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

04 Dec 2017, 18:31 #61

> FN varied in their use of boats, can't generalize even with the communities found in the interior of BC.  They did everything.

Including use of outboard motors and snowmobiles. The issue is when, not what they were doing thousands of years after what their ancestors were doing inland.

> The most recent cottonwood dugout canoe was made in Prince George just 2(?) years ago. 
Lots of photographs of FN boating on the Fraser over the past century+. 
A simple method to cross the Fraser under any ice free conditions.

How many times did the first group have to cross any river water if they weren't living there yet? The FN guy the Donner Party saw had no trouble hiking down Donner Lake in winter. He did not live there in the winter, but he still used Donner Lake as his own personal freeway and he didn't have a boat with him. I don't remember if he had snowshoes.

Because they are using cottonwood (and outboards today) means their ancestors used cottonwood boats 14,000 years ago to get to Orcas Island while the buffalo walked (or swam) there?  

> Trails, yes.  Roads?  What for?

How wide is a glacier or a frozen lake? 10 times wider than a modern road/freeway, yes? How wide was the glacier the Canadian Ice Man found on? The "trail" was as wide as he needed. 

> There are several big rivers to cross north of the Columbia.  Just geographical facts.

A geographical fact is the farther north you go the lower the average winter temperatures and hence the  more seasonal ice to cross without need for boats. 

> Exactly, there's evidence both flooded and never below sea level. 
One has never excluded the other. Never claimed it did.

Never claimed it did. I implied there is no reason to believe the underwater sites on the coast would be any older than the above water sites on the coast.

Just saying "boats" is so vague a generalization as to be meaningless. The issue is "seaworthy" boats. And specifically what kind of seaworthy boats. The issue is anyone getting below the LGM ice sheets @ ca. 14,000 had to have went from west to east  for some 1000+ miles first, be it either by land or sea.  How the north to south down the Pacific Coast got into this discussion is rather baffling to me, it is a moot and meaningless argument.

Making truisms like "cedar rots" hides the fact that stone tools used to make a canoe do not. I've watched these canoes being made. While fire may sometimes start the process, thousands of thinning flakes (or ground tools from slate) and stone mauls DO NOT ROT.
Where are those canoe woodworking tools at Ground Hog Bay, Anangula, or on Triquet Island?  



 
Reply

Robson Valley
Registered User
Joined: 24 Apr 2015, 00:27

04 Dec 2017, 19:37 #62

Dugout canoes don't use outboard motors.  Noisy hunters are vegans.
I don't expect an ice bridge to cross the Skeena or the Fraser anywhere near or below the tidal surge.
I'm certain that coastal resources are a little more consistently available that the salmon and trout runs
of any interior river.  But to be sure, the FN people were in here to meet the fish.  All over BC.

There's no reason to suppose that any submarine evidence is any older than any ice free terrestrial occupation.
FN advanced on a broad geographical front, searching for everything useful.  

This is the Boreal Forest Biome.  Open ground is uncommon.
Travel here above the tree line in the summers is far from habitable.
Best to move along the valley bottoms.  Warmer, too.

Charcoals in soil pits show that the fire history of the interior is some 70-100 years.
That creates edge and regen.  That's where the wild life thrives.  Not in the forest.
We do have one preserved site called the Ancient Forest which has not been burnt for at least 4,000 years.
Inland temperate rainforest.

I have yet to ever see any paleo items on the surface.  Why not?
The annual debris increment in the forest is about 1cm per year.
Decomposition usually layers the organics at 10 to 20 cm.
To me, that means that we can walk all over the stone blades and not notice a thing.

Who said that stone tools rot?   That's an erroneous generality.
The wooden handles and the sinew(?) bindings rot.
That is what I said.
On the soil surface and untreated,
the decomposition of conifer woods where I live is about 2cm thickness per year.
I cannot imagine a wooden adze handle lasting in a lifetime of service.

East on the prairies, some disturbances do reveal paleo occupation.  House pits and tipi rock circles.
Both of those do not rot.  Maybe subject to erosion, maybe subject to subsidence but they don't rot.
If they weren't burnt, the post and beam constructions will disappear over the centuries.
Reply

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

04 Dec 2017, 20:35 #63

> Dugout canoes don't use outboard motors.  Noisy hunters are vegans.

https://i1.wp.com/www.animals24-7.org/w ... =300%2C168
I don't think the Makah will agree with you on the noise issue (the photo showing both traditional canoes and a modern out board for the hunt has been deleted...I wonder why?) A .50 makes a lot of noise also, but if you only have a permit for one whale, who cares?
Or anyone else:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/ ... 700035.jpg
https://www.google.com/search?q=whale+u ... 2417509042

I've had had the same experience numerous times. It is illegal to chase or harass whales...they came to me while trolling for salmon with a noisy outboard. This noisy salmon fisherman quits fishing when killer whales show up because they ruin fishing. Nothing left to do but go home and eat my veggies.

> I don't expect
 
What is expected after the fact is irrelevant, here are the proposed routes:
https://www.newscientist.com/data/image ... 3_1200.jpg

West to east in two cases and east to west in one. North to south has nothing to do with anything unless one is interested in the history of second place finishers.
Reply

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

04 Dec 2017, 21:16 #64

ww wrote: "My sole experiment is in watching 8 of my wood carvings rotting in the weather."
 yes, RV. our view is constrained.

Lee, have you seen?
Where was the PaleoAmerind standstill?
Michael K.Faught
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8216312630#!
My obsidian denticulates for woodworking  haven't started to rot yet. 

I read the review by Julie Morrow, but not the paper. Didn't sound very convincing. And Quaternary International? Not exactly Current Anthropology or American Antiquity.  If you have read it, what did you find most convincing?


Edit.
Oops, sorry,  I guess I did have the paper, can't remember reading it though:
From the acknowledgements: "This article has evolved over more than five years of study and
writing, but the opinions expressed and the genres of data
approached have been of interest for much longer. I have had the
privilege and benefits of dialog and argument with several influential
researchers, in particular Dr. Stephen Zegura for the biological
data sets, and David Thulman, Michael Waters, and David
Anderson for archaeological and geoarchaeological perspectives. I
am especially grateful for an anonymous reviewer's counterpoints
and recommendations for writing clarity. Of all of these, however, I
am especially grateful that Morrow and Fiedel organized the “After
Anzick” symposium and herded us cats into these products by
means of useful comments and substantial editing hours."
Reply

ww
Registered User
Joined: 07 Jun 2016, 18:46

05 Dec 2017, 06:53 #65

Didn't sound very convincing. And Quaternary International? Not exactly Current Anthropology or American Antiquity.  If you have read it, what did you find most convincing?
well i am not sure that I need to be convinced of many more thing in this life.
At any rate, I don't think that it was the authors intent to convince, as much as suggest that speculation has its place in the absence of compelling data.
Reply

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

05 Dec 2017, 17:44 #66

> At any rate, I don't think that it was the authors intent to convince, as much
as suggest that speculation has its place in the absence of compelling data.

Thank you for the input. I think you just explained why I either didn't read the paper or forgot I'd seen it.

Nothing wrong with starting a hypothesis with speculation, that idea is old hat. Unfortunately the start isn't the finish and the burden is on the speculator to provide the finish, not on others to disprove that speculation. In the case of this thread, using speculated early boats to argue a speculated early marine industry (in the Americas) is nothing more than a circular argument. Two negatives don't make a positive in anthropology. One or the other has to be demonstrated on a positive basis before one can lead the evidence with further speculation IMO. 
Or perhaps I just went to the wrong school to learn how the scientific method works?
Reply

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

05 Dec 2017, 21:21 #67

More on Post # 38
 > but your argument implies that if clams are available then there is no need for boats.

OK so far.

>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. 

Clams were just one example. I see better now why the confusion. We know today the mess we have made of our oceans and the over exploitation of marine fisheries of all types. Therefore the needs then would *NOT* have been the same  because they would not have faced the same depletion of animals at the end of the Ice Age as those people after 7000 BC (or circumstantial evidence for seaworthy boats) along with an exploding human population putting pressure on diminishing resources that did not exist for the original hunter gathers. At that point in time (around 7000 BC) seaworthy boats would have become an asset, just as the giant processor ships are needed today but weren't back in 1700.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/ ... 34x387.jpg

http://static.digg.com/images/ea49c2038 ... eader.jpeg
 
http://focusingonwildlife.com/news/wp-c ... l-Cull.jpg
 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Island.jpg
 
https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws ... G_8421.jpg

http://static2.businessinsider.com/imag ... wrab-1.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/ ... 070407.jpg

If there is over abundance of marine life on shore (and there is no reason to think there wasn't an abundance at the end of the Pleistocene), then why build a boat that can sink and drown you when you can club a seal to death on the beach without hardly getting your feet wet?
Reply

ww
Registered User
Joined: 07 Jun 2016, 18:46

05 Dec 2017, 22:28 #68

Just read back thru the thread some. Have you ever tried to cross an icefield in summer? or winter?
look up "crust skiing harding icefield" these guys can put on some serious distance, when the conditions are exactly right, but the norm is treacherous, albeit for different reasons, year round. Interesting proximity of the yukon icefield finds to the proposed routes in  Nunataks and valley glaciers     see Yukon Ice Patch Research and Site Inventory Project,     http://www.tc.gov.yk.ca/yukon_ice_patch_research.html
the oldest artifacts found so far are not old enough to support your favorite theory, but later FN people have demonstrated a willingness to climb those hills to hunt on ice, and were not necessarily heading for greener pastures in the lower latitudes. If you take the time to look over some of the reports, please let us know where those FN people were thought to have resided when they were not at hunting camp.

then why build a boat that can sink and drown you when you can club a seal to death on the beach without hardly getting your feet wet?
to get the second seal, and maybe some nice greens that are growing on the island. Actually if you think about it, Lee. the existence of an overland or icefield route does not preclude the existence of a contemporary sea going culture. And "giant processor ships" are not needed, they are just convenient in order to compete economically with land based factory farming.
Reply

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

06 Dec 2017, 04:16 #69

> Just read back thru the thread some.

And seem to have avoided comment on the most difficult questions and points:
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.
 
7) Just saying "boats" is so vague a generalization as to be meaningless. The
issue is "seaworthy" boats. And specifically what kind of seaworthy boats. The
issue is anyone getting below the LGM ice sheets @ ca. 14,000 had to have went
from west to east for some 1000+ miles first, be it either by land or sea. How
the north to south down the Pacific Coast got into this discussion is rather
baffling to me, it is a moot and meaningless argument.
8) https://aleutianislandsworkinggroup.wor ... n-islands/
"These sites have always been upland and are not at higher elevations cause of uplift
from earthquakes or the movement of tectonic plates, nor because sea levels dropped."
Post #25 "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."

Post # 47
If you lived near or above the Arctic Circle @ 46,000 to 15,000 years ago you didn't need to cultivate a garden so long as you ate the stomach and intestinal contents of animals or birds who did eat things that were much later cultivated farther south. The growing season for the Inuit for berries, greens, and such was and still is disastrously short to nonexistant and therefore a non-necessity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Island
"Bering Island (and Czaasrly Island, my note) is treeless, desolate and experiences severe weather, including high winds,
persistent fog and earthquakes." Earthquakes equal tital waves that wiped out entire coastal villages about once every thousand years in the Aleutians. Wiki also forgot to mention rogue waves, another chuck hole in the kelp highway hypothesis.
How did people survive at Lake Baikal @ 24,000 years ago where it was colder on average than Canada throughout the Ice Age?

May I assume if there is no comment on the above points you agree then that they are valid?

> Have you ever tried to cross an icefield in summer? or winter?

I will be more than happy to reply to your easy to refute questions (and accusations) just as soon as you either agree to the points above or provide a description of those imaginary ghost ships called "seaworthy boats" (per number "(7)".  I will also be happy to accept  a reference to a formal site report for Czaasrly Island that covers the last 15000 years. Thanks.

Meanwhile:
https://imgur.com/a/uka2i

I sent some of my team members up onto  the ice field behind Glacier Bay with special instructions to check out the weather conditions and to look for Clovis points that may be melting out of that ice highway. Sadly, Kwäday Dän Junior got lost, but that is another story.  
Reply

ww
Registered User
Joined: 07 Jun 2016, 18:46

06 Dec 2017, 07:12 #70

 "avoided comment"? WTF, I just got here a few days ago, and have only posted a couple of times

1. lack of evidence for boats in the time frame in question. Most boats when abandoned, are given back to the sea in one way or another.
2. why an academic did not write a report the way you think he should have? Not a clue, nor do I care.
3, 4, and 5.  The Aleutians. Perhaps we are in agreement on this? I don't think that the kelp highway is a viable route. Have you ever been across some of those passes in any kind of boat? Looked for harbors on the side of volcanos?  I have, and am much more inclined to favor a coastal beringian route.
6. see 2.
7. "The issue is anyone getting below the LGM ice sheets" Why do you think ice extended offshore year round? the sea was warm and summer comes every year. kayaks and unimaks have been proven to be viable even in arctic winter conditions.
 "and were not necessarily heading for greener pastures in the lower latitudes." sorry , did not mean to imply a particular route south, just pointing out that not all had to be passing thru because some were.
8. posts 25 & 47. "May I assume if there is no comment on the above points you agree then that they are valid?"  assume nothing. Even when other folks here at PA agree with you, you persist in imagining they wear your enemy's hat.
"I will be more than happy to reply to your easy to refute questions (and accusations) just as soon as you either agree to the points above or provide a description of those imaginary ghost ships " Accusations? Ultimatums? Seriously?
Reply

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

06 Dec 2017, 14:09 #71

> "avoided comment"? WTF, I just got here a few days ago, and have only posted a couple of times

When I started posting on other forums (about 17 or 18 years ago) it was considered impolite for newbies to comment on recent posts before familiarizing themselves with all the old posts in a thread so they would know what was going on ( that way others wouldn't have to repeat the same data over again). I guess things have changed since then?

>  Even when other folks here at PA agree with you, you persist in imagining they wear your enemy's hat.

How do you know that if you just got here and hadn't read all the threads and simply skipped over the tough questions?

More "imagining" on your part.  Exactly where was that imagined at, the same place where early stone tools rot along with early wood/skin boats? If you have a problem with my replies...don't read them, otherwise, please make copy and paste quotes, rather than paraphrasing from your imagination.

 P.593: "Testing the kelp highway hypothesis is
challenging because much of the archaeological
evidence would have been submerged
by rising seas since the last glacial
maximum (LGM) ~26,500 years ago. The
earlier such a dispersal took place, the further
offshore (and at greater depth) the
evidence may lie, enlarging already vast
potential search areas on the submerged
continental shelf. Although direct evidence
of a maritime pre-Clovis dispersal has yet to
emerge,...."

From Science in 2011 Page 1122:
 "So what would it take to prove the coastal
hypothesis? "Unequivocal evidence would
be a pre-Clovis site located on the coast,"
says Beck. Meltzer agrees: "Give me a site"
on the coast that is at least 15,000 years old,
"and I will be a happy guy."
Finding such a site is a tall order, however,
because sea levels have risen nearly
100 meters over the past 15,000 years and
most coastal sites are now submerged."
4 MARCH 2011 VOL 331 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

Nothing has changed as of 2017 with Braje et al. , so that leaves  nothing new to discuss with the coastal route that hasn't been discussed to the point of  ad nauseum for the last 60 years.

> 1. lack of evidence for boats in the time frame in question. Most boats when abandoned, are given back to the sea in one way or another.

Refuted previously by the fact stone tools to make them don't. So not only is there no direct evidence for early boats (like in early China and Denmark), there isn't a shred of circumstantial evidence either.

 > Accusations? Ultimatums?

How many times does "stone tools don't rot"  this simple fact  have to be repeated? Not to mention the other fact that early dugouts in China, Denmark didn't rot away. I guess that means there were no peat bogs anywhere in the Americas?

>  Seriously? 

Yeah, seriously. Items as small and fragile as single hairs and inner ear bones are replete and well preserved in the archaeological record. The idea that something as large as wood dugouts or even a portion of a bone kayak frame would not be is sheer fantasy IMO.
Reply

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

07 Dec 2017, 18:29 #72

Post # 32 "Those familiar with their environment are able to utilize it both efficiently and safely."

I'm not trying to argue there were no chuck holes in the over-the-ice highway, there most certainly were. Rather I'm trying to get across the most parsimonious odds for the least hazzardous route and point out a few of the recent papers and data that are being ignored ( and worse in some cases by using half-truth lies or arguments from ignorance) by the proponents of the kelp highway.

1) In the ancient NW an efficient and safe method to cure almost any ailment was first bake in a sweat lodge then run out and jump in an ice cold river or lake. Anyone on this list care to test this method for your ills? Doesn't sound very efficient or safe to me.

2) When Lewis and Clark arrived on the Columbia Plateau they noticed most of the older adults had eye problems (or blind) and had dental problems (sometimes as severe as teeth worn to the gums) from blowing loess and eating stored samon (which was impossible to keep the grit out). How long had this been going on? All the way back to the Buhl (very young) Woman @ 10,600 years ago. They didn't have a clue a little sand over many years could eventually kill them. Again, not a very safe practice, but since the women were dying past childbearing age on average, the population increased over time just the same.

3) Where to build a lodge in a safe place? The Anangula site was eventually wiped out by 2 meters of ash from a nearby volcano. Twice the Triquet Island village was wiped out by tsunamies. The Ozette village was buried by a landslide, the result of not knowing the hills behind them do slide. Do some of these occurences happen in the interior too? Yes, absolutely, but lets take a look at the odds.
"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)."
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.

The NW Pacific Rim is famous for storms, but it is also known as the Ring of Fire:
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/what-quotring-firequot
The weather behind Glacier Bay is bad most of the time, but not nearly so bad as the Gulf of Alaska. I can still walk in 70 MPH winds, but I can't boat in them. There has never been a tsunami at Paisley Caves, but plenty of ash. So the interior solves 100% of the tidal wave problems and most of the quake problems. Not completely safe in the interior, but still vastly better odds.
Reply

ww
Registered User
Joined: 07 Jun 2016, 18:46

07 Dec 2017, 21:28 #73

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reply

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

08 Dec 2017, 07:49 #74

WW:  Pay no attention to Lee's bombasticness.  He's like that sometimes.  Your newness to the forum has no bearing on your ability to read and comprehend.  You summed up pretty well what has been argued previously in this thread and there was no information outside of this thread necessary in order to make an informed comment on its arguments. 

Lee:  I was going to let it go but since you've gone off on WW I have to give this one more shot.  You can, and will, throw a broadside back at my "shot" but hereafter I will leave the thread to you and await future discoveries which might someday better inform or even resolve the question.  You'll recall that I consider the overland idea plausible?  Well, I also consider the coastal route plausible.  Neither, with current evidence, has any kind of a lock.  All that "hard" evidence, links to which you have so copiously scattered throughout your argument, is from a time thousands of years after securely dated sites well below the reach of the ice.  The only old inland site you offered (Swan Point) is totally irrelevant, being no older than securely dated southern sites but also located north of the ice sheet.  The Haida Gwaii site, which you didn't link to, is also contemporary and located much further south...and on the coast.  The Mt Edziza evidence at a little over 10,000 years is way too young to be of any support.  The multiple examples of people crossing the ice, offered in support of your scenario, are modern, and represent people who knew (or thought they knew) exactly what they were facing.  I could offer the colinization of the Pacific Islands as hard evidence for boats, and further back in antiquity, but it would be no more valid.  And so it goes.  The argument you've marshaled against boats is interesting and not a little strange.  Do you really think that tsunamis or possible storms would dissuade people?  They're not daily occurrences, after all; not even back then.  Hell, people live on the flanks of active volcanoes, which isn't necessarily smart but it works pretty well until there's an eruption.  And, just 'cause there's lots of clams you figure they wouldn't even want utilize other marine resources like seals and whales?  C'mon.  That's no argument.  Here's what I feel is the real weakness of your diatribe against boats--seaworthy boats:  Some 50,000 to possibly 60,000 YBP the Aborigines managed to get to Australia.  There was no land bridge.  Australia wasn't visible on the horizon.  There seems to be no genetic evidence of serious inbreeding (they are genetically very diverse, in fact) so it wasn't just an Adam and Eve situation; a lot of people ferried over.  For that to be the case, it suggests a people who were able to navigate on the open sea at least far enough to discover the continent and then to purposely migrate there.  Two logs tied together isn't what I envision, but that's me.  Your interpretation will differ.  As much as 100,000 YBP Neanderthals were apparently sailing around the Mediterranean, as archeological evidence has been dug up on a number of islands, including Crete; again, out of sight.  Viable populations argue for intentional colonization so whatever they used to get to the islands (and Australia) was seaworthy and could be intentionally guided to a given destination.  It is undeniably true that I can't show you any 50,000 year old boats, but circumstantial evidence argues strongly for them and plausibly supports that they were known and used by the Beringians, a relatively recent 15 or 20 thousand years ago.  What is troubling to me is your absolute refusal to acknowledge even the possibility of boats; at least, "boats" more complex that a couple logs lashed together.  That suggests that you are afraid that if you admit that possibility it would materially weaken the position you are championing, which I find strange because I don't think it does.  Yes, there is no "hard" evidence for boats.  There's no evidence for fairy folk, either, but I submit that the two arguments are not equal.      That you will not accept any of this is pretty much a given but I'll submit it anyway.  Someone else might find it of interest.
Reply

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

08 Dec 2017, 13:44 #75

20 Nov 2017 21:40 #41
1) "Apples and oranges, Lee, but the field is yours."

07 Dec 2017 23:49 #74
2) "hereafter I will leave the thread"

3) “Look twice at a two-faced man." — Chief Joseph

4) http://www.orleanscdc.com/forms/cdc/jur ... ctions.pdf
"Don't decide any fact until you have considered all of the evidence and my final instructions. You will do this in what we call deliberations at the end of the trial, and then only when all of you are together in the jury room."
Reply

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

09 Dec 2017, 13:04 #76

> WW: Pay no attention to Lee's bombasticness. He's like that sometimes. Your newness to the forum has no bearing on your ability to read and comprehend.

I made a comment on politeness, you ignored that and replaced it with spin that has nothing to do with my comment, so thanks for proving my point.  That calls into question  "your ability to read and comprehend". 
 
> You summed up pretty well what has been argued previously in this thread

And failed to address the simplest of on-the-ground evidence and or questions asked previously. Skipped over like a game of dodgeball, rather than a serious discussion with referenced rebuttals.  In reality more negative evidence was added. Instead of "ghost ships" required to get to Czaasrly Island, we now have ghost kayaks and ghost Umiaks, ghost  DNA in either direction from that point, along with zero  archaeological  evidence at the habitable @ 16000 years ago Sanak Island.
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/p ... 00432.html
“It is important to note that we did not find any archaeological evidence documenting earlier
 entrance into the continent,” said lead author Dr Nicole Misarti of Oregon State University." 
 
> and there was no information outside of this thread necessary in order to make an informed comment on its arguments.
 
Informed comments about no evidence is still no evidence. These imaginary routes and detours require names...I'll call the Sanak route the "Atlantis Highway" because it has no more hard evidence going for it than Homer's imaginary city. And it is still not polite to ask new questions while ignoring the old. Provide new data by all means, but the fact remains, all the oldest sites taken at face value (even if they were unequivocal, which is a laugh in itself)  both on the coast and in Alaska all the way to the tip of South America contain a preponderance of inland evidence, there is nothing marine about them and the norm for the inland ages and inland artifacts are hundreds, if not a thousand of years older, than anything so far found on the coast.  Extinct mastodons and mammoths are not extant seals.
 
I you want to discuss who got below the ice sheets second, fine, then discuss the after-the-fact marine evidence.
 
17 Nov 2017, 06:59 #24
> Honestly, I hadn't considered migratory birds, though I had given some thought to unfamiliar flotsam casting up on the beach. Point taken!

Does it matter YOU hadn't considered that? It has been in the literature since 2007, you didn't have to think of it because it was already there. I suggest ditto for a lot of other points you han't considered also.  This tells me you are drawing conclusions based, in part,  on that which you  have no knowledge. The reason you have to "await future discoveries" is because you are not aware of much of the data that's out there today, just as you proved above in post #24. The fact remains, there is no evidence for ghost umiacks, ghost tools to make them @ Sanak (a point you and a lot of others are avoiding like the plague), or ghost DNA.
At 10,000 years old (Ground Hog Bay) is still older than 8000 (Anangula) when I went to school. If you have a different opinion, no wonder my arguments seem like "bombasticness" to you.
Reply

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

10 Dec 2017, 20:52 #77

"There are several aspects of islands which interest us archaeologically. One is the obvious relationship between islands and maritime technology. It is now well known that Australia was colonised at least 40,000, and possibly 60,000, years ago, and that that colonisation must have involved sea crossings. It might be assumed therefore that the use of watercraft would have a long tradition in Australia and we would expect a long continuous history of exploitation of offshore islands. This is not however borne out by the evidence."
 
Sandra Bowdler
Centre for Archaeology
University of Western Australia
Nedlands WA 6009 Australia

The logic of Sandra's comment ("This is not however borne out by the evidence", especially Tasmania) applies equally to the Aleutian Islands, islands in the Aegean Sea, Madagascar, the Canaries, those islands off Spain like Ibiza, etc., and dot islands off the coast of Oregon that contain traces of Pleistocence soil. A long history for boats simply is not in evidence anywhere, much less down the coast of North America.

Some of the references I will be posting no longer have workable links. As I understand it, there is now a complex program that can bring dead links back to life if someone is interested enough to spend the time to do it. The main point for this next argument is from 'We, the Navigators', which can still be found online, so the dead link really doesn't matter, but gives credit to Stobbs.
Subject: Re: Intensive pre-incan metallurgy proximal to the bolivian andes.
Date: 2003-10-05 16:07:10 PST
http://www.ramtops.co.uk/migrate.html
 
AUSTRONESIAN MIGRATION ROUTES

"The 'Ice Age' map shows that whether early Austronesians migrated through the Borneo-Sulawesi-Halmahera-Iran Jaya-New Guinea route or along the Java-Timor route to Sahul their travels entailed nothing more ambitious than island-hopping with no water 'barrier' exceeding the capabilities of the most basic dugouts or rafts and requiring no navigational expertise.

The 'Visibility Range' map (with the grey buffer zones) shows that all islands in this region were within sight or detection range of each other (with the exception of the low coral islets situated in the centre of the Banda Sea which are, in any case not on any migration route, and may indeed have not existed at this time). While some islands might not be *directly* visible from adjacent islands both would have been visible (or detectable) from mid-journey. Ref. David Lewis, 1972. 'We, the Navigators'.

The early date of migrations into Sahul (and near-Polynesia) is a sure indication that this Asia-Sahul step was one of comparative ease for proto-Austronesians. " Robin E. Stobbs
 
Getting to Australia, like Crete, would have been almost impossiple to miss https://atlantisjavasea.files.wordpress ... period.gif
Nothing more needed than two logs lashed together or river floods/tsunami flotsam
 
Bottom line for today: if the Neanderthals, Australians, Tasmanians, and Solutreans were such good early sailors, why did they avoid places right in their face (easily visible from shore) for so long, rather than first sailing off on suicidal missions into the unknown and worse, why were so many of these events a one-way passage?
Reply

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

11 Dec 2017, 01:35 #78

Time out! I was just reading at a review article tonight  on Out of Africa in Science: Bae et al., Science 358, eaai9067 (2017) 8 December 2017
"For example, it is often assumed that only modern humans were capable of using watercraft and navigating to
distant locations such as Australia and the Japanese archipelago—destinations that would not have been visible to the naked eye from the departure points, even during glacial stages when sea levels would have been much lower."

Their own "Fig. 1. Map of sites and postulated migratory pathways associated with modern humans dispersing across Asia during the Late Pleistocene." proves just what I got through posting today. Who is peer-reviewing submitted articles in  paleoanthropology for Science these days, Tom Turkey?

Was there some kind of a watercraft  roadblock on the Gibraltar Highway? https://conojosabiertos2013.files.wordp ... tzicht.jpg
How could Neanderthals and Solutreans have possibly missed seeing Africa right in their face and if they were sailing all over the Mediterranean out of sight of land?
Today the biggest hazard for paddle boarders (who make the trip in 4 to 8 hours)  crossing the Strait of Gibraltar is getting run over by a freighter (they have the right of way). Africa is in plain sight of Gibraltar, no out-of- sight death-defying guessing required. Yet there is no unequivocal evidence for any boat crossings (from either direction) until long after dugouts have been found in the archaeological record. What a coincidence, eh?
Reply

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

11 Dec 2017, 16:46 #79

08 Dec 2017, 07:49 #74
> And, just 'cause there's lots of clams you figure they wouldn't even want utilize other marine resources like seals and whales? C'mon. That's no argument."

When *just clams* were previously challenged, I posted 7 links to seals, whales, and walruses being utiized onshore, no boats necessary to get them, and concluded 05 Dec 2017, 21:21 #67
"If there is over abundance of marine life on shore (and there is no reason to think there wasn't an abundance at the end of the Pleistocene), then why build a boat that can sink and drown you when you can club a seal to death on the beach without hardly getting your feet wet?"
Proving I was well aware of utilizing "other marine resources like seals and whales" (contra your latest accusaion and bucket of misinformation on 08 Dec 2017, 07:49 #74 ) but without boats being needed in every case.
Once again: That calls into question "your ability to read and comprehend".

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:53:20 -0500 Reply-To: "C. Andrew Hemmings" <hemmings@GROVE.UFL.EDU> Sender: Archaeology List <ARCH-L@LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU> Comments: grove thinks this came from localhost [127.0.0.1] (hop 0) From: "C. Andrew Hemmings" <hemmings@GROVE.UFL.EDU> Subject: Re: British Columbia cave yields ancient bear bones </cgi/wa?A2=ind0112&L=arch-l&D=0&P=7015> In-Reply-To: <006901c1838b$f44770e0$c98727d8@mallard> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
"Have we gone mad? has anyone ever studied logic? A bear makes it to a cave 17,000 years ago and therefore Siberians had boats. POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC!!!!!!!!!!!!! first off people can not live outside in the same climatic conditions that a bear can tolerate. that's why the people in Churchillll live in huts and the bears live at the dump. Also, maybe the bear just walked over the ice....
tom said one thing I take exception with also_-> that refugia existed between big clumps of ice (to paraphrase). I am certain they did in fact exist. However, how long does it take to get between them? we know how long that coast is now but these people had no way to tell. How long can you move along the ice wall before you give up and turn around. It just sounds far to risky for people to move their families along this way. For this to work it would almost have to be a forced migration and I doubt anyone would suggest that at the end of the Pleistocene. andy"

http://www.oviasc.org/New-Lead-Archaelogist.html
Please notice the drawing, inspite of the fact some of Florida's oldest claimed sites have been buried by rising seas, I doubt if anyone will see  that characterization as hunters spearing a whale or a seal from a boat.
Reply

ww
Registered User
Joined: 07 Jun 2016, 18:46

13 Dec 2017, 00:20 #80

NewbowPA wrote:  Your newness to the forum has no bearing on your ability to read and comprehend. 
Thanks for saying so, Newbow.
Reply