New Tony Baker Essay

[uniface]

More of interest to archaeologically-oriented folks, but interesting anyway.

The Santa Claus Paradigm

[mootsman]

That article, in effect, sums up what I've like about his writings since I first discovered his site several years ago while researching PES's. He seems to have a rare penchant for being transparent with his musings and willing to not only change his perspective but to do so openly. His "I forgot to remember to forget" article really illustrates this.

More of this and less dogma and this field would be richer, IMHO.

[uniface]

An interesting quotation from it

Originally Posted by Tony Baker

On October 19, 1993 after viewing the Fressignes material, I wrote the following in my diary:

My conclusions are that the Paleo-Indian lithic technology was developed in the USA. It looks as if it had its roots in the Mousterian. It was not a blade technology. It was a Mousterian technology.

[rokdok]

We now know that at least 13 sites in Europe attributed to Neanderthals included True Blades in their lithic inventories, and that people were making Blades long before the supposed "Upper Paleolithic transition".We also know from recent genetic studies that Native Americans have the highest worldwide frequency of at least one Neanderthal gene. Seems to me, Tony, that your 1993 epiphany that the paleoindian tradition in the Americas is rooted in the Mousterian toolmaking tradition is spot on. Artifacts found here in the deep south definitely seem to support that position.

[Mud Hawk]

Love it... kinda makes me think of Garza's "Big Tool" post. Pretty applicable I think. I always have to read Tony Baker articles at least twice to get it all in!

Thanks Uniface.

[leon]

uniface and rocdok, please don't take the following quote out of context. "My conclusions are that the Paleo-Indian lithic technology was developed in the USA. It looks as if it had its roots in the Mousterian. It was not a blade technology. It was a Mousterian technology" The next sentence after the quote is "What I was saying was that the lithic technology of the Paleoindians was a biface technology and not a blade technology." In no way was I attempting to make a genetic connection between Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapien sapien in the New World. I firmly believe the first people in the New World were modern humans. I was trying to say they didn't have a blade tradition.

[rokdok]

I, like yourself, believe that the Americas were settled by "modern humans" however, i also believe that the later European neanderthals are within the range of modern human variation, as the results of recent genetic studies indicate, as they were obviously genetically compatible with us, or their genes would not persist in modern populations.Clovis peoples obviously had a blade technology, as evidenced by the tool assemblage from the Clovis type-site at Blackwater draw, so you do not believe Clovis peoples were not the first Americans. Who do you surmise were the initial colonists of the New World, and where did they come from?What do you think about the startling revelation that Native American populations harbor the x-linked recessive Neanderthal haplotype (B006) of the dystrophin gene at nearly 3x that of all other worldwide populations, including Europeans and Western Asians, the "home range" of the neanderthals?

[uniface]

Of course, "Leon." I hadn't considered that I might have been quoting you out of context, and people were taking it that you were drawing an implication you weren't. Sorry.

The intent on this end was just idle mischief -- to resurrect the (hypothetical ?) Mousterian-Paleoindin connection issue that's consumed so much space (and provided so much entertainment) here.

[leon]

Originally Posted by uniface

Of course. "Leon." I hadn't considered that I might have been quoting you out of context to suggest an implication you weren't drawing.

The intent on this end was just idle mischief -- to resurrect the (hypothetical ?) Mousterian-Paleoindin connection issue that's consumed so much space (and provided so much entertainment) here.

Good, I understand now. I don't read stuff over here that often so I didn't know you had Mousterian-Paleoindian wars. I will get to rokdok questions before the day is out.

[leon]

Originally Posted by rokdok

I, like yourself, believe that the Americas were settled by "modern humans" however, i also believe that the later European neanderthals are within the range of modern human variation, as the results of recent genetic studies indicate, as they were obviously genetically compatible with us, or their genes would not persist in modern populations.Clovis peoples obviously had a blade technology, as evidenced by the tool assemblage from the Clovis type-site at Blackwater draw, so you do not believe Clovis peoples were not the first Americans. Who do you surmise were the initial colonists of the New World, and where did they come from?What do you think about the startling revelation that Native American populations harbor the x-linked recessive Neanderthal haplotype (B006) of the dystrophin gene at nearly 3x that of all other worldwide populations, including Europeans and Western Asians, the "home range" of the neanderthals?

There are three questions here and I will attempt to address each one by itself.

Genetic Question(s)
I am not a geneticist so I can’t answer any of your questions about genes. And, I must admit my Santa Claus paradigm on mixing of Neanderthal and modern humans is weak, but can be best expressed by Clive Finlayson who wrote:

“If indeed they did mix, the evidence available to us today strongly favours the view that the Neanderthals did not contribute to our gene pool in any significant way. In any case we have seen that the humans that reached Europe at a time when there were still sufficient numbers of Neanderthals about left little trace of their genetic make-up among present-day Europeans.” (2009:142 The Humans Who Went Extinct)

My paradigm also holds that Native Americans are much, much closer to present-day Europeans than they are to Neanderthal.

Clovis Blade Question
I don’t consider blades to be a Clovis diagnostic. Blades are found in lithic-rich regions, so when Clovis operated in lithic-rich regions they made blades as did many other groups. Clovis made blades at Gault and the Little River Complexes in Kentucky, but they did not make them at Mockingbird Gap, Jake Bluff and many other sites. They were not making them at Blackwater Draw. The few that were found there were carried in. The blades at Blackwater Draw are like finding a Mexican Peso on the streets of Dallas and declaring the Peso the currency of the US.

First People in the New World Question
These were people who came from Asia, via the Bering Strait, with a thick-bodied point. The Haskett points of Mojave, the El Jobo points of Joshua Ream, and the Slucieway/Mesa point of Alaska are examples of a thick-bodied point. See my webpages
The Clovis First/ Pre-Clovis Problem: 2004 Revisit
Forgot to Remember to Forget
Lithic Artifacts from North of the Arctic Circle