|
|||||||
| In The News Stop the presses! Here are the latest artifact related discoveries, updates and reports hot off the wire! |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Delmarva Peninsula.....
More for ya'll to argue about....
![]() http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/11286/1/anth_QSR_2010_Delmarva_Upland_Stratigraphy_Article _Lowery_et_al_2010.pdf |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Lol, aren't you the guy I quoted who suggested we leave this all alone? And now here you are stirring the pot.
One stat I heard recently that I found interesting is that there are more clovis age sites in the Delmarva area than in all of the western states put together. Interesting contrast to the land bridge theory even with the known/unknown site consideration.
__________________
... I have seen that in any great undertaking it is not enough for a man to depend simply upon himself. Lone Man (Isna-la-wica) Teton Sioux |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't remember suggesting leaving it alone.
Not surprised if I did, I just don't remember. Beer seems to reduce the time between my senior moments. ![]() Anyway, yes I have heard/read about the densities of fluted points in the general Chesepeake area. I would think that is yet another "leap" to use that as further evidence of an Atlantic crossing though. Like ususal there are many many assumptions built into that concept. But we've had that debate enough times.... |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
9/17/10 your comment on the subject-
"Here’s a suggestion. Let’s not start this argument again. If you believe in a middle or upper Paleolithic tool-making culture in the southeastern US, those could be tools made by those folks. If you don’t, they could be byproducts of late-paleo or archaic human lithic activity. These items by themselves are not enough to compel a belief in Mousterian or Levalloisian cultures there, at least not for me. It is too much of a technological ambiguity. Nobody is going to prove it on this forum. I doubt many, if anyone at all, on this forum has anything like that to share since an a priori belief in their origins/age/meaning is required to classify them as you do. That is not a poke in the eye. Thinking is good. But this is “A-r-r-o-w-h-e-a-d-o-l-g-y.com,” not “letsargueaboutlevalloisinGeorgia.com.” I don’t think there will be many takers. Just my guess/opinion though. My apologies if I offend..." Btw, I'm just ribbing. It's all some blips and bleeps of ether in cyberspace that I can elect to tune into or not tune into so it matter not to me whether we ponder the FACT that Neanderthal man evolved here and migrated to Europe.... he he he he
__________________
... I have seen that in any great undertaking it is not enough for a man to depend simply upon himself. Lone Man (Isna-la-wica) Teton Sioux |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ha!
Notice 9/17 was a Friday. ![]() I agree with everything I said then however, save for one thing. ---this is “A-r-r-o-w-h-e-a-d-o-l-g-y.com,” not “letsargueaboutlevalloisinGeorgia.com.”--- Obviously I missed that one big time.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Darrin Lowery is a bright, energetic young archie. He's uncovered a lot of amazing things. We'll be hearing a lot more about him!
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
If that's a sample of him, I'm enthused at the prospect of what he'll come up with next !
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anybody notice that the artifacts were found below the 2ABtxb soil horizon, and all the dates for that layer ranged by OSL:27940-29485, and by Radiocarbon : 21490-32512 plus or minus. The authors claim the artifacts were insitu, so they must be older than these dates, if you believe the data...
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
No missing it if you're paying attention
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
The problem i have with this paper is that the data is skewed to make the artifacts older than Clovis, but not TOO MUCH older. The excavations were done at the Miles Point site, and an undeniably man made artifact(s) were found directly beneath sediments dated from that very site both by OSL and radiocarbon with the radiocarbon dates having small degrees of error, less than 300 years. (See figure 3) However, in figure 6, where the biface is demonstrated in stratigraphical context, dates of 18k-25k are given. The 18k date is derived from dates obtained at other sites, Wye Island and Paw Paw cove. Why include the younger dates from other sites, when you have consistent dates from the overlying soil horizon at the site the artifacts were actually found? Why not give the range of 25-32k ybp , which is the actual range of the dates at the site of excavation? Afraid they will be TOO old? Looks like Dr. Barbara Purdy's dates from the CCA site in Florida are very much in the ballpark ...
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
© 2009 Arrowheadology.com. All Rights Reserved. info AT arrowheadology.com.