Lee Olsen
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 7:11 AM - Oct 21, 2006

1:59 PM - Dec 13, 2017 #81

> 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.

That someone else will find science fiction of more interest  than dry, boring, and stale  old peer-reviewed journal papers  doesn't surprise me in the least.  Just look at the number of books sold by popular archaeological fiction writers like  Erich von Daniken's 'Chariots of the Gods' or Grahm Hancock's 'Fingerprints of the Gods'. International best sellers,  as opposed to the now independently verified scientific arguments contained in Elena Garcea's paper below that few have ever heard of or would  even want to read. But on the hope that there will be a few left that can distinguish between fact and fiction I will proceed...

 "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" --David Farragut 

Abstract
"This article presents and discusses the most recent data on the Aterian
in Africa and correlates them with the archaeological evidence from
southwestern Europe. It provides an Africanist's interpretation of
the cultural development of the Aterian in North Africa and considers
one of the Aterian's putative passageways to Europe argued by the
Out-of-Africa dispersal model-the Strait of Gibraltar. Several
scenarios for Aterian interaction with southwestern Europe are
discussed. The first three review the possibility of Aterian migration
and/or diffusion to southwestern Europe and supposed relations with
Solutrean, Aurignacian, and Mousterian populations. The fourth, and
most likely, scenario considers convergence between North Africa and
southwestern Europe populations and examines the most recent
technological, anthropological, organizational, and environmental
evidence for this idea."

Elena A.A. Garcea (2004)
CROSSING DESERTS AND AVOIDING SEAS: ATERIAN NORTH AFRICAN-EUROPEAN
RELATIONS
JOURNAL of
ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH Volume 60, Number 1

The title says it all..."AVOIDING SEAS"  But that was in 2004, what new corroborating evidence  is there she was correct with her number 4 on the list of possibilities? Both the latest review by Bae et al., in Science Magazine 2017  and the latest DNA study https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/spain_ ... _dna.shtml offer positive facts that evidence for Pleistocene boat crossings remains underwater. I doubt if  Daniken and Hancock will agree. It doesn't appear either of them understands the difference between negative evidence and positive evidence. They write good fiction in spite of that. Most popular interest seems to earn the most money, which is very sad that people are so easily duped IMHO.   
Quote
Like
Share

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 7:11 AM - Oct 21, 2006

6:05 PM - Dec 13, 2017 #82

More on sailing around the Mediterranean Sea out of sight of land.
that-other-theory-of-how-humans-got-to- ... 16493.html
See post #46 the alleged boats and sails turned out to be a symbol, not a boat or sail"
"As expected they confirmed that they have a deep knowledge of "La Mouthe" Cave art. They have published several other papers which are listed at the bottom of this post There is no boat representation in that cave. It is the "tectiforme" sign, called "la hutte" which was at the origin of this "adventurous" interpretation (that's their own words). They add in their answer that they know of no boat representation in the Palaeolithic art." ---- Jacques Cinq-Mars

Other marine life in the Mediterranean area.
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehist ... a-cave.htm
As far as early Europeans etc. obsession with fish, only one painting of a fish out of 700 equals roughly 0.0015 % at these two caves. Not statistically significant. How about seal-hunting Solutreans?
The Pleistocene Mediterranean Sea has evidence for seals. Why ignore Mediterannean seals and go chasing seals 'Across the Atlantic Ice'? Which leaves this question unanswered for the last 9 years on this list or in the professional literature (except for Andy's negative comments on no boats in post # 74 above, but I admit I haven't read all the literature of course): From 2008: "So they completely missed Africa, 30 minutes away by surfboard, and headed out into the unknown with grandma and the kids?"

Note: The 30 minute crossing was the record for sailboards (back in ca 2008) and the standup paddle boarders without a sail can do it in 4+ hours today.
Quote
Like
Share

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 7:11 AM - Oct 21, 2006

8:08 PM - Dec 13, 2017 #83

> 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.

"only old site"???? Perhaps you didn't consider Beringia runs from the Lena River (west) to well into Alaska (to the east)? It was one big happy land mass, no boats required to get from the boy's grave and DNA to the Lena River site and on down the inland trail to Swan Point. It's an inland trail and starts 10,000 years before anything found on the coast of North or South America anywhere, land or sea https://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/stor ... 0022B3.jpg

The evidence for the inland trail starts with DNA at 24,000 years ago http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25020958 which I mentioned, in spite of your ignoring my previous post on the matter (#47), and continues inland into Akaska to East Beringia at older than 14,000 years ago. So DNA (from Siberian boy to the Alaskan  kid's grave (yes the kids are a little too young, but older than the isotope marine evidence at On Your Knees Cave), an artifact trail (microblades), and we have: "It nails it shut that without question, the earliest Native Americans came from the Bering land bridge," said Ted Goebel, an archaeologist at Texas A&M University.
For those who continue to believe there were even earlier people in the Americas or that some Native Americans descend from Europe or elsewhere, "Those people are going to continue to believe what they want to believe no matter how strong the evidence is," Goebel said."

You ignored my links to the comments above. That is a "hard" evidence trail. Perhaps we just differ on what is considered "hard" evidence? You start the trail where you want it to start, not where it actually starts, I suppose that's what your definition of "hard " evidence is?

> The Haida Gwaii site, which you didn't link to, is also contemporary and located much further south...and on the coast.

The only "hard" evidence there is a single dot on the landscape, it is not a trail. The only coastal trail to it is imagination via the postulated Kelp Highway, even *if* with a site report remains unchallenged.
 
Quote
Like
Share

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 7:11 AM - Oct 21, 2006

3:39 PM - Dec 15, 2017 #84

08 Dec 2017, 07:49 #74
> 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.

Your reply shows you don't understand the argument. If you don't maybe other here don't. The colonization of the Pacific Islands is incorporated into my argument (and some referenced professionals), it is part of it, just as much as it is yours, except on a global scale. I'm not ignoring Hawaii or Easter Island, they are part of the rebuttal against early ocean navigation older than ca. 8000 or inland skin boats ca. 11,000 years ago...this leaves Australia out of the mix for boats of anykind, let alone "seaworthy" @ 50 or 60 thousand years ago.

>And so it goes.

And so it goes...but does not go back any farther in time than the actual hard evidence for crude excavated dugouts (in several parts of the Old World like China and Denmark). The buck stops here at ca. 8000 where we *know* there is hard evidence for boats, for exactly the same reason the DNA evidence from the Siberian Boy (24,000 years ago) limits how old the earliest modern human North and South American sites can be.

20 Nov 2017, 20:30 #1
> People are curious and push on to explore what is around them. What's over the next hill or around the bend?

Right and it looks like curiosity had its limitations until very recently in modern human history for sea travel or there would have been Australians and Hawiians living on Adak Island when the Europeans finally showed up with ships that could actually sail and navigate what was over the horizon (most of the time) thousands of years after they satisfied their curiosity of what was "over the next hill" on land.

"A man's got to know his limitations." ---Harry Callahan from the movie Magnum Force.
The Siberian Boy is located inland in Siberia ( as were the Alaskan kids located inland), they were not found on the coast of Gwaii Haanas or in the Hawiian Islands.

>The argument you've marshaled against boats is interesting and not a little strange.

If you don't understand Gobel's, Hemming's, Garcia's, Cinq-Mars', Bowdler's, Lewis' or the DNA "and not little strange" arguments, then I'm at a loss to improve on their words.
Quote
Like
Share

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 7:11 AM - Oct 21, 2006

6:24 PM - Dec 17, 2017 #85

08 Dec 2017, 07:49 #74
> 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.

You have demonstrated you haven't considered all the evidence and have also violated your own statement above:
20 Nov 2017, 20:30 #1
> People are curious and push on to explore what is around them. What's over the next hill or around the bend?

I'm not a biologist, nor do I spend much time reading biology journals, but there are several tests that can refute the no "inbreeding" (evident today) must have equaled a large original population. DNA can indeed determine the last of the Neanderthals were seriously inbred. If you are going extinct, you are in a *declining* population mode and bad things happen. Not so for Australia, which had an *expanding* population over time. This, in my worthless biological opinion, suggests the bad effects from inbreeding were being weeded out over the immense amount of time (ca 50 to 60 thousand years). I might be wrong, but what little I know about biology is shored up by a comparrison of on-the-ground differences between Australia and Tasmania (assumed to be from the same parent population).

Test 1: compare the differences between Australia, Flinders Island, and Tasmania and note the differences between animal species, language, and cultural innovations. This shows that Tasmania was cut off from contact with the outside world for roughly 10,000 years, while the most parsimonious evidence shows Australia did have limited contact during this time. Microlithic tools, the dingo, and boats only show up after the 8000-year-old evidence for crude dugouts in the record. Could the dingo have gotten to Australia by flotsam? Sure, but are they inbred? Microliths could have been reinvented, but I don't think many will claim dogs were reinvented, at least in Australia. Both are missing from Tasmania and only show up in Australia after the 8000-year-rubicon (real boats in the archaeological record) had been crossed.
If boats (out-of-sight capable navigating) were known for 60,000 years and were so important (especially sea-going boats capable of navigating out of sight of land), how did Tasmania get cut off in either going to or having visitors from the mainland for 10k years? They both just happened to forget how to sail out of sight of land and both forgot where their own relatives were located? Give me a break. "POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC" (Thanks Hemmings!).
"People are curious and push on to explore what is around them. What's over the next hill or around the bend?" Which would mean that Australians and Tasmanians weren't curious for (60,000- 8000) 52,000 years. Meanwhile, after dugouts were in the record, curious modern humans exploded all over the seas, yep, even to Hawaii and Easter Island post 8000...but not until.
The only reasonable explanation for the paradoxes, between Tasmania and Australia, can only be explained by the hypothesis that *neither* Australians or Tasmanians had boats of any kind (well, maybe two logs lashed together), let alone ocean navigating types, more than ca. 10,000 years ago.

Test 2: Will Loren Davis and Jon Erlandson please step into this boat
http://www.surfresearch.com.au/rbRoth_A ... 9_p156.jpg
and navigate to Hawaii from Gwaii Haanas. Thanks in advance, I will be anxiously awaiting your peer-reviewed paper documenting your voyage.

References:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3176119/
http://www.history.com/news/dna-study-f ... vilization
I have a number of paper copies from the professional peer-reviewed papers on Australia and Tasmania, but for a really good online layperson's review, I doubt if it gets much better than this:
http://discovermagazine.com/1993/mar/te ... ndyears189
Quote
Like
Share

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 7:11 AM - Oct 21, 2006

10:38 PM - Jan 18, 2018 #86

A couple of recent DNA papers and differences of opinion on the issue.
Pro coastal migration:
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/16/4093.full
 
"Despite regional shifts in mtDNA haplogroups, we conclude from individuals sampled through time that people of the northern Northwest Coast belong to an early genetic lineage that may stem from a late Pleistocene coastal migration into the Americas."
and
"we show that geographically linked population samples from the Northwest Coast exhibit an early ancestral lineage and find that population structure existed among Native North American groups as early as the late Pleistocene."
That may be, but they are only telling half the truth. Translation of "an early genetic lineage that may stem from a late Pleistocene coastal migration into the Americas" means 2000 years too late to have been first and Clovis points found on Pacific coast islands and peninsulas show subtle differences that separate them from later Clovis-like fluted points found at Serpentine Hot Springs, Alaska and the Sunshine Site in Nevada, neither of which are associated with extinct mammals and probably repesent convergence or a back migration.
 
Con coastal migration:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bacd/6 ... d5a6d0.pdf
 
"At the same time, some observations from mitochondrial DNA studies of the Americas have been more confusing than helpful. For example, the mitochondrial DNA subtype called D4h3a is today almost entirely restricted to Pacific coastal populations, both in North and South America.
This observation led to the hypothesis that D4h3a was carried by the members of a population that carried Native Americans south of the ice sheets along a coastal route, in a migratory movement that was distinctive from what led to many other Native American populations [24].
However, ancient DNA studies have since found the same mitochondrial DNA type in a ~12,600 year old individual from present-day Montana, which based on its genome-wide data is unambiguously from the main ancestral lineage leading to most Native Americans [25]."
 
The same error with D4h3a applies to haplogroup X and it's spin-off mutations. Just because more Hap X is located nearer the east coast today doesn't mean it originated there because by far the oldest examples of Hap X are located in the west, both at Vantage, Washington and at Kennewick Washington.
 
With the evidence and timelines available today, if there was a coastal migration it was later than the interior migration and seems to be heading in the wrong direction...north.
Quote
Like
Share

Quillsnkiko
Registered User
Quillsnkiko
Registered User
Joined: 8:25 AM - Jun 22, 2006

7:03 PM - Jan 20, 2018 #87

Thank you Lee for posting all those links ..will provide some great reading material for later on tonight. Quills
" You can't stop the waves .... but, you can learn to surf."
Quote
Like
Share

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 7:11 AM - Oct 21, 2006

12:13 AM - Apr 05, 2018 #88

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-spear-ear ... tants.html
"But newer genetic studies of ancient Siberians, Alaskans, and Americans, as well as the discovery of new sites south of the Canadian ice sheets predating the opening of the ice-free corridor, suggest instead that the first Americans passed along the Pacific coast."
Key words: "Pacific coast"

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/3 ... 225.1.long
 "Braje et al. assert that there is near
complete agreement among archaeologists
on these issues. However, the most recent
survey (12) showed that archaeologists
are divided, with many thinking that both
interior and coastal routes were used,
and expressing skepticism about several
proposed pre-Clovis sites. Genetic and
archaeological data suggest expansion
from Siberia into the Americas around
16,000 to 13,500 years ago, consistent
with terrestrial and/or coastal migrations.
This evidence base explains the absence
of consensus among scientists regarding
both routes and timing of the peopling of
the Americas."
Key words: "both interior and coastal routes were used"
 
17 Nov 2017, 09:50 #25
Lee Olsen wrote: "BOTH the coast and the interior may have been involved."
Key word: "BOTH"
 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8216311284
"Nunataks and valley glaciers: Over the mountains and through the ice"
 
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ ... g-prove-it
"We are decades into the search for coastal dispersers, and we're still waiting for solid evidence or proof," says Gary Haynes, an archaeologist at the University of Nevada in Reno, who thinks the first Americans likely took an inland route."

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0193522
 "The ages of these Northwest Coast late Pleistocene archaeological sites are not as old as the 14,500 cal BP sites known from midlatitude North America (e.g., [41,42]), or South America (e.g., [43])."
 
Key words: "not as old"
Quote
Like
Share

Brian T
Registered User
Brian T
Registered User
Joined: 12:27 AM - Apr 24, 2015

11:13 PM - Apr 07, 2018 #89

Quote
Like
Share

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 7:11 AM - Oct 21, 2006

3:07 AM - Apr 08, 2018 #90

> Does this add to the mix?

I linked to an article about that  paper in my last post...your link has a lot better photos though.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Rnc-b ... on&f=false
"Fluting may just be an American invention—the first American invention."
He said the same thing in 2002.
And... https://www.jstor.org/stable/40035881 this is a spin-off of an even earlier paper from the late 1990s.
So I don't know where Goebel gets the idea "Traditional interpretations of the peopling of the Americas have predicted that early inhabitants migrated from Siberia through Alaska, and then followed the ice-free corridor that gradually opened in western Canada to reach the Great Plains of the western United States." When was that 1935? There is nothing new in that paper that I can see, at least from the news articles.

Bottom line, fluted Clovis points are not the same thing as saying Clovis people.  

 
Quote
Like
Share

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 7:11 AM - Oct 21, 2006

9:11 PM - Apr 12, 2018 #91

I was curious as to just when the hypothesis for younger  fluted points heading north originated, so I did a little research and found:
 "Rather he now ascribes to the alternative hypothesis,
first suggested by Krieger (1954) and long supported
by myself (Bryan 1969) and others, that fluted points
moved north through Alberta to Alaska. On this question
Haynes and I are now in essential agreement,.....
(Bryan 1991:15)"

So it seems 1954 was the start of the idea and was improved upon over the years by a number of archaeologists:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 8646B272F3
From the discussion in Kehoe (1966):
"But Saskatchewan was part of the territory that was inhabited
by makers of fluted points after classic Folsom points were made."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... we-xJ-18wX
Hall, J. B. (2009)
"Pages 84/85: "Therefore, it could be speculated that there is  a continuum between Clovis
and Northwestern fluted technology, originating on the northern Plains..."

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... and_Morrow
Page 388: "Fiedel and Morrow appear to accept our argument concerning the existence of a
post-Clovis fluted form in the intermountain West."
Page 394: "However, when fluted points have been found in dateable contexts in Alaska,
the have turned out to be younger than Clovis..."

http://instaar.colorado.edu/ArcticConfe ... tracts.pdf
And in 2009: Scroll down to page 35.


Reference:
Bryan, Alan
The Fluted-Point Tradition in the Americas
in:
Bonnichsen, Robson, and Karen Turnmier, eds. Clovis:
Origins & Adaptations. Peopling of the Americas Publication,
Center for the Study of the First Americans, Department of
Anthropology, Oregon State Univ. 1991.
Quote
Like
Share

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 7:11 AM - Oct 21, 2006

2:12 AM - Aug 11, 2018 #92

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 3.full.pdf

17 Nov 2017, 09:50 #25
Lee Olsen wrote: "BOTH the coast and the interior may have been involved."
Key word: "BOTH"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8216311284
"Nunataks and valley glaciers: Over the mountains and through the ice"
Quote
Like
Share

NewbowPA
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: 5:44 AM - Oct 08, 2009

6:23 AM - Aug 12, 2018 #93

Lee;  Thanks for posting the links.  I'd love to read the "Nunataks and valley glaciers" paper but it seems to be behind a pay wall.  The title suggests support for your scenario though, based on the abstract, probably slower than you envisioned.  When the full text becomes available please post a link.     The first link, the "multiple models" paper, Is interesting for several reasons though it doesn't support your overland scenario as it applies only to the ice free corridor and the Pacific coastal migration theories.  The authors seem to be trying to support a variant of the Clovis First model, without actually stating such, by calling into question anything that appears to predate secure Clovis sites.  Everything is couched in terms that question pre-Clovis data without actually denying it.  I think a lot of the pre-Clovis evidence is compelling so I'm a little cautious about the data the authors offer.  Nonetheless, the dated sites (and lack of dated sites) they discuss for both Beringia and the coast, along with the adjusted Pacific coast sea level data, does give me pause.  I'll be watching especially to see if this paper spurs further investigation into the voids in data that they have pointed out.  I am pleased to see, since you used an all caps "BOTH" that you now accept at least the possibility of a coastal migration.
Quote
Like
Share

Lee Olsen
Registered User
Lee Olsen
Registered User
Joined: 7:11 AM - Oct 21, 2006

4:40 PM - Aug 12, 2018 #94

> probably slower than you envisioned.

Perhaps I didn't explain my position well enough.  And even if it were slower, what does that have to do with route? I am  suggesting bird hunters could have come part way a hundred times and returned to a home base back were they originated season after season before finally breaking through for the final time below the lower 48 (back to Bluefish Caves maybe?).   IOW, this lends support for the standstill hypothesis. When I said a few days, that was the final last push when the ice had retreated (but not completely) to a bite sized distance of days, but not when the distance was say, 1500 miles during the glacial maximum. If one looks at the regression maps, the ice-free corridor melted from both ends in, thus at some point was short enough to get through without actually having to colonize a poorly provisioned landscape and this would account for lack of settlement like house pits and such. IOW, sort of an "it's underwater" excuse! What's good for the gander is good for the goose.  

>The first link, the "multiple models" paper, Is interesting for several reasons though it doesn't support your overland scenario as it applies only to the ice free corridor and the Pacific coastal migration theories.

True, that's because they haven't realized Nansen had more problems getting from the mother ship to shore in small boats than he did getting across 500 miles of glacial ice (which was free sailing, pun intended).  That's where the Dawe and Kornfeld paper enters the picture.

> I am pleased to see, since you used an all caps "BOTH" that you now accept at least the possibility of a coastal migration.

That both has nothing to do with the kelp highway from Japan or a shortcut from the submerged land bridge starting the  middle of the Aleutian Islands, neither of which is supported by the DNA studies. Both only is considered where evidence is unequivocally as old as Clovis, not younger as along the British Columbia coast, as the Potter et al. paper pointed out.

Thanks for your input NewbowPA.

  
Quote
Like
Share

NewbowPA
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: 5:44 AM - Oct 08, 2009

5:00 PM - Aug 12, 2018 #95

You are most welcome, Lee.
Quote
Like
Share