New Research On "Ice Free Corridor"

A forum for discussion about the fields of Archaeology and Anthropology - new finds, old finds, theories, etc. We have numerous archaelogists/Anthropologists
and/or students of archaeology/Anthro visiting PaleoPlanet...this is the place for them to intereact, and hopefully provide information to the arm-chair
enthusiasts out there!

New Research On "Ice Free Corridor"

Red Clay
Registered User
Joined: 12 Dec 2010, 17:02

16 Aug 2016, 16:35 #1

Reply

Hardaker
Registered User
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 02:26

23 Aug 2016, 04:03 #2

R.I.P. -- and good riddance. Image
Reply

Quillsnkiko
Registered User
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 08:25

02 Sep 2016, 19:08 #3

This is good information....probably another speculation however...as new information is being discovered as we speak.But nevertheless...Probably more accurate than whats been published before. Keep on discovering more new stuff...guys & gals. Quills
" You can't stop the waves .... but, you can learn to surf."
Reply

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 21 Oct 2006, 07:11

06 Jan 2017, 16:33 #4

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/29/8057

"bison used this route to disperse from the south (Heintzman et al. 2016).

Anyone see any bison in these articles or photo?

[www.telegraph.co.uk]
[www.cbc.ca]
[www.ousland.no]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ty1911.jpg
Can you imagine if ancients had been as helpless as the people who form conclusions, like Heintzman et al., what would have happened to our species? Right, we would be as extinct as Neanderthals. The only thing Heintzman et al. demonstrated is the corridor (the dry land trail without ice or bison) may not have been open early enough for travel, fair enough, but that is a far cry from proving Clovis people couldn't travel across ice which is absurd, as my links to the articles above proved. If in doubt, take the safest, easiest route...Occam's razor.

http://m.csmonitor.com/index.php/Scienc ... ns-travels

"One thing is for sure from this research, said Ted Goebel, an archeologist at Texas A&M University. Humans walked their way into the Americas.

"It nails it shut that without question," he told The Salt Lake Tribune. "The earliest Native Americans came from the Bering land bridge."

http://www.uwyo.edu/surovell/pdfs/coast ... ration.pdf

Dickinson, W.R. 2011. Geological perspectives on the Monte Verde archeological site in Chile and pre-Clovis coastal migration in the Americas. Quaternary Research, 76, pp. 201-210.

"Convincing data have not been recovered to support the coastal model" Dillehay et al. 2008[journals.ametsoc.org]


"The Gulf of Alaska emerges as a strong and consistent
location for storm lysis and may be considered the
‘‘graveyard of Pacific storms’’ (Figs. 5a–d)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_of_the_Pacific
Reply

NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: 08 Oct 2009, 05:44

17 Jan 2017, 19:10 #5

This recently published study is pertinent to this discussion: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0169486. It offers some striking proof for the "Beringian Standstill" hypothesis. This obviously supports some arguments and erodes others but it will be interpreted variously depending on the original position of the interpreter. It constantly amazes me how worked up people can get. I have no actual "position" to defend and just enjoy watching the ebb and flow of ideas. As Quills has noted, the evidence isn't all in. New discoveries happen continually, adding to the whole, along with new technologies that allow greater and greater amounts of information to be extracted from those discoveries. Barring a time machine, we'll never have all the answers but each new piece of information brings us closer. It's exciting to watch.
Reply

spoons
Registered User
Joined: 28 Jan 2009, 01:49

19 Jan 2017, 02:57 #6

are there any clovis style tools that have been found in eastern asia / it's a lot of ground and there was a long habitation period. old crow tools are only flake blades.
Reply

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 21 Oct 2006, 07:11

20 Jan 2017, 16:41 #7

spoons wrote:
are there any clovis style tools that have been found in eastern asia / it's a lot of ground and there was a long habitation period. old crow tools are only flake blades.
I would start here:

http://independent.academia.edu/GeorgesPearson




'Mammoth Extinction and Technological Compromise: The Clovis Coup De Grace'








  
Reply

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 21 Oct 2006, 07:11

20 Jan 2017, 16:46 #8

NewbowPA wrote:
  I have no actual "position" to defend and just enjoy watching the ebb and flow of ideas.
If a person puts the same weight on negative evidence and models as they do 'on-the-ground' evidence, I suppose "ideas" are gratifying.
Reply

NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: 08 Oct 2009, 05:44

20 Jan 2017, 22:57 #9

Lee: Perhaps I didn't express my "position" as well as I could have. What I should have said was, I have no 'entrenched' postion which I am compelled to defend. That does not mean I have no opinions, based on current reported evidence, nor does it mean that I give equal and unqualified credence to every interpretation that appears in print or the media. What I enjoy, and even find exciting, is watching to see where the next bit of (compelling) evidence fits, or does not fit, into the currant hyposteses. Science, by it's very nature, will move forward based on evidence, but infulencial individuals or organizations can impede that progress. Skepticism is healthy and desiable, weeding out the weak and illformed, but "entrenchment" blocks progress based on nothing more than the threatened ego(s) of the entenched. Having said that, I confess that it is sometimes difficult to tell where skepticism stops and entrenchment begins.
Reply

Forager
Registered User
Joined: 22 Oct 2010, 23:42

20 Jan 2017, 23:38 #10

Well stated, NewbowPA. Regardless of one's possible polarity (and if the security of one's career doesn't depend upon it), it can be cool to sit on the curb and watch the parade. Sometimes this sort of detachment can reinforce objectivity in appraising new information.
Reply

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 21 Oct 2006, 07:11

21 Jan 2017, 17:21 #11

NewbowPA wrote:
Lee: Perhaps I didn't express my "position" as well as I could have. What I should have said was, I have no 'entrenched' postion which I am compelled to defend.   
Key word...'entrenched'. Then I'm glad you concure with my first post on this topic, since the purpose of it was to show the author's (article that started this topic) entrenched position has a flaw in it, although I'm sure those who believe modern humans can't walk on ice will probably disagree.
Reply

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 21 Oct 2006, 07:11

21 Jan 2017, 17:41 #12

Forager wrote:
(and if the security of one's career doesn't depend upon it), it can be cool to sit on the curb and watch the parade. 
  
Are you suggesting the only people who should be discussing the merits of papers or the evidence are those who's career security depends on it? Then why this board and what is it for? For example, Bob Patten's polarity and career security doesn't depend on either the journals or Paleoplanet, yet he discusses the papers and evidence in both places....and that is cool also. 
Reply

Forager
Registered User
Joined: 22 Oct 2010, 23:42

21 Jan 2017, 18:15 #13

Not at all, Lee. Sorry if I failed to clarify my perspective. I enjoy open discussion and welcome a variety of viewpoints; it's valuable for enabling me to pick up on what I missed and helping me to see that much further than I could on my own. My underlying point was that it can be kind of fun to watch how the dynamics of scientific machinery operate with worthwhile ideas and new evidence - which refines the product of knowledge as it continues to evolve (suggesting an aversion to 'entrenchment'). The reference to 'career security' simply indicated that some researchers have much at stake when their efforts depart the main current... perhaps rendering the process somewhat less 'fun' for them and a bit stressful. Not the most comfortable way to watch a parade.
Reply

Red Clay
Registered User
Joined: 12 Dec 2010, 17:02

22 Jan 2017, 15:35 #14

spoons wrote:
are there any clovis style tools that have been found in eastern asia / it's a lot of ground and there was a long habitation period. old crow tools are only flake blades.
No Clovis tools have been found in either Alaska or Northeast Asia. According to the Smithsonian, Clovis is concentrated in the Southeast US. The concept of "Clovis first" has been pretty much run to ground. 

Ref. "Across Atlantic Ice, The Origin of America's Clovis Culture". Bradley and Stanford.





  
Last edited by Red Clay on 22 Jan 2017, 15:49, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 21 Oct 2006, 07:11

22 Jan 2017, 17:01 #15

Red Clay wrote:
Ref. "Across Atlantic Ice, The Origin of America's Clovis Culture". Bradley and Stanford.

http://ahotcupofjoe.net/2016/12/seven-w ... chaeology/



  
Reply

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 21 Oct 2006, 07:11

26 Jan 2017, 16:02 #16

The Coastal Hypothesis has been around for almost 60 years

http://www.uaf.edu/files/apua/Chard1963.pdf

 

So what's changed since the 1960s with the negative argument that the earliest sites are most likely underwater (see also Erlandson 2011) and therefore can't be found or tested?

The On Your Knees Cave Site isn't underwater. The Anangula Site isn't underwater.

The Ground Hog Bay Site isn't underwater, nor is Arlington Springs Daisy Cave or the Isthmus of Panama. The oldest outer Aleutian Island inland sites (Adak) aren't underwater.

(See Diane Hanson Science Vol 335 13 January 2012)

https://aleutianislandsworkinggroup.wor ... nd-houses/

 

Malhi (2008) says there is a very clear mtDNA settlement pattern from east to west in the Aleutians, just the exact opposite of what one would expect if the Aleutians were first settled by people from Japan and Kamchatka or other Pacific Rim areas as postulated by the direction of the red arrow in the graph presented here: http://www.nature.com/news/plant-and-an ... te-1.20389 The irrational coastal proponents want it both ways.... the earliest sites are underwater... then they are not. (See Erlandson et al. 2008)

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf  

"..on

San Miguel island, where terminal Pleistocene occupations show

that Palaeoindians used seaworthy boats to colonize the islands by

at least 13–12 ka."

"seaworthy boats" ???

http://patch.com/california/ranchosanta ... o-mainland

Also the islands were closer to the mainland during the late Pleistocene because of lower sealevels, so people would have had even less open water to navigate than Fiona Goh.
Reply

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 21 Oct 2006, 07:11

01 Nov 2017, 13:24 #17

Lee Olsen wrote: "The only thing Heintzman et al. demonstrated is the corridor (the dry land trail without ice or bison) may not have been open early enough for travel, fair enough, but that is a far cry from proving Clovis people couldn't travel across ice which is absurd, as my links to the articles above proved. If in doubt, take the safest, easiest route...Occam's razor."

Well, well...I wonder if these guys have been reading PaleoPlanet looking for ideas?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8216311284
"Nunataks and valley glaciers: Over the mountains and through the ice
Abstract

Models of the first peopling of the Americas characterize arrival routes either along the coast or through the ice-free corridor following the Last Glacial Maximum. While the pendulum has currently swung somewhat towards the coastal route, archaeological evidence for either entry is lacking. In this paper we introduce a third option, an icy corridors entry route. We argue that the traditionally envisioned corridor is an unnecessary feature for the terrestrial arrival of Clovis or Clovis predecessors below the ice sheets. The recent genomic data is fully compatible with a re-envisioned peopling route."
Reply

Nomad1
Registered User
Joined: 07 Apr 2016, 04:59

14 Nov 2017, 02:30 #18

Could they have been purposely herded for food?
Reply

NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: 08 Oct 2009, 05:44

14 Nov 2017, 07:05 #19

Unlikely.  For one thing, the animals in question would have to be herdable which is a good deal different than driving some over a cliff.  I am aware of nothing in the record that would suggest that native populations in North America were herders at that time but, if the corridor's natural graze would support the herded animals it would also support wild animals and there would have been no need to herd.  But, why would they herd animals to get through the corridor in the first place unless they already knew there was someplace to go at the other end?...and, if they knew that, then information had to have been returned from the other end about it, which means someone was already down there and the corridor wasn't how they got there.  My take is that there was no reason for people to enter the corridor until it would support them.  Even if they knew that there was a verdant land to the south, they would not have had the geographical knowledge to know that the early, ice free but barren, corridor would lead to the same place; or anyplace at all.  This also addresses the "across the ice" idea:  We are speaking of modern humans, just as smart as we are and with far better knowledge and skill to not just survive but to thrive in the paleo environment but, why, even if capable, would they strike out across a thousand kilometers of ice, which almost certainly would not provide anything close to adequate nourishment, even for transients, unless they knew there was someplace to get to that was worth the journey?  And, if they had that information, we're back to someone having had to get south earlier and relay the information back.  It doesn't make a great deal of sense to me that prospective colonizers, lacking google maps, would then strike out on an entirely different route.
Reply

Nomad1
Registered User
Joined: 07 Apr 2016, 04:59

14 Nov 2017, 16:53 #20

For food how long would it take them to get through the corridor with kids/old and so on driving your food ahead of you would seem like the thing to do and just cuz someone says it would/could not be done I have heard that one before as I am sure you have also...
Reply