Search this Topic:
May 20 13 7:08 PM
freeze cracked wrote:
i don't think there's any way for you to tell why i make the debitage i make without seeing me make it or asking me at the time. because if you showed me some of my old flakes and asked me why i made them like they are, i wouldn't remember and therefore wouldn't know.
-BulletheadWhere I live, you're as likely to see a rock of any sort (let alone knappable) lying there for the taking as you are to see Elvis and Bigfoot making out in the backseat of a UFO .
May 22 13 7:13 AM
Bullethead wrote:>To read in the last paragraph of your paper that you don't accept these sites "because they are not securely dated or are not well described", without any real discussion, seems a bit weak. I don't find it weak at all, since the criticisms of most of those sites have been discussed at length in previous papers (Fiedel 2000; Roosevelt 2002; Goebel et al. 2008...for just few examples). Here are some comments on the so-called new evidence in SH:http://benedante.blogspot.com/2012/03/bah-to-new-claims-of-ice-age-europeans.html "A long list of unsubstantiated claims is no more weighty than a short one."Milford Wolpoff
Jun 20 13 8:17 AM
Jul 17 13 10:42 AM
Feb 16 14 10:20 AM
The paper I opened this thread with has triggered a bit of academic back and forth, with three related papers published in the most recent volume of Lithic Technology. Here is a link that will get you a zip file of the three papers https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14990900/Solutrean_Debate_Papers.zip
If you lack a way to unzip the files, you can go directly to the publisher and find a free open access copy of our rejoinder. http://www.maneyonline.com/toc/lit/39/1
Feb 23 14 6:42 AM
Apr 5 15 7:49 PM
Bullethead wrote:For the record, I don't subscribe to the Solutrean Hypothesis because I agree with you that it's been shot down pretty thoroughly on several independent grounds. Here is some more of the turkey shoot:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15000280
Here is some more of the turkey shoot:
Apr 5 15 8:51 PM
Jul 19 15 12:32 PM
Jul 22 15 3:47 PM
mjflinty wrote:Here's the next layer:https://www.academia.edu/12645256/A_Response_to_the_paper_entitled_The_CINMAR_discovery_and_the_proposed_pre-Late_Glacial_Maximum_occupation_of_North_America_by_Three_University_of_Missouri_Scholars_
And the next layer after that:
"[So] the fanciful ideas that somehow the Americas were populated by people coming from Europe and all kinds of other places are wrong."
Oct 28 15 6:31 PM
Lee Olsen wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33612869
and newer news:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/21/1511903112.abstractNews article with a map:http://www.science20.com/news_articles/beringian_standstill_ancient_baby_genetics_boost_bering_land_bridge_layover_hypothesis-158349
and newer news:
News article with a map:
Nov 7 15 12:44 AM
Nov 7 15 9:50 PM
Nov 11 15 6:05 AM
spacejesse wrote:Until the paper is open access, here is a blog post about it, and a way to download it: http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/haplogroup-x2a-and-the-peopling-of-the-americas
Thank you for the update. I liked this statement from the paper:
"Thus, at this time, there is simply no evidence that X2aevolved in the Near East, Europe, or anywhere in WestEurasia. Stanford and Bradley (2012) andOppenheimer et al. (2014) argue that the absence of evidencefor X2a in West Eurasia is not evidence of absence,but of course, the same holds for Siberia. There is nocompelling reason to think that X2a is more likely tohave come from Europe than Siberia."
The situation is actually worse than the paper implied.
"Furthermore, there is no clear reason why this trans-Atlantic migrationwould involve a haplogroup (X) that typically comprises no more than 2% of the mtDNAs in modern European populations to the exclusion of another such as haplography H, which represents ~40% of mtDNAs in all of these groups (Comas et al. 1997, 1998; Macaulay et al. 1999; Richards et al. 1998, 2000; Sajantila et al. 1995; Torroni et al. 1994b, 1996). Thus, at best, current mtDNA data provide modest support for an ancient Solutrean migration to the New World (Schurr 2004)."
Right, and if one looks at the references given, one finds that the area where the Solutreans were claimed to have left from, Iberia, today there is only about 0.7 % X, making the odds even less than 2 % if only X would have been involved. But groups of people do move around so it is possible there was a higher percentage of X there 20,000 years ago, but it is also just as possible that 0 percent X occupied Iberia in Solutrean times.
So the contradiction then becomes (as claimed by Stanford and Bradley), a minor group X was selected for the trip over and the major groups like H were selected against to account for their disappearance once in the Americas. How convenient and cherry-picking nice.
Theodore G. SchurrTHE PEOPLING OF THE NEWWORLD:Perspectives from Molecular AnthropologyAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2004. 33:551–83
Nov 11 15 6:28 AM
Oct 24 16 2:24 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.