It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anyone want to talk Pre-Clovis Crap?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
So my money is on a relatively high culture in the Americas which was wiped out by comet impact, which also flooded shore settlements globally, Yonaguni among them; probably THE Flood that most cultures remember:

According to Prof. Kimura, the only geologist to even propose that Yonaguni might have been carved by men, the Yonaguni monument has only been underwater for about 2,000 years.

This announcement by Kimura was posted right here on ATS by Cormac Mac Airt.

Harte




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Appacheman

This is a new theory to me. Sounds similar to the Yucatan meteorite that is supposedly responsible for the dinosaur extinctions.
I like to think the Mega Fauna of the world met their demise at the hand of men.
Eaten into extinction. The size of the flint projectiles, point to a fairly rapid evolution from large to small.
At the same time the casting method of those projectiles becomes more elaborate.
From magnificent elephant killer Clovis spear point to the disposable ( bic lighter) type woodland triangle arrowhead. From the adage (necessity is the mother of invention) It would seem the atal atal and the bow were more necessity than just cool weapons. Larger animals are easier to see and their sign is easier to locate. Making them easier to hunt and kill. When the largest are taken then you have to resort to the next smaller and harder to hunt creatures. And so on. Well, maybe agriculture and Walmart put and end to all that.
If it was just climate change-- then there should be plenty of elephants living just south of the Arctic Circle.
and Patagonia.
From my research the cultural linearity of the American aboriginal looks quite complete.
Your Younger Dryas theory seems like it could apply just prior to the development of the Clovis Culture.
thanks for this info.
Donny



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



Are you saying the sea levels rose several hundred feet 2,000 years ago?

You'd think the Romans would have mentioned that.

It's patently impossible for that site to have been submerged at that time.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I know I know!
But thanks for the help with that, just the same Harte. It does show just how difficult it is to be accurate, let alone change long standing convictions.
I am just trying to keep up with the neat post from you all.
And trying to learn how to post the photos of Pre Clovis artifacts so we can compare them.
thanks again Donny



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Harte
 



Are you saying the sea levels rose several hundred feet 2,000 years ago?

You'd think the Romans would have mentioned that.

It's patently impossible for that site to have been submerged at that time.

How one-dimensional of you.

Did I state that the formation off Yonaguni was swamped by rising water? No.

The thing sank in an earthquake, according to Kimura.

You're arguing with the only scientist that believes this formation might have been (at least) altered by humans.

Not that I mind. I don't happen to agree with him (or, apparently, you.) This formation, IMO, is completely and entirely natural and shaped by only natural forces.

Harte



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Harte
 


I know I know!
But thanks for the help with that, just the same Harte.

You're quite welcome, Donny.
Sorry if I was a little snippy but, you know, it just gets old. I'm at work, I don't really have time to even be posting, and often I chime in with info that's been posted here before, figuring surely someone will go back and find it.

But they rarely do and the conversation simply goes on about this or that thing that's been shown to be completely bogus yet the posters are obliviously unaware that they're remarking on phantasms!

Anyway, sorry.

Harte



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Ok, let's look at the 2,000 year-old earthquake theory: how many million of tons of rock and earth would you suppose the site encompasses? If an earthquake caused that to subside 2,000 years ago, there would be a record of both the earthquake and the resulting tsunami well-documented in the Chinese records, not to mention Indian, Khmer, and every other society that would have been impacted. There's no evidence to support that idea at all.

Anyway, it's a side issue: doesn't mean the comet didn't hit.

As far as Clovis people eating all the megafauna to the point of extinction, then starving to death: have you calculated how many people would be required to accomplish that? Even if they wasted the majority (hardly likely, given what we know of pretty much every society at that level, but even if) you'd think we'd be tripping over their graveyards. I never believed that one, even as a kid, it flew in the face of observed facts. To eat several million megafauna over a dozen species or more into extinction doesn't make sense.

If you go with the "they overkilled and wasted most", then you have to account for nature, which doesn't waste a thing. Clovis leftovers would have fed a huge population of carrion eaters, large predators, etc. Where are they? It was a silly premise to begin with, easily disproved with a little contemplation of reality.

Something else killed both megafauna and the Clovis people, and changed the world climate to boot. Sounds like an impact to me.

As a side note: what do you think the odds are that the Maya calendar (based on Olmec predecessors, based on ??), actually is based on an asteriodal group's period? That every 52,000 years or so we pass through a particularly deadly area of space?

Siiiggghhh...I really wish the Christians hadn't burned their entire knowledge base. Ahhh, the books they burned: what might they have taught us?



[edit on 7-12-2009 by apacheman]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


What I really hope to accomplish here is the comparison between Clovis and what is perceived to be Pre- Clovis.
This could be best done by posting the factual physical components of each group.
I will do my best to post some of this material as I learn how to get the graphics transferred.
My method of cut and paste don't work. Old horse, new tricks don't ya know.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Harte
 


Ok, let's look at the 2,000 year-old earthquake theory: how many million of tons of rock and earth would you suppose the site encompasses? If an earthquake caused that to subside 2,000 years ago, there would be a record of both the earthquake and the resulting tsunami well-documented in the Chinese records, not to mention Indian, Khmer, and every other society that would have been impacted. There's no evidence to support that idea at all.

Find the Thread "Yonaguni Dating Takes a Nosedive."

It's in this section.

Meanwhile, are you a professor of geology? Do you believe what Kimura has said about humans shaping that formation?
If so, why do you cherrypick only certain pieces of what Kimura says? Do you think he stated what he did about the submersion of the monument with "no evidence to support that idea at all" as you put it? Why do you believe this? Have you yourself looked at what he said and why? Have you yourself search for this evidence which you claim is not there?

Also, given the geographical location, it is unlikely that India would have been affected.



Anyway, it's a side issue: doesn't mean the comet didn't hit.

I agree. There is an in-depth thread here at ATS about this comet theory as well.

Harte



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I would change the name of the thread to PRE Clovis if I could but there is no way I can find to edit the OP.
The coprolites are reported to be earlier than the accepted Clovis dates.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Ok, I give...that was a poor example.

By way of making amends, I found this quite interesting, and only slightly off-topic:

www.mc.maricopa.edu...


Modern discus throwing is not known for its accuracy. But in terms of how far a hand axe might ideally be thrown, it is worth noting that the 1980 Olympic record in discus was 218.8 feet. Since the experimental hand axe weighs only two and a half ounces less than the modern Olympic discus, this suggests that as the thrower's skill and/or strength increase, the potential flight distance of the hand axe increases.

When grasped and thrown overhand, like a knife, the experimental hand axe performed like one, rotating symmetrically on edge in both ascent and descent. The average throw was just short of discus-style, but more accurate, about half a yard right or left of the line of trajectory. It always landed on edge, but less often point first. Unfortunately,, these results are the product of only six throws; owing to its weight and the ovate, broad point, the experimental hand axe was difficult to grasp and throw overhand. George Peredy, who was the thrower, also appeared to tire more quickly using this method and probably could not have used it al all if he had not had large hands, in proportion to his six- foot six-inch frame. This overhand style would probably be more suitable for lighter, more triangular hand axes. In contrast, weight and shape were of no real concern when throwing the hand axe discus-style. Even a significant increase in weight might not have impeded the throwing motion, although it would have affected the distance of the throw.

Further testing is needed (and is currently under way), but these first trials showed that a hand axe could perform appropriately as a projectile. The hand axe demonstrated a propensity to land on edge when thrown overhand or discus-style, a tendency to land point first, and a potential for distant and accurate impact. Its overall shape minimizes the effects of resistance while in flight, as well as at impact. This is not true of an unshaped stone or a spheroid, for example. And despite its sharp edge, the hand axe could be launched without a safe handhold. The only apparent limitations to the hand axe's use as a projectile weapon are the strength, coordination, and skill of the thrower.

Homo erectus was bipedal, probably dexterous enough to manipulate a hand axe in either of the tested throwing styles, and very much stronger than most modern humans. With their technique perfected over years of practice and use, our ancestors probably surpassed the accuracy shown in the experimental throws. I suspect the hand axe simply reflects a refinement in missile design, one that allowed for successful long-distance offense and defense against larger animals. This is consistent with evidence that big-game hunting appears for the first time in the archeological record along with Homo erectus.

Perfected through trial and error, the hand axe would not necessarily have replaced preexisting projectile or handheld weapons, because weapons and strategies probably varied with the predator being deterred or the game being hunted. Hand axes would have been especially effective in a collective strategy, such as a group of hunters bombarding a herd. To overcome any difficulty in transporting hand axes, Homo erectus could have used carrying slings made from hide, stockpiled hand axes near hunting areas, or cached them (in caves, for example) prior to seasonal migrations.


This, however, is more directly relevant:

www.daysknob.com...


This material is presented for consideration by anyone with an interest in the early habitation of North America, describing artifacts first recognized and recorded in 1987 at an unglaciated hilltop site in southeastern Ohio. These have appeared in large quantity, at depths of from near the surface to well below, and the surface of this large site has only been scratched. At this time, five doctorate-level professionals - geologists, petrologists, anthro- pologists, and a forensic biologist - have personally identified human agency in both lithic and organic material. The Ohio Historic Preservation Office has included the site in the Ohio Archaeological Inventory, recogniz- ing evidence of prehistoric habitation, although they are unable at this point to conclusively identify temporal or cultural association. Since they lack the funding and staffing needed even to keep up with Ohio's many popularly recognized "Indian" sites, this is as far as their involvement seems likely to progress. Judging from a ceramic fragment and an apparent long, straight, and symmetrical earthwork oriented to true north-south, it appears that the upper artifact layer may date from the Early or Middle Woodland Period.

More important by far than just this particular site, the finds here have led to the awareness of a very simple zoo-anthropomorphic iconography appar- ently routinely and usually perfunctorily incorporated into lithic and other artifact material over thousands of years and across widely separated areas of this planet.


This site has a good number of images and a fairly good discussion of implications.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoneGrey
My apologies if this is a speck off topic, but it's pretty interesting nonetheless.

In the November 26 edition of my local paper, it was announced that 10,000 year old stone weapons from the first humans to have lived in Ontario were discovered during an archaeological dig taking place on the site of a sports complex currently under construction.
Hopefully there is enough appreciation for the significance of this unprecedented find that further study will take place.


Paleo remains are certainly not unprecedented in Ontario, but are apparently so in that area. My guess is that during the time in question, much of the Great Lakes Basin was underwater due to the post-glacial archaic lakes. Many paleo sites are found on those old shorelines...many being a relative term.

As to Monte Verde, it is ironclad...it was the site that smashed the paradigm by satisfying all of the requirements demanded by academe. If you want to investigate new froniers, look to the relationship between Solutrean and Clovis en.wikipedia.org....

Pre-Clovis is pretty much accepted...and 'culture' in archaeology is really just a comparative term that encompasses the diagnostic traits of a particular assemblage of artefacts and features.


Originally posted by apacheman
Something else killed both megafauna and the Clovis people, and changed the world climate to boot.


How do you know 'Clovis People' were killed off? Far as I know, there's a line drawn from Paleo to Archaic and into the Woodland Culture of the Algonkians. Now DNA would back me up, but tools change, and I'd guess that your typical Clovis blades were pretty hard to construct. Perhaps once the megafauna were gone, they didn't need to be fluted.



[edit on 9-12-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Probably because there are multiple layers in which Clovis artifacts abound, then approximately a 1,500 year gap in which no or very few artifacts are found at all and when they reappear, they are distinctly different.

Yes, there were some survivors, but the culture that they inhabited was completely erased.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Probably because there are multiple layers in which Clovis artifacts abound, then approximately a 1,500 year gap in which no or very few artifacts are found at all and when they reappear, they are distinctly different.

Yes, there were some survivors, but the culture that they inhabited was completely erased.


Their culture...as in Clovis Culture...was a way in which they occupied the landscape and the food that they ate, and how they made their tools. Their language was likely the root tongue of what is spoken by the Anishnaabe today, and they lived in a manner similar to the nomadic pre-agricultural communities.

Like I said, look at the Clovis-Solutrean potential...and why there are cited similarities between the Algonkian tongues and sagas, and Finnish/Magyar/Basque. There's a project for you.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Apacheman

The time frame for the comet big freeze theory doesn't wash. The dates they claim for the impact would be just pre Clovis 13.000 yrs ago. Clovis flourished from 12,500 early Paleo to 9,000 yrs late Paleo.
There is also a very linear transition of projectile types to Folsom, Scott's Bluff, Kirk, Eden, Palmer and then to the bifurcates around 8,500 yrs ago. All of these with signs of population increase.
How does the comet address the extinctions in the southern hemisphere?
Flint Ridge Ohio boast some of the best cherts on the planet.

PS I forgot Dalton and Hardaway. The Dalton is a Clovis minus the flute and very often resharpened on the shaft. IMO the earmark of the end of the elephants.


[edit on 9-12-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 9-12-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
I would change the name of the thread to PRE Clovis if I could but there is no way I can find to edit the OP.


If it's a reasonable request, as this one is.. just hit the alert button on your opening post and make the request there...



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Johnny

I have found you contributions on other threads informative.
What puzzles me is ------if there are Clovis spear points in every state in America and I think every Canadian Provence. And most fairly contemporary 12,500-10,000 yrs.. Not to mention the entirety of South America.
Then why is there only one (verified?) site that meets the criteria of PRE?
Of the hundreds of Clovis sites that have been excavated below the last living floor, only six or seven have yielded anything. And nothing even close to Clovis artifacts in an evolutionary way.
If you are going to embrace Solutrean, then how does that stretch to Monte Verde?
There were no Solutrean blades found there. As I recall there was very little bi facial lithic material.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
the strange part i find is that there are few Clovis people Skeletons.

if this culture was numerous Enough to wipe out the mega fauna where are there bones
and we know there bone should have survived because there bone tools did


news.nationalgeographic.com...

Then you have the Spirit Cave man, Wizard's Beach Man, and the Kennewick Man.
mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com...
www.pbs.org...

All three are european facial types and not American Indian.
Were these survivors of the Clovis comet.
Did the American Indians wipe out the last survivors of the Clovis people.

Interestingly enough the Kennewick man had embedded in his pelvic bone a two inch Clovis spear point.
www.louisbeam.com...

This Clovis spear point is so far keeping the native Americans from taking the remains and hiding the evidence of Clovis first because they can not prove they are native American remains when there is a Clovis Point in it.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I just noticed your location.
About fifty miles west I had the best fortune to camp at a campground that was host to the paddle boat Mary Woods 2.
!986 I think. Jonesboro ARK. as I recall.
It rained like hell all night. As I left the camper at daylight a fisherman was pulling his catfish up off of his trot line in the White river.
I took his picture as I did the paddle wheeler in her misty berth,
Twenty miniuets later I was in a plowed field behind the general store at Newark Ark . WoW
A while later I was in the shadow of the twin stacks of a power plant near the confluence of the Black, the Strawberry and the White rivers.
Wow. Yeah I was collecting.
This is one of the most memorable sites in my memory.
There were three very large and distinct areas of waste flakes and broken and discarded pre forms.
Unfortunately no Clovis or Pre Clovis material that I could discern.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Thanks a million JackatMtn. If you ever get interested in Digging up some facts come on back and join us.
Donny



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join