In the Australian article, “Meteor link to dawn of civilisation”, there is this:

“Meanwhile thousands of miles away in the eastern Mediterranean, the first farmers started growing cereals. The invention of agriculture was a pivotal step in the development of large settled communities and civilisation.”

If a huge disaster hits the planet, wipes out at least all the megafauna in N.A., the mammoths in N. Siberia, and Clovis man, too – sending at least part of the world back to the Stone Age, and then soon after that dies down we find the evidence of the start of agriculture, why is everyone concluding that agriculture started then? Shouldn’t the question come into SOMEONE’S mind that maybe it is a RE-start?

The article ends with

“Environmental stresses may also have caused Natufians in the Near East to settle down for the first time and pursue agriculture.”

A: Why do they read THAT lot of “environmental stresses” to have caused someone to start agriculture? Why not the earlier ones indicated in the Pleistocene, in the D-O events in the ice cores? What would have been special about THAT one?

I know — That is what everyone from biologists to astronomers to climatologists have been noticing about the YD all along: That there WAS something different going on. And we are all in the middle of that forest and no one can really see the forest for the trees. That much is acknowledged. And this YDB hypothesis is an idea that seems to address so much of it in a single coherent, internally consistent manner. The YDB predicts that many of these things will be found. And – to its credit – they ARE being found.

One thing about me is that when Alvarez came out with the K-T meteor thing, I was super skeptical about that, even long after Chixculub was found. I came to it very grudgingly, and only after seeing the YDB evidence have I come around on Alvarez and the dinosaur killer.

But back to the Natufians and agriculture – it seems just as likely to me that agriculture had been begun before the YDB. That we have not found evidence may not be as convincing as we may initially think. It is clear from much evidence that humans did live on the coasts, even now-submerged ones. If the YDB was multiple impacts, then the Sumatran and Japanese tsunamis should begin to show us what kind of scouring of human activity – even MODERN activity – can occur with tsunamis. Those two were considerably under 50 feet high, even their run-ups.

By examining the Hills and Goda computer data we can figure out what would have happened if asteroid 1989 FC had struck the Atlantic Ocean 1000 kilometers from the coast of the United States. If it was an iron asteroid, the deep-water wave would have been 20 meters at the coast. The tsunami it would have produced would have been about 0.8 kilometer high. The notion of such a high wave breaking along the east coast of the United States is a stunning one.

Gerrit L. Verschuur. Impact!: The Threat of Comets and Asteroids (p. 154). Kindle Edition.

So, instead of a 12 meter tsunami, there could be an 800 meter tsunami. “Stunning” is not the word for it. We can’t even compreHEND an 800 meter tsunami. We aer talking about a wave the width of the Atlantic seabord and as HIGH as both Petronas Towers stacked on top of each other. And even with that we don’t comprehend an 800 meter tsunami. You don’t just get chevrons on the beach. You get chevrons all the way to Pittsburgh. NOTHING could be left of our society in range of such a mega-tsunami. No waves halfway up the Mannhattan skyline. The waves would be so far OVER the skyscrapers that even in the ujpper stories people would be the same as being at 1,000 feet deep. It would be BLACK, for the few seconds they survived. Them and every building would be shredded, scoured from the face of the Earth.

Now, supposing someone in some backwater place like Iraq (Sumeria) was lucky enough that the tsunami didn’t hit them. They’d remember how to farm, wouldn’t they, PDQ? And without imports they’d damned well BETTER remember how, because there aren’t going to be anymore beef shipments from Argentina – even if Argentinian ranches got spared . And no bibb lettuce from northern France, because France wouldn’t exist anymore. All surviving corners of the world would be isolated. If not immediately, then soon enough, when the nuclear plants and coal power plants give out. Scavenging will become the mining of choice, and then necessity. What the tsunami didn’t erase, the people would, within 20-50 years, maximum. That legendary western civilization? People would sit around cooking fires and wistfully talk about what used to be.

The operative term in the quoted passage is this: “thousands of miles away.”

From the Wu abstract:

Another study by Surovell et al. (27) was unable to replicate either the abundances or the chronostratigraphy of the magnetic spherules reported by Firestone et al. (10).That finding, however, has been contradicted by LeCompte et al.(26), who found magnetic spherules in three sites examined by Surovell et al. (27).

LeComte et al 2012 was not the first paper that pointed out that Surovell screwed up his sampling methodology and lab protocols. It seems rather odd that neither Surovell nor Holliday – or the Bos – have seen fit to attempt a rebuttal. One might assume that they would be working on that, to attempt to defend their good names.

George – any take on that?

OK, so this is a claim of a conspiracy with the editors of PNAS.

A: They should take it up with the PNAS, and produce some sort of evidence for their charges of malfeasance by certain editors.

B: THEY are the guys with the connections. They should just use those connections to try change things at PNAS. Without threats or extortion,of course.

C: It still comes down to the science. WHAT IN THE SCIENCE IS BEING DONE INCORRECTLY? After all, he is saying that INFERIOR SCIENCE IS BEING DONE. That should be easy to refute. If the work is done incorrectly, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS POINT AT WHICH EVIDENCE IS BEING HANDLED INCORRECTLY AND SHOW THE ERRORS. No one is stopping them.

SO what this is coming down to is a temper tantrum. They have looked at the papers by LeCompte and the recent ones and can’t find anything wrong with the science, so they are resorting to office politics.

COME ON, DAULTON GANG! PUT UP A DECENT FIGHT. Are you all going down sniveling in back alleys, hoping to whisper in the ear of the regent in order to have your opponents dismissed?

What ever happened to you all – no stomach for science? For putting your facts out there versus someone else’s and letting the chips fall where they may?

We note the pathetic whining this email illustrates – crying amongst yourselves, because you can’t overturn the science. Is this what you’ve come to? Shame on your sorry conniving souls.

And blaming it on a BLOG that has maybe 200 visitors a day? Wow. You all must really be sad scientists – and REALLY insecure.

NOTE TO DAULTON ET AL:

Blogs can be biased if they want to be. What the HELL does that have to do with you and your ability to do science PROPERLY?

Answer the damned challenges to your work that LeCompte and others have laid down: They say your work was FLAWED. All you have to do is to go out and show that it wasn’t flawed. We at CosmicTusk are just kibitzers, dudes. Why do we even MATTER to you at all? Take it up with the YD Team and do your due diligence.

Picking on us little squirmies as if we are storming the bastions at PNAS – ARE YOU DAFT?

Yeah, like you said at the end:

YOU HAVE SOME SCIENCE TO DO.

.

.

.

We couldn’t have said it better.

@George Howard

I forwarded your suggestion to those who seem so concerned with the veracity of PNAS publications; the same dude who keeps saying:

“This Direct Submission had a pre-arranged editor.”

I suggested he take that up with PNAS as Steve Garcia logically recommended.

I am going to pick on that “beginning of civilization” article again (which seems to have been picked up all around the world):

Meanwhile thousands of miles away in the eastern Mediterranean, the first farmers started growing cereals. The invention of agriculture was a pivotal step in the development of large settled communities and civilisation.

and

[Sharma] “Environmental stresses may also have caused Natufians in the Near East to settle down for the first time and pursue agriculture.” [emphasis added]

There are no references to any of civilization, Natufians, or agriculture in the paper, as there shouldn’t be, given the nature of the paper itself. So this comment by Sharma is off-the-cuff and shouldn’t even be mentioned to journalists.

Yes, this paper is supportive of the YDB, and I am happy about that, but this is a quantum leap of logic that is unsupportable. There is zero line of evidence connecting the possible event in Canada and the Near East. Not only that, but the beginnings of agriculture are most commonly placed near the END of the YD, 1000 years or more in the future. This then is displacement in time, displacement in space, and the actual cause and effect are completely speculative.

It is not cool when scientists on EITHER side of the divide go off on speculations to the press. Such a speculation does the YDB argument no good at all. It just gives the other side fodder for saying the YDB team and the PNAS paper authors are out in la-la land.

If Sharma has something other than what is quoted, it wasn’t in the paper.

As to the Natufians, Wiki presents it this way:

First occupation
The village of Abu Hureyra had two separate periods of occupation: An Epipalaeolithic settlement, and a Neolithic settlement. The Epipaleolithic, or Natufian, settlement was established around 13,500 years ago.[1] During the first settlement, c. 13,000 BP, the village consisted of small round huts, cut into the soft sandstone of the terrace. The roofs were supported with wooden posts, and roofed with brushwood and reeds.[3] Huts contained underground storage areas for food. The population was small, housing a few hundred people at most.
The hunter-gatherers of Abu Hureyra obtained food by hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild plants. Gazelle was hunted primarily during the summer, when vast herds passed by the village during their annual migration.[4] Other prey included large wild animals such as onager, sheep, and cattle, and smaller animals such as hare, fox and birds, which were hunted throughout the year. Plant foods were harvested from “wild gardens,”[5] with species gathered including wild cereal grasses such as einkorn wheat, emmer wheat, and two varieties of rye.

Abandonment
The hunter-gatherers of the first occupation eventually abandoned Abu Hureyra, probably at the advent of the Younger Dryas, an intense and abrupt return to glacial climate conditions which lasted nearly 1,000 years.[5] The drought disrupted the migration of the gazelle, and decimated the forageable plant food sources. It is likely that the inhabitants had to give up sedentism and returned to life on the move.

Second occupation
Around 9,000 BC the people return, and a Neolithic settlement was established, perhaps ten times as large as the earlier settlement and one of the largest at that time in the Middle East. Mud-brick houses were constructed and a large mound was built up under the settlement mainly from the remains of old houses. An increasingly wide variety of plants was cultivated and examination of human skeletons has shown various deformities that have been associated with laborious agricultural work, particularly the grinding of grain.[6] Animals were also herded. Pottery was used from around 7,300 BP[6] and weaving some time before that. The village was abandoned around 7,000 BP.

But here is one of those times when you can’t trust Wikipedia, because it also says this:

Dating

Radiocarbon dating places this culture from the terminal Pleistocene to the very beginning of the Holocene, from 12,500 to 9500 BC.

The period is commonly split into two subperiods: Early Natufian (12,500–10,800 BC) and Late Natufian (10,800–9500 BC). The Late Natufian most likely occurred in tandem with the Younger Dryas (10,800 to 9500 BC). In the Levant, there are more than a hundred kinds of cereals, fruits, nuts and other edible parts of plants, and the flora of the Levant during the Natufian period was not the dry, barren, and thorny landscape of today, but parkland and woodland.

Notice the lack of matching of the dating. According to the first quoted part above, the two periods were separated by an abandonment period that lasted approximately from the YDB to 9500 BCE. In the second quoted part the second phase began AT the YDB.

If there is evidence for both assertions, then the Natufians are one of those things where dates are still very tenuous.

I guess that allows someone to speculate about connections between Natufians and the YDB, but the connection can’t be anything more than speculation. And as I hear a lot elsewhere: “Correlation doesn’t equal causation.”

And that is only the time factor. There is still the space (distance) factor and the mind of man factor (which is mind-read a lot in various fields).

This begins to sound like “greedy reductionism,” in which too many effects begins to be connected to a possible cause – biting off more than they can chew, in a sense. Or like putting the cart ahead of the horse.

Yes, inside us we’d like to see the YDB be the magic wand that makes everything make sense. But it hasn’t even been established yet itself – as we all know full well.

The YDB Team – and independent research – needs to nail down a bit more, and each nail helps. It is premature to jump to such conclusions as Sharma expressed – In my own personal opinion.

George –

LOL – I am the opposite of the YDB instigating civilization. I think it ended civilization, and that we had to start all over again. Thus nthe appearance of “the beginning of agriculture” and the “beginning of civilization.” Just my opinion…

🙂

Interesting that it would fall near the natural heat anomaly of the Shiva (“the Destroyer” or “the Transformer”) proposed impact structure…

That place we’ve read about with the fractured lithosphere…. Oh man, that hurts!
(“Doctor, I fractured my lithosphere in this place!” “Well, don’t go to that place!”)

So maybe impact induced geology was the kernel of this recently found urban center, with all of the unique properties of heat and petrol seepage it has to offer.

TH

Steve; I think your are on the right track about YDB ending civilization. Starting at the begining we wore skins sometimes and wandered around looking for something to eat. In this process we learned waht would kill us and what wouldn’t. Along comes comet, BAM, back to the begining except the survivors had knowledge and could progress faster. each time we got our arse kicked we came back faster and better and this continues to this day. When you and I are flashed back to square one we will be back in half the time a the last round of civilization. Maybe by then we will figure a way to send these little snowballs back to whence they came. Jim

The effects of the YDB event on world populations depended of where you were at and what kind of society you lived in.
In the north America it devastated the native people, it drove the clovis out of their homelands, and the subsequent loss of prey due to habitat loss, forced them into new lifeway strategies. In California, when the clovis people settle at the Witt site, they take on a more generalized lifestyle, essentially taking the place of the people who were there before the event.
In the old world the event clearly sets the path for communal societies, and the advent of true agriculture.

Jim, as I under stand the published work, the clovis inhabit the site after a several hundred year hiatus of occupation by the previous people. But I do believe they assimilated into the existing culture in the area.
My reasoning is such, the Witt site is at the base of a pass across the cal coast range, that leads to both of the intra mountain valleys of the Salinas and san benito rivers, and then to vast expanses of beach that run from san simion all the way to Santa Barbara.
This is the core territory for the chumash, who are a language isolate, and in Malibu you have the 9000 year old farpoint site, that is directly below one of the earliest chumash sites.

At that time the great central valley of California would have been an easy place to make a living.
It was teaming with the large game that they hunted, the rivers draining the glaciated sierra turned huge portions of the valley into a vast wetland. The Witt site itself was on the western shore of the ancient Tulare lake.
It has been said that in north America, paleoindians come in two distinct”cultures”, the highly mobile spear hunting, moccasin wearing Clovis derived people, and the basket and mat weaving, sandal wearing , net and bow hunting people of the west.
The yokuts who lived in the area of the Witt site as far as I can tell are the only California Indians who wore hide moccosins. Is this a cultural hold over from the clovis? Maybe.
I think that California they slowly integrated into the exsisting peoples.
Native cal mythologies is one of my favorite reads, and some of the stories I believe relate directly to ydb event, there are several stories that tell of the day the earth burned and several distincly different flood stories. In some of the creation stories people arrive in the valley, weary of their wanderings cold and hungry and they steal fire from the people who were already here.

Here is an abstract of how the natufians of the Levant responded to the onset of the YD.

“Climatic forcing during the Younger Dryas (∼12.9–11.5 ky B.P.) event has become the theoretical basis to explain the origins of agricultural lifestyles in the Levant by suggesting a failure of foraging societies to adjust. This explanation however, does not fit the scarcity of data for predomestication cultivation in the Natufian Period. The resilience of Younger Dryas foragers is better illustrated by a concept of adaptive cycles within a theory of adaptive change (resilience theory). Such cycles consist of four phases: release/collapse (Ω); reorganization (α), when the system restructures itself after a catastrophic stimulus through innovation and social memory—a period of greater resilience and less vulnerability; exploitation (r); and conservation (K), representing an increasingly rigid system that loses flexibility to change. The Kebarans and Late Natufians had similar responses to cold and dry conditions vs. Early Natufians and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A responses to warm and wet climates. Kebarans and Late Natufians (α-phase) shifted to a broader-based diet and increased their mobility. Early Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A populations (r- and K-phases) had a growing investment in more narrowly focused, high-yield plant resources, but they maintained the broad range of hunted animals because of increased sedentism. These human adaptive cycles interlocked with plant and animal cycles. Forest and grassland vegetation responded to late Pleistocene and early Holocene climatic fluctuations, but prey animal cycles reflected the impact of human hunting pressure. The combination of these three adaptive cycles results in a model of human adaptation, showing potential for great sustainability of Levantine foraging systems even under adverse climatic conditions.’

http://archaeology.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=archaeology&cdn=education&tm=137&f=00&tt=13&bt=6&bts=0&zu=http%3A//dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113931109

In north America the people of the eastern great basin responded similarly, by starting to utilize more seeds as food.
Grind stones, or metates show in California about the same time and were used to grind seeds and roots for food.

In case someone pulls out the Manhattan Project as an example of technology advancing by a group, I’ve read quite a bit on the Project, and there were many small victories and many small defeats.

I would point out that the Manhattan was a series of developments, begun before the Porject itself, and continuing within the aegis of the Proeject, but I will argue that from what I know the specific steps toward the Bomb were each the revelation of one man – such as how to trigger the bomb, how to arrange the internals for implosion, the constituents, etc.

There was no Kum-bay-yah hand-holding in Los Alamos. Three was a division of labor into teams, and each step forward for each group was either one man’s insights or one man’s sweat.

Simply put: Nothing gets done by committee.

Steve; Did you get the pics I e-mailed to you last week? I still haven’t been able to get my #[email protected]^&*%*&!#$??^% home pc to give up the rest, but I will persevere! Jim C

you are so right! If you get any free time and want to stop my way let me know. either here or at my home e-mail. Should have come with the pics.

Dennis; I was afraid you were going to say that. So most YDB lines are just shear luck of the draw.

Actually Jim, not about “luck” at all. One just has to get a firm grasp on the recent geomorphology in any given area. And by “recent” I mean the past 20,000 years or so.

For example, in northern Minnesota I was able to go right to the layer that marks the transition from sub-glacial to the lacustrine conditions at the bottom of Lake Agassiz (the YD materials are in that sequence somewhere) There are no Black Mat materials there. To find it, you will need to find a place, perhaps on an alluvial fan, where the YD layer would’ve been emmediately covered, and preserved by materials washing down from above.

Cevin –

There was no ONE clovis people.

There was clovis technology, which was adopted by many different peoples.

Jim –

None of Dennis’s YDB “features” have ever been confirmed by any geologist, and that includes his latest observations on strata in the midwest.

Hello Jim –

The materials I work with are not simply “Native American stories”.

I suggest you attend one of the public lectures at Dickson Mound. You could take your piece to one of those lectures and ascertain whether it is an artifact or not.

Oh by the way, I forgot to mention the
Paleoamerican Odssey conference, being held in Santa Fe Nm,
on 10/16 to 10/19.
Among the speakers presenting papers will Kennett and West,and a group that will be presenting the full genome for a Clovis individual.
http://paleoamericanodyssey.com/
I’m trying to make the conference, there will be many influential researchers there.

Hi Cevin –

Your reconstruction of events conflicts with the mt DNA data.

PS – The Conference sounds very interesting.
I do not have funds necessary to attend it and network, but will be in Illinois taking care of business for the next several months.

There is far more to the field of impact research than work on the HSIE:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57606242/a-dangerous-game-of-cosmic-roulette/

E.P.,
“It appears that Solutrean overstrike technology was brought from the Sahara coastal region to South America by a very distinct haplogroup.”

Please not to mix genetics *haplogroup* with cultural traits *Solutrean overstrike technology.* The two are transmitted largely without correlation. To confuse the two is a distinctive mark of fascism.

Hermann –

Ed may have specific evidence in some paper somewhere, but he doesn’t share his sources here, so we have no idea where he gets stuff. I keep asking him, “Ed, where does that assertion come from?” and he never responds.

I think it is kind of bull that he play the mysterious game on us like we were NASA or Dennis.

Ed, if you’ve got something, playing esotericist is getting old. Everybody else here is open. Why can’t you be? You’ve already said you are NOT writing your second book, so what is making you play these games?

Hi Steve –

I really get tired of demands for my time, when no money is sent along.

In addition to which, there are many people that you can not discuss things rationally with. Most usually, they simply lack both knowledge and background.

What I provided Cevin with was a simple statement of fact.

Hi Cevin –

One thing to keep in mind is that the genetic science is being developed – that is why you get contradictory statements from different teams of geneticists every two weeks or so.

Pragmatically, mt DNA is the only useful information now, but must be checked against the archaeological record.

If you look at the distribution of C mt DNA hg in the Americas, the only thing that explains it is a very early crossing in the 40,000’s BCE.

(anecdotely, I get along very well with Dene)

more to come…

Hi Cevin –

Welcome to the cutting edge.

You have to go to the primary literature for this one, as it has not been gathered into any one place yet.

Given C mt DNA’s distribution to the tip of South America, I do not know if the assertions on C DNA changes are correct. I find it useful to check the geneticists assertions against the archaeological record; at this point, it appears to me to be the only way to proceed at this time.

In addition, not all mt DNA hg survived to modern times.

In the case of the group we are discussing, they were largely extincted by the Rio Cuarto Impact Event and the Great Atlantic Impact Megatsunami.
European conquerors killed the rest. They do not show up on the mt DNA hg distribution maps.

(The role of impact events in the separation of mt DNA hg has yet to be explored in depth. The implications of the Siberian and Alaskan iron asteroid impacts have yet to be worked through.

Keep in mind that impacts are a part of the natural environment in which man evolved.)

If you go back to the contact era literature, you will find that the Ocanachee and Yuchi are grossly anatomically different than other First Peoples. Other First Peoples speak of them as appearing different from themselves.

Follow them back through the archaeological record, and you end up in South America.

Because of the political situation, we lack modern paleoanthropology data for the NW coast of Africa. But there are no barriers to Solutrean to have shown up there. I have no problem with Solutrean being a distinct population group in Europe.

That said, it appears to me that you are leaving the Pedra Furada data and other very early South American data out of your analysis. As well as the new data on very early maritime technology, and the historical data on the accidental crossings by boat from Africa. (See Man and Impact in the Americas.)

In summary, I propose that impact is an extremely useful tool for anthropological research. In fact, since impact is a part of the natural environment, any work done without acknowledging impact will be flawed.

By the way, I will be away from the internet soon. I hope you will not consider it rude if I do not respond immediately to you.

(The late Tony DeRegnaucourt quickly told me that I would be spending time with these materials. He was right.)

…there is a lot more to our discussion here than that.

Acknowledged.

The point of a non-Bering Straits/pre-clovis human migration to South America — from either or both South East Asia and Spain/North Africa — is that such a migration theory was the equivalent of Atlantis Myths to anthropology/archeology in the late 1980’s-early 1990’s.

However, it does fit the east-west climate/tool kit mobility behavior of Eurasian Step nomads far better than the old Bering Straits model which was far too North-South.

The only human society I am really aware of being very north-south nomadically mobile prior to Columbus were the Norse, and they flat died out in North America-Greenland when the Little Ice age kicked off.

& thennext who the @#$%! is Stanford (Dennis)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

Actually, Trent, that is a completely inappropriate and unfounded analogy.

The origin of the Atlantis Myth (which obviously I need to point out was covered in extenso in “Man and Impact in the Americas”) is in no way similar to the study of human migrations into South America (which obviously I need to point out was also covered in “Man and Impact in the Americas”.)

As far as human migrations, and the early use of water craft, there is volumous work published of which you are unaware. A good introduction to those works may be had by following out the footnotes in “Man and Impact in the Americas”.

Herman and E.P.G.
Are either of you familiar with the work of Russian anthropologist Dr. German Dziebel?
His blog ,http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/,
is a good place to find the state of the art for genetic studies and commentary of said studies.
I’ll warn you he is a proponent of an “out of America” scenario for the dispersal of culturally modern humans.

E.P.G.
I didn’t get into SA because it would take this discussion even further afield than it already is.
I will say this, Luzia is not africanoid she was an archaic, as were other examples of her morphology, such as certain fuegans, the pericue of Baja , the tranquillity burials from central cal, and various other people’s from Mexico and places in the US.
It is well documented that archaics persisted well into the holocene, the iwo eleru skulls from Africa, the tutkaul from central Eurasia and the various new world examples I mentioned.
I am in the camp of a very very early entrance into the new world some 200k years ago. Calico hills/manix lake lithic complexes are most certainly representative of a very early, homo sapiens Neanderthal or even homo erectus or homo sapiens denisova, entrance. These people may or may not have survived. The discovery of auchelean tools in the desert SW, adds more weight to the argument.
Also there is a string of or sites stretching from the Pacific coast to texas, that are typified by a lack of projectile points
and have tool asemblages based on cobble based choppers with no blades.
I have an aquaintence that is a geologist , that consulted on a site in the Mojave that has yeilded dates in excess of 16k years and much much older dates that are disputed.
E.P.G. I will not be offended by a delay in response, I have been responding between design build jobs and machine cycles.

Hi Cevin –

My delays have not yet started, but will soon.
(Just to show how old I am, I sort of remember having compile times on big iron many many years ago.)

If there were pre-HSS migrations to the Americas, they did not survive into modern Native American populations. This is not to say that they were not possible, but they are outside of the focus of my studies. There is a clear problem differentiating man made versus natural tools at that point in time.

“archaic” has so many different definitions that you have to be specific when you use it. Just to clear this up for the browsers here, you were using “archaic” in a paleo-genetic sense in your post.

Another significant nomenclature problem is with the terms HE, HN, HH, HD, and HSS. When I wrote my book I got a lot of grief for speaking about the early migrator out of Africa as Homo Heidelbergensis. That was even though I went into the naming problems in the footnotes.

Obviously, the problem of the extinctions of different types of robust Homo Erectus (Homo Heidelbergensis) by impact events has not been examined in any depth yet.

Trent –
“”Topper is the oldest radiocarbon dated site in North America,” Goodyear says. “However, other early sites in Brazil and Chile, as well as a site in Oklahoma also suggest that humans were in the Western Hemisphere as early as 30,000 years ago to perhaps 60,000.”

I get FURIOUS at the jaggoffs about their science-blocking Clovis First stupidity.

And now we are past the Clovis barrier and every year or three it gets extended back another 5,000 years or so.

Valsequillo is looking more and more likely all the time. It may take them another decade or three, but Valequillo’s 200,000 may happen yet. We are already FIFTY years since Vaslequillo got squashed by a criminal top arkie in Mexico, plus scared out of their minds American arkies.

The entire history as per arkies has been wrong for so long that, and in fixing it, mostly they need to throw out ALL of the old and start over again.

Hermann –

LOL . . .

Welcome to beyond the Clovis Barrier!

You seem to be getting it.

🙂

@Ed “PS3 – I think I also need to add at at this point that we’re talking about the Holocene Start Impact Event, and that the Younger Dryas glacial melt drainages appear to occur 1,000 years after that.”

And it needs to be pointed out that the ice sheets advanced during the YD, making drainage sooner a bit contradictory.

I laugh at the MacKenzie River (fall back) drainage out into the far western Arctic Ocean – as if fresh water entering there could possibly cause a shutdown of the so-called oceanic conveyor. The one they WANTED was the St Lawrence River so that the freshwater would have a straight shot at the North Atlantic – but that failed on several fronts. BADLY. Timing was one. No scablands, either, between Lake Agassiz and Lake Superior.

Hermann –

Ed says: “Just to clear this up, the appearance of X mt DNA in the Americas is definitively tied to Canadian Maritime Archaic culture, which appears many thousands of years after Clovis technology.”

Where he gets this from he doesn’t say. Reading my linked comment just previous, X came to America about the same time as Solutrean tech was existing on both sides of the pond – or maybe earlier. Ed’s assertion that X came over after Clovis is not in agreement with what else is out the.

“12,000-36,000 ya” and “18,000 +/- 6,800 ya” doesn’t sound like post-Clovis.

Ed?

Hi Pierson –

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm

This site was most likely submerged by the rise in sea level following the drainage of the glacial melt waters at the Younger Dryas.

It’s kinda hard for anthropologists to accuse side-scan sonar of “salting the site.”

Academic archaeologistd seem to be trying to deny it anyway out of knee jerk reaction:

Chronological problem

“Culturally speaking, in that part of the world there were no civilisations prior to about 2,500 BC. What’s happening before then mainly consisted of small, village settlements,” he told BBC News Online.

Hi Hermann –

Despite Steve’s ignorance, the entry of the X mt DNA haplogroup into North America and their spread is covered in depth in “Man and Impact in the Americas”.

They were Andaste.

Hi Hermann –

It appears you are unaware of the research on early man in Asia which has been done:

http://www.academia.edu/1938641/Related_paper_Pleistocene_refugia_and_out_of_Malaysia_hypothesis_by_Prof._Dr._Mohd_Mokhtar_USM_2012

Ed –

“the entry of the X mt DNA haplogroup into North America and their spread is covered in depth in “Man and Impact in the Americas”.

They were Andaste.”

Can you give me a chapter number? You don’t have an index, so looking stuff up is impossible.

Ed –

“Hi Hermann –

Despite Steve’s ignorance, the entry of the X mt DNA haplogroup into North America”

It is not my ignorance. I posted exactly what others in peer-reviewed papers have determined. That those people have different scientific opinions to yours doesn’t make me ignorant.

If you want to argue, go argue with them.

Obviously, as you did state earlier, the science of X haplogroup is seriously in flux. The dates? Nobody knows now, and that includes you. You are welcome to your opinion. Please afford others the same respect.

Hi Steve –

You are mistaken about my peers.

While the Andaste proper were killed by the Jamestown colonists, X mt DNA survived in other populations.

I know a few of them as people.

Other people I know are tribal historians.

I don’t need to convince all archaeologists, as some of them are quite aware that X mt DNA was Andaste. They are good.

Other archaeologists are simply confused at this point.

While I like you as a person, you are not my peer in research into recent impacts. The data on the Andaste are set out in “Man and Impact in the Americas”.

PS – I wish I had a picture of Morrison sitting there at the Planetary Defense Conference in 2007 devouring my biography of Richard Kieninger. In the end, he provided no help at all; so much for publishing an extract of it in the “Sceptical Inquirer”.

Hi George –

I will be curtailing my posts; the internet is very ephemeral.

That said, there is clearly a need for a public clearing house for impact research beyond the Holocene Start Impact Event; if stroke had not intervened, I would have tried to provide it.

Ed and Trent –

There is nothing Theosophist about anything I do.

As to megalithic structures, I don’t agree with David on them, and I don’t agree with arkies on them, either. I think we know so little about them that we cannot conclude anything at the present time. There are conjectures on both sides of the divide – and 99% of them are certain to be found wrong, over time. IMHO

Who built them? Arkies have their opinions, and I disagree with most of what they say. They jumped on one bandwagon 150 years go and – unlike all other disciplines – that old 19th-century paradigm is still held to be true. I simply think they block new thinking at every turn, just like they did with Clovis First. They blocked papers on Calico Hills and Valsequillo, and continue that to this day. All the while, their Clovis Barrier shattered in a million pieces. Man was here in the New World long before the big wave of immigrants came over the land bridge and down the “ice-free corridor.” 50,000 ya and counting. None of this has anything to do with Ed’s hopeful publisher David.

I think there is a history out there that seems to be tied to the YDB impact(s). If impacts are not included along with gradualism, as Ed says, the conclusions cannot be correct. Until we DO include impacts, all our history will be wrong. And when we DO? What does it mean to our history? Frankly, I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. We all may have speculations, but until we start looking within a better framework, wrong is the order of the day.

One important thing about impacts, and especially the YDB, is that it IS NOT just about the impact moment, back 12,800 years ago. It changed human history. That is the important thing. And we may have to reconstruct that history from scratch. ~1,300 years later, at the end of the YD, agriculture, domestication of animals, the wheel, and language began – according to the current history line.

Yet look at the city of Gobleki Tepe in Turkey: Level III is C14 dated to 9130-8800 calibrated, with a number of quite excellent positive-relief and bas-relief animals carved into/onto massive T-columns (columns as big as those at Stonehenge), yet arkies tell us this was a “hunter-gatherer” society. Obviously they were carved with copper chisels, too. See “Gobleki Tepe” on Google Image.

What does that mean? I don’t know. And they don’t either, no matter what you read in Smithsonian or Science. That cities were built 11,000 years ago – 6,000 years before Stonehenge and only 500 years after the end of the Younger Dryas stadial – could mean anything. It is far too early to tell.

Hi Trent, Steve –

This will be my last for a while.

Steve, I have had the powerful tool of comet and asteroid impact to do anthropological work with since 1997 CE.

The quarries at Goblekli Tepe will be as interesting as the rest of the site. There is little point in speculating about their techniques, as data will be along shortly.

Trent, your GF model describes what occurred in eastern North America. Nuts and arboreal techniques are what made it possible.

Steve, you’re speaking about “Atlantis” as though it were a real place. The world’s expert on “Atlantis” was L. Sprague deCamp, who demonstrated it to be a literary construction by Plato. Plato’s contemporary Aristotle said as much.

Steve G,

Not all anthropological-archaeological researchers reject the data.

See the following regards woven textiles:

http://www.world-archaeology.com/more/worlds-oldest-cloth/#.UlnSkRCTtnY

“Now a team of archaeologists and palaeobiologists say they have discovered what is, for the time being at least, the oldest fibre in the world. More than 34,000 years old, the fibre consists of numerous short lengths of woven flax thread found in soil samples taken from a cave in the Republic of Georgia and identified by Eliso Kvavadze of the Institute of Paleobiology, part of the National Museum of Georgia.

Previously, the earliest evidence for textile production came from the imprint of fibres found on small clay objects from Dolní Věstonice, in the Czech Republic, dating from 28,000 years ago. Bar-Yosef and his team used radiocarbon dating to ascertain the age of the clay samples in which the fibres were found: fibres were also found in more recent layers, dating from 21,000 to 13,000 years ago.”

Although why they are referred to as “hunter gathers” leaves me scratching my head.

If you have cloths from woven flax fiber, likely these is some minimal amount of cultivation involved.

Hi EP

Since the beginning of research on Panela crater(1995) I used the Kobres library as excencial source to the topic.

To my surprise, I also found (2000)prehistoric paintings and engravings references, also in mythology and local toponomy (2009) to Panela crater.

Now just focusing on the study of palaeolagoons (craters) fields, I’m surprised how the Earth looks like the Moon: the fields of craters can be overlaid on different events since Holocene begining. Meteoritic events on Earth seem to be more common than we might imagine. So frequent that maybe something will happen in the next 500 years or less.

The theme is still very new to archaeologists, paleontologists and geologists, even for astronomers, and has not been easy to find open minds here.

Anyway, I found the impactites…..is only a small flight, but I am satisfied with the small suborbital flight of Gagarin. Other researchers with more technical and materials means may go beyond ……

pierson

Hmmm…

Actually there is only one “trapdoor volcano” on this world. It’s at a place called Manuel Benavedes. And it’s just south of the Mexican border, and right across from Big Bend Ranch State Park in southwest Texas. And it was an American geologist named F. W. McDowell who proclaimed that we are looking at a giant 17 mile “trapdoor”, not a Mexican. And he makes this assumption without any consideration whatsoever for the crazy mantle physics required to produce a 17 mile wide, perfectly semi-circular trapdoor vent; much less any consideration of the structural integrity that would have to exist in the rock of that “trapdoor” in order for the thing to have opened, and closed repeatedly without breaking.

See:

McDowell, F. W., 2010, Geologic Map of Manuel Benavides area, Chihuahua, Mexico. Map and Chart no. 99. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

Abstract:

This map and text cover an area of eastern Chihuahua state adjacent to the Rio Grande and the Big Bend of Texas. The area contains an 1100-m-thick volcanic section very similar in lithology and age (by Ar-Ar dating) to that exposed in both Big Bend National and State Parks. This includes, from older to younger, a heterogeneous sequence very much like to the Chisos Formation, a thick locally derived rhyolitic flow complex comparable to the Tule Mountain trachyandesite, distal thin ignimbrites similar in age to the Mitchell Mesa ash-flow tuff (the largest unit in the Trans-Pecos volcanic field), and a caldera source for both the 31 Ma San Carlos tuff and the 28 Ma Santana tuff. The caldera is an unusual trap-door type with a hinge zone on the southwest and two separate collapse and eruption margins around the north and east. Its outer diameter is approximately 25 km, which is unusually large for the tuffs that erupted from it, suggestive of a shallow collapse. Inflation or tumescence prior to the eruptions modified a preexisting Laramide fold by bowing it outward toward the north and east; a 31.5 Ma granitoid was intruded into the fold axis, resulting in the formation of skarn deposits in the surrounding limestones of the fold.

The map itself consists of two crude hand drawn maps with all the data resolution of a comic book page, and done by a couple of graduate students back in the eighties. In 2010 Mr McDowell simply kludged the two together into a single map. That map has almost no correlation whatsoever to actual geologic features clearly visible in modern hi resolution satellite imagery, and verifiable from the ground. And McDowell completely disregards that modern satellite data because it just isn’t supportive of his too many unsupported assumptions, and suppositions to count.

There is no question that something different, and inconceivably violent happened there. But as for me, I prefer to think of it as a “pseudo explosion” structure not a volcano; leaving the door open for further study to determine what really happened there without all the unquestioned, gradualist-assumptive reasoning.

Hi Steve,

That thing is behind a GSA paywall anyway so even if that old link worked all you’d get without paying is the abstract. But I have a copy that I can share. I’ll send you an email telling you how.

If it is a crpto explosive structure, Dennis, then it dates from millions of years ago.
You probably want to check both the magentic maps and gravity maps as well.