Recent PreClovis Discoveries and the Implications for the Evolution Theory.

[chacha333]

[FONT=&quot]How do recent Radiocarbon Dates at the Topper Site in South

Carolina (minimum 50,000 BP) and The Calico Early Man Site in California

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]dated by thermoluminescence at 135,000 years BP , and by uranium/thorium [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]analysis at 200,000 years BP [/FONT][FONT=&quot] influence the Theory of

Evolution?

In some very, very drastic ways.

Generally accepted evolution theory has man originating in Eastern

Africa 120, 000 RCYBP, migrating into the Middle East and South

Africa by 80,000 RCYBP, Southern Asia by 60,000 RCYBP, and Europe

and Australia by 40,000 RYCBP.

So what are well dated human artifacts doing in North America

at a minimum of 50,000 BP (radio-carbon series), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]135,000 years BP(thermoluminescence), and by [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]uranium/thorium analysis at 200,000 years BP?
[/FONT]
Please bear with me as I describe my hypothesis.

Whitelaw's Nonequilibrium Age Versus Published Equilibrium Age
1,000 1,115
1,500 1,730
2,000 2,310
2,500 2,900
3,000 3,500
3,500 4,110
4,000 4,725
4,500 5,350
5,000 5,990
5,500 8,860
6,000 12,530
6,500 19,100
7,000 Infinite

Table 1: Relationships between corrected and published ages of specimens in years since death (Whitelaw, 1970, p. 65)

[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]


[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[justified]

What's your case for Whitelaw's model, though?

 

[DailyBlessings]

How do recent Radiocarbon Dates at the Topper Site in South

Carolina (50,000 RCYBP) and The Calico Early Man Site in California

(125, 000 RCYBP) influence the Theory of Evolution?

In some very, very drastic ways.

Generally accepted evolution theory has man originating in Eastern

Africa 120, 000 RCYBP, migrating into the Middle East and South

Africa by 80,000 RCYBP, Southern Asia by 60,000 RCYBP, and Europe

and Australia by 40,000 RYCBP.

So what are well dated human artifacts doing in North America

50,000 and 125,000 RCYBP?

Please bear with me as I describe my hypothesis.

Whitelaw's Nonequilibrium Age Versus Published Equilibrium Age
1,000 1,115
1,500 1,730
2,000 2,310
2,500 2,900
3,000 3,500
3,500 4,110
4,000 4,725
4,500 5,350
5,000 5,990
5,500 8,860
6,000 12,530
6,500 19,100
7,000 Infinite

Table 1: Relationships between corrected and published ages of specimens in years since death (Whitelaw, 1970, p. 65)

Applying this model, Paleo (Clovis, Folsom, Cody) and early Archaic

cultures in North America were present ante-deluge. Ethiopian

human samples (oldest radiocarbon dated human remains worldwide)

date to around 160,000 RCYBP, with conservative interpolating, puts

these humans on earth 500 years after creation, assuming Whitelaw's

assumptions. This seems reasonable, with Ethiopia being

approximately 1200 miles from the commonly accepted location of

The Garden of Eden in Southeastern Iraq.
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]


Reply to be continued.

Charlie Hatchett

The Calico Early Man site is not really an archaeological site, you can't use it as evidence. And what is the rest of the table derived from? http://www.wemweb.com/venner/articles/Calico_Early_Man_Site.html

 

[chacha333]

Hi Guys.

Thanks for your responses.

Let me respond to DailyBlessings' objection concerning the validity of The

Calico Early Man Site. Could you please let me know what your main

objections are to accepting Calico versus other early sites.


As to Whitelaw's Nonequilibrium Age Model's validity, I prefer it's predictive value.

I mean, does it make sense that humans evolved into their modern form

160,000RCYBP in Eastern Africa, migrated to the Middle East and Southern Africa by

80,000RCYBP, to Europe by 40,000RCYBP, the East coast of the U.S. by

50,000RCYBP and California 125,000-200,000RCYBP? Interpreting these dates with

Whitelaw's model, these dates are all within 200-300 CY of one another.

If that be the case, then there's no way oceans could have separated these individuals.

It would be necessary for them to be, at least, on the same continent. Most geologists

are in agreement the earth was one supercontinent- Pangaea in it's earliest forms.

I also like the fact it agrees with the known S-shaped, long-term

radiocarbon dating error. One bend of the curve peaks in the middle of the

first millennium A.D. Radiocarbon ages during this period over estimate

dendrochronological ages by up to a hundred years. The curve switches

direction around 500 B.C., when radiocarbon ages begin to underestimate

supposed dendrochronological ages. The discrepancy grows as we go back

in time, so that by the third millennium B.C., radiocarbon dates are under estimated by 800 years.

Assuming production of carbon-12 began only 6,000 years ago—the

approximate time of Creation- and then roughly 1,500 years later, the Flood upset

the entire carbon cycle. As the discrepancy between SPR and SDR shows,

the Earth is still in the process of attaining equilibrium. Further, we know

from the radiocarbon dating of tree rings that as we go back in time, we

find less and less carbon-12. Assuming less carbon-12 in the past, then

the C14/C12 ratio in many samples would be much younger than the equilibrium model

assumes.

Figure 2. Major trend in the plot of dendrochronology vs. radiocarbon dates. Dates above dashed zero line overestimate tree-ring ages; dates below underestimate tree-ring ages (after Taylor, 1987, Figure 2.8).




Reply to be continued.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Let me respond to DailyBlessings' objection concerning the validity of The

Calico Early Man Site. Could you please let me know what your main

objections are to accepting Calico versus other early sites.

Because the "lithics" at the site are not lithics, just rocks. Though you clearly did not read it, I provided a link to a study disproving a human origin.

 

[chacha333]

Hi DailyBlessings.

I did read the article you provided, but it seem rather

dated (1970's). Here's a few updated articles quoting leading

archeologists interpreting the flint and stone pieces in

question:


1.

[font=Arial,helvetica]"Continuation of the Calico investigation, both in the field and laboratory, has conclusively established the presence of Early Man, through the demonstration of numerous tools in several categories, as proven by a number of significant traits or attributes familiar to archaeologists. Microscopic examination reveals use-wear patterns. Uranium-thorium tests yield a date of 200,000 ± 20,000 years for the artifacts."[/font]​

[font=Arial,helvetica]
(Simpson, Ruth D.; "Updating the Early Man Calico Site, California," Anthropological Journal of Canada, 20:8, no. 2, 1982.)
[/font]

2.
​

“Some of the artifacts, there’s just no arguing (that they appear to be

real),” Eric Scott, paleontology field supervisor with the San Bernardino

County Museum in Redlands...Friday, May 14, 1999


3.

Scott also added that if the Calico site is wrong and all the material found

is naturally made, it would open up questions about other artifacts.

It was this sort of skepticism Simpson ran into back in the late 1950s when

she tried to find funding to further excavate the site.

Following years of discouragement, Simpson eventually took the artifacts

to Europe to show the one person she knew might be interested — famed

paleoanthropologist Dr. Louis S. B. Leakey. Known for his hominid

discoveries in Africa, Leakey often faced controversy throughout his career

and had been unafraid to challenge archeological history.

Impressed with what he saw, especially to the similarity to tools he had

already come across on his own digs, Leakey promised Simpson he would

visit the site next time he was in the United States.

Leakey came to the site in 1963, and excited by what he found, began a

formal excavation with initial funding through the National Geographic

Society in November of 1964. Convinced the tools were real and envisioning

the importance of the site, Leakey continued to visit the site several times

a year and was connected to the project until he died in 1972.

After Leakey’s death, financial funding — along with the interest he drew to

the Calico site — faded...Friday, May 14, 1999

4.

Proponents of pre-Clovis entry to the Americas included legendary names

such as archaeologist and former Golden Gloves champion Richard Stockton

Scotty” MacNeish and Louis Leakey, the patriarch of human evolution

research. Both men thought they had found human-made tools pointing to

very early human entry to the Americas (35,000 years ago for MacNeish at

Pendeho Cave in New Mexico, and up to 100,000 years ago for Leakey at

Calico Hills, Calif.)...James M. Adovasio, 2003 (Meadowcroft Shelter Site)

Reply to be continued.

 

[DailyBlessings]

The simple fact of the matter is that there is very little physical evidence at Calico. You cannot rewrite history based on a few artifacts that maybe a tenth of the field (if that) considers valid. A hypothesis about any population cannot be established based on a single datum, or even a single sample.

 

[DailyBlessings]

By the way, it is considered bad form to quote others without citing properly. Allow me to continue one of the paragraphs you mined:

"Proponents of pre-Clovis entry to the Americas included legendary names such as archaeologist and former Golden Gloves champion Richard Stockton Scotty” MacNeish and Louis Leakey, the patriarch of human evolution research. Both men thought they had found human-made tools pointing to very early human entry to the Americas (35,000 years ago for MacNeish at Pendeho Cave in New Mexico, and up to 100,000 years ago for Leakey at Calico Hills, Calif.). Both sites failed close academic scrutiny, a fate shared by many suspected pre-Clovis sites as the search intensified during the twentieth century."

-George Wisner. From Athena Review, Vol.3, no.4. 2003.

It's funny to me that you criticise a 1970's study as too old, then come to us with Leakey.

 

[chacha333]

Hi Dailyblessings.

I apologize for my sloppy ending on my last post...I had to end it abrubtly

because of time contraints.

Adovasio's statement: "Both sites failed close academic scrutiny, a fate

shared by many suspected pre-Clovis sites as the search intensified during

the twentieth century." is made in the context of his overall theme.

The overall theme is encapsulated by the following quote in the same

article:

"Meadowcroft has produced an academic row Adovasio asserts is grounded

in petty politics and infighting by people with too much invested in

Clovis-First research to accept any new story despite its supporting

scientific evidence. He spends considerable book space defending

Meadowcroft, the meticulous quality of his work there, and in lambasting

his critics, Haynes among them. The critics, he said, continued

perpetuating their “archaeological farce” that is “either tragic or comic, but

it has never been science"with its inherent give and take through testing of

hypothetical explanations against reality and a continuing flow of new

information. Science, Adovasio asserts early in the book, “Is less a matter

of creating facts than a process for reducing ignorance, but some people

always prefer the bliss of ignorance.” His Meadowcroft example well

illustrates the severity and scope of academic discourse, while providing a

detailed view of research methodology, and the problems inherent in

challenging firmly held scientific dogma."


An excellent example of this dogma is the very article you quoted in your

post.


[font=Arial,helvetica]"The foregoing 'kernel of real truth' was occasioned by letters written to Science News
[/font]

[font=Arial,helvetica]in response to B. Bower's article on the probability of human artifacts -- as old as
[/font]

[font=Arial,helvetica]100,000 years -- having been found at the Calico site in California. (See SF#51.) [/font]

[font=Arial,helvetica]
First, J.G. Duvall, III, attacked Bower's article, asserting that the human origin of the
[/font]

[font=Arial,helvetica]Calico 'artifacts' had long ago been shown to be untenable. For a reference, he cited
[/font]

[font=Arial,helvetica]an article by himself and W.T. Venner in the Journal of Field Archaeology. Duvall's
[/font]
[font=Arial,helvetica]
major point was that the Calico "tools" did not resemble proven Paleoindian tools. [/font]

[font=Arial,helvetica]
Responding to Duvall, G.F. Carter first pointed out that the Duvall-Venner paper was
[/font]

[font=Arial,helvetica]'almost instantly shown to be erroneous' by L.W. Patterson in the pages of the very
[/font]

[font=Arial,helvetica]same journal. As for the differences in artifacts, Carter asked why one should expect
[/font]

[font=Arial,helvetica]12,000-year-old Paleoindian artifacts to look like 200,000-year-old artifacts from an
[/font]

[font=Arial,helvetica]entirely different culture. (Duvall, James G., III; "Calico Revisited," Science News,
[/font]

[font=Arial,helvetica]131:227, 1987. Carter, George F.; "Calico Defended," Science News, 131:339, 1987.) [/font]

 

[justified]

How come the margins are set so oddly? Are you "borrowing" this material?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Hi Dailyblessings.

I apologize for my sloppy ending on my last post...I had to end it abrubtly

because of time contraints.

Adovasio's statement: "Both sites failed close academic scrutiny, a fate

shared by many suspected pre-Clovis sites as the search intensified during

the twentieth century." is made in the context of his overall theme.

The overall theme is encapsulated by the following quote in the same

article:

"Meadowcroft has produced an academic row Adovasio asserts is grounded

in petty politics and infighting by people with too much invested in

Clovis-First research to accept any new story despite its supporting

scientific evidence. He spends considerable book space defending

Meadowcroft, the meticulous quality of his work there, and in lambasting

his critics, Haynes among them. The critics, he said, continued

perpetuating their “archaeological farce” that is “either tragic or comic, but

it has never been science"with its inherent give and take through testing of

hypothetical explanations against reality and a continuing flow of new

information. Science, Adovasio asserts early in the book, “Is less a matter

of creating facts than a process for reducing ignorance, but some people

always prefer the bliss of ignorance.” His Meadowcroft example well

illustrates the severity and scope of academic discourse, while providing a

detailed view of research methodology, and the problems inherent in

challenging firmly held scientific dogma."


An excellent example of this dogma is the very article you quoted in your

post.

I realise that Adovasio is still a wholehearted proponent of the antiquity of his Meadowcroft site- I've met the man. (Incidentally, he'd laugh you out of his office if you told him you were using his site to promote a Creationist timeline!) And more than a few others agree with him about Meadowcroft. But only a handful of archaeologists, if that, still support the Calico site as being what Leakey said it was.

As for your second quote, I don't see how it relates to the question, since stylistic difference is not the reason why most archaeologists reject the stones as lithics.

Can you honestly look at these and tell me that they must be human-made? If so, why? There is no percussion bulb or flaking, no eraillure scars, no fluting, and they were not out of their geological contex; in short, nothing that would make them "incontrivertable evidence of Mans indelible footprint on America primaeval shores" as Leakey put it.

 

[chacha333]

I don't understand you question Justified?

I've quoted my sources. Or is this a question of grammar?


Here's some more photos of the Calico assemblage:

 

[chacha333]

Lol @ (Incidentally, he'd laugh you out of his office if you told him you were

using his site to promote a Creationist timeline!) I know...isn't it ironic!!

Here's a quote from some recent e-mail correspondence between me and

Mike Collins from U.T.'s archeology lab and director of the Gault Site:

"Charlie: I appreciate you sending the photos of your finds... If by using

the term, Levallois, you mean that your idea of preClovis is that it may

have derived from the Middle Paleolithic, that goes against everything that

we know about human history. I believe that people probably got to the

Americas sometime before Clovis, but maybe only a few thousand years

before Clovis. Certainly it was long after the end of the Middle Paleolithic

and the Levallois Mousterian. Levallois Mousterian was primarily a time of

Neanderthals and no where is there any indication that Middle Paleolithic

people or technology got out any where close to the Americas." (Sept

2005)

I don't buy Mike's story. I know he know's better than that. He's very

familiar with [SIZE=-1]Al Goodyear's research at Topper dating prepared blade core

blades and bend-break pieces at a minimum of 50,000RCYBP. He was a

keynote speaker at the recent [/SIZE]Clovis in the Southeast Conference, hosted

by Al Goodyear and company. This dating lands smack in the Middle

Paleolithic. I believe Mike is just being very conservative in his statements.

He does admit there are significant similarities between Solutrean and

other Upper-Paleolithic lithic techniques (21,000 RCYBP-18,000RCYBP) and

Clovis biface production and prepared blade core technology.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Lol @ (Incidentally, he'd laugh you out of his office if you told him you were
using his site to promote a Creationist timeline!) I know...isn't it ironic!!

Here's a quote from some recent e-mail correspondence between me and
Mike Collins from U.T.'s archeology lab and director of the Gault Site:

"Charlie: I appreciate you sending the photos of your finds... If by using
the term, Levallois, you mean that your idea of preClovis is that it may
have derived from the Middle Paleolithic, that goes against everything that
we know about human history. I believe that people probably got to the
Americas sometime before Clovis, but maybe only a few thousand years
before Clovis. Certainly it was long after the end of the Middle Paleolithic
and the Levallois Mousterian. Levallois Mousterian was primarily a time of
Neanderthals and no where is there any indication that Middle Paleolithic people or technology got out any where close to the Americas." (Sept 2005)

Mike is entirely correct. Even if the American lithics resembled Levallois points, they could not be Levallois points- our subspecies never manufactured them.

 

[chacha333]

Double Post

 

[chacha333]

OK, here's my response to your comments concerning Mike Collin's

interpretations.

First, a few current quotes from archeologists and anthropologists

concerning the Levallois technique associated with the Mousterian

Tradition:

1.

a. "While Homo erectus made traditional Acheulean tools, the new

Levallois technique is associated with the earliest Archaic Homo sapiens."

b. Mousterian tools were made mainly by Neanderthals. Mousterian tools

were also made by some early modern Homo sapiens sapiens groups.

ANT 210
Physical Anthropology
with Dr. Albert
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
​

2.

a. "Mousterian-like tool industries were employed at that time also by other late

archaic Homo sapiens populations and early modern Homo sapiens in some areas of

Africa and Southwest Asia."

b.

"... Then, a heavy percussion blow at one end of the core removed a large flake that

was convex on one side and

relatively flat on the other--i.e., a Levallois flake. This technique was first used in the

late Acheulian tradition by early archaic Homo sapiens 250,000 years ago. It was

perfected in the Mousterian Tradition by the Neandertals and some of their

contemporaries.

Dr. Dennis O'Neil

Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College, San Marcos, California

This page was last updated on Friday, November 11, 2005.

Copyright © 1999-2005 by Dennis O'Neil. All rights reserved.

3.

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Hardy, Bruce L.
[/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]BA, 1988
[/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Faculty Advisor: Shore
[/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Title: Experiments in the Archaeology of Language [/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Abstract: This paper presents a series of experiments involving the teaching of stone tool making by two different techniques: (1) visual demonstration alone and (2) visual demonstration and accompanying verbal explanation. In the archaeological record, there is a great increase in complexity with the move from the Acheulian hand-axe to the Levallois technique, occuring at the same time as the appearance of early Homo sapiens (approximately 200,000 years BP). The advent of the more complex Levallois technique may have required more advanced cognitive abilities, including language. I hypothesize that language would have been necessary for the teaching and retention of the Levallois technique of tool manufacture. These experiments involved the learning of hand-axe and Levallois flake production under various circumstances. Furthermore, the effects of language on the retention of the tool making techniques is examined in hopes of gaining insight into the conditions necessary for the successful transmission and memory of stone tool manufacturing. Results obtained indicate that the hypothesis is supported. These results strengthen, but do not prove, the argument that modern human language was present by 200,000 years B.P. [/font]

 

[chacha333]

Scores more of archeologists believe the Homo Sapien race

used the Levallois Technique, just on a more limited basis than the

Neanderthal race ( I personally believe Homo Sapiens and Homo

Neanderthalis were early racial expressions as time had passed since the

dispersion of the original genetic stock at the Tower of Babel in ancient

Mesopotamia-current day Iraq).

If you compare the prepared blade core lithics of the Clovis Complex and

the Neanderthal race, the similarities are significant.

If someone with image posting permissions will volunteer to post a few

photos for all to review, I'll e-mail Clovis and Neanderthal blade core lithics

photos. I have some really nice, definied photos of what I believe are

artifacts from Calico.

Thanks and Peace.

 

[Jackie777]

Topic: Before Clovis , @ Atlantis Rising forums

 

[Jackie777]

The Fenn Cache

 

[Jackie777]

Even faced with evidence to the contrary, Clovis First supporters refused to accept that people could have arrived in America earlier than 13,500 years ago.

When Wallace and his team analyzed the mitochondrial DNA of Native Americans, they found four distinctive lineages that he labeled A, B, C and D. All four turned out to share common ancestors back in Siberia and northeast Asia.

So far, these findings were consistent with the Clovis First theory that the first Americans came from Asia. But when Wallace calculated how long ago the Asian and Native American DNA diverged, he was shocked. He repeated his work, as did other labs. The results were consistent. Three of the four main ancestral groups A, C and D, diverged from their Asian forbears at least 20,000 years ago. And even more striking, the first Americans didn't all come at once, but in at least three waves of migration.

Now consider the ,
The Clovis spear point is a single stone, bifacial, or shaped on both sides, with a flute, or groove, at its base. The spear points in Asia are made from lots of small razor-like flints called micro-blades embedded in a bone handle.

Now there was a real puzzle. The DNA says the earliest Americans are from Asia, yet the Clovis point, is nowhere to be found in Asia.

One day, while making a Clovis point, he had a moment of inspiration. He remembered a popular science book he had seen when he was a student. It showed pictures of ancient spearheads made by the Solutreans, people who lived in Ice Age France and Spain. Their spear points resembled Clovis points. It seemed unbelievable, but Stanford and Bradley posed the question, "Could the Clovis point and some of the earliest Americans be from Europe?"

Overshot flaking was an unusual technique that left behind a distinctive byproduct, big flakes, at ancient Clovis stone working sites. Bradley wondered if traces of this technique might show up in southwestern France, where the Solutreans had lived 20,000 years ago

NARRATOR: To connect the Solutreans and Clovis, he needed to find out if they produced their spearheads using the same big flake technique.

BRUCE BRADLEY: So what we do is we go back to the collections of the broken materials, which is probably 99 percent of what there is here, and in that we're seeing the various ways that the Solutreans were making the things, not just the finished objects. And so it's the pieces that are hidden away that are going to tell us the most.

NARRATOR: And there in the drawers were big flakes, a clear sign that the Solutreans had made their spearheads in an identical technique to that of Clovis.

well, I found this interesting..........
any thoughts?