Pleistocene American Remains.

Spearthrower · #1 by **Spearthrower** » Feb 18, 2011 12:28 pm

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blo ... 217yucatan

Explorers have discovered what might be the oldest evidence of humans in the Americas.

Alex Alvarez, Franco Attolini, and Alberto (Beto) Nava are members of PET (Projecto Espeleológico de Tulum), an organization that specializes in the exploration and survey of underwater caves on the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico.

Alex, Franco and Beto have surveyed tens of thousands of feet of mazelike cave passages in the state of Quintana Roo. The team's relatively recent explorations of a large pit named Hoyo Negro (Black Hole, in Spanish), deep within a flooded cave, resulted in their breathtaking and once-in-a-lifetime discovery of the remains of an Ice Age mastodon and a human skull at the very bottom of the black abyss.

Templeton · #2 by **Templeton** » Feb 19, 2011 9:11 pm

This is interesting, though I'm more curious about the earth prior to all this flooding. I'd be interested to see a map showing the shorelines at that time, and what might be found of ancient civilizations.
Just a thought: Would the added weight of all this water have an effect on tectonic plates? I never see any information on this.

Berthold · #3 by **Berthold** » Feb 24, 2011 8:27 pm

Templeton wrote:This is interesting, though I'm more curious about the earth prior to all this flooding. I'd be interested to see a map showing the shorelines at that time, and what might be found of ancient civilizations.

Not quite about your questions, but you might find this book interesting.

Templeton · #4 by **Templeton** » Feb 24, 2011 10:37 pm

Thanks for the link Berthold, looks interesting. I've read of a couple of submerged cities recently that has peeked my interest in this area.

Spearthrower · #5 by **Spearthrower** » Feb 25, 2011 1:37 am

Somewhere amidst my pile of links, I've got a webpage that tries to catalogue all the underwater remains of buildings.... I will try and dig it out when I've got some time.

Tyrannical · #6 by **Tyrannical** » Feb 26, 2011 5:44 am

Templeton wrote:This is interesting, though I'm more curious about the earth prior to all this flooding. I'd be interested to see a map showing the shorelines at that time, and what might be found of ancient civilizations.
Just a thought: Would the added weight of all this water have an effect on tectonic plates? I never see any information on this.

I think these maps all range from around 12k-15k YBP
People like to live on the coasts, and some of the coast line 12k-15k YBP are now 50-100 miles out to sea.

Philippines, South China Sea, Indonesia

Russia, Alaska

Gulf of Mexico

When the glaciers melted, the loss of the ice weight on the land is believed to have caused lots of earthquakes. It's not believed to have sunk / lowered / moved land, at least by significant amounts.

Berthold · #7 by **Berthold** » Feb 26, 2011 5:53 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Somewhere amidst my pile of links, I've got a webpage that tries to catalogue all the underwater remains of buildings.... I will try and dig it out when I've got some time.

Just a tip:

Filter out all those that are connected with the names Berlitz and Däniken. You can't be sure, however, that all that remains is useful. :mrgreen:

Edited to add: Or is the site by someone with a good reputation?

Spearthrower · #8 by **Spearthrower** » Mar 05, 2011 7:37 am

Berthold wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Somewhere amidst my pile of links, I've got a webpage that tries to catalogue all the underwater remains of buildings.... I will try and dig it out when I've got some time.

Just a tip:

Filter out all those that are connected with the names Berlitz and Däniken. You can't be sure, however, that all that remains is useful.

Edited to add: Or is the site by someone with a good reputation?

It's not only that, but a site that expressly goes out of its way to debunk Hancock and Däniken.

It doesn't matter anyway as I can't find it! :grin:

One day I will happen upon it again and come back to post links.

Tyrannical · #9 by **Tyrannical** » Mar 05, 2011 8:53 am

Bering straight land bridge was probably crossable as early as 70K YBP so earlier human occupation shouldn't be too surprising.

Spearthrower · **#10** by **Spearthrower** » Mar 25, 2011 7:22 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12851772

Before certain people leap to conclusions, they should read to the end to note the criticisms.

Tyrannical · **#11** by **Tyrannical** » Mar 25, 2011 9:04 am

NYT has the story too, and addresses some of the criticisms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/science/25archeo.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Possible other pre-Clovis sites makes it seem more plausible.

Other archaeologists pointed out that the Buttermilk Creek dates, more than 2,000 years earlier than the Clovis chronology, are not significantly older than those for other sites challenging the Clovis-first hypothesis.

James M. Adovasio, an archaeologist who found what appears to be pre-Clovis material at the Pennsylvania site known as Meadowcroft Rockshelter, was not involved in the Buttermilk Creek excavations but has visited the site and inspected many of the artifacts. These pre-Clovis projectile points were also bifacial but not as large and well turned as the later technology. The most striking difference was the absence of the characteristic fluting.

Sounds good, but I really don't know much about optically stimulated luminescence

Given the lack of sufficient organic material buried around the tools, the radiocarbon dating method was useless. Instead, earth scientists at the University of Illinois, Chicago, used a newer technique known as optically stimulated luminescence. This measures light energy trapped in minerals to reveal how long ago the soil was last exposed to sunlight.

Steven L. Forman, who directed the tests, said that 49 core samples were drilled from several sections of the sediments associated with the tools. When the data were analyzed, they consistently yielded the same ages. “This was unequivocal proof of pre-Clovis,” he said at the news conference.

Seems sure that the artifacts did not just migrate lower.

Other scientists examined the flood plain geology at the site and determined that the clay sediments showed virtually no sign of having been disturbed during or after the burying of the tools. Lee C. Nordt, a geology professor at Baylor University, said that the traces of previous cracks in the sediment were few and too narrow to have allowed more recent artifacts from above to have settled into the deeper pre-Clovis layers.

Seems to think the issue was settled ten years ago.

Dr. Adovasio noted that the Clovis model had been “dying a slow death.” He recalled that “Waters himself was a Clovis-firster, but changed years ago.” At a conference in 1999, the conventional hypothesis seemed to be on its last legs after a review of the Monte Verde data; still a few holdouts stood fast in opposition.

“The last spear carriers will die without changing their minds,” Dr. Adovasio said.

last spear carrier. Who ever could he mean :think:

Spearthrower · **#12** by **Spearthrower** » Mar 25, 2011 10:59 am

It was contested for about 20 years and was firmly put down in the last decade... but it's hard to pin down precisely when people arrived and what they did. All we know is that it was sometime during the last ice age.

Tyrannical · **#13** by **Tyrannical** » Mar 25, 2011 12:35 pm

If the migrations began at earlier, pre-Clovis times, moreover, extensive glaciers probably closed off ice-free interior corridors for travel to the warmer south. Archaeologists said this lent credence to a fairly new idea in the speculative mix: perhaps the people came to the then really new New World by a coastal route, trooping along the shore and sometimes hugging land in small boats. This might account for the relatively swift movement of the migrants all the way to Peru and Chile.

That part makes me laugh because someone is going to get wet investigating the coastline from 12K BC and older. You old bone people might have to start hanging out with marine biologists. They can take you out on their boat and teach you to dive :lol:

eversbane · **#14** by **eversbane** » Apr 03, 2011 3:17 am

Spearthrower wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12851772

Before certain people leap to conclusions, they should read to the end to note the criticisms.

He's not saying it's necessarily bad. Just that it's not as clear as other evidence of early occupation. Dillehay would present his own site, Monte Verde, where he's got positive evidence of non-Clovis occupation at 12.5ka, and possible evidence dating to 33ky.

eversbane · **#15** by **eversbane** » Apr 03, 2011 3:20 am

Tyrannical wrote:
If the migrations began at earlier, pre-Clovis times, moreover, extensive glaciers probably closed off ice-free interior corridors for travel to the warmer south. Archaeologists said this lent credence to a fairly new idea in the speculative mix: perhaps the people came to the then really new New World by a coastal route, trooping along the shore and sometimes hugging land in small boats. This might account for the relatively swift movement of the migrants all the way to Peru and Chile.

That part makes me laugh because someone is going to get wet investigating the coastline from 12K BC and older. You old bone people might have to start hanging out with marine biologists. They can take you out on their boat and teach you to dive

I'll have to find the paper, but they have been doing detailed side-scan sonar along the northwest coast. Where they saw possible camp site locations they did some dredging and came up with some artifacts.