## New Research On "Ice Free Corridor"

 Posts 431
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: October 8th, 2009, 5:44 am
The length of the corridor is variously estimated in the neighborhood of 1000 miles(1500-1600 km).  Let's say it's 900 miles and assume they actually had animals to herd.  The old west cattle drives would average around 15 miles a day.  At that rate it would take 60 days to travel 900 miles.  Without taking into consideration that even if that pace was possible at the start it could not be sustained due to the weakening of the herded animals, two months is a long time to go without any nutritional input.  If the herded animals actually lasted 30 days, that would leave another 30 days without any food for people who would be using a lot of calories.  It may be possible, assuming they had animals to herd, but it would have been a starvation route and hardly practical (if even possible) for migration.  It further begs the question of why they would try to do it in the first place if they didn't already know where the corridor went.

 Posts 45
Registered User
Registered User
Joined: April 7th, 2016, 4:59 am
it may have been one of the ways but I also think that they went the coastal route both east and west of the continent long before the corridor opened up.

 Posts 730
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: October 21st, 2006, 7:11 am
NewbowPA wrote: The length of the corridor is variously estimated in the neighborhood of 1000 miles(1500-1600 km).  Let's say it's 900 miles and assume they actually had animals to herd.  The old west cattle drives would average around 15 miles a day.  At that rate it would take 60 days to travel 900 miles.  Without taking into consideration that even if that pace was possible at the start it could not be sustained due to the weakening of the herded animals, two months is a long time to go without any nutritional input.  If the herded animals actually lasted 30 days, that would leave another 30 days without any food for people who would be using a lot of calories.  It may be possible, assuming they had animals to herd, but it would have been a starvation route and hardly practical (if even possible) for migration.  It further begs the question of why they would try to do it in the first place if they didn't already know where the corridor went.
Your model does an excellent job of demonstrating why Robert Scott died at the South Pole...hay burners make for slow traveling in icy conditions. Why was  Amundsen so successful, while Scott perished?
https://www.si.com/edge/2015/04/06/born ... ly-stewart
My model gets them there in less than a week. OK, I know they didn't have carbon fiber racing sleds back then, but they didn't have animal rights groups and race officials dictating how often dogs have to be rested in a day and restrictions on how many dogs they could start with. Nor did the ancients have a fixed starting line...who dictates it was all done in just one year rather than a succession of years of a learning curve?

How did they know there was land to the south?
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... fic_Flyway

"Each year, as winter came on, the people
would look skyward and watch the swans and the smaller birds fly south, across the ice.
Eight months later (usually in April or early May, based on the behavior of their modern
descendants), the birds would return. Where had they been? Obviously, there was
habitable land somewhere to the south, beyond the ice. What the people didn’t know
was that they would have to walk 2,000 km to get there. (Fiedel 2007, pp. 5–6)."

Hard evidence in site reports from the interior and coast of Alaska demonstrates people were fully aware of the interior (and traveled over interior ice) thousands of years before evidence for boats, whether they had dogs or not, nor would they have needed to traverse the entire 2000 km in a single season.

 Posts 431
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: October 8th, 2009, 5:44 am
Honestly, I hadn't considered migratory birds, though I had given some thought to unfamiliar flotsam casting up on the beach.  Point taken!  They most likely were aware of a "somewhere else" to the south.  Getting there is still problematic.  Given the current state of evidence, over the ice is more plausible than the ice free corridor.  I confess that I've not been able to get access to the article you cited (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8216311284) so I don't know what evidence was put forward to support their hypothesis, but what I did find suggests it might just be possible, though not in so short a time as a week.  For starters, the earliest evidence for dogs that may have been bred to pull sleds comes from Zhokhov Island, Siberia, something less than 9000 years ago (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/ ... ian-island).  The oldest physical evidence, harness, is only about 1000 years old but, even at 9000 years, the peopling of the Americas came too early to plausibly invoke dog power.  Evidence for human powered sleds goes back 16000 years, putting them on the edge, but still plausible.  Sixteen thousand years ago there may not have been any domesticated dogs at all.  I didn't find any data on how fast a human powered sled can travel.  For the sake of speculation, I'll suggest 30 miles a day.  That would mean a journey of about a month and I think that is doable.  I don't know that over the ice is more desirable than a coastal route.  (Boats apparently were in use over 50000 years ago [https://phys.org/news/2012-03-evidence- ... umans.html] and I see no compelling reason to beleive that coastal peoples only 20000 years ago had no knowledge of them.)  It would be faster, but moving down the coast would allow for resupply along the route and probably areas where a least temporary encampments could be set up.  I would like to read the entirety of "Nunataks and valley glaciers: Over the mountains and through the ice" so I can weigh their arguments against my speculations.

 Posts 730
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: October 21st, 2006, 7:11 am
>Honestly, I hadn't considered migratory birds,

No problem, Fiedel didn't think of the 'over-the-ice' model and it looks like he was wrong from the most recent evidence.

> though I had given some thought to unfamiliar flotsam casting up on the beach.

Me too, there is weak (ah, very, very weak) circumstantial evidence for that also but it still wouldn't answer to some of the DNA and archaeological evidence.

> For starters, the earliest evidence for dogs that may have been bred to pull sleds comes from Zhokhov Island, Siberia, something less than 9000 years ago (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/ ... ian-island). The oldest physical evidence, harness, is only about 1000 years old but, even at 9000 years, the peopling of the Americas came too early to plausibly invoke dog power.

Dogs are negative speculation, just as boats. So what is fair speculation for one side is fair speculation for the other, so I tossed in Amundsen for fun. I also said: "whether they had dogs or not,...". I don't need dogs to 'ice' my model. My key players for the model are Nansen's crossing of Greenland, without dogs, an unknown Native American seen by the Donner Party crossing Donner Lake, and numerous people today getting to the South Pole without using dogs. http://www.cnn.com/travel/article/felic ... index.html
So dogs really aren't needed, but just the same if confronted by angry dire wolves or giant cave bears, I'd much rather my dogs disatract them while I run away and hide! Has everyone seen those new cats up North? I wouldn't have felt safe up there even with an AK-47. Those first colonizers had guts and skills we can't even imagine.

> For the sake of speculation, I'll suggest 30 miles a day.

I'll stick with less than a week and without dogs for the last leg of the trip.
Boats in one place are not evidence for boats in another anymore than atlatls in Europe are evidence for atlatls in North America at the same time.
I'd better add something about what kind of boats to avoid confusion. Erlandson claimed "seaworthy boats" for his "kelp Highway" model. That's even an bigger *IF* than dogs. I'm not discounting floating logs or the type of junk the Rapa Nui people were using when contacted by the first European explorers. Getting to Attu or Adack Island sinks the Kelp Highyway model before it even starts. I'll add evidence and references for this later.
All the models have lots of imagination and little supporting evidence, so I'm just arguing what seems the most probable given all the circumstantial evidence as of 2017.

About this paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8216311284 I haven't read it either. I can prove I had the idea (online) since at least 2011, and probably 10 years earlier than that privately. I researched it then to my satifaction that it was feasable and really don't need their 'old hat' data. They already have one glaring error in their abstract, there is one more possibility, it may not have been a case of either or, but BOTH the coast and the interior may have been involved.

 Posts 730
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: October 21st, 2006, 7:11 am
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/592
https://www.livescience.com/13066-chann ... vered.html

Big mistake by Erlandson and the University of Oregon showing Channel points and crescents in the
same hand from same site  and suggesting they have anything at all to do with a coastal adaptation.

Here is map from the latest review:
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-anthropol ... -kelp.html
"But is the new evidence really proof of
appear to be strictly seasonal settlements
of highly mobile hunter-gatherers, focused
on shellfish and bird harvesting,” says
Yesner, who adds that such forays could
have been carried out with “relatively primitive”
boats."
(not to mention teenagers swimming)

"And David Meltzer of Southern
Methodist University in Dallas, Texas,
wonders whether “this represent[s] a fullblown
marine adaptation of a bunch of
seafaring people cruising down the coast,
or did they wander in” from inland areas,
bringing the stemmed points and crescents
with them."
4 MARCH 2011 VOL 331 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
IMO Meltzer is correct. Only a miniscule fraction of  crescents are found along the actual coast, the
vast majority are found at inland hunting sites (although in wetland conditions)  and are in no way
evidence for a "kelp highway" adaptation unless they concede people didn't hug the coast unseen/underwater for
17,000 km from NE Asia to Monte Verde and did actually venture hundreds of miles inland into the
Great Basin  which is a contradiction of what is claimed..."Testing the kelp highway hypothesis is
challenging because much of the archaeo-logical evidence would have been sub-merged by rising seas
since the last glacial maximum ~26,500 years ago (Braje et al 2017)."
They can't have it both ways. "much"??,  he realy means ca 90% of crescents are found inland
along with a few Channel Island barbed points. If the proponents of the coastal route are so
desparate for data as to be forced to use what are clearly older and inland adaptations
(ca. Paisley etc.), where do they stop calling an area the Pacific Coast...Chicago?

 Posts 730
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: October 21st, 2006, 7:11 am
Yesterday  in post #26 I linked to a UO site that today says "access denied", so I found an article https://www.livescience.com/13066-chann ... vered.html that shows the hand with the two points and better explains the  problem I was getting at. I also changed the link in post #26.

"At the Santa Rosa site, the researchers uncovered 52 stone points called Channel Island barbed points. These ultrathin, serrated points look very unlike the hunting points used by Paleoindians in the Great Basin, said Charlotte Beck, an anthropology professor at Hamilton College in New York who was not involved in the research.

These so-called Channel Island points were found, on the surface, in Central Washington on a cattle feed lot. It is also a state registered site 45-GR-XX.
Because of massive looting problems new laws are pending to obliterate references to locations of sites in the literature, so I guess I'd better comply in case they do pass and not give the exact location. The oldest point discovered on this lot so far is one of these  http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/w ... ndgray.jpg and reliably dated to older than anything found on the Channel Islands except for the Arlington Springs Man that was found without diagnostic points of any kind, so he could just as well been an interior hunter-gatherer looking for mammoths. Yes, those points above could have been trade goods, but it would still show contact 900 miles north and 500 miles inland, as Beck pointed out.

"But the researchers also turned up 15 stone crescents, which are another story altogether, Beck said.

"The crescents, if found in the Great Basin, would not raise an eyebrow — they look just like those in the Great Basin," Beck told LiveScience. "So this does suggest some kind of contact between the people on the islands and the people in the Great Basin."

I don't know how well accepted this site is today http://nwpaleo.org/2017/04/02/evidence- ... years-ago/, but if true, it would make the interior sites older by a large margin.

 Posts 431
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: October 8th, 2009, 5:44 am
Dogs are negative speculation, just as boats.

Not all things for which conclusive evidence is absent are equally probable.  DNA suggests dogs weren't domesticated until around 16000 years ago (about as early as many are willing to accept for the peopling of the Americas) with selected breeding evidence (again, DNA) not appearing until 7000 years later, leaving a very low probability that they could have been used as harness animals during the period in discussion and just barely allows for them even as companions.  There is evidence of watercraft (even seaworthy, though seaworthy isn't necessary for coastal travel) extending back at least 60000 years and associated with both Neanderthals and modern humans.  It stretches credulity a bit to suggest that people only 20000 years ago would not develop adequate watercraft with which to effectively utilize their marine environment.  That they did and didn't, respectively, is possible but not the way to bet.

I don't need dogs to 'ice' my model. My key players for the model are Nansen's crossing of Greenland, without dogs, an unknown Native American seen by the Donner Party crossing Donner Lake, and numerous people today getting to the South Pole without using dogs.

All of those cited knew, or thought they knew, where they were going.  I do think  that over the ice is plausible, even compelling, but along the coast (boats or no boats), not into the interior.  Unless evidence to the contrary emerges, 6 day journey time notwithstanding, the more logical route is one that provides a source of resupply.  I can see no scenario that would cause a reasonable people to strike out over 900 miles of glacial wasteland toward the interior if they didn't know for sure it was there.  For all they knew, the lands to their south curved off to the west, in which case there would be no interior to the southeast for them to reach.

"...unless they concede people didn't hug the coast unseen/underwater for 17,000 km from NE Asia to Monte Verde and did actually venture hundreds of miles inland into the Great Basin  which is a contradiction of what is claimed..."

Agreed.  It is ludicrous to suggest that people, curious as we are, would not have spread inland just as soon as land was encountered that would support them.  They wouldn't all have done so, of course, but once below the ice they would have had the east to explore in addition to continuing on southward.

"Those first colonizers had guts and skills we can't even imagine."

To us, their situation would indeed be daunting, but they were the product of their time and had they lacked the necessary skills we wouldn't speculating about any of this.

 Posts 730
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: October 21st, 2006, 7:11 am
> Not all things for which conclusive evidence is absent are equally probable.

Agreed!

> DNA suggests dogs weren't domesticated until around 16000 years ago (about as early as many are willing to accept for the peopling of the Americas) with selected breeding evidence (again, DNA) not appearing until 7000 years later, leaving a very low probability that they could have been used as harness animals during the period in discussion

I rejected carbon fiber sleds above, that would include harnesses also.

>  and just barely allows for them even as companions.

Just how and how long the process of domestication took is in dispute (like boats). Non-domesticated jackals and semi-domesticated dingos can be an asset to humans, no harness necessary.

> There is evidence of watercraft (even seaworthy, though seaworthy isn't necessary for coastal travel) extending back at least 60000 years and associated with both Neanderthals and modern humans.

There is no direct evidence for modern humans or Neanderthals to have used boats 60,000 years ago. That's all speculation. But even if true and can someday be proven.... swimming, flotsam  (tsunami powered) and pure chance out distances the alleged boat crossings by hundreds of miles for hominins and a thousand  miles for some animals.

> It stretches credulity a bit to suggest that people only 20000 years ago would not develop adequate watercraft with which to effectively utilize their marine environment.

One could make the same arguments for rockets to the moon and pop-up toasters. Certain factors have to be in place first for any expansion to occur.  To my knowledge East Asia was not over populated 20,000-years-ago, nor did all those who were there left for the Americas. Most remained, in spite of the sites that are presumably underwater there also as the sea level rise affected them too. Yet there are plenty of sites that show they were not all underwater, as the negative-evidence arguments claim for just the Americas. IOW, where then are the sites in the Aleutian Islands? Both archaeology and DNA evidence shows they were settled from east to west, just the opposite direction of what would be predicted from  the 'kelp highway' model.

> All of those cited knew, or thought they knew, where they were going.

And ditto for boat travel. Those who kayak (or go in other small boats) down the Pacific coast today know where each motel and McDonald's is on route. They also have something else, GPS, locator beacons, and satellite radios to scream for Coast Guard help if they get into any trouble at all (not to mention lighthouses!).

My years of experience boating on Puget Sound, in the San Juan Islands, and out on the ocean, tell me the way to bet is inland. If a sudden storm catches you (there were no weather reports by radio 20,000 years ago), on land you can always build an igloo and survive at least until your food runs out, at sea (even close to shore) there is no such escape.
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/CY0C8P/coastgu ... CY0C8P.jpg

 Posts 431
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: October 8th, 2009, 5:44 am
As I suggested, and stand by, not all possibilities are equal.  Speculation is great armchair fun but remains speculation none-the-less.  We will never be entirely certain of what happened, exactly how it went, in the prehistoric past but future discoveries will continue to inform and narrow (or maybe add to) the various speculative scenarios.  We can hope for some great breakthrough, some, as yet, unthought of tool or technique that will open previously unknown doors or windows but only time will tell.  Science, as well as the rest of us, will just have to make do until that happens.

 Posts 730
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: October 21st, 2006, 7:11 am
> As I suggested, and stand by, not all possibilities are equal.

And I agreed...100% with that comment.

> Speculation is great armchair fun but remains speculation none-the-less.

Only if one ignores what little evidence there is that runs counter to a given bias. For example...

> We will never be entirely certain of what happened...

Anthropology is not like physics, one can use  multiple lines of circumstantial evidence to be 95% certain...if you have enough circumstantial evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, a court can find you guilty. Do courts error at times, sure, but so does the proof in physics fail at times. Nothing is ever proven in entire certainty. You falsify as you go always leaving the door slightly open for new developments...least that's how I learned it in school.

Only by ignoring evidence to the contrary can one make a case for a coastal, completely negative case.
Let's start with dogs. I don't know where your are getting your information, but the latest paper doesn't seem to jibe with your claims. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/a ... en.1004016 and for the layperson https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/ ... 16796.html

Point: they are getting very close and to say they will never know is speculation (just as saying they will, but they are making improvements in the data base, science is not static. Who is breaking up old court cases where it was thought we'd never know? DNA is solving dead cases almost weekly and DNA is doing same in anthropology almost weekly also.

> It stretches credulity a bit to suggest that people only 20000 years ago would not develop adequate watercraft with which to effectively utilize their marine environment.

How does Braje et al. 2017 know there was a marine culture in Japan? Because the sites that tell him that aren't underwater in the Old World at the start of his "kelp highway". They only get drowned out when they come to America. That's pure cherry-picking.  Also, why do they use a lithic point symbol on their map instead of Jomon pottery? Because the evidence for pottery  distribution in the Old World, away from Japan runs counter to their hypothesis...more cherry-picking.

I will propose 95% of what they are claiming is cherry-picking of some sort. Maybe, as you say, it may never be known for certain, but also known for certain is the fact you don't build hypotheses on cherry-picking...cause that ain't science.

"not all possibilities are equal." Yep, but If some evidence is ignored (either through lack of research or deliberately), then the possibilities are unequal in claiming a coastal route.

"It stretches credulity a bit to suggest that people only 20000 years ago would not develop adequate watercraft with which to effectively utilize their marine environment."

If that is true, how did this happen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_More ... g_disaster

I've dug a few clams on the Washington coast and never needed watercraft  to do it and carp can be taken inland just as easily as cod with Channel Island barbed points.

 Posts 431
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: October 8th, 2009, 5:44 am
Your over-the-ice idea, at least as I restated it, along with my reasons for doing so, is plausible and even seductive, if not compelling.  It stands on its own and I'm a little bemused by why you feel you have to deny the possibility of watercraft, as though their existence somehow diminishes the over-the-ice scenario.  You allow circumstantial evidence to support you but deny it to any opposing position.  Your anti boat example (If that is true, how did this happen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_More ... g_disaster) is particularly weak.  No one is born with knowledge of anything.  Everybody has to learn and I was referring to a marine culture, not to individuals in a novel situation.  In fact, that reference supports me in that the locals warned them of their danger.  Those familiar with their environment are able to utilize it both efficiently and safely.  As you say, no boat is required for clams, etc.  "When the tide is out the table is set" is a common saying among the the Northwest coastal tribes (Tlingit from BC and the Unangax̂ from the Aleutians, to name two) but that didn't prevent them from having boats.  The authors of the dog genome paper you referenced ( I don't know where your are getting your information, but the latest paper doesn't seem to jibe with your claims. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/a ... en.1004016 and for the layperson https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/ ... 16796.html) does, indeed, jibe with my information.  The 33000 years ago time, prominently stated in the popular article, is merely one date (the earliest) of a number of possibilities derived from various ways of measuring genetic drift.  In the PLOS paper, the authors plainly state, in both the summary at the top of the page and again in their closing arguments (fourth paragraph under "Discussion") that "Considering a full multi-population demographic model with gene flow, we infer that dogs diverged from wolves at around 15 kya (CI: 14–16 kya).

I'm not defending the coastal route against over-the-ice route, per se.  I've already said that over-the-ice has some legs, it's just that I find your arguments to dismiss the coastal route are not compelling.  You've laid out your reasoning and I've expressed my own so we presumably would agree to disagree.  One thing we can all agree on is that people did manage to get here, one way or another, at some point in the past, and that brings to mind a question (for which I've started another thread:  viewtopic.php?f=41&t=65945):  Regardless of when people made their way south, why did they go then as opposed to some other time?

 Posts 730
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: October 21st, 2006, 7:11 am
> and I'm a little bemused by why you feel you have to deny the possibility of watercraft,

Because it is based on negative evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_More ... g_disaster) is particularly weak.
>  No one is born with knowledge of anything.  Everybody has to learn and I was referring to a marine culture, not to individuals in a novel situation.

Maybe I didn't make it perfectly clear that 1) boats are not necessary for a marine culture and 2) and it was hardly a novel situation http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wp ... 00x450.jpg

> In fact, that reference supports me in that the locals warned them of their danger.

Not with anything available 14,000 years ago.

>  Those familiar with their environment are able to utilize it both efficiently and safely.

http://www.seattlefishermensmemorial.org/

>As you say, no boat is required for clams, etc.  "When the tide is out the table is set" is a common saying among the the Northwest coastal tribes (Tlingit from BC and the Unangax̂ from the Aleutians, to name two) but that didn't prevent them from having boats.

That saying is 7000 years after the fact.

>  The authors of the dog genome paper you referenced ( I don't know where your are getting your information, but the latest paper doesn't seem to jibe with your claims. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/a ... en.1004016 and for the layperson https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/ ... 16796.html) does, indeed, jibe with my information.  The 33000 years ago time, prominently stated in the popular article, is merely one date (the earliest) of a number of possibilities derived from various ways of measuring genetic drift.  In the PLOS paper, the authors plainly state, in both the summary at the top of the page and again in their closing arguments (fourth paragraph under "Discussion") that "Considering a full multi-population demographic model with gene flow, we infer that dogs diverged from wolves at around 15 kya (CI: 14–16 kya). "

Right, 15 kya (CI: 14–16 kya) is 7000 years before the first good circumstantial evidence for watercraft on the kelp highway and they were headed in the wrong direction in the Aleutians based on DNA and archaeological evidence.

"You allow circumstantial evidence to support you but deny it to any opposing position."
DNA, pottery and lithic movement, now becomes circumstantial evidence (along with a 7000 year timeline problem) and imaginary boats are equal to it?

 Posts 431
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: October 8th, 2009, 5:44 am
That saying is 7000 years after the fact.

I doubt that the saying is modern but it's antiquity is impossible to demonstrate one way or the other.  You know very well what I was implying but, for the record, in reply to "I don't know where you are getting your information..." here are a few sources:  https://phys.org/news/2012-03-evidence- ... umans.html,   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html,   http://www-labs.iro.umontreal.ca/~vauch ... ric_Craft/.  Enough.  You've documented your position and I've documented what I agreed and disagreed with about it.  As new evidence comes to light it might inform a future discussion but at this point in time we have reached an impasse.

 Posts 730
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: October 21st, 2006, 7:11 am
That saying is 7000 years after the fact.

>  I doubt that the saying is modern but it's antiquity is impossible to demonstrate one way or the other.

But the DNA from dogs is not. Once again it's evidence vs no evidence, only speculation.

>  You know very well what I was implying

Sorry, I don't.

>  but, for the record, in reply to "I don't know where you are getting your information..." here are a few sources:  https://phys.org/news/2012-03-evidence- ... umans.html,   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html,   http://www-labs.iro.umontreal.ca/~vauch ... ric_Craft/.  Enough.

Just as I pointed out earlier, Neanderthals would have had less distance to swim that channel than this young lady: https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/n ... n-swimmer/

As far as Crete:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0185248
A few quick points about Crete. 1) If a hominin species really had command of boats that early, why pick a junk yard of the most horrible  lithic material ever and ignore islands farther north and closer to the mainland with high quality obsidian (for which there is no trace on the mainland from trade etc.) until after hard evidence for boats. 2) The amount of lithics could have been made by one person in less than a day (which implies a desperate victim of chance rather than a boating culture). 3) The flawed logic used would imply that hippos needed boats to get to Madagascar.

> You've documented your position and I've documented what I agreed and disagreed with about it.

On the contrary, I presented evidence from site reports and DNA and you presented a repeat of negative arguments and speculation about distance and seem to be calling both equal value.

1) "Hard evidence in site reports from the interior and coast of Alaska demonstrates
people were fully aware of the interior (and traveled over interior ice) thousands
of years before evidence for boats, whether they had dogs or not, nor would they
have needed to traverse the entire 2000 km in a single season."

2) "Big mistake by Erlandson and the University of Oregon showing Channel points and
crescents in the same hand from same site  and suggesting they have anything at all
to do with a coastal adaptation."

3) "IOW, where then are the sites in the Aleutian Islands?
Both archaeology and DNA evidence shows they were settled from east to west, just the
opposite direction of what would be predicted from  the 'kelp highway' model."

4) "On land you can always build an igloo and survive at least until your food runs out,
at sea (even close to shore) there is no such escape."

5)  "How does Braje et al. 2017 know there was a marine culture in Japan? Because the sites
that tell him that aren't underwater in the Old World at the start of his "kelp highway".
They only get drowned out when they come to America."

6) "Also, why do they use a lithic point symbol on their map instead of Jomon pottery?
Because the evidence for pottery  distribution in the Old World, away from Japan runs
counter to their hypothesis."

>  As new evidence comes to light it might inform a future discussion but at this point in time we have reached an impasse.

You didn't comment on any of the sites on the map, particularly the one with the question (?) mark. Question marks don't instill a lot of confidence in ones argument.
Other than a diversion about dogs, which I admitted I didn't need, I really didn't see a lot of evidence to refute any of my statements that have actual data to support them. Did I reference them all? No, but no one asked.

Meanwhile, the evidence for boats on the Pacific Coast of North America remains "underwater".

 Posts 431
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: October 8th, 2009, 5:44 am
"Sorry, I don't."

I suspect you do, but I have nothing more to add.

 Posts 730
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: October 21st, 2006, 7:11 am
"As you say, no boat is required for clams, etc.  "When the tide is out the table is set" is a common saying among the the Northwest coastal tribes (Tlingit from BC and the Unangax̂ from the Aleutians, to name two) but that didn't prevent them from having boats." Then next you said "impossible to demonstrate", and thus more speculation.  I still have no idea what the connection is between the tide being out and boats. High or low tides are not evidence for boats, then or now. Boats are what's needed to be demonstrated, not tides, so I still have no idea what you are getting at.

 Posts 431
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: October 8th, 2009, 5:44 am
That it is more modern than ancient is your spin on it and is just as much speculation and no more valid than my suggesting suggesting it may not be modern, but your argument implies that if clams are available then there is no need for boats.  The point I thought was obvious is that if there are boats today and well back into the past, along with hard evidence for such that you seem to require for what you consider opposing positions, and the needs and resources were the same then, the ancients would have had the same "need" for boats as their decedents, clams not withstanding.  I still don't understand your denial of effective watercraft, since it doesn't materially jeopardize your scenario.  Did you even look at the papers I referenced?  Never mind.  I retire.  You win.

 Posts 730
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: October 21st, 2006, 7:11 am
> That it is more modern than ancient is your spin on it

Hominins have been scavenging beaches for about 400,000 years and no evidence for boats then either.

> and is just as much speculation and no more valid than my suggesting suggesting it may not be modern, but your argument implies that if clams are available then there is no need for boats.

There was no speculation in the 6 points above that you have ignored without comment or provided any sort of evidence to the contrary. You can make any argument you want if you leave out the evidence you can't refute.

Again, evidence for atlatls in Europe is not evidence for atlatls in North America in the same time frame.  Evidence for Jomon pottery in Japan is not evidence for Jomon pottery in North America and so on.

http://www.scseagrant.org/Content/?cid=139
"The problem with the boat-migration model, says David Meltzer,
an anthropologist at Southern Methodist University, is that
boats do not exist in the archaeological record that far back.
“We lack any evidence of boats until the mid-Holocene times
(5,000 to 6,000 years ago) along the Northwest Coast and along
the coast of Alaska. In the absence of any evidence of boats
whatsoever, you probably have them walking along coastlines.
The idea that people would be crossing entire oceans in the
rafting technology that would have been available in those
days doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

http://www.medicaldaily.com/centuries-o ... est-359538

"Ted Goebel, an archaeologist at Texas A&M University, told The Salt Lake Tribune that these infant remains prove "without question" that the first Americans did indeed walk across the Bering Strait to Alaska. The study strongly suggests these first Americans settled in Alaska for thousands of years before pressing further south, but more importantly, the remains also "give us a snapshot of that earlier time," and help us better understand the story of mankind."

This is evidence, not speculation. Even though he is talking about getting to Alaska, it still provides zero evidence for the kelp highway via Adak Island and the Aleutians, thus providing independent verification for exactly the pattern seen from east to west as evidenced by both DNA and archaeology.

There is nothing to win in this discussion, the evidence is what it is until someone unequivocally proves different. Speculating on what might be underwater off Adak Island is nothing more than a zombie theory.

 Posts 431
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: October 8th, 2009, 5:44 am
Apples and oranges, Lee, but the field is yours.