis Claims," and I noted it would've been pretty foolish to try to bring down a huge mastodon with a spear point that was that diameter. Those hunters in the Northwest were brave sorts, but...

What's personal about it is somebody else said the same thing awhile later, and he had a PhD, and he got all the laughs...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2018 01:44PM by SL Cabbie.

Let me get this straight.

You cited Haynes in support of your argument. I then provided a link to him showing that he disagrees with you. So now you reply that he does bad science? Does that not mean that you initially cited a bad scientist in support of your position?

You can rely on Haynes or reject him. But doing both at the same time is not sound.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2018 02:22PM by Lot's Wife.

Keep putting your control issues on display, there...

What Haynes said was a "process comment" that was rich in nuance; he was acknowledging the debate, and your attributing a "certainty" to them is typical of your cherry-picking M.O. I did correspond with him less than two years ago (while on my way to Reno), and he noted he was retired, and made some observations that were quite subtle. I don't know the dates on the material you posted, and given your personal attacks offered in lieu of considering alternate points-of-view (there's a "meta-message" in your claim that implies I'm lying, and I'm not), I'm not inclined to offer you any respect but rather blunt honesty.

/control issue back at you

Try speaking to the "Manis Mastodon" issue, which is what I addressed, your deflection not withstanding. De-bunking that was an easy "turkey shoot," honest.

Once again, you have no answer for the accumulation of pre-clovis evidence.

All the rest is noise.

Don't think about Kerry's (Flattopsf) statement, "Because you said so?" Shoot, his ghost might visit you in your sleep, and you might have a bad night.

Unless you can point to me where you did address my analysis of the "Manis Mastodon," I'll be forced to conclude your doing your usual nonsense act. And that's addressing your behavior, and isn't intended as personal even though it will doubtless feel that way.

I can't help myself, I'll jump in...

SLCabbie wrote:
" I noted it would've been pretty foolish to try to bring down a huge mastodon with a spear point that was that diameter."

This article:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6054/351

...considers what was found in the Manis Mastodon to be a broken-off tip of a much larger "pre-Clovis point." Which resolves the level of foolishness of the hunters nicely, I think.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/20/mastodon-hunted-north-america

>>Despite Waters's efforts, the fragment in the Manis mastodon's rib is still stoking debate. "It's not definitely proven that it is a projectile point," said Prof Gary Haynes from the University of Nevada, Reno. "Elephants today push each other all the time and break each other's ribs so it could be a bone splinter that the animal just rolled on."


Cabdriver Philosophical Observation: People are going to believe what they want to believe..

OK.

Except I didn't claim anything was "definitely proven."

And wasn't it you who just pooh-poohed unreliable sources in favor of journal articles, just before refuting a science journal article I posted with "The Guardian?"

I don't have a dog in this fight.
It's pretty clear neither "side" has a slam-dunk case.
It's also pretty clear there's a lot more than science and evidence involved in the arguments...

Just a suggestion: Don't "fall in love" with science journals unblinkingly, and I promise you, I do take careful looks at what's being offered from sites such as the Guardian's. My friend Jennifer Raff (who "schools" me regularly on DNA and Native Americans--and I accept her reporting pretty much uncritically) writes articles that appear there (as does her "mentor" Deborah Bolnick).

I was very careful in choosing Gary Haynes' replies, since I know who he is and respect his views.

I first saw the "Manis Mastodon" claims several years ago, and somebody else besides me noted that the diameter of the "projectile point" was questionable, and Gary Haynes has expertise with African natives killing elephants, which is clearly relevant.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Canard upon canard.
>
> 1) Richard presented a study in support of the
> growing pre-Clovis consensus. You replied by
> bringing in DNA and other things that have nothing
> to do with the article. Those objections are
> useless in this context. A proposition that does
> not depend on genetics cannot be disproved through
> genetic analysis.


If an article makes assertions (Pre-Clovis populations) that another article undermines by competent evidence (DNA studies), there is arguably a burden on the original article to address such issue; particularly when it appears to be conclusive on the issue. In any event, to suggest that such challenges are irrelevant, or "useless" simply because the original article does not address the underlying challenge, is fallacious.

Consider: Suppose I make an argument that biological complexity is the result of intelligent design. You then, bring up evolution. Can I then say, such a move is irrelevant and useless because my argument did not mention evolution.

Thus, Cabbie's comment: "And never mind that the DNA from the "Anzick Clovis Child" showed that it belonged to a population that was ancestral to all Native Americans..." is relevant, and arguably must be addressed. In short, how is it possible that DNA analysis shows that all native American populations have identifying Clovis markers, notwithstanding contrary speculations and theories from archeology?

You assert "that DNA analysis shows that all native American populations have identifying Clovis markers. . ."

Isn't it a bit early to state that categorically?" Have we seen "all Native Americans?" Moreover, if the Clovis and pre-Clovis peoples were initially the same people--cohabiting, say, during a sojourn in Beringia--wouldn't it be misleading to label those markers one and not the other?

The determination that a child who lived in western Montana was probably Clovis and not pre-Clovis does not, in fact, preclude the existence of pre-Clovis people in Montana let alone in Texas.

The converse is true as well: geneticists aren't obligated to defeat archaeological arguments either. Eventually the sciences will probably converge, which is what normally happens.

The point is that Haynes and others whom SL Cabbie cites as evidence for his idee fixe do not, in fact, agree with him. They are closer to Richard's description of balance of opinion among experts as supporting pre-Clovis migration.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2018 07:36PM by Lot's Wife.

"Isn't it a bit early to state that categorically?" Have we seen "all Native Americans?""

Gosh, for a moment I thought I was on mormon dialogue and discussion board, being told why no ancient Hebrew DNA has been found yet in the ancient Americas. Sorry Lot's Wife, I don't accept that reasoning from mopologists, and seeing it used here after having thrown away the Book of Mormon and gotten Mormonism out of my brain, well it just makes my head hurt.

I understand your point, MM, and recognize the parallel between my argument and that of the Mopologists.

There is, however, a fundamental difference. There are hundreds of millions of people alive today who carry Native American DNA and there are many thousands (10s of thousands?) who have been tested from all over the Americas. By contrast, there are few confirmed Clovis and pre-Clovis genomes, leaving vastly more room for surprises about groups and subgroups--as is evident from the surprises Elder Old Dog recounts immediately below. Uncertainty, in short, is inversely proportional to the number of good observations a scientist has, and with pre-Clovis genetics there aren't that many observations.

But in any case, as I also suggested, one would expect very similar genomes if the proto-Native Americans were closely related in Northeast Asia or in Beringia as it appears (subject to new genetic surprises) they were.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2018 11:35PM by Lot's Wife.

"hundreds of millions of people alive today who carry Native American DNA"

All from a population bottleneck that began some 500 years ago. Wow. Alrighty then, I might as well go back to church and reclaim my belief in fantasy.

Alrighty then, let's see if I can explain this in simpler terms.

There are over 600 million inhabitants of Latin America. The vast majority of those people have Native American ancestors. In the United States there are an additional 50 million Latinos, the mean DNA of which is 18% Native American. Moreover, there are nearly 40 million African Americans in the US, and the mean person in that category is 1% Native American. There are of course tens of millions of white North and South Americans with Native American ancestors as well. So yes, there are "hundreds of millions of people alive today who carry Native American DNA."

How do we know all of that? From DNA studies of large numbers of people from all over the Americas. Nothing comparable is possible with pre-Clovis remains, which was my original point.

I'm not sure why that was so difficult. . .

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You assert "that DNA analysis shows that all
> native American populations have identifying
> Clovis markers. . ."

That was Cabbies' assertion, not mine.

> The converse is true as well: geneticists aren't
> obligated to defeat archaeological arguments
> either. Eventually the sciences will probably
> converge, which is what normally happens.

Most academics today recognize what E.O. Wilson years ago called "Consilience" (the importance of the unity of knowledge across disciplines) In today's academic environment it is disingenuous for an article in one discipline not to mention contrary evidence from another discipline when addressing the same issue. BY doing so, it distorts the value of the "new" evidence, suggesting conclusiveness when the matter is not settled. But you did worse, you labeled such contrary evidence "useless" and suggested it was irrelevant. It may be useless to the archeologists' argument, but certainly not useless or irrelevant to the issue at hand. What is expected is not a full length discussion of such contrary evidence or arguments, but certainly a brief mention of such with a footnote.

"Conscilience" is the goal, not the process. To argue otherwise is to state that it was wrong for Einstein to simultaneously explore quantum physics and relativity since at that point they led in different directions.

Much as SL Cabbie (and you?) would have us believe the contrary, there is no contradiction between the Anzick child and the Gault research because they are both particular topics and not general. There are, frankly, a lot more findings suggesting pre-Clovis than the converse, which is why the process of "consilience" is engendering a consensus in favor of pre-Clovis settlements.

ETA: It is silly to argue that random DNA claims from distant sites should influence archaeological research in Texas. The archaeologists are digging up, and dating, projectile points. Their data are credible. That is that. There is no need for them to address Anzick or Kennewick, or Yowie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2018 02:08PM by Lot's Wife.

There you go again. Go ahead an put up some more "Pre-Clovis Claims"; I need the batting practice, honest...

She won't folks; that would involve actual work and thinking outside the box...

> "And never mind that the DNA from the "Anzick
> Clovis Child" showed that it belonged to a
> population that was ancestral to all Native
> Americans..." is relevant, and arguably must
> be addressed. In short, how is it possible
> that DNA analysis shows that all native American
> populations have identifying Clovis markers,
> notwithstanding contrary speculations and
> theories from archeology?


From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzick-1

The way I read it, Anzick Boy is related to some Native Americans, principally those in Central and South America. This is not the same as being "ancestral" to all Native Americans.


"A team of researchers throughout the United States and Europe conducted paleogenetic research on the Anzick-1 skeletal remains. They sequenced the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the full nuclear DNA, and the Y-chromosome, and compared these sequences to those of modern populations throughout the world.[1] The results of these analyses allowed the researchers to make conclusions about ancient migration patterns and the peopling of the Americas.

"These analyses revealed that the individual was closely related to Native Americans in Central and South America, instead of being closely related to the people of the Canadian Arctic, as had previously been thought likely.

"(The people of the Arctic are distinct from Native Americans to the south, including in lower North America and Central and South America.)

"The infant was also related to persons from Siberia and Central Asia, believed to be the ancestral population of indigenous peoples in the Americas. This finding supports the theory that the peopling of the Americas occurred from Asia across the Bering Strait. For more than 20 years, some anthropologists have debated whether the first settlers who came to the New World did so by crossing a land bridge through the Bering Strait, or by sea from the southwest of Europe, in what is called the Solutrean Hypothesis."



Anzick Boy was between one and two years of age. It can be concluded that his parents were not born in Asia, and while that conclusion might be challenged, the trip from Asia to Montana took awhile, what with foraging and all...

How many generations preceded Anzick Boy there in Montana? This question can't be answered, but simple contemplation does give pause. Anzik Boy is dated from between 12707 & 12556 years before the present. The Gault site, down in Texas, is dated to a minimum of 16,000 years before the present.

If the mechanics of the dating procedure are in error, that's another story. And it's either that, or the Clovis era had at least one precursor.

Well stated.

Common knowledge...

Oh dear... I go to a program where they warn us about expectations, but I still get trapped by them. Like expecting actual science research skills and basic reading skills from people posting on the Internet...

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/native-americans-descend-ancient-montana-boy

>>This week, she [Sarah Anzick]is the second author on a paper in Nature that reports the complete sequence of the Anzick child’s nuclear genome. The sequencing effort, led by ancient DNA experts Eske Willerslev and Morten Rasmussen of the University of Copenhagen, comes to a dramatic conclusion: The 1- to 2-year-old Clovis child, now known to be a boy, is directly ancestral to today’s native peoples from Central and South America. “Their data are very convincing … that the Clovis Anzick child was part of the population that gave rise to North, Central, and Southern American groups,” says geneticist Connie Mulligan of the University of Florida in Gainesville.

>>If correct, the findings refute the Solutrean hypothesis, which postulates that ancient migrants from Western Europe founded the Clovis culture. The data also undermine contentions that today’s Native Americans descend from later migrants to the Americas, rather than from the earlier Paleoindians.

You folks have heard of Nature, right? It's a little more credible than Wiki...

Richard, of course, hates that reference to the "Soutrean Hypothesis" because his buddy, Dennis Stanford won't let one go.

I totally respect the results of Ms. Anzik's efforts to learn all that is possible about Anzik Boy. But the question still remains present in my mind: how many generations back from Anzik Boy were there on the American continents? And wouldn't all those generations be comprised of individuals who were directly ancestral of the aforementioned Central & South American natives?

And then a complimentary question comes to mind: How many generations after Anzik Boy before you have individuals who cannot be termed 'directly ancestral' in the same manner Anzik Boy was?

Given that data exist to demonstrate pre-Clovis inhabitants, either the data are flawed or they're not. I haven't a clue as to which answer is correct, and I'm happy to sit and wait for the matter to be settled beyond dispute, which may or may not happen, for one reason or another.

Facts don't always count, and I try not to lose sleep over the contentiousness. Holocaust? What holocaust?!? ...like that...

>>Wouldn't all those generations be comprised of individuals who were directly ancestral of the aforementioned Central & South American natives?

No. Common sense alone can handle that one. Honka and Hitu were brother and sister who lived ~13,000 years ago. Honka was killed in a bison hunt and left no children; his sister had a child who was ancestral, but Honka was not...

That's a rather "simplistic" explanation of how "genetic drift" operates. Of course the reality with the genetics of molecular biology is that huge numbers are involved, and we would see DNA essentially identical--except for mutations that occur at a predictable rate--to Honka's.

Congratulations. You successfully defeated the Solutrean hypothesis. Of course, no one in this thread ever endorsed it.

So there's that.

I'll ignore the misrepresentations of what I've said, and the rehashing of past discussions. The fact remains, we have a site with (based on everything I can find on it) an unequivicable pre-clovis lithic assemblage.

What are your problems with this site, and this assemblage?

Richard the Bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I'm a total novice in these fields. I am intrigued by what you've posted. Trying desperately to get a handle on it.
It's my view, that generally speaking, science is self-correcting. We gain new information constantly. That's where I want to start.
Just wanted to say thank you!

Huh, I though pre-Clovis was Tulare, then Goshen, Kingsburg, Selma and then a right at Fowler before you hit Fresno.

But that's only if you're headed *north* on the 99...

Damn, I thought Clovis was in NM, no wonder I'm lost. ;)

You silly goose, he was a Frankish king.

And you thought the Book of Mormon story was weird.

I feel like a small child anxiously watching his parents argue, comforted only by the hope that I'll soon be celebrating my birthday twice a year.

Yeah, I'm just watching the fur fly on this one, without taking a "side," hopeful that it doesn't result in a divorce :)

I don't know who I'd want to live with if they do split up. I love them both and don't want to be forced to choose between them.

You don't think they'll split us up, do you? I think of you as the brother I already have. ;)

Naw, they won't split up.
It's not like one is mormon and the other has left or anything. Just a spirited (and sometimes personal) debate among...um...lovers (of archeology!).

Thanks, brother Greg!

That's how I look at it.

When I was a boy, Clovis was 10,000 years ago or your teacher beat you about the head and neck with a club. Here I see a reference to 16,000. That's quite an extension.

I think one of the things that has allowed Clovis to survive is its chronological flexibility as the physical anthropology changes and is better understood. How far can you stretch an elastic band before it snaps?

I posted recently genetic discoveries and I think they are the greatest threat to non-Clovis theories. Should the author have given them a nod in an article? Well in a book, certainly which has fewer space concerns. But considering the medium I don't think it is anything to get exited about here. But nothing convinces these days like DNA evidence.

A lot of confirmed non-Clovis sites? I don't think I can agree with that as much as I love a counter narrative by nature. Key word "confirmed."

If I say Kuhn will I be accused of being a Mopologist? Some day Clovis will burst its membranes and there will be new paradigm(s) with new label(s). Hopefully without too much blood letting in the mean time.

Until then Clovis is not just proven knowledge, it is also an article of faith.

I haven't seen any "16,000 year" claims (and honest, I'd fire up the ol' police interceptor and flatten 'em if I did). There's strong genetic evidence tying the earliest Americans with the Altai people in Siberia (possibly ~13,000 years ago, if memory serves; my notes are on the computer upstairs, and it's blasted hot up there, and I'm trying to avoid high air conditioner bills).

Anna C. Roosevelt has always been my "Go to Girl" on Clovis and the peopling of South America, and I'm particularly drawn to her pointing out that "Monte Verde is not a pre-Clovis Site."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl-uoAWywOE

You can find her comments at about the 1:17:00 mark... And JMO, but the findings on the DNA of "The Anzick Clovis Child" are pretty conclusive, and I'm of the opinion--shared by others--that it was Dillehay's Monte Verde claims that "energized" the "pre-Clovis" crowd, and I had trouble from the get-go with them. The Anzick Child belonged to a population ancestral to all Native Americans, and while the possibility exists there were others in the Americas, I haven't seen any other contenders offered except some people who live near the Arctic Circle and were "probable latecomers."

Seriously, I started studying this stuff when my old man, the retired rocket scientist, gave me a copy of "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Tom Kimball, formerly of Signature Books, met up with Seagull Choker and myself--at Simon Southerton's behest--and he identified that book as something like "The Definitive Anti-BOM" or some similar characterization.

Diamond was the first author where I encountered a discussion of Monte Verde; he offered the possibility it might be "re-interpreted," and I've stuck to my position that if "Monte Verde collapses," the entire pre-Clovis "paradigm" is likely to disappear. But as I said, I'm just a "science reporter" who beat it over to the English department to save his sanity while growing up in Zion...

#speaking softly and carrying plenty of spare one-liners