Sumo

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New dating methods reveal Clovis migration theory flaws

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

  • New dating methods reveal Clovis migration theory flaws

    ************************************************** ******************
    This Message Is Reprinted Under The FAIR USE
    Doctrine Of International Copyright Law:
    _http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html_
    (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)
    ************************************************** ******************
    _http://www.jsonlinehttp://www.http://www.http://ww_
    (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=569824)

    Americas' 1st people rethought
    New dating methods reveal Clovis migration theory flaws

    By SUSANNE RUST
    [email protected]@_ (mailto:[email protected])
    Posted: Feb. 23, 2007

    Brace yourself: The pillars of conventional scientific wisdom are
    crumbling.

    Just as science book publishers are rewriting texts to say that there are
    eight planets instead of nine, they may have another edit to contend with -
    this time about the first inhabitants of the New World.

    And we can thank Wisconsin researchers in part for this turnabout.

    Since the 1960s, archaeologists have argued that the Americas were
    populated by one group of hunters that crossed a land bridge connecting
    Siberia to Alaska 11,500 years ago. The descendants of this population then
    moved throughout the hemisphere, taking up residence across North and South
    America.

    The theory, called Clovis First, was based on the observation that a
    particular tool system - named Clovis, after the New Mexico site where it
    was first discovered - was found at several sites across North and South
    America from roughly the same period. It was a time span researchers
    thought lasted about 1,000 years.

    But research published in this week's issue of the journal Science casts
    doubt on that scenario, supporting the long-standing arguments of David
    Overstreet, an archaeologist at Marquette University and the College of
    Menominee Nation, and Daniel Joyce of the Kenosha Public Museum.

    For decades, these two scientists have shouted from the fringes of academia
    that the Clovis First theory was flawed. They pointed to sites across
    Wisconsin - Schaefer, Hebior and Fabry Creek - that showed that people were
    here before Clovis.

    Researchers in Texas, Pennsylvania and Chile gathered similar evidence.

    But their claims were generally met with incredulity and hostility,
    Overstreet said, turning into a battle over turf rather than a thoughtful
    debate over analyses of artifacts and cultural debris.

    "It takes a long time for people to shift their ideas forward," Overstreet
    said.

    But the new research offers "the first coherent and critical statement that
    says, 'Get over it, guys. Clovis is dead,' " he said. And the evidence
    comes from the Clovis sites.

    In this latest paper, Michael Waters of Texas A&M University and Thomas
    Stafford Jr. of Stafford Research Laboratories in Lafayette, Colo.,
    reanalyzed artifacts and bone fragments from Clovis sites across North and
    South America.

    Recent technological advances in chemistry and physics have increased the
    precision and accuracy of dating techniques, reducing the possible time
    frame around suspected dates.

    "Many of these radiocarbon dates were run back in the 1960s and 1970s when
    radiocarbon technology wasn't what it is today," Waters said in a prepared
    statement.

    The dates had ranges of plus or minus 250 years, Stafford said. But new
    dating technology has decreased this fuzz factor to plus or minus 30 years
    - allowing the researchers to assign dates more confidently to artifacts
    found at these sites.

    After running the new dates, Waters and Stafford found that the Clovis
    period probably lasted about 200 years instead of the 900 years that
    previous researchers had claimed.

    That meant it was highly improbable that one population could have entered
    the New World via Alaska and within four or five generations populated the
    entire hemisphere. Indeed, even if researchers allowed for the maximum time
    span around their dates, this still would only amount to 400 years - an
    unlikely time span for multi-continental dispersal.

    Instead, Stafford said, it's more likely that the Clovis technology came to
    the New World and was adapted by people already living here.

    "To me, it's almost implicit there had to be people here before" Clovis for
    such a rapid transmission to occur, Stafford said.

    Overstreet and Joyce agreed.

    "Their article is a wonderful refinement of the archaeological record,"
    Joyce said. "The paper is a chronological refinement of the archaeological
    record which demonstrates that Clovis as a culture is not alone and that
    there were antecedent cultures."

    He added that the archaeological record of Kenosha County - with firmly
    dated mammoth sites showing unequivocal human interaction - further
    strengthens their conclusions.
    Don't worry that it's not good enough for anyone else to hear... just sing, sing a song.sigpic

  • #2
    Actually starting in the 70's a few scientist found artifacts in the americas pre dating not just clovis but the ice age, they were of course laughed out of thier fields, more recently there has been more & more finds like this, many are afraid to come forward with the info but some do, I will try to find some of these reports over the next week or so but as you can imagine it's not easy.
    Suzze

    Comment


    • #3
      found one already, this dates us back way before clovis or barring straight ect. The reason I think this isn't talked about much is because it means we're right, they're wrong, it means we don't somehow decend from them, cause lets face it, the theory that we came from europe or eurasia justifies (in they're minds) they're coming here & taking what they want

      http://allendale-expedition.net/pres...es/1117pr.html

      Suzze

      Comment


      • #4
        That's a cool read... thanks for posting it!
        Don't worry that it's not good enough for anyone else to hear... just sing, sing a song.sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          It makes perfect sense: One only has to look at the wide variation in physical features of different First Nations people to realize that any "Single migration" theory is B.S.

          I mean that Mesoamerican nations, such as the Zapotec, Aztec and Maya, look almost identical to polynesians, whereas the Inuits and Cree of the northern areas look almost Asian, etc. That, coupled with other evidence, such as Polynesian plants (manioc and bananas) being found in pre-columbian tombs in Central and S. America, as well as S. American plants (potatos and sweet potatos) throughout polynesia would indicate more than one migration from more than 1 place.

          Of course, some of the more fringe elements have even suggested that the Mesoamerican cultures are descendents from the Lost City of Atlantis, but that's kind of far-fetched, to put it quite mildly (unless they could prove that Atlantis existed at one time).
          The text in my avatar reads: "We still speak the mother tongue" in Pennsylvania German.

          Comment


          • #6
            OR....we were always here & some of us migrated there. Ok let me gets through this ok...the direct ancestors of modern day humans migrated into europe 40,000 yrs ago, this paper says we've been here for 50,000 yrs (at least, who knows if they dig down further), so we've been here longer then europeans have been in europe. But the neanderthals (who evolved seperatly) were in europe before that & died out (mostly) after the arrival of modern humans (although a few interbread). So we know that it is possible for a group of humans to have evolved seperatly from the common strain, so they can't (at this point) disprove that the creator placed us here. Now sometime way after that plants indiginous to the americas show up else where, similarities abound amoungst the great civilazation & fringe theroies suggest atlantis was either in Peru or the antartica (which wasn't a frozen south pole until after the mantle shift of the earth) which (atlantis or not)would have made for easier travel between the contanants for an advanced civilazation (prehaps our ancestors). But only fringe people would explore this because the euro-american population would never tolerate teaching thier kids that we've been here forever & were highly advanced, they would rather teach thier kids that we are nothing other then decendants of thier own people who migrated her just a few thousand years before they did. So yep there might have been multiple migrations but whose to say it was to the americas instead of from the americas
            Suzze

            Comment


            • #7
              No, I'm not implying that Native Americans trace their ancestry through European lines... If you want the straight dope, modern humans (according to all scientific theories and such) originated over 100,000 years ago in AFRICA and spread from THERE... One scientist has proven that it is entirely possible that a reed boat (a kind which, incidentally, is found both used during Egyptian times and even now on lake Titicacca in Peru) could sail accross the atlantic, and with the prevailing winds in the southern hemisphere and ocean currents being such as tney are, it would have been easier to go from Africa to S. American than it would have been to go Vice-versa.

              And since we're onto fringe theories.... I've read about 10,000 year old ruins in India that have a layer of dirt containing radioactive isotopes that are ONLY produced by a nuclear reaction (a.k.a. fallout), as well as a number of ancient Aztec figurines that look an awful lot like jet fighters, not to mention a 4,000 year old airplane or glider model that was found in some Egyptian tomb would suggest that the Biblical account of the great flood was at least, in part, true (espeically since the Great Pyramid at Giza and the Great Sphinx date back before 8,000 BC and have flood damage on them), and bespeaks (as the Bible says) of an advanced civilization that had appearantly (like ours) grown decadent and corrupt, and was wiped out in a great cataclysm about 10,000 year ago. (some of the few scientists who have dared to go down this past suggest that Atlantis sinking and all the Great Flood legends around the world were the result of some pre-historic nuclear war or some kind of war with aliens that virtualy destroyed civilization, except for some pockets in somewhat less-hospitable areas of the world, such as the Mexican desert, the Andes, the Himalayas, Gobi Desert, Sahara, etc that were not considered strategic targets). Also, most evidence I've been able to dig up on Atlantis (and yes, I'm willing to give even fringe theories a thorough testing, especially when there's a bunch of wierd coincidences surrounding them, such as the Greek legend of Atlantis and the Toltec Atlantes warriors of their legends) would most likely put it at either this one place along the mid-atlantic ridge just South of the Canary Is. where there is a shallow spot on the sea bed containing rocks associated with continental land masses (Trade with such a point would have been equally acessable from Egypt/Sumeria and Central/South America and would account for similarities in archietecture which style was also attributed to Atlantis), or smack-dab in the middle of the Bermuda triangle (which would suggest from the data that I've been able to collect on that and similar sites would suggest that Atlantis did not so much as sink, but possibly got warped to another planet or dimension), with Atlantis' sister-continent of Lemuria being in the opposite place.

              If any of that is true, then people were no doubt globe-trotting back then as much as we are now, so it would be hard to say where any of us come from, except for Africa, since the Earliest hominids are from there and the earliest modern human remains come from there.

              Still, one must not sacrifice truth at the altar of one's prejudices..... The only thing that I have been able to find out for certain from studying these unsual occurrances that supposedly go back beyond the dawn of civilization is that antiquity holds many mysteries that I doubt will get unravelled anytime soon.

              While I respect your attempts to try and prove that Native Americans are FROM this continent, the truth is that all modern humans are ultimately from Africa, and any other continent we're living on is technically a colony of Africa, no matter how long ago it was founded..... Let's just hope the Africans don't start pressing claims or we'll all be in trouble
              The text in my avatar reads: "We still speak the mother tongue" in Pennsylvania German.

              Comment

              Join the online community forum celebrating Native American Culture, Pow Wows, tribes, music, art, and history.

              Loading...

              Trending

              Collapse

              There are no results that meet this criteria.

              Sidebar Ad

              Collapse
              Working...
              X