The consensus biz takes another hit;
El Fin del Mundo is one of the oldest and southernmost Clovis sites ever discovered, according to University of Arizona archaeologist Vance Holliday, a co-author of the study announcing the find, released Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Far from the famous Bering land bridge, the location has researchers questioning the origin of our early ancestors.
“I think sites like El Fin del Mundo really force us to rethink the process of the colonization of the Americas,” says archaeologist Thomas Jennings of the University of West Georgia in Carrollton, who was not part of the discovery team.
For a long time, Clovis culture was believed to have originated in the North American Southwest, south of the glaciers and Bering land bridge area. But the discovery of older Clovis sites in Texas and at El Fin del Mundo, which yielded nearly identical radiocarbon dates (13,400 years old), has cast doubts on that theory.
Wait until they find an Australopithecus somewhere in South America. I’d like to see them try to hockey-stick _that_.
I had always thought it was generally accepted that the Clovis people came across from Europe, probably hunting seals on the edge of the sea ice and glaciers, then were wiped out by Younger Dryas.
I had always thought it was generally accepted that the Clovis people came across from Europe
Another theory yes, generally accepted? Not really. There’s just as much evidence to indicate they were descendants of a circumpacific migration.
No actually there isn’t. As more and more discoveries are made, the “accepted” theory of the Bering Sea bridge being the path of the first to North America becomes weaker and weaker. Wonder what will happen to the entire body of law concerning our so-called “First Nations”. Wonder who they will be required to pay reparations to.
Nobody believes that the Bering land bridge was the ONLY migration path into N. America. There are many theories and EVIDENCE to support circumpacific migration. What evidence can you provide to support the theory of Clovis culture migrating from Europe?
Nobody with credibility believes…
Is there any evidence of a Clovis “culture” apart from the distinctive spear points? From pretty much the invention of firearms until the mid 19th Century, the entire world had a “spherical-bullet” culture. Then conical bullets became commonplace, and within 50 years, pretty much the entire world had a “conical-bullet” culture. Did the culture really change that much, or was it a technology change?
Ho, hum. Another “story” courtesy of Natural Catastrophic Magazine.
http://canadianlandowneralliance.blogspot.ca/2014/07/name-change-natural-catastrophic.html
The Clovis culture is a prehistoric Paleo-Indian culture, named after distinct stone tools found at sites near Clovis, New Mexico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture
“What evidence can you provide to support the theory of Clovis culture migrating from Europe?”
The finds resembling Solutrean large mono-flake tools found in Cactus Hill, Virginia…in a horizon that predates Clovis and the total absense of large flake tools(like Clovis) in Asia contempory to this or Clovis….but instead wooden arrow/spearhead with embedded small flakes.
Joey
This why the FNs were so eager to get custody of the “Kennewick Man” remains to bury/hide (destroy)…..Kennewick Man was Caucasian….
“…Kennewick Man was Caucasian…”
Nope. KM had certain “Caucasian-like” features.
I’ve never given much credence to large scale overland migration theories as it comes to founding populations since they imply people would have had to have moved as an overland wave front. Water-borne always makes more sense. If you’re having to move large numbers of women, kids, dogs, sheep, goats, tents, food stores or what-have-you, you move it by water whenever possible. You may skirt the shoreline (or use rivers once you’re established) since that’s where some of the easiest sources of food are, but otherwise, moving overland de novo in a strange land is tedious, dangerous and impractical. Having established settlements along the shoreline after an ocean crossing, populations may have moved inland following the waterways. Only much later would colonization of the interior occur with the potential for conflict with other populations which had spread from distant shoreline origins.
The people who crossed Beringia were trapped in Alaska and prevented from migrating south by the glaciers of the McConnell glaciation until about 9000 years ago. Evidence of earlier migrations in western North and South America followed coastal migration routes. During the ice age sea level was 250ft lower than today. Most of the evidence of coastal migration settlements would be underwater now.
There is DNA evidence that links some N.American aboriginals to the people of northern Japan and Kamchatka. What DNA evidence links them to pre-Colombian Europeans, ie. the Solutreann theory.
Jamie is correct, Kennewick Man was NOT Caucasian.
Anthropologist Joseph Powell of the University of New Mexico was also allowed to examine the remains. Powell used craniometric data obtained by anthropologist William White Howells of Harvard University and anthropologist Tsunehiko Hanihara of Saga University that had the advantage of including data drawn from Asian and North American populations.[9] Powell said that Kennewick Man was not European but most resembled the Ainu[6] and Polynesians.[9] Powell said that the Ainu descend from the Jōmon people who are an East Asian population with “closest biological affinity with south-east Asians rather than western Eurasian peoples”.[10] Furthermore, Powell said that dental analysis showed the skull to have a 94 percent chance of being a Sundadont group like the Ainu and Polynesians and only a 48 percent chance of being a Sinodont group like that of North Asia.[9] Powell said analysis of the skull showed it to be “unlike American Indians and Europeans”.[9] Powell concluded that Kennewick man “is clearly not a Caucasoid unless Ainu and Polynesians are considered Caucasoid.”[10]
Trust me , because of funding with Old relics inhabiting Universities with tenure. Archaeology is always 50 years behind the times.
These aren’t scientists but people who can’t learn . They have their pet theories & brook no deviation. The hold opinions that read like a novel that can’t be changed.
I knew in the late 70’s from real histologists that in Crete thy made lenses. It now only coming to be known. At the time the fellow at one dig told me he couldent publish it or he would be fired.