The Eyes Have It: Clovis peckers record YDB event in America’s oldest petroglyphs?

Clovis Petroglyphs: Eyewitness to Younger Dryas Boundary Event? Benson 2013 by George Howard

  • Trent Telenko

    “Here we report on early Archaic/Paleoindian petroglyphsfrom the Winnemucca Lake subbasin, Nevada, that were carved sometime between 14.8Æ0.2 and 10.3Æ0.1 ka”

    and

    “Above thecarbonate crust, it is apparent that the petroglyphs were originallycarved into a branching form of tufa (Benson, 1994), which wasdeposited between 16.2 and 14.8 ka (Supplementary Table 1, BTsamples inFig. 4).”

    So, at the Winnemucca Lake petroglyph site we have glyphs that were carved by a pre-Clovis people in Nevada using tools, that stopped when the Mammoths disappeared at the YDB?

    In the DoD world we call that a “Flaming datum”.

  • Hello to All

    Yes, dating petroglyph is very difficult, in any case I do not believe these geometric typefaces are work of junkies artists (as many archaeologists believe) …….. these themes are found throughout the world ….. probably … some of them are representations of astronomical events ………. catastrophic drops of explosive meteors!

    Maybe in the future a new generation of archaeologists may give consideration in this research line.

    https://sites.google.com/site/cosmopier/rock-art-and-palaeolagoons

    regards
    pierson

  • Hi

    Nevada rock art is granddaddy of N. America petroglyphs

    “We have no idea what they mean,” Larry Benson of the University of Colorado Boulde said. “But I think they are absolutely beautiful symbols. Some look like multiple connected sets of diamonds, and some look like trees, or veins in a leaf. There are few petroglyphs in the American Southwest that are as deeply carved as these, and few that have the same sense of size.”

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/nevada-rock-art-is-granddaddy-of-n-america-petroglyphs

    regards
    pierson

  • Steve Garcia

    BTW, George –

    FYI, the place where the paper is supposed to display is empty on my computer (Windows 7 and Google Chrome). That hasn’t happened in a long time, if ever.

  • Works fine on Windows 7 with IE 10

  • George Howard

    Fine on Mac with Chrome. Anyone else having trouble?

    Thanks for the head’s up, Steve! Always helpful hear when things dont look right.

  • Steve Garcia

    Not sure where to put this stuff, so I picked this thread because of the Clovis aspect. . .

    The Clovis Firsters are hyperventilating in order to regain their primacy in early American incursions. They’ve lost their claim on the Winner’s Circle, but by damned, they are going to scream bloody freaking murder that, “BUT CLOVIS IS THE MOSTEST!”

    LIKE WHO FREAKING CARES?

    I found both of these today, and both are from Feb 12th. And both from Science Daily. Same day, which makes it all easy to pick on… And both are talking about the same BOY, dated to 12,600 ya – 200 years AFTER the YDB.

    “Genome of American Clovis skeleton mapped: Ancestor of most present-day Native American populations” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140212132807.htm

    This one says:

    The Clovis people were not the first humans in America, but they represent the first humans with a wide expansion on the North American continent — until the culture mysteriously disappeared only a few hundred years after its origin. Now genome mapping shows that some 80 percent of all present-day Native American populations on the two American continents are direct descendants of the Clovis boy’s family…

    …Today there exists only one human skeleton found in association with Clovis tools and at the same time it is among the oldest human skeletons in the Americas. It is a small boy between 1 and 1.5 years of age — found in a 12,600 old burial site, called the Anzick Site, in Wilsall, Montana, USA. Now an international team headed by Danish researcher Eske Willerslev has mapped his genome thereby reviving the scientific debate about the colonization of the Americas.

    Ancient skeleton shows first Americans came from Asia http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140212144518.htm

    This one states:

    In 1968, the skeletal remains of a Clovis child were found near a rock cliff in central Montana, along with more than 100 burial artifacts found with the boy such as spear points and antler tools. The remains are 12,600 years old, the oldest such remains fully sequenced.

    Whoop-de-freaking-doo. NO one is arguing – NO ONE AT ALL – that the most Indians came from Asia. But asserting that CLOVIS is the group that came over Beringia is bull. At least at this time and with the evidence that is presented in this paper and the next one below.

    The logic of these two is miraculously BAD. One has to wonder where these people learned logic.

    They correctly state that Clovis was NOT the first in the Americas.

    Then they state that a KID 12,600 ya represents the boy proves that the first Americans came from Asia.

    How in the WORLD can a 12,600 ya boy’s remains prove that the “First Americans Came From Asia” when he was THOUSANDS of years AFTER the first people came to America?

    1. The kid was Clovis.

    2. Clovis people have long since been proven to NOT be the first Americans.

    3. The kid was actually AFTER the beginning of the YD – i.e., after 12,800 ya.

    4. The kid was as LATE in Clovis history as anything you will ever read about.

    5. The kid’s DNA shows he is related to Asiatics.

    NOTHING in either article shows that the Asiatics who came over Beringia were the first Americans. The one paper states clearly that Clovis was the first, and then the second article – based on the same evidence – states exactly the opposite – that this kid and HIS kind were the first Americans.

    Terrible reporting, if not terrible science.

    The REAL history is basically this:

    A. Others came earlier.

    B. Asiatics came later.

    C. Asiatics made more babies.

    D. ~80% of the “Native Americans” have that Asiatic DNA.

    E. The kid was found at a site at which a Clovis point was found.

    F. The great majority of Clovis sites are in the USA southeast.

    G. It is known that there was trade among early peoples in the Americas. How early no one yet knows.

    H. A Clovis point at that site does not mean that the people who lived there were Clovis. Those people could have been a clan that traded with Clovis (or traded with a third group that DID trade with Clovis.)

    I. A Clovis point at that site does not mean that the kid was Clovis.

    J. The scientists who assert that Clovis = Asiatic represent only ONE scientific point of view. Though HIS clan came from Asia does not mean that CLOVIS came from Asia.

    K. Asiatic tool technology is of a completely different style than Clovis tools. This absolutely forensic evidence shows that Clovis points can NOT have come from Asia.

    Logical conclusions:

    * If the Clovis technology did not come from Asia, but the boy did, then the technology found at that site had to have been developed by someone who DIDN’T come from Asia.

    * The tech found at the site was Clovis.

    * The tech found at the site did NOT come from Asia.

    * The LATE PERIOD Asiatic people at the site must have acquired the tech from another group.

    DUH.

  • Steve Garcia

    Dang… It is hard to proofread within that small window that WordPress provides. Sorry for the bad syntax in the sentences.

  • Steve Garcia

    What is clear from the evidence is that:

    1. The pre-YDB people were all but wiped out by the events of the YDB.

    2. This created a population bottleneck FOR THE PRE-YDB PEOPLE.

    3. A very FEW of the Pre-YDB people made it through that bottleneck.

    4. Some Pre-YDB groups were wiped out completely.

    5. Asiatics may or may not have arrived before the YDB. If so, then a few their population made it through the bottleneck.

    6. Perhaps the Asiatics did not come until later. This boy, at 12,600 ya shows only that some Asiatics were in the Americas AFTER the YDB.

    7. Future mtDNA results on skeletons in the NW states will clarify only one thing: When exactly the Asiatics arrived.

    8. Future mtDNA of skeletons in the SE and NE USA will clarify who ELSE was here – and when. That is, IF and only IF such skeletons are ever found.

    * * *
    Until then the Clovis Firsters will take their re-formulated arguments and claim all kinds of illogical things – muddling up the picture for everybody. As they did for all those years with the Clovis Barrier.

    Is there any way to revoke their degrees?

  • Hey Steve,
    If you download a free copy of Windows Live Writer you can edit, and proofread your posts in a WYSIWYG invironment, then switch the display mode to “source” mode. You can then copy, and paste the resulting HTML into any wordpress comment block, and it’ll work flawlessly every time.

  • Steve Garcia

    Dennis –

    You told me that, long ago. It’s been a long time, but it really didn’t work whe n I used it, as I recall. Had it worked well enough, I wouldn’t be complaining about WordPress.

    MANY MANY MANY people have asked for WordPress to add spellcheck an/or preview. I am not the first, not by a few hundred thousand or million…

  • David L. Ulrich

    —-they represent the first humans with a wide expansion on the North American continent — until the culture mysteriously disappeared only a few hundred years after its origin—-

    They are not scientists and they are not critical thinkers. They have not applied the same rules to themselves as they apply to others who disagree with them. I don’t know what to say or how to say it. And since firing them is not a option……..?

  • I’ve using it for years, both here, and my own wordpress blog, and without any problems at all.

  • Steve Garcia

    Are we on the attack again, Professor Grondine?

    Don’t you think this gets old?

  • E.P. Grondine

    “The pre-YDB people”

    Peoples:

    http://www.worldfamilies.net/mtdnahaplogroups

    As has been noted in papers By Kennet’s associates posted here, the actual mortality rate is estimated at 95% for each people, with no people experiencing 100%.

  • Steve Garcia

    That looks like a basic outline article that should help everyone get an overview.

    At the bottom of that is this, about X haplotype:

    X: Haplogroup X is found in Europe and Asia, and is believed to have migrated to the Americas about 15,000 years ago, making up a very small component of the Native American population.”

    This is a VERY inexact explanation of X haplotype.

    First, there are two main subgroups, X1 and X2, with those broken down into several “lower” subgroups.

    There is no evidence that X is any older in Asia or Europe. That is an assumption, based on the Out of Africa meme and the thinking that the Americas are the end of all mutations. While that is a reasonable assumption within that paradigm, with X, nothing is really known about how it has dispersed. It seems like every new fact uncovered widens the mystery.

    Where does X actually show up? Saying “Asia” is frankly, cheating, wordwise, and is VERY mmisleading. Where is it found in Asia? In Egypt-Israel-Palestine, for one. Then in the Caucasus – without ANY X haplotype in between. But the real kicker is that there are X subgroups in the area of the Gobi Desert/Altai Mountain region – and those have NO connection whatsover to the ones in the Middle East. And not only do they have nothing in common with THOSE other groups, they have no connection to ANY region around the Gobi, other than the Altai/Gobi. NO ONE KNOWS how that X got there.

    Likewise, saying “Europe” is just as misleading. Where in Europe is the highest concentration of X haplotype? Is it down in Cyprus or Greece, or even Turkey, down somewhere close to Israel or Egypt? Is it in Bulgaria, a little farther away? No.The highest X concentration in Europe is n two areas – the Orkneys and in the Basque regions of Spain and France – over on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. The Orkneys, in fact, has THE highest anywhere in Eurasia.

    And saying “a very small component of the Native American population” is really, REALLY cheating. How so? Well, for one thing, there is actually quite a bit MORE variety in Native American languages than variety in any other part of the world, suggesting for one thing that the oldest languages may be in the Americas. It takes TIME to morph one language into another, so this cannot be dismissed lightly. But more languages also strongly imply different cultures and isolation at many different levels. So, just as we can;t go around talking about Greeks as if they are Scots or Swedes, we can’t go around talking about “Native Americans” as if they are all one homogeneous population. And what do we find when we look at specific Native American populations? 25% of Iroquoisans have some X haplotype. This puts them at just about the highest levels in the world.

    If the Iroquoians were some European or Asian group with that high of concentration of X, the first reaction would be that the Iroquoians were the HOME peoples of X haplotype. But because the Iroquois are in North America, that conclusion is off the table. Far from being “a very small component”, X is a VERY LARGE component in the NE of the USA and into SE Canada.

    But let’s look at this X phenomenon overall…

    There are high concentrations around the Atlantic shores – some in the basque regions, some in the Orkneys, and some on the Eastern Seaboard of the USA and Canada. Other than being separated by water, those are contiguous. Why does it exist in the Caucasus, the Levant, and the Altai? THOSE are isolated from the others. ALL OTHER haplotypes leave a trail wherever they go, connecting the regions where those haplotypes are found. X is WAAAAY different. X haplotype jumps from one isolated pocket to another.

    Believe me, this has caused some geneticist head scratching and some wild guesses and some true acknowledgement that they don’t know WHAT to think. All speculations are ONLY speculations. But at least they aren’t bullshitting everyone by pretending to know something they don’t.

    Why does X haplotype matter? Because of the mother of all human population bottlenecks – the YDB. How so? I will tell you all some day…

    As to “no people experiencing 100%” read up on the Ice Man Ötzi. Also, show us a Clovis man running around today.

  • Steve Garcia

    As usual, Mr Grondine posts a statement with no leads to follow up… His 95% and no 100% comment has no tie to the link posted.

    I will bet that nowhere does Kennett specifically claim 95% and only 95%. If he doesn’t include Clovis, he has to show where 5% of Clovis survived.

    Ötzi was only 5,000 ya. I found just now that in a search for Ötzi relatives, 3700 Tyrolean men were tested and 19 were found to have ONE genetic mutation the same as Ötzi and are declared from that to be his relatives. 19/3700 = 00.51%, which could be interpreted that 99.49% of Ötzi’s line has died out. Pretty darned close to 100%, rather than 95%.

    But Ötzi was actually linked genetically with south Sardinia, so it beggers belief that south Sardinians weren’t the ones in the test. What those numbers might show is anybody’s guess.

    And while we are at it, how about Neandertals? Because 3% of Europeans have a little Neandertal genes, does that mean that Neandertals did not go extinct? Right about the time of Michael Davias preferred date for the Carolina Bays formation?

    And that thing about X coming into the Americas at 15,000 ya is specifically an uncertainty, BTW. “Haplogroup X is found in Europe and Asia, and is believed to have migrated to the Americas about 15,000 years ago” – sounds very uncertain to me.

  • E.P. Grondine
  • E.P. Grondine

    “As usual, Mr Grondine posts a statement with no leads to follow up… His 95% and no 100% comment has no tie to the link posted.”

    Steve, you yourself made multiple statements concerning early man in the Americas in that one post here without proof of any of them.

    Here is a link to one of the posts here on the population “decline” here at the Tusk, and there have been many of them:

    cosmictusk.com/clovis-population-decline-at-younger-dryas/

  • Steve Garcia

    That Cosmic Tusk post was before I got here, so I am glad to see it.

    Thanks for making my point for me. I see that post as supportive of my point about the bottleneck. How else does one read it?

    Abstract

    Multiple Lines of Evidence for a Possible Human Population Decline during the Early Younger Dryas

    Abstract

    Three approaches are used to test whether or not human populations across North America were affected by abrupt climate change and/or other environmental factors associated with the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) cooling episode at ca. 12,900 cal BP. They are: (1) frequency analyses of Paleoindian projectile points from across North America; (2) time series of lithic assemblages from eleven Paleoindian quarry sites in the southeastern United States; and (3) summed probability analyses (SPA) of radiocarbon dates from cultural (human-related) sites across North America and parts of the Old World. The results of each analysis suggest a significant decline and/or reorganization in human population during the early centuries of the YD, varying in extent by region. Archaeological settings formerly heavily utilized, such as stone quarries in the southeastern U.S., appear to have been largely abandoned, while over large areas, a substantial decline occurred in the numbers of diagnostic projectile points and cultural radiocarbon dates. Later in the YD, beginning after about 12,600 cal BP, there was an apparent resurgence in population and/or settlements in many areas, as indicated by increases in projectile points, quarry usage, and human-related radiocarbon ages.

  • Steve Garcia

    A bottleneck can be a more or less local event, if the populations are isolated.

    While I am not going to go in the direction of having every assertion have a link to a paper, I make specific assertions which can be followed up. Or when people ASK, I point them. I have asked about 30 questions of you in the last year, and not one time have you ever pointed at any source whatsoever. In fact, almost every time NO RESPONSE was given at all to questions.

    When you answer my specific questions, I will answer any that you have. IN fact, ask away. Questions, anyone?

    Saying things like “By Kennet’s associates posted here, the actual mortality rate is estimated at 95% for each people, with no people experiencing 100%,” how is anyone supposed to follow up such vague statements? Especially when “Kennet” is misspelled. The link given, as I said, had no connection with the point made.