Discoveries Challenge Beliefs on Humans’ Arrival in the Americas

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: Stormdancer777
West shore of China lake Mojave desert , human occupation at 18k
Only a very small community still holds on to the Clovis first paradigm.

This is my area and 18000 years ago this was not desert.

It was forest and lake country with a large river running through it year round and this river ran all the way to death valley.

a reply to: ANNED

No, it was not desert.
But it is today.
And the ancient Lake Mojave was just one the myriad of lakes, in what is a vast desert today.
And as I have mentioned, an aquaintance of mine consulted on a dig at another ancient mojave lake, that was giving secure dates going back +24k and more.
He was a geologist brought in to confirm the dating of the site. His specialty was pluvial/lacrustrine sedimentation, and he confirmed the groups dating of the site by identifying several localized volcanic eruptions within the sediments.

Thought I'd leave this here,

In recent years, though, archaeological evidence has increasingly called into question the idea of "Clovis First." Now, a study published by a team including DRI's Kathleen Rodrigues, Ph.D. student, and Amanda Keen-Zebert, Ph.D., associate research professor, has dated a significant assemblage of stone artifacts to 16-20,000 years of age, pushing back the timeline of the first human inhabitants of North America before Clovis by at least 2,500 years.

Significantly, this research identifies a previously unknown, early projectile point technology unrelated to Clovis, which suggests that Clovis technology spread across an already well-established, indigenous population.

"These projectile points are unique. We haven't found anything else like them," said Tom Williams, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department of Anthropology at Texas State University and lead author of the study. "Combine that with the ages and the fact that it underlies a Clovis component, and the Gault site provides a fantastic opportunity to study the earliest human occupants in the Americas."

And,

The research team identified the artifacts at the Gault Site in Central Texas, an extensive archaeological site with evidence of continuous human occupation. The presence of Clovis technology at the site is well-documented, but excavations below the deposits containing Clovis artifacts revealed well-stratified sediments containing artifacts distinctly different from Clovis

Luminescence dating confirms human presence in North America prior to 16 thousand years ago, earlier than previously thought


I'll wager that Gault was used by several groups of people, with the oldest being "extraordinary", which is why they say they have never seen anything like it.

In that photo there are western stemmed and south eastern US(south american possibly?) fishtailed points.
There are also some rather mousterian looking objects as well, that would be the extraordinary if ot were so.
I'm going to try to find the reference I have to a site not to far from gault that had the remains of an amimal that went extinct 20+kya., those remains were in the form of a hide used as a ground cloth.

a reply to: JesusChristwins

Dude...when you go around trying to open your eyes...you have to keep them open for those who would use similar beliefs to push you into nonsense. Unless you are some long simmering troll....I cannot believe you have done such a 180 in your beliefs. Because the person who posted this initially should not be looking backwards into a bible ever.

a reply to: punkinworks10

I expect to find neandertal remains in the US one day. Or denisovan (i mean...what is the real difference between the 2 anyway?).

Id expect that as we uncover more denisovan in the "old world" we will find that they share a commonality with mousterian culture.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: punkinworks10

I expect to find neandertal remains in the US one day. Or denisovan (i mean...what is the real difference between the 2 anyway?)

Not enough Denisovan fossils to completely answer that question.
Several molars (from different individuals) and a finger bone are all that's been found so far.
DNA shows they are different, and fossils show their teeth were different than those of Neandertals.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: punkinworks10

I expect to find neandertal remains in the US one day. Or denisovan (i mean...what is the real difference between the 2 anyway?)

Not enough Denisovan fossils to completely answer that question.
Several molars (from different individuals) and a finger bone are all that's been found so far.
DNA shows they are different, and fossils show their teeth were different than those of Neandertals.

Harte

Its my understanding that the Neanderthals couldn't hum a tune but the Denisovans were accomplished dancers.

Okay okay I made that up but how many decades will it take to prove me wrong - if ever?

originally posted by: Harte
Not enough Denisovan fossils to completely answer that question.
Several molars (from different individuals) and a finger bone are all that's been found so far.
DNA shows they are different, and fossils show their teeth were different than those of Neandertals.

Don't forget the elongated skulls!

originally posted by: [post=23620010]

Don't forget the elongated skulls!

I presume you mean the ones in Peru and those by all indications are HSS and of very late provenance.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Harte
Not enough Denisovan fossils to completely answer that question.
Several molars (from different individuals) and a finger bone are all that's been found so far.
DNA shows they are different, and fossils show their teeth were different than those of Neandertals.

Don't forget the elongated skulls!

There have been no Denisovan skulls found.
Don't forget to sober up!

Harte