Archaeologists to excavate Ice Age site in Florida with early human remains

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Archaeologists are set to excavate anew a controversial site in Florida over 13,000 years old that may indicate mankind has been in North America longer than is accepted by mainstream scholarship. The site at Vero Beach was ignored for years because of this suggestion of antiquity, which contradicts modern theses within academia. The back story of this site's discovery in 1915 and its effect on academia of the time is one of intrigue, worthy of an "Indiana Jones" film.

Vero News relates that the excavation in Florida is significant "because it is one of only two documented sites in the Western Hemisphere where human remains have been found along side those of megafauna now extinct." The site is discussed in a report by Mercyhurst University, which states that the human remains at Vero Beach are "at least 13,000 years old" and were found with the remains of extinct animals from the Pleistocene period, which ended about 11,700 years ago.

Regarding the site's new excavation, the publication of the Archaeological Institute of America, Archaeology magazine, reports: “Controversial Ice Age Site to be Excavated

Read more here

OK this is really cool to me partialy because its so close to home. This is just more evidence that man migrated to North America much earlier than we thought possibly several times over the course of history. Another tidbit is.



Interest in the Vero site was renewed in 2009, when local amateur fossil hunter James Kenedy discovered a bone with a mammoth carving nearby, possibly dating to 13,000 years ago. This artwork is reminiscent of that found in Europe


Here is the sad part :

The situation is urgent, because there is a plan to build a water-treatment plant on the site, burying it in concrete.

That stinks.This is an important find.




posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


How ironic, I was just looking at this on AIA's site. Anyway... It certainly seems like in a lot of instances these sites are ignored UNTIL someone wants to build and then there's always a rush to get whatever data possible from it before the construction deadline. It's sad as if the age pans out it could be one of the most important sites in N. America right now.
edit on 25-12-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Nice find, I have never heard of the find before.


From the Old Vero Ice Age Sites Committee Site




Dr Sellards believed the humans lived side by side with the extinct Late Ice Age mammals, which puts them as living in Vero Florida over 14,000 years ago. This defied the conventional wisdom of that day which stated humans were in North America no further back than 6,000 years ago, based on other findings across the continent. The euro-centric view of that day held that humans were not in North America before 4,000 years ago.


So I think the dating challenged the conventional wisom of the time (1916 ish) as current theories allow for man to be in the Americas ~16,000 — 13,000 years before present. His dating is now considered to be correct so way to go, Dr Sellards!



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


More proof that man has been in America a hell of a lot earlier than 15,000 years give or take.

Theres evidence man has been in South America for at least 80,000 years and possibly 500,000 years.
These dates are not speculation, different dating methods have been used and have produced these dates.
So do we go conservative and lean towards 80,000 years or accept 500,000 years? The answer is simple, it makes no difference.
The fact is man has been in South America for at least 80,000 years.
This myth of 13,000-15,000 just isnt relevent now. As a comparison its like walking around today teaching the Earth is flat even tho we know it isnt, its ignorance beyond comprehension.
One dating method used was the same method that produced an age of around 2million years for Homo Habilis that was dicovered by Louis Leaky in 1964 at the site of Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.
Date was accepted, science is progressing and we are learning. The world is round.
But the opposite was shown in Mexico. A flat Earth ignorance is displayed.



Heres the full story




posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


There is a positive to this as well though.

Because a lot of countries now make it a law to send in archeologists before construction, we get to see what's there. A lot of archeological sites have been destroyed and probably never even discovered because previously, sites were cleared and dug up without a care.

edit on 25-12-2013 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   
The irony is that the discovery was located near The Holy Land Experience in Orlando.

They said "Maybe the devil placed the bones there to test our faith".



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   
I wasn't aware there was going to be any more excavations at this site, cool. I've heard of the Vero Man site a few times over the years, but it seemed that it was barely considered valid due to the prehistoric aspect of humans & megafauna coexisting. I could never figure out why people scoffed at this, that never made sense to me. Just because there's not a lot left to show for it doesn't mean it didn't happen, everything degrades back into the dirt over time. We're lucky in that some things escape that fate & hide away for future discovery. Humans are very curious explorers, it's literally who we are. To think that people didn't make good ground 10 or 15 thousand years ago and actually settle around FL is ignorant to me, we can hoof it (or sail/paddle/float it) to just about anywhere.

To add to the reading list, here's an article about it from May 2012. Pretty much the same stuff in the Examiner article: Early Man Shared Florida With Mammoths



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


13,000 years? I've got stone-age socks older than 13,000 years. I thought it was proven years ago that humans wandered over North America at least 20,000 years ago, so at least to me this isn't surprising (even though I may be totally wrong about the 20,000 figure, thus my non-surprise).

Hopefully this entire site is excavated and explored before it's destroyed by the fine citizens of the area, obviously many of them members of the Heelot tribe.
edit on 25-12-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GezinhoKiko
 


Well it has been reported that man migrated here much earlier but not as early as your surces say. 500,000 years well that is a bit ridiculous however 30,000 is being debated.



"Vero has the most important Ice Age archaeological site in North America with the oldest human remains ever found with Ice Age animals." Another controversial site in Monte Verde, Brazil, may possess the earliest human remains in South America, suggested to date back some 30,000 years.


Pedra Furada, Brazil: Paleoindians, Paintings, and Paradoxes

Pedra Furada

Humans had started extending their claim on this planet from about 123,000 years ago, but they still had to battle continual cycles of warming and cooling. While the last Ice Age has not officially ended, the periods of glacial ice coverage have come and gone several times.


There is another site not to far away from there that I have been to. It is called turtle mound here is the description.


Turtle Mound
Located in the Canaveral National Seashore.

Turtle Mound is the highest shell midden in the nation. This two-acre site contains over 35,000 cubic yards of oyster shell, extends more than six hundred feet along the Indian River shoreline, and stands about fifty feet tall. (In prehistoric times, it was at least seventy-five feet high.) Visible for miles offshore, the mound has been used as a navigational landmark since the early days of Spanish exploration.

In 1605, Spanish explorer Alvaro Mexia visited the site, called Surruque, and reported natives launching their dugout canoes at the mound's base. Over the years, this huge feature began to take the form of a turtle--hence its name.
link


As far as I know it has never been excavated. I used to fish right there. It is a real shame but there are no oysters anywhere to be found anymore I have read that there are projects to reintroduce them but the waters have been polluted to much from runoff for it to be successful anytime soon.
edit on 25-12-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GezinhoKiko
 





More proof that man has been in America a hell of a lot earlier than 15,000 years give or take.

Theres evidence man has been in South America for at least 80,000 years and possibly 500,000 years.
These dates are not speculation, different dating methods have been used and have produced these dates.


The oldest site I know of for America comes in at 40,000 bp, in south America.

There's a lot of political reistance to a pre clovis date to the colonisation of America. It would mean the current native Americans wiped out the previous inhabitants, which would make their outrage at being displaced by Europeans not quite so righteous. So naturally anyone who's going to back up a prior occupation is going to want 100% confirmation before sticking their neck out.

Luzia was non native American, and appeared to be more Australoid (like an aborigine or Papua New Guinea resident) and dates back about 12,000 years. The debated Pedra Furada site in Brazil has C14 dates to about 40,000 (the limit).

There's zero evidence of any humans before that. Modern humans are currently thought to have reached Australia as long ago as 50,000 bp, I can't see how they could reach America earlier. There's no evidence non modern humans ever reached America.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

GezinhoKiko
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

More proof that man has been in America a hell of a lot earlier than 15,000 years give or take.
Theres evidence man has been in South America for at least 80,000 years and possibly 500,000 years.

Could you cite your references without making me watch a video, please?



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
The Vero Beach site would be strange for being so high on a hill.

If your wondering why i say on a hill its because During the last ice age sea level was at least 394 feet (120 m) lower than it is today.

The Clovis people were in many cases boat people and lived on the shore line. Even in Nevada the Clovis people lived on the shore of Pleistocene Lake Lahontan

I believe that many coastal clovis sites are now under water just off the coast.

The Clovis people spread across the new world to fast to be any thing but boat people.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   

ANNED
The Clovis people spread across the new world to fast to be any thing but boat people.


Except for 2 things,first there is no evidence of Clovis boat making and second this could be true but only if you ascribe to "Clovis First" . Look int the Solutrean Hypothesis, particularly in light of the carved mammoth tusk found not far from "Vero Man" which bears many hallmarks of Pleistocene craftsmanship from Europe. The fact is there are several sites across North and South America that very cleArly predate Clovis culture. The more we find the more Clovis is looking to be a fairly minor incursion lasting a few thousand years as the types of tool making associated with them disappeared just as abruptly as it appeared indicating that the independent nature of Clovis culture was either wiped our by people who were here first or were assimilated into the already existing cultures.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Anned peter is correct, in that Clovis were not a sea going or water orriented people per se, their lifestyle was decidedly terrestrial. There tool kit is geared toward the hunting of larger mammals and such.
In some of the literature I've read, the case has been made that Clovis did not even hunt birds or small mammals that made up the mainstay of the diets of their contemporary neighbors. As far as l know there
is no use of shellfish, or waterfowl by Clovis, if there was it was so infrequent as to not appear on the archeological record.
N
One study of a site in Canada shows, that particular band existed almost entirely on horse, with some bison here and there.
But that is not to say that certain bands didn't change their lifestyle to adapt to new situations.
When I first was exposed to the solutrean hypothesis, I was intrigued, but I came to see some flaws. I'm not against the idea as a whole, I just think that the direction of influence is reversed.
Strictly speaking of solutreans, they were an isolate culture, they had no previous related culture, and the people that replaced them were not their descendents, as no facet of their culture persisted into the future.
Their distribution is clearly coastline/river motivated, they didn't spread from the interior.
If one looks at the upland sites in the Catalina islands, you can draw rough parallels with solutrean. You find an upland lifestyle, with no clear association with the ocean, but if you find the seaside dwelling then you find the aquatic portion of the lifestyle.
I think that is the case of solutrean and certain coastal "Clovis" areas. All of the solutrean sites are upland, from contemporary coastlines. As far as the paleoindians of Catalina if you base a decsion only on the upland sites, you could make the claim they lived a completely terrestrial lifestyle, but if all you only had access to the beachside sites it would appear as though these people lived strictly on fish or pinnepds.
Since I'm an early entrance into the Americas proponent, I see it to be more likely that the influence was from NA to Europe. My two main arguments are that, at that time population densities were higher in NA than in Europe. My second argument is that the classic laurel leaf blade pattern of the solutreans shows up in the middle of the solutrean period, a thousand or so years after the earliest occurance of the pattern in the new world, with the cinmar bipoint.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   

punkinworks10
Since I'm an early entrance into the Americas proponent, I see it to be more likely that the influence was from NA to Europe. My two main arguments are that, at that time population densities were higher in NA than in Europe. My second argument is that the classic laurel leaf blade pattern of the solutreans shows up in the middle of the solutrean period, a thousand or so years after the earliest occurance of the pattern in the new world, with the cinmar bipoint.


Excellent point regarding the late introduction of leaf blade pattern in Solutrean tool making. I very much agree with the early Introduction to N. America and I think it's only a matter of time before 40,000 BPE is going to be considered as late as 15-13,000 BPE. Its no less feasible than making it to Australia from East Asia which was happening at the same time. Perhaps well eventually find something in East Aaia that resulted in the impetus to spread out even farther both N. East and South simultaneously. Which direction the entered the Americas from is still up for speculation. I was more so tossing Solutrean out there for a different perspective on Clovis First tan because I support it. It's Certainly an interesting and intriguing possibility but there just isn't the data to support it currently where as there is solid evidence of crossing Berringea.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

peter vlar

ANNED
The Clovis people spread across the new world to fast to be any thing but boat people.


Except for 2 things,first there is no evidence of Clovis boat making and second this could be true but only if you ascribe to "Clovis First" . Look int the Solutrean Hypothesis, particularly in light of the carved mammoth tusk found not far from "Vero Man" which bears many hallmarks of Pleistocene craftsmanship from Europe.


I agree there is no evidence of boat making. but that is explainable for anyplace along the coast because the evidence is lost under water as the sea levels have gone up 300+ feet.
Plus what evidence of boat making would you look for.
What would have the boats been made from and how long would the materiel last in the open. How long would a "mammoth hide boat?" have lasted.

I agree with the Solutrean Hypothesis.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

ANNED
I agree there is no evidence of boat making. but that is explainable for anyplace along the coast because the evidence is lost under water as the sea levels have gone up 300+ feet.
Plus what evidence of boat making would you look for.
What would have the boats been made from and how long would the materiel last in the open. How long would a "mammoth hide boat?" have lasted.

I agree with the Solutrean Hypothesis.


I'm not saying that you're wrong to think that we are missing a lot of evidence for early American incursions due to rise in sea levels. It was something I used to get crap for in grad school all the time because I firmly believed that we we glossing over a lot of submerged evidence and coast lies, in my opinion, were the first place we should have been looking for settlements of early migrants. There's a site off of British Columbia that they have recently dredged up artifacts for example. The other side of that coin is that all Clovis sites we currently know of are currently inland so if you lower the sea level to compensate for 14,000 BPE you will see host these sites are even further inland making Clovis a maritime culture a little less likely. As for finding remains of boats from the era, it is a difficult thing due to the nature of construction materials. Even if I were to discount the notion of boats covered in Mammoth skins based on the oldest known boat remains we have found, 8000 year old dugouts, there's no way to conclusively say one way or the other. Unfortunately when it gets down to the nitty gritty, science can't really address things it has no evidence or data for and thus can only comment on what is known at this point. Wat we know is that Clovis culture spread very quickly and with a great degree of uniformity, it lasted only a few hundred years, the areas of settlement and the sites we can say with certainty are Clovis related are all consistent with an inland crossing of Berringea. With lower sea levels and more land to traverse it makes it a lot less likely that Clovis people made it to Florida for example, via boat. The diffusion of languages that existed in the Americas until European intervention indicates that Clovis either met people who were Already here or that there were multiple migrations from seperate people's spreading new languages and culture. A precursor to the American melting pot in a way. The next couple of decades will be interesting as more sites are found and analyzed hopefully giving us a better picture which would be greatly important as we are essentially missing the history of half the world and considering the population density of the Americas was heavier than Europe for millennia, we are missing out on a huge piece of human history.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
For the sake of argument, I think the 'mainstream' is pretty much on the ball and in-sync with current research...yesterday, I watched some episodes from the 'Prehistoric' TV series, produced by the Discovery Channel I believe, and first aired mid-2012. They utilise a date of 25,000 years ago for the arrival of the first humans in the US, but say that it is still open to debate. Seems a fair assessment.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Despite a lack of solid dating in regards to a definitive time frame for migration at the moment, it is pretty well accepted that Clovis was to the first culture in the Western Hemisphere. 25,000 BPE doesn't make anthropologists cringe like it did 20 years ago and 40,000 is considered very likely. It's really a matter of finding the sites and getting good dating results to support the hypothesis and anecdotal data we currently have.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Hopefully an old site will be found in California, but I doubt it, as most all of the good site would have been destroyed by the gold rush, and anything that wasn't would have been lost to the massive hydro electric projects on almost every river.
What gets me is how any site that pushes back the date of the peopleing of the new world, is almost automatically discounted. And it's really only a small handful of proffesionals that hold back the science. In fact at the paleo American Odssey conference last October, Tom Dillehay gave a talk on how a small number of people have effectively derailed paleo anthropology and
archeology when it comes to a pre Clovis discussion.
From topper to cactus hill to Burnham and Snowmass , Pendejo cave , manix lake , the barenza carving and my personal fave the Witt site there is ample evidence that humans have been in NA for quite some time.
I've been try to relocate the paper on a "Clovis"site in OK, where they found a cache and the possible remains of a shelter. The thing that makess it stand out is that they found the remains of hide "ground cloth", the hide was from an animal that went extinct some 23,000 years ago, I think it was a type of sloth.
The newest DNA studies have pushed back the date for native American divergence from other Eurasian groups, and made it clear that the east Asian component is relatively recent.
And those oldest groups show signs of admixture with an extremely archaic population (thats code for homo erectus) along with denisovan admixture.
Since Homo erectus found his way to java 1.7 mya it's not a stretch to think that they made to to the new world, or that the denisovans could have made the trip, although they likely did not survive.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join