Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pre-Clovis Occupation at the Page-Ladson site, Florida

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pre-Clovis Occupation at the Page-Ladson site, Florida

    Published today in “Science Advances”: Pre-Clovis occupation 14,550 years ago at the Page-Ladson site, Florida, and the peopling of the Americas; Halligan & Waters et al. (full pdf available at link below):

    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/5/e1600375

    The paper provides further support for pre-Clovis dates at the Aucilla River in Florida and evidence of mammoth butchery/scavenging around 14,550 years ago. The introduction from the paper reads:

    Genetic studies of modern Native Americans and ancient human skeletons indicate that the initial peopling of the Americas occurred before the appearance of the Clovis complex, dated to ~13,000 calendar years before the present (cal yr B.P.), but this interpretation requires confirmation by empirical archaeological evidence. The archaeological record demonstrating that humans occupied the Americas between ~14,000 and 15,000 cal yr B.P. is still sparse because of a number of factors, most importantly site visibility and recognition. At present, pre-Clovis sites include Paisley Caves, Oregon; Schaefer and Hebior, Wisconsin; Monte Verde, Chile; Debra L. Friedkin, Texas; and others. Here, we report our investigations at the Page-Ladson site, Florida, where artifacts dating to ~14,550 cal yr B.P. were found in a buried and well-dated stratified context. Page-Ladson is the first pre-Clovis site to be documented in the southeastern portion of North America and demonstrates that the earliest people to enter North America were exploring the Gulf Coastal Plain at the same time other areas of the continent were being populated. Proxy evidence from the sediments at Page-Ladson also indicate that humans coexisted with megafauna in the American Southeast for ~2000 years before the large mammals became extinct at ~12,600 cal yr B.P.
    I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

  • #2
    Bout time
    .

    Comment


    • sailorjoe
      sailorjoe commented
      Editing a comment
      Amen, Reflector!

  • #3
    I am so GLAD!, that you shared that bit of new info with everyone here.I'm convinced that I have at least 5-6 of the subterranean homes that are being sought after.we are currently and carefully trying to open one up.So far artifacts and animal bones are being recovered as far back in this hole as 25 feet , but my spot light shines way on back inside this limestone bluff and shows signs of human activity when I zoom in with a nice video camera.we are pretty sure its showing signs of squareish looking stone "walls" and multiple rooms.

    Comment


    • #4
      That's just awesome! I'm glad they're finding the proof to support what a lot of people have been thinking. Pretty extensive work done on that site and I'm glad it was handled with such care, or else we wouldn't know what we do now. I'm kind of amazed that all that remained in-tact underneath a river, extremely lucky conditions I guess. Thanks for sharing this Roger!
      Josh (Ky/Tn collector)

      Comment


      • #5
        Another link with a video.
        If the women don\'t find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

        Comment


        • sailorjoe
          sailorjoe commented
          Editing a comment
          Thank you for your significant contribution to this thread. An interesting read & video.

      • #6
        The "problem" I have with the female scientist in the video link is that she makes it sound like the notion of Pre Clovis before the reexamination of the Page-Ladson sinkhole was a no- go, and that simply is not true. There are other Pre Clovis sites in both North and South America. We did not depend on these findings alone to erode the Clovis-first model. Someone who did not know this, listening to her might conclude this is the first time a study legitimizes the acceptance of Pre-Clovis. At any rate, here's another article with closeups of the butchered mastodon bone.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-12-500BC.html
        Rhode Island

        Comment


        • sailorjoe
          sailorjoe commented
          Editing a comment
          My thoughts exactly. Sometimes scientists of all persuasions want to heap credit upon themselves prematurely. The motive IMO for sometimes "jumping the gun" is that major academia is as much about research and getting grants to fund said research as it is on education. There is tremendous pressure brought to bear on professorial types to publish and in order to get the grants they need to attract as much attention as possible. This research game has been in play at major universities for well over 50 years and the same mind-set has filtered down to smaller and smaller state colleges and universities.

      • #7
        Originally posted by CMD View Post
        The "problem" I have with the female scientist in the video link is that she makes it sound like the notion of Pre Clovis before the reexamination of the Page-Ladson sinkhole was a no- go, and that simply is not true. There are other Pre Clovis sites in both North and South America. We did not depend on these findings alone to erode the Clovis-first model. Someone who did not know this, listening to her might conclude this is the first time a study legitimizes the acceptance of Pre-Clovis. At any rate, here's another article with closeups of the butchered mastodon bone.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-12-500BC.html

        Yes... I deliberately chose not to post the Daily Mail link since that story might also lead the uninformed to believe that this study legitimises the acceptance of pre-Clovis as a "revelation".
        I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

        Comment


        • CMD
          CMD commented
          Editing a comment
          Well, it's The Daily Mail. It's supposed to exaggerate. It always has the best photos......

      • #8
        Originally posted by Kyflintguy View Post
        That's just awesome! I'm glad they're finding the proof to support what a lot of people have been thinking. Pretty extensive work done on that site and I'm glad it was handled with such care, or else we wouldn't know what we do now. I'm kind of amazed that all that remained in-tact underneath a river, extremely lucky conditions I guess. Thanks for sharing this Roger!

        Whole length of river is that way . same with the Wacissa. What did the Indian say when he saw it, "Wacis...sa river??"
        Slow moving . both rivers probably considered "sites". For miles and miles.

        Not to sound too ignorant. but dates will(should) go back at least twice that old.
        The future of Archness is in the submerged river channels in the gulf of Mexico.
        Which would extend out Apprx. 60miles from current. In fact its going on now.
        Rises and springs along river channel under feet of sand. paleos with barnacles on top.
        Very exciting.
        .

        Comment


        • #9
          Rhode Island

          Comment


          • #10
            Originally posted by CMD View Post
            The "problem" I have with the female scientist in the video link is that she makes it sound like the notion of Pre Clovis before the reexamination of the Page-Ladson sinkhole was a no- go,
            CMD, I've met Jessi Halligan a couple of times, she is really a great example of an archaeologist with the rigor and scientific standards that need to be brought to pre-Clovis studies. Ted Goebel, Andy Hemmings, and many others are doing the same. I wouldn't take it as an insult to the site that they take the approach that something is ambiguous until there is beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence. (There was plenty of evidence that Page-Ladson was pre-Clovis, but they didn't have absolute hard dates on tools and bones, just a lot of likelihood based on bones.)

            This is precisely the quality of science that got Monteverde, Gault, and Meadowcroft across the line as irrefutably pre-Clovis, and it is what is needed to clearly identify a lot of other sites. A lot of kudos to guys like Mike Waters, Adovasio, and Dillehay for breaking old paradigms and encouraging others to break the paradigms that they crafted.

            This new news is news (quite a phrase) because it shows the fundamental timeline for an Alaskan entry doesn't work. That opens up 3 basic scenarios and countless other variants (the scenarios aren't mutually exclusive.)
            1. If these early people came in via an Alaskan land bridge it was a lot earlier than anything currently accepted by the majority of North American archaeologists.
            2. They had boats and came via the Atlantic (Solutrean or potentially earlier.)
            3. They had boats and came down the kelp highway along the Pacific (this probably happened IMHO, but they might have bumped into people already here.)

            Hong Kong, but from Indiana/Florida

            Comment


            • #11
              Originally posted by clovisoid View Post

              CMD, I've met Jessi Halligan a couple of times, she is really a great example of an archaeologist with the rigor and scientific standards that need to be brought to pre-Clovis studies. Ted Goebel, Andy Hemmings, and many others are doing the same. I wouldn't take it as an insult to the site that they take the approach that something is ambiguous until there is beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence. (There was plenty of evidence that Page-Ladson was pre-Clovis, but they didn't have absolute hard dates on tools and bones, just a lot of likelihood based on bones.)

              This is precisely the quality of science that got Monteverde, Gault, and Meadowcroft across the line as irrefutably pre-Clovis, and it is what is needed to clearly identify a lot of other sites. A lot of kudos to guys like Mike Waters, Adovasio, and Dillehay for breaking old paradigms and encouraging others to break the paradigms that they crafted.

              This new news is news (quite a phrase) because it shows the fundamental timeline for an Alaskan entry doesn't work. That opens up 3 basic scenarios and countless other variants (the scenarios aren't mutually exclusive.)
              1. If these early people came in via an Alaskan land bridge it was a lot earlier than anything currently accepted by the majority of North American archaeologists.
              2. They had boats and came via the Atlantic (Solutrean or potentially earlier.)
              3. They had boats and came down the kelp highway along the Pacific (this probably happened IMHO, but they might have bumped into people already here.)
              I certainly have never taken the work these people do as insulting. I fully understand "beyond a reasonable doubt". I would never argue with the need for irrefutable evidence. Setting the bar high is likely something I would always support. It's one reason I rail against the junk pop science and pop history that has come to dominate some of the sites I have been involved with, such as the Narragansett Stone. Some pretty evidence-weak nonsense has been attached to that feature. I won't tolerate such nonsense anywhere I find it. In the peopling of America, I also am drawn to the Pacific kelp highway suggestion.

              And thanks for clarifying the new news. I do understand it's importance.
              Last edited by CMD; 05-16-2016, 09:03 AM.
              Rhode Island

              Comment


              • #12
                That is amazing.

                Comment


                • #13
                  Since this was done ,things have moved even further back in time in that river.
                  That Aucilla basin is old as heck.
                  .

                  Comment


                  • #14
                    Like this horse jaw with a hole in it, they are finding worked extinct bone that can be RCD.
                    I think the hole was made with a bone pin/point either when killed or while cleaning /butchering. Click image for larger version

Name:	2211 205.jpg
Views:	93
Size:	93.2 KB
ID:	711204 Click image for larger version

Name:	2211 203.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	106.9 KB
ID:	711206 Also cut marks
                    Attached Files
                    .

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X