I thought you might like this. Stuart Fiedel will be speaking at the University of Wyoming on "Native American Origins: Reconciling the Evidence of Ancient Genomes and Archaeology". It's set for Sept. 20th at 4pm. It's not too far of a Interstate cruise from Salt Lake. I plan on attending. If you make it, I'll buy the coffee.

https://www.facebook.com/WYSHPO/photos/gm.1828027490612964/1803941516355633/?type=3&theater

Color me jealous.

I hope you both can make it and that the coffee is good. I also look forward to your reviews here on RfM!

I'm supposing that the further content of the FB posting may spur further current discussion here. I like reading the for & against arguments. I never take a side, because my ignorance is bliss.

This is the boiler in the FB notice of the pre-reception presentation:


"Recent Analyses of ancient human DNA have transformed our understanding of Native Americans’ origins. Roughly 1/3 of the DNA of ‘Ancestral Paleoindians’ reflects the admixture (ca. 15-20,000 years ago), of East Asians with a now-vanished Siberian population, know as ‘Ancient North Eurasians.’ Based on this evidence, all living Native Americans are direct descendants of the Paleoindians who made Clovis tools extending from Montana, where the Anzick infant was buried ca. 12,800 years ago, to Tierra del Fuego. Any earlier peoples, such as the hypothesized ‘seaweed eaters’ of Monte Verde, the ‘rock-bashers’ of Pedra Furada, or the Cerutti ‘mastodon bone-smashers,’ must have been replaced or genetically swamped by Clovis descendants, if they ever existed at all. This genomic evidence allows us to ask; did these ancestral populations move south via the Pacific coast or along the interior ice-free corridor? Was there a long period of isolation in the far north. And, why the prevelance of bifaces, together with the absence of microblades, in the clovis tool kit?”



I betcha the Seaweed eaters and the rock-bashers ganged up on the mastodon bone-smashers and eliminated them, but then died out when it turned out that mastodon meat contained essential vitamins and minerals...

My theory is that the rock-bashers died out because after the mastodon extinction, they had no choice but to procure all their meals from McDonalds.

That is actually my bone of contention with the Clovis First folks, and an apparent straw man under construction:

"Any earlier peoples, such as the hypothesized ‘seaweed eaters’ of Monte Verde, the ‘rock-bashers’ of Pedra Furada, or the Cerutti ‘mastodon bone-smashers,’ must have been replaced or genetically swamped by Clovis descendants, if they ever existed at all."

Ignoring the insults, who is hypothesizing that the pre-clovis people must have been "replaced or genetically swamped"? That would be the Clovis First folks. Most of the Pre-Clovis Folks I know assume that any pre-clovis peoples in the Americas would be from the same genetic population as the clovis peoples.

But I look forward to the lecture and hope I can gain a better understanding of the current Clovis First hypothesis.

Richard,

Could you explain this passage?

"Who is hypothesizing that the pre-clovis people must have been 'replaced or genetically swamped'? That would be the Clovis First folks. Most of the Pre-Clovis Folks I know assume that any pre-clovis peoples in the Americas would be from the same genetic population as the clovis peoples.

I want to understand what you are saying but cannot. Simplify it for me?

Here's my interpretation, based on my Native American heritage speaking to me from a cellular level.

There are Clovis People. They made their own brand of arrowheads and spearheads.

And it came to pass that a segment of the interested population decided that these Clovis people were the first people to visit AND settle in these Americas. The earliest evidence of their entry to these Americas dated to ca. 13,000 years ago. (Give or take a holiday weekend.)

But then some practitioners of the arcane Archaeological arts said they had found evidence of peoples exiting PRIOR to ca. 13,000! And they were given names, like Mastodon bone-smashers and seaweed eaters, etc. And so controversy arose, because a segment of the Clovis worshipers prayed, and had confirmed to them, that no other peoples existed in the Americas prior to the arrival of the sacred Clovis People, all praise be to their name.

Do I have the slightest idea who was first? No. But my money is on the seaweed eaters. They had the best uniforms.

This is why I wish we had a "like" button.

Sure.

People who used Clovis Technology, at least in the case of the Anzick Child, are genetically related to modern Native Americans. That's a fact.

The Clovis First people seem to be arguing that because of this, any pre-clovis population must have been replaced by this genetically pool, been absorbed by it, or never actually existed.

BUT, they are ignoring the more probable possibility that any pre-clovis populations also belonged to the same gene pool.

Basically, A equals B, does not mean that A doesn't also equal C.

Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking for.

Thanks for the info Richard. Looks like September will be Wyoming Archaeology Awareness Month, with lots of activities.
https://county10.com/governor-mead-to-proclaim-september-as-wyoming-archaeology-awareness-month/

It's usually a lot of fun. The Archaeology Fair has a lot to offer.

I'm "financially challenged" right now, and I've never had a cab fare to Laramie; Jackson Hole is as far as I've gone... Feel free to make an offering to the cab god on my behalf, however, but I'm doubtful I'll get that lucky.

http://www.academia.edu/1651686/Is_that_all_there_is

This is an overview of Fiedel's views; as far as I know, nothing has changed since Monte Verde was "blessed" (for those wondering if there's a "controversy" or not, see Anna C. Roosevelt's YouTube presentation on the "Peopling of South America").

>>So, returning to the question in my title, I ask, is that all there is, after nearly a century and a half of searching for “Early Man” in the East? Why is the record so pathetically sparse and equivocal, compared to the Upper Paleolithic of Europe? I take it as a sign of frustration that enthusiasts are now giving up on the terrestrial record and taking the quest offshore. The record of human colonization elsewhere (e.g., Australia, Peru) tells us,however, that initial coastal settlement is rapidly followed by movement into the interior. Is it possible that pre-Clovis evidence is hiding in plain sight? Have we been looking in all the wrong places, or can we not recognize the signs? It will surprise no one here when I say that I do not regard the bizarre, effectively unprovenienced assemblage from Monte Verde as a valid human toolkit. But those who have uncritically accepted this material as artifactual must now face the consequences. All but six of the 750 stones claimed to be tools cannot on any grounds be distinguished from naturally cracked and rounded cobbles; this stuff makes the 2-million-year-old Oldowan industry look sophisticated. If such things were found in a plowed field or in a shovel test, you or I would toss them away without a moment’s hesitation. So, if the pre-Clovis toolkit really looked like this, we will never recognize it. The good news is that the handful of Eastern sites that might contain pre-Clovis tools suggests that what we should be looking for is not expedient, crude cobbles and flakes, but a sophisticated Upper Paleolithic industry with blades and bifaces.

Here also is Fiedel's "poop on the Paisley Cave poop" (another reply by a separate author in Quentin Mackie's column made a strong case the coproplites in question were not human):

http://www.academia.edu/2146675/Comment_on_Paisley_Caves_pre-Clovis_evidence

>>Newly reported lithic artifacts, coprolites, and C-14 dates from Paisley Caves do not prove that a distinctive population of the Western Stemmed Tradition (WST) preceded people of the Clovis culture in the Far Western US. The WST artifacts are no older than 11,200 14C yr BP and may be younger than 10,800 14C yr BP. Leaching and contamination remain viable explanations for anomalous human mtDNA in coprolites from the deepest strata.

And a really "narsty" question for Richard: Why this "avoidance" of discussion of Dennis Stanford and the Solutreans?

Stanford, incidentally, was one of those who "proclaimed Monte Verde legitimate," and it was Fiedel who raised a stink about those findings.

For those who also want to follow this discussion, Fiedel published these same conclusions in a journal (elsevier.com) and I have a pdf file on my desktop.

"The Anzick Genome Proves Clovis was First, After all"

>>The close relatives who buried the Anzick infant ca. 12,800 cal BP made classic Clovis tools and were unequivocally the lineal genetic ancestors of all the living Native peoples of southern North America, Central America, and South America. Clovis-derived Fell I fishtail points track the rapid southward migration of this ancestral population all the way to Tierra del Fuego. Any hypothesized earlier populations, if they (improbably) ever existed, must have been replaced or genetically swamped by these Clovis descendants.

Finally, I don't do Facebook (there are two individuals with the same name as mine who do, however. I promise I could get a huge laugh with some one-liners on that subject, but I live in Utah, and there be Danites around), What I was able to read was that the DNA of the Anzick Child was shown to be part of a population that was ancestral to "all Native Americans." I reported that information several months ago and brought it up in a discussion with Simon Southerton.

Simon has kind of dropped out of sight (he may be busy and we remain good friends) when I brought up the issue of geography and the "Coastal Migration Hypothesis" (essentially that one's a prerequisite if one is to believe in "Pre-Clovis in the Americas"). I am worried that he did "go over to the dark side" when he mentioned pre-Clovis people in some of his writings.

I told Simon the story about a businessman back east who asked a colleague in Salt Lake to "drive over to Cheyenne on his lunch hour." Then I framed it within the larger scope of a discussion about the geography of Alaska, the Aleutians, and the coast of British Columbia. Big places, honest, and very cold, too...

Finally a last bit of "Cabdriver Wisdom": Threads like this should be marked "OT," seriously.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2018 12:46PM by SL Cabbie.

Sorry I missed the "OT". But, I thought you might be interested.

Just wondering, Cabbie, when the last time you read a book on the topic was.

You write on this subject all the time, but the same sources keep coming up. Fiedel, Roosevelt, Stanford. . . Never anything new. On those infrequent occasions when you do refer to something in, say, the last 5-10 years, you refer us to Youtube videos--often, witness Vajda, that you didn't fully understand.

There is also your perseveration regarding specific, peripheral subjects. You always go back to the Solutrean hypothesis, Monte Verde, etc., even when no one has raised those notions

Why the fixations? Why the inability to cite recent books?

Keep wondering...

I shouldn't dignify your violation of board rules with a reply (that's a very real nasty insinuation and personal attack in your post), but I'll point out there's considerable "lag time" between the appearance of a book and the findings and research that appear in professional journals. I rely on the latter because actual printed works are often out-of-date by the time they appear.

Simon Southerton--you may have heard of him--and I keep each other apprised of new information on this subject; it wasn't all that long ago I helped him edit his peer-reviewed contribution to the online "Global Encyclopedia of Human Migration."

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2013/07/encyclopedia-of-global-human-migration.html

When Eske Willerslev sequenced the autosomal and mtDNA of Kennewick Man, I had the pleasure of e-mailing Simon with the news.* If I remember correctly, I have a good friend--a board regular and actual ex-Mormon, honest--who has access to "Nature," and he sent me the citation and summary which I forwarded.

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2015/06/kennewick-man-breaks-heartland-hearts.html

*KM's mtDNA was shown to be X2a (and quite ancient, honest), and its presence near the west coast of North America stamped "nonsense" on Dennis Stanford's "Solutrean Silliness," which, alas, we are still subjected to.

Now read the following slowly: The DNA of the "Anzick Clovis Child" was shown to be part of a population that was ancestral to all Native Americans. Those remains were found in Montana. That's on the east side of the continental divide, honest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2018 07:47AM by SL Cabbie.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> I shouldn't dignify your violation of board rules
> with a reply (that's a very real nasty insinuation
> and personal attack in your post),

You find my psychoanalysis offensive? I'm sorry about your feelings.

On a different point, perhaps you could explain why your constant assertions that others are psychologically troubled are okay. I mean, Nightingale?



> but I'll point
> out there's considerable "lag time" between the
> appearance of a book and the findings and research
> that appear in professional journals. I rely on
> the latter because actual printed works are often
> out-of-date by the time they appear.

One would think that if you were really reading "professional journals" you would have a new name or two, perhaps a new argument, to offer from time to time. Yet you keep referring to the same old names and books (e.g., Feidel, Stanford, Anna Roosevelt, 2002) and the same old arguments. The only new ideas you have offered in the last few years are from Youtube videos.



> Simon Southerton--you may have heard of him--and I
> keep each other apprised of new information on
> this subject;

Simon and you are intellectual equals. Got it.



> it wasn't all that long ago I helped
> him edit his peer-reviewed contribution to the
> online "Global Encyclopedia of Human Migration."

He let you do some proofreading?



> When Eske Willerslev sequenced the autosomal and
> mtDNA of Kennewick Man, I had the pleasure of
> e-mailing Simon with the news.* If I remember
> correctly, I have a good friend--a board regular
> and actual ex-Mormon, honest--who has access to
> "Nature," and he sent me the citation and summary
> which I forwarded.

Someone recommended an article to you and you forwarded the recommendation to Southerton? I hope you are getting full acknowledgement in his academic writings.



> *KM's mtDNA was shown to be X2a (and quite
> ancient, honest), and its presence near the west
> coast of North America stamped "nonsense" on
> Dennis Stanford's "Solutrean Silliness," which,
> alas, we are still subjected to.

See? I wrote above that you seem incapable of addressing Native American origins without raising the Solutrean hypothesis. Here you make my point. Honest.



> Now read the following slowly: The DNA of the
> "Anzick Clovis Child" was shown to be part of a
> population that was ancestral to all Native
> Americans.

Wow. Let me make sure I get your point. A Native American bears the genetic legacy of his ancestors? Would I be reaching too far to infer that that means you, for example, have your father's DNA? And your mother's??

Wow - you aren't nice at all.

I, like a lot of others on this board, am tired of constant attacks from him. Increasingly some of us respond in kind.

I'm sorry if that bothers you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2018 04:27PM by Lot's Wife.

I have this vision of you telling someone who disturbed a hornets' nest and is suffering the consequences, "Hey, those hornets aren't being nice to you!"

So, I went to the presentation yesterday. For brevity sake I will just quote the last line from the last slide:

"'Pre-Clovis' sites, even if they are genuine, are just noise, a distraction with no relevance to the origins of Native Americans."

Strange. A begrudging acknowledgementand then disparagement of important evidence.

Can you elaborate on either his analysis or your impressions?

The DNA of the Anzick Clovis Child was shown--via the science of molecular genetics--to belong to a population that was "ancestral" to all Native Americans. I quoted from that research in my reply above and provided directions to the source.

Now where does the statement, "if they are genuine" amount to an acknowledgment of their legitimacy? From "my old schoolteacher perspective," that has an obvious element of uncertainty, your assertion to the contrary not withstanding.

Anyway, thanks, Richard, and I trust my reporting on Fiedel was accurate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2018 07:08PM by SL Cabbie.

Congratulations on getting my response deleted. I'll reconstruct it.

If you read very, very closely, you will see that I never claimed Feidel said the pre-Clovis sites are "legitimate." I said he acknowledged evidence about pre-Clovis sites. Those are different things.

And if the issue is his, and your, old assertion that there were no pre-Clovis sites, evidence for pre-Clovis sites is assuredly relevant. It is, in fact, critically important.

The "noise" comes from people who now appear to have been wildly wrong and, rather than admit error, want to conceal their mistakes. Such behavior is not intellectually honest.

Honest.

Yes Cabbie, your reporting was accurate.

The problem with the statement isn't the "if they are genuine" part. It's that even if they are genuine, they don't matter (from a genetic standpoint) and should be ignored. We'll see. Since no pre-clovis DNA has ever been found, who knows. If it ever is, I suspect it will be from the same population.

Hi Richard, I wanted to attend but could not. Earlier you commented:

"Most of the Pre-Clovis Folks I know assume that any pre-clovis peoples in the Americas would be from the same genetic population as the clovis peoples."

I'm just trying to get some context on Fiedel's last slide:

"'Pre-Clovis' sites, even if they are genuine, are just noise, a distraction with no relevance to the origins of Native Americans."

Without having been able to see his presentation, is it safe to assume that his last slide is basically supporting what you had said here earlier?

The declaration of a desperate man.


> "'Pre-Clovis' sites, even if they are genuine, are
> just noise, a distraction with no relevance to the
> origins of Native Americans."

Yup.

Fiedel's internal dialogue must have run something like: "I made my career arguing that there are no pre-Clovis sites. I can no longer make that claim, so now I'll say that the pre-Clovis sites don't matter. Yeah, that's the ticket."

It's a stupid argument no matter which advocate of Clovis First offers it.

Nailed it!

I didn't know you two were "believers in ESP?"

Looks like a cheap shot ad hominem attack to me.

Nope. Just believers in common sense.

Why so defensive?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 08:32PM by Lot's Wife.

You Too? and Lot's Wife, were either of you able to attend? I would like to discuss with someone who was there.

I was not, sadly. I don't live in the area.

I'm hoping Richard will give us more information or that Feidel will publish his deck of slides. It would be great to learn more.

I was only two hours away but had a previous commitment that I couldn't change. I really wanted to hear his presentation. Hopefully it was recorded and will become available online.

Hi Michael, sorry you couldn't make it. But you didn't miss much. I've yet to talk with any of the attendees who didn't consider most of it BS.

He took the usual stabs as Monte Verde and Stanford. But here are a few of the "points" that he made.

Western Stemmed Tradition and Clovis are the same thing (if not for the dignity of the presentation, I would have laughed out loud).

He had one core from Siberia with two overshot flakes on it, thereby "proving" that Clovis originated in Siberia.

Anzick boy is related to modern Native Americans, therefore Clovis was first.

The reason that there is a large concentration of Clovis in the Eastern US, isn't because it originated there. It's because they hauled but from Beringia to the East Coast and then rebounded from the coast and set up shop.

The fact that most Siberian lithic tradition of that antiquity relied heavily on a micro-blade tradition, which is absent is Clovis, doesn't matter.

And then the finally, that pre-Clovis doesn't affect the fact that the origins of modern Native Americans. Well, duh.

I forgot a couple.

Since Anzick Boy was found in Montana (a long way from the Pacific) it disproves the Coastal Migration Hypothesis.

South American Fishtail Points, are also Clovis because they are fluted.

He did have some really pretty pictures.

Thanks Richard.

+1

Is there a Cliff's Notes edition or Amerindian Origins For Dummy's available?

It's a simple story.

For most of the latter half of the 20th century, the dominant paradigm was "Clovis First," Clovis being a culture that appeared about 13,000 years ago. It seemed that when the last Ice Age ended and a corridor opened from Beringia (Alaska across to the eastern edge of Russia), people had moved down through that corridor and then spread across the Americas.

Over time, however, researchers found occasional sites that dated to before the Clovis time frame in various parts of the New World. Some of those findings have been discredited, but the number that appear credible has steadily risen to the point where the scholarly consensus has shifted to favor "pre-Clovis" settlement of the Americas.

Feidel is one of the scholars who long argued that there was no "pre-Clovis" settlement of the Americas. Now that the consensus doesn't support that view, he is arguing that whether there were people in the Americas before Clovis is "a distraction with no relevance to the origins of Native Americans." Which is patently wrong.

We are watching the usual scientific "paradigm shift," in which an old theory is displaced by another (that is probably more accurate) but people wedded to the older Clovis-First model don't want to admit that they were wrong.

Thank-you, Lot's Wife. That was very "nice" of you to give us a synopsis.

Thank you, DE!

There are lots of interesting related issues: did, for example, the pre-Clovis peoples (assuming they existed) travel by sea, or down the coasts, or some other way to get to the more temperate parts of North America below the ice pack?

There are also fascinating questions about Native American languages and their relationships. The most interesting recent one was the discovery (or, more accurately, confirmation) of a close linguistic connection between some of the major American languages and the Yenisei group in central Siberia roughly north of Lake Baikal.

What appears to have happened is that the peoples who would become the Native Americans moved to Beringia, stayed there for a few thousand years, and then spread south east into the Americas--but also west into Siberia. So you end up with closely related languages in two widely different places.

It is all really fun stuff.

^^Like^^

It is not synonymous with "scientific fact." It represents a "generalized agreement of beliefs" among the specialists in the field, that's all (go visit my friend Jennifer Raff's site, violent metaphors.com for a more in-depth explanation). It is, of course, "subject to change" since science is "self-correcting."

For many years, the "Clovis First" P.O.V. was the "consensus" of the scientific view of the actual history of Native American migrations to this hemisphere.

Monte Verde "upset" that paradigm, although a number of "senior people" disagreed about its legitimacy (Stuart Fiedel, who's the subject of this thread is one; so is Anna C. Roosevelt who can be found on YouTube using the search function. I was just doing some "search" stuff, and I found LW rejecting Roosevelt because of a 2001 date, so I offered up one from 2012. Silence followed).

There are other sites that have been "offered" as "pre-Clovis," but they all have their "detractors." My background--after meeing Simon Southerton--is a strong belief in DNA science, and as I noted, the DNA of the Anzick Clovis Child was shown to be part of a population that was ancestral to all Native Americans.

So far, other population candidates haven't been found, and as another RFM-er noted to me in a private e-mail: "Pre-Clovis could not be the same genetic stock because of the well established divergence timeline."

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [Consensus] is not synonymous with "scientific fact." It
> represents a "generalized agreement of beliefs"
> among the specialists in the field, that's all . . . It
> is, of course, "subject to change" since science
> is "self-correcting."

Yes. That is a nice restatement of what I wrote above.



> For many years, the "Clovis First" P.O.V. was the
> "consensus" of the scientific view of the actual
> history of Native American migrations to this
> hemisphere.

It is nice to see you acknowledging, however indirectly, that the consensus has changed and now disfavors Clovis First. You could do that overtly if you wished; I think you'd find such frankness well received.



> Anna C. Roosevelt who . . .
> can be found on YouTube using the search function.
> I was just doing some "search" stuff, and I found
> LW rejecting Roosevelt because of a 2001 date, so
> I offered up one from 2012. Silence followed).

Is this an admission that your recent research is limited to Youtube videos, as I surmised above? I ask because you recently said you prefer to read scholarly treatises, which, of course, are rarely found on Youtube.



> There are other sites that have been "offered" as
> "pre-Clovis," but they all have their
> "detractors." My background--after meeing Simon
> Southerton--is a strong belief in DNA science, and
> as I noted, the DNA of the Anzick Clovis Child was
> shown to be part of a population that was
> ancestral to all Native Americans.

No one has contested the genetics of the Anzick child. Against whom do you think you are arguing?



> So far, other population candidates haven't been
> found, and as another RFM-er noted to me in a
> private e-mail: "Pre-Clovis could not be the same
> genetic stock because of the well established
> divergence timeline."

Seriously? So an anonymous RfM poster has told you--and you agree--that RichardtheBad is wrong when he says that the Clovis and pre-Clovis people are from the same genetic pool?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2018 07:57PM by Lot's Wife.

Not a geneticist. He's admitted here in the past that he's "depended" on what the molecular biologists have said. I've posted my background previously, and as I said, I helped Simon edit his reply on his website. Incidentally, archaeology is not a science.

It's perfectly "legitimate' for two researchers to disagree in my world. Apparently it's not in yours...

It is absolutely legitimate for two researchers to disagree. I'm just not certain what that has to do with you. As with psychology, this is a field in which you, like many of us, are a dilettante.

More importantly, you are right that Richard is not a geneticist and he does indeed rely on others' work on genetics. But so what? Simon is not an archaeologist and yet in his work relies on archaeology, as anyone who has read his publications knows. Your having done some proofreading for the latter does not mean you are a geneticist nor that you are equipped to debate experts on Native American origins.

It is the dialogue between serious researchers like Richard and Southerton that enlightens bystanders. If it comes down to reading the literature (or watching Youtube videos) and pontificating, anyone with a triple-digit IQ can manage that. There's nothing wrong with such speculation, to be sure, but pretention alone does not transform amateur supposition into expertise.

If you truly believe Richard and Simon disagree significantly on the Clovis question, please provide evidence of that. That would be as impressive as it would be educational.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 12:00AM by Lot's Wife.

Shhhhh. That's how I've been getting by in life. Don't blow it.

:)

I did a grad program in addictions (CAC) and worked in the field.

/fail

And as for that "please provide evidence" request:

No.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 01:20AM by SL Cabbie.

Congratulations on getting my response deleted. I do not understand why it is permissible for you in so many other threads to call people names and then, when someone calls you on your shenanigans, for you to get those posts removed.

Let me reconstruct what I said. You have claimed many times that you are qualified to diagnose people psychologically. When I questioned those qualifications, you said you "did a grad program in addictions (CAC) and worked in the field." Anyone who wants to know what that means should hit the button for "eligibility requirements" here:

https://www.naadac.org/ncac-i

To qualify for your "grad program" one needs to have graduated not from college but from high school. High school. Moreover, the program itself comprises 270 hours in training in various topics, none of which is psychology. So truth be told, you don't really have much training in psychology or psychotherapy. Nor has any authoritative body ever stated that you are qualified to diagnose anyone with a nosebleed let alone "narcissism." Correct?

I think that should be on the record for the next time you attack someone's psychological health.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 04:57PM by Lot's Wife.

A reminder too that it is against board guidelines to offer up diagnoses re other posters. Even if one is a qualified therapist, nurse, physician or other medical professional the acceptable, reasonable response in discussion here is to suggest people consult professionals when needed. That only makes sense quite apart from board rules. We have dentists, nurses and physicians among us at RfM. They may occasionally make general statements about a question or condition within their area of expertise if it comes up but they don't give specific medical opinions without having interviewed and examined someone in person. That is obviously the professional scientific approach. First do no harm 'n all that.

Thank you also for confirming that you won't provide evidence for your intimation that Southerton disagrees with Richard over the probability that there were pre-Clovis inhabitants of the American mainland.

Since that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I hope you'll understand that some of us don't believe such a disagreement exists.

But we can go a bit further. Evidence you have inadvertently offered helps us see that the two are in general agreement. In this thread Richard indicates he finds the Clovis First hypothesis problematic, to say the least, and you yourself acknowledged that Southerton has "mentioned pre-Clovis people in some of his writings." So he and Richard don't really differ very much, do they.

The consensus today favors pre-Clovis settlement. That is the bottom line.

GO!, you PreClovis High Meerkats!!!