Early snowbirds? Florida sinkhole yields ancient artifacts

a reply to: Meldionne1

I am not in Florida any longer as I am outside of Atlanta, but being raised there provided me with some very interesting years.

Florida has some history that most have no clue about, but it looks like we are finally understanding what humans did before we became who we are today.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
Unfortunately historians seem to be have made the mistake of thinking that their views are written in stone and refuse to rewrite history once finds show we need to do so. Pathetic really because it doesn't make sense to want to cover up our past.

Um...how do you reconcile that opinion with the fact that the original post deals with game-changing revelations? (even though these facts pretty much came out a decade ago...but that's another thread.)

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Seems you've answered your own question there by pointing out that these facts were revealed over a decade ago. There are at least a dozen professionally dug and reported sites with dates earlier than the history/anthropology books postulate the arrival of humans to the Americas. If they are included at all in those tomes, they are simply referred to as anomalies or "questionable" sites.
As far back as the late '80s there were half a dozen sites in the US alone reported to have been inhabited 12k+ years before present. The writers of texts wouldn't include them and gave as their excuse that the dating wasn't stable at anything over 10k years. Even after the dating methods were proven to be accurate or were modified to be accurate at above 10k years, they still rejected the reports that conflict with their belief system. Academics are very intolerant of things that upset their view of the world.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Academics are very intolerant of things that upset their view of the world.

But the other side of the coin is that it takes iron-clad evidence to change the text books. And that's how it should be. Look at Dillehay at Monte Verde. When he had something irrefutable, he brought the manderins down there and said..."OK, you tell me what we've got." Yes, egos can get in the way and academe can get dirty...but there is always a graduating class one step behind, full of bright shiny faces that want to make the cover of Scientic American. And there lies both the hope and the remedy.

As far as this latest report goes, though, there are serious rumbling out there that this paper was amiss. From an associate of mine...
Not a single word of this is news. In fact, as a categorical statement, this “work” by Halligan and Waters might be the most deceitful, “take false credit,” misrepresentation in American archaeology in the last 50-years.

Webb and Dunbar spent 20-years at Page Ladson, and published: First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River in 2006 that said everything that Halligan and Waters are saying and much, much more.

It takes a huge set of disgracefully deceptive balls to spend a couple of seasons at a site, that a 500-page research book is written on, after someone else spent 20-years working on, AND THEN to completely ignore the book that says EXACTLY everything that you are saying 10-years before you were saying it, AND to list the primary author of that decade old book as the 12th author of your, “major new discovery.” A HUGE set of stealing greasy balls.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Just wondering if your associates have something we could read such as a paper, report or something like that, because that does interest me.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Just wondering if your associates have something we could read such as a paper, report or something like that, because that does interest me.

You might want to check the library as the book is a mite pricey. First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River.
I'll check JSTOR tomorrow to see if there are any papers associated with the book that can be made available.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Seems you've answered your own question there by pointing out that these facts were revealed over a decade ago. There are at least a dozen professionally dug and reported sites with dates earlier than the history/anthropology books postulate the arrival of humans to the Americas. If they are included at all in those tomes, they are simply referred to as anomalies or "questionable" sites.
As far back as the late '80s there were half a dozen sites in the US alone reported to have been inhabited 12k+ years before present. The writers of texts wouldn't include them and gave as their excuse that the dating wasn't stable at anything over 10k years. Even after the dating methods were proven to be accurate or were modified to be accurate at above 10k years, they still rejected the reports that conflict with their belief system. Academics are very intolerant of things that upset their view of the world.

Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in Avella, PA shows use 16,000-19,000 years BP. en.wikipedia.org... The Klovis Klansmen didn't want to hear of any site predating Clovis and actively suppressed publication of such whenever possible. Now that the instigator and Grand Kleagle has become an artifact himself, dogma is dead and science has returned to archeology.

a reply to: pteridine
Exactly! That's one of the sites that has been argued over since the '70s.
These incidents make one wonder how many students of archaeology have been driven from the profession by the stuck-in-dogma senior professors who demonize anyone questioning the status quo.
I observed this behavior up close and personal back in the '90s when one such "major" professors had his theory, expressed in numerous papers and books, dis-proven by actual ground truth. While his theory wasn't of earth-shaking significance, it involved a style of ceramics in the Mississippi Valley, he threatened my boss with "censure" if he published our findings.
His theory was that the ceramic vessel known as "head pots" (ceramic vessels in the form of a human head) was developed in the historic period and were not a component of the Mississippian culture prior to the arrival of Europeans. When we discovered head pots in a clearly prehistoric setting, my boss called his colleague to invite him to visit our site and view the artifact in situ so he could see for himself that he had been mistaken. The entire class working on the site was astonished when, instead of admitting that his theory was a mistake, he became enraged and acted very much like an idiot, he threatened my boss with censure and called our find a hoax. It was an amazingly juvenile display on his part. You would have thought we had shot his dog and peed on his boots.

originally posted by: diggindirt
The entire class working on the site was astonished when, instead of admitting that his theory was a mistake, he became enraged and acted very much like an idiot, he threatened my boss with censure and called our find a hoax. It was an amazingly juvenile display on his part. You would have thought we had shot his dog and peed on his boots.

Which all goes to show that just because you have a PhD, doesn't mean you can be an arse, too. My favourite Prof once observed that the only reason she got her doctorate was because she was tired of taking crap from PhDs.
ps...almost 20 years ago, the chatter from Monte Verde was 40k.

When I first saw the recent articles about this , I figured something really new had been found.
Not at all, and the lamestream media, made it it lametastic with all of the "it's going to rewrite the peopleing of the Americas"

The site does nothing of the kind, as has been mentioned, there are plenty of sites that predate this find, I'd like to add Topper to the conversation, which shows people had been there for at least 1500 years before Vero, and likely much much earlier.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
When I first saw the recent articles about this , I figured something really new had been found.

Not at all, and the lamestream media, made it it lametastic with all of the "it's going to rewrite the peopleing of the Americas"

The site does nothing of the kind, as has been mentioned, there are plenty of sites that predate this find, I'd like to add Topper to the conversation, which shows people had been there for at least 1500 years before Vero, and likely much much earlier.

I might be taking a run past Topper this summer, but I'm not sure as yet if I can get on-site.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Fascinating stuff, and it's entertaining, to me anyway, when the old standard theories are turned on their heads. More than a decade before the truth is accepted? Wow....

Considering all of the human remains fond in the Americas, far older than the Amerind peoples, it's clear we don't know a LOT about who was here first, or when! I have read about skulls from all races, very old ones, being found in North and South America.

Makes you wonder what else we don't know about our past! I suspect that a lot of widely held theories could be proven incorrect, if less evidence was concealed.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Nobody said this was new and nobody said it was the earliest find...in fact it's been known about for at least a decade, but ignored until now...the sinkhole that is.

In fact in the OP it clearly states there are two older pre clovis sites but this is the first one found in Fla.

That is what the fuss is about nothing more. All they did was provide proof positive that people were in Fla sooner than what was previously known.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I didn't say it was the earliest find as in terms of when it was found, and I could care less when it was found, which has been more than a decade, the early dating was secure before so nothing has changed here.

I'm talking about "experts" saying its the oldest evidence of human occupation in the south east, which by the way is exactly what is stated in the first four lines of your OP;

Well it seems Florida had ancient inhabitants as far back as 14,500 years ago

"NEW YORK (AP) — Scientists say a stone knife and other artifacts found deep underwater in a Florida sinkhole show people lived in that area some 14,500 years ago. That makes the ancient sinkhole the earliest well-documented site for human presence in the southeastern U.S., and important for understanding the settling of the Americas, experts said."

So right there it says its the earliest in the SE, which it is not, bay far.

Even other members mentioned how the reporting is very sensationalized. I find much of the reporting has an attitude that this new discussion of the site is opening up the window of habitation of the continent, as a whole, which it doesn't.
I personally think its great that the site has seen new work and it has added to our understanding of how people were living in the continent.

They say the Americas was a Negro Continent first. They pre date the mayan. Africans came first or if you believe in Alantis story is the Americas broke off of Africa. That would explain the Olmec heads, pyramids in in South America. They are the mond builders, Florida has a deep native American culture with lots of artifacts. The grand cannon highest "mountain" called Isis, I think it looks like a pyramid. America is hiding alot.

Pardon my ignorance , are we talking Homosapiens here?

a reply to: ChactawBeauty

No not "Negro".
They are thought to be the more related to the Australian Natives peoples....
Who themselves are a mixture of Neanderthal, Denisovan and other Southern Asian tribes.

The Siberian Asians are thought to have come after.

But who knows......ancient man pops up in many places, as do the great apes, like the Old man of the Forrest (orangutan) and gigantopithecus.

The first Chinese where black, Buddha looked lik the Olmecs Heads. Chinese scientists trace their ancestors back to africa. Look at the black Nigroitos in the Philippines. The black Samurai

"For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of Black blood."
--Japanese Proverb

The Africans taught them, its is on the Egyptians wall. Teaches/displays the fighting style.

Im not saying the the Egyptian or indigenous people are the African American today. They do share genetics such as O blood but they also have unified markers.

Im new and cant seem to figure out how to upload pictures. Sorry.

a reply to: ChactawBeauty