16,000 Years Ago in Idaho

[Charl]

An important new pre-Clovis site identified in Idaho, with points from the Western Stemmed Tradition....


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/08/coopers-landing-idaho-site-americas-oldest/



https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/coopers-ferry-first-americans/



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOKT_MOwHJ9FDCXv2cepFxQ



16,000-Year-Old Stone Artifacts Unearthed in Idaho | Archaeology | Sci-News.com



https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...a-ancient-tools-unearthed-idaho-river-suggest



"The findings do more than add a few centuries to the timeline of people in the Americas. They also shore up a new picture of how humans first arrived, by showing that people lived at Cooper’s Ferry more than 1 millennium before melting glaciers opened an ice-free corridor through Canada about 14,800 years ago. That implies the first people in the Americas must have come by sea, moving rapidly down the Pacific coast and up rivers. The dates from Cooper’s Ferry “fit really nicely with the [coastal] model that we’re increasingly getting a consensus on from genetics and archaeology,” says Jennifer Raff, a geneticist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence who studies the peopling of the Americas."

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Older The Better]

May be talking out of my butt but I would think part of the problem may be site accessibility for example in Kansas archaic sites are hard to come by because they were either eroded away or deeply buried. It’s hard to find a site 15 feet in the ground. I would imagine if there were populations pre glacial retreat that between them setting up shops in areas now under water and the massive reshaping of the landscape after the glaciers melted that maybe these sites just didn’t survive. Like I said I’m not claiming to be an authority just taking a break eating some lunch and throwing my 2cents in before it’s back on the mower for a few more hours.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[uniface]

Points match Japanese ones

https://www.sott.net/article/419540...e-suggest-the-first-Americans-came-from-Japan

 

[uniface]

we are living at a time when there is great distrust in ALL authority, be it scientific, religious, political, etc.

And with good reason

we are also living in a virtual Age of Conspiracy theories

Many of which turn put to be true.

 

[uniface]

The notion that the headline was worded to fool people is ridiculous.

The idea that reporting media are impartial, disinterested observers with no skin in the game is beyond absurd.

Count the number of articles on nearly any subject in magazines like National Geographic and Smithsonian that manage to include dire warnings about "global warming," which has no earthly bearing on the topics of the articles. Or look at the way the same developments are ignored, downplayed or made much of by CNN vs. Fox News.

It has been understood for 100 years by the people engaged in it that the successful creation of "public opinion" depends on being able to deliver the same basic message from all outlets. Daily experience shows this to be no "conspiracy theory" but a fact of life, familiar to all.

Archaeology is no exception. There is one official story line, with disagreements permitted only on details.

 

[joshuaream]

I’ll have to go through this thread in more detail, interesting stuff from interesting people.

Here is a picture I took a couple of years back of the original exiting find from the site. Part of the western stemmed cache.

 

[joshuaream]

Match is a debatable word, but they certainly do look similar.

The Channel Islands paleo material also look similar, perhaps more similar to the Japanese material.

https://insider.si.edu/2011/03/cali...ld-north-americas-earliest-seafaring-economy/

Points match Japanese ones

https://www.sott.net/article/419540...e-suggest-the-first-Americans-came-from-Japan

 

[justonemore]

It was interesting, it like others before have become absurd. Theories based on? Snide remarks. We are beyond reason and science again.

 

[jamus peek]

Thanks Charl for providing some really cool links i cant wait to go through them.

I have read from different sources one being wikipedia that occupation in California goes back 19000 years. I have a few fossil finds that i wish i took pics of. One is a metacarpal from a Bison. When i took it in to the museum to donate we compared it to some Ancient Bison Metacarpals and it was very large in comparison. It was very well mineralized. It was suggested by a Paleantologist that runs the show there that it could be the Bison before the Ancient Bison. The Bison Latifrons which she mentioned went extinct 20,000 years ago. Size is not indicitive of species we just know the Lafrontis was bigger then The Ancient Bison (Antiques) which was prior to the Bison we have now the Bison bison. So it could be a very large Ancient Bison metacarpal. Either way i pointed out some very straight incisions to her and she seemed to not acknowledge them purposely for some odd reason and we moved on.

I have been fortunate to find several fossils from Bison in the same creek and the most recent find is a Metacarpal that is heavily mineralized with root markings all over but also has some fairly straight incisions.

I will post a pic when i get a chance the Ancient Bison went extinct here roughly. 10,000 years ago and the bay area has very little evidence of the Bison bison aside from some regions in California. So when you find a very well minerilized Bison bone theres a good chance it is a fossil.

I think it's relative to the thread and i also believe i should look into the one i donated and get some other opinions and some pics of that one as well.

Thanks again Charl!

Here are some pics the one on the right is a Cow Metacarpal (Bos) and the other more then likely by mineralization, size , morphology from a Bison Antiquus (Bovid) maybe Bison bison the Bison we have now which there is a lack of evidence from the area. One of the first bones I donated was looked at by Phil Gordon who was one of the boy paleontologists who in the 1950's excavated fossils from Bell Quarry gravel pits as they popped out of the gravel in Irvington Fremont. He diagnosed it as a 13000 year old vertabra from a Bison antiquus. This one was found close by which is more evidence. He had a smile from ear to ear when I showed him and told me I had a good eye. Since then I have donated around ten fossils from camels, horses and bison and have found a few coprolites.

I tried to get some close ups of two parallel possible butcher marks. Also you can see from the pics that roots left markings all over the surface. I found it hanging from a overhang in the creek after a big storm. If butcher marks this bone could show evidence of how long Native Americans have been in the area and being that one of the fossils that I found was roughly 13000 years old maybe pretty cool. I could be wrong I wanted to share anyways. LOL!

 

[jamus peek]

Points match Japanese ones

https://www.sott.net/article/419540...e-suggest-the-first-Americans-came-from-Japan

Here's an interesting find that I believe is a point and there is a resemblance between the contracting stems from your illustrations. It's creek worn and was found on a clay bottom one side you can see serrations but admittedly there may not be the work one would expect as far as flaking scars go and I never really wanted to post it because it's hard to relate to all the points I see posted! The very tip is slightly curved up and you can see from the side angle it's fairly thin. It looks like a nice coat of caliche on the surface as well. I do want to ad that the remains of Columbian Mammoth were found within 20 miles or so which might not mean didily squat. LOL!

 

[Charl]

Best advice I could give anyone is to never lose the thirst for knowledge, and never let that thirst be quenched. Hang onto the childhood wonder at new discoveries. Don't be fooled by the movement to see science as an elite plot out to pull the wool over your eyes for nefarious reasons. Use your discriminating intelligence to separate wheat from chaff. Understanding the peopling of the Americas is a journey, and it's a journey to enjoy, full of anticipation at what new discoveries lay ahead. It's fun, not something to be feared. Just keep that thirst to learn. Science is a human endeavor, it won't be perfect. Humans are not perfect. Regardless, knowledge and learning are the fruits of that imperfect endeavor. The picture that emerges will be clearer at some times then at others, but it's a journey, this desire to understand our past. Don't let anyone tell you that journey isn't well worth the effort. Just enjoy it.

 

[Charl]

Match is a debatable word, but they certainly do look similar.

The Channel Islands paleo material also look similar, perhaps more similar to the Japanese material.

https://insider.si.edu/2011/03/cali...ld-north-americas-earliest-seafaring-economy/

I remember years ago starting a thread with that article, on a now defunct forum. The members from out West went nuts. Along the lines of "no way those are older then Archaic", etc. I'm happy, thrilled more like it, just to find an Early Archaic piece where I live. I would love to live where stuff as old as that and the Western Stemmed Tradition could be found.

 

[uniface]

Don't be fooled by the movement to see science as an elite plot out to pull the wool over your eyes for nefarious reason.

No one sane sees actual science as a plot of any sort.

On the other hand, "tobacco science," "climate change science," AMA/CDC "science" and the rest of the innumerable hijackings & misappropriations of it to instill ideas in people richly deserve the reputations they have acquired.

Mixing the two is a shell game.

 

[Charl]

Sorry for the length here, I am wordy....

In any science, wherever the leading edge of theory or practice is located, narratives develop that describe what is known, along with an anticipatory component that suggests what is to be expected. The leading edge changes, but not always smoothly. And the leading edge narratives have errors built in, by virtue of all that is unknown. And as well by virtue of mistaken assumptions based on what is thought to be known, but is later demonstrated to contain error. But, this effort to create a narrative at the leading edge is built into the endeavor. It's simply the effort to make sense of the data and see if a story can be detected, a way of describing what it all means, or suggests.


In part, the narrative or narratives/models determine the direction of future research. And if they are in part built on mistaken assumptions(such as entry was via an ice free corridor by the people who then made Clovis points once they arrived), the narrative at the leading edge has to change. But not smoothly, if the leading narrative is dominant for a period of time as received wisdom, enough to make it a formidible barrier to change. So, the change, when it does come, can appear as a revolution, an overthrowing of received wisdom. As we see with the final collapse of Clovis First. Contained within the change from Clovis First to Post Clovis First are the decades of objections, and contentions, and struggles, representing the effort of pre-Clovis data to be admitted into the narratives. Wasn't easy, was it? That manner of change, I believe, will appear frustrating if one thought one knew better all along, and had to wait for the science to catch up.


Now, if you want to change how science works, because you don't like the herky-jerky nature of things, or you just don't like the emergent narrative, like standstill in Beringia, followed by arrival by sea on the Pacific coast now being at the leading edge of the science, and hence a new dominant narrative of the past, then you need to stop complaining and convince the science that you somehow know better. Complaining about how science itself works in developing narratives/models is foolish, since there is no governing body laying down the rules in that regard. There is only the scientific method guiding the quest for truth. With allowances for all of this being in all too human hands.


We may, or may not, arrive at a very settled view of the peopling of the Americas that will never really need any further revision. It should be obvious that is likely well into the future. Until then, you will always have narratives forming at the leading edges. Regardless of whether that pleases one, or not. Regardless of what one thinks of those narratives.

This narrative building, the narrative component created at the leading edge of sciences, is how humans work. It's not unlike story telling, and a good scientist recognizes this, and realizes these are guidance models subject to change. I will concede that more scientists should be aware of the story telling nature of narrative building, since those narratives can stifle progress when they achieve iron fist status. It will be very challenging changing how humans work. It's nice to believe there is always room for improvement in human endeavor, but it's likely this ever changing narrative wave at the leading edge is the way we will continue to do business. That's part of how science works, and complaining about it is not that unlike complaining about the weather.


Personally, I'm tired of the people who complain about the weather. Prove your point. Overthrow the narrative, and do it in a way that changes the science, instead of using Internet boards to whine about it.

 

[Charl]

No one sane sees actual science as a plot of any sort.

On the other hand, "tobacco science," "climate change science," AMA/CDC "science" and the rest of the innumerable hijackings & misappropriations of it to instill ideas in people richly deserve the reputations they have acquired.

Mixing the two is a shell game.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

I just deleted much of what I wrote in reply here, because I do not want to trigger a discussion of climate science, easily one of the most politically divisive issues in the country today. Suffice to say I disagree with your opinion, but I will not engage you in this subject, as I do not want to provide a reason to lock this thread. You are entitled to your opinion on the subjects you mention.

Some support consensus climate science. Some are harsh critics of consensus climate science. Bottom line? So what, and who cares?! You may feel that climate science, and American prehistory studies, share an approach you disagree with, and therefore feel your observations are very relevant.

I, on the other hand, have a much different opinion of climate science, and I choose not to engage you on the subject within the context of a thread which I started simply to introduce our members to a pre-Clovis site in Idaho. So, peace, brother.

 

[uniface]

Fake science and real science are two completely different matters.

And claiming that some topic like global warming that supposedly rests on objective evidence is off limits to discussion because somebody might throw a tantrum doesn't flush. Tantrums have no place in rational discussions.

 

[Charl]

Fake science and real science are two completely different matters.

And claiming that some topic like global warming that supposedly rests on objective evidence is off limits to discussion because somebody might throw a tantrum doesn't flush. Tantrums have no place in rational discussions.

Its not off limits to discussion. You missed my point. You take every opportunity to introduce your well known pet grievances, regardless of the topic. Tantrums may have no place in rational discussions, but global warming as a subject is pretty off topic to a thread about a pre-Clovis site in Idaho. Yet, you took the opportunity to whine about the things you like to whine about. In still another thread. I've known you on 4 different forums now, over quite a few years, and this is a well known habit of yours. You must know that by now, I prefer to think you must have some self-awareness in that regard. It boils down to the fact that you can be extraordinarily selfish at times, no matter how off topic/unrelated the points you introduce, simply because they are among your go-to pet grievances. It was not necessary, but that never stopped you.

What I'm doing wrong, of course, is replying to you at all, when you do what I've just described. But, do carry on if you think you must, and get the thread locked if possible.

Edit: check it out, uni. There is even a subforum right here where you can discuss your subject to your heart's content. This particular thread was about a pre-Clovis site in Idaho.
I take responsibility for replying to you, when you introduce an unrelated pet grievance, but, in this instance, there is even a sub forum for that grievance. Why not simply take advantage of it, and think of other people other then yourself:

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/global-warming/

 

[uniface]

The issue, as you know, is fake science presented as real science. Global warming is only one example of it, and not the point of the exercise. The doctrine of all Homo sapiens out of Africa and all American Natives out of East Asia IS the root issue that prompted it. Evidence contradicts both.