16,000 Years Ago in Idaho

[Charl]

An important new pre-Clovis site identified in Idaho, with points from the Western Stemmed Tradition....


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/08/coopers-landing-idaho-site-americas-oldest/



https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/coopers-ferry-first-americans/



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOKT_MOwHJ9FDCXv2cepFxQ



16,000-Year-Old Stone Artifacts Unearthed in Idaho | Archaeology | Sci-News.com



https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...a-ancient-tools-unearthed-idaho-river-suggest



"The findings do more than add a few centuries to the timeline of people in the Americas. They also shore up a new picture of how humans first arrived, by showing that people lived at Cooper’s Ferry more than 1 millennium before melting glaciers opened an ice-free corridor through Canada about 14,800 years ago. That implies the first people in the Americas must have come by sea, moving rapidly down the Pacific coast and up rivers. The dates from Cooper’s Ferry “fit really nicely with the [coastal] model that we’re increasingly getting a consensus on from genetics and archaeology,” says Jennifer Raff, a geneticist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence who studies the peopling of the Americas."

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Fred250]

What’s really amazing is how these first Americans were able to travel back in time on their way to sites like Topper and Meadowcroft.

 

[Charl]

What’s really amazing is how these first Americans were able to travel back in time on their way to sites like Topper and Meadowcroft.

I don't remember reading that the people living at the Cooper's Ferry site were the very first Americans? There is much we don't know, and there is nothing wrong with that. I wish I were 50 years younger, because I bet there will be more revelations where the peopling of the Americas is concerned. We are still very much in infancy stage where our understanding is concerned. And there is nothing wrong with that. We happen to be living in the most exciting era to date, in the history of prehistoric studies in this hemisphere. Who knows if we will ever arrive at a "final" picture, where our knowledge is perfect? I'm personally excited by every new discovery, and I have long since embraced the Pacific kelp highway hypothesis for settlement on the West coast. The fact that some dates are older, some sites more controversial then others, etc., none of that bothers me in the least. It's the very nature of a science in its infancy.

 

[kenstein]

Amen Charl. Well said.

 

[Older The Better]

Thanks for post it’s good to stay up to date, archaeology is always evolving and I’m sure my teaching from college is now dated.

 

[Fred250]

Charl, even you have a sense of humor buried in there somewhere. And even you would have to admit that with titles like first Americans came by boat because of 16000 year old tools they are implying to the less informed the mystery is solved. We were wrong , but only by a little.

 

[Rege-PA]

Charl........Thank you for some very interesting reading and video.

 

[Tdog]

OK boys, so a couple of thousand years is up for debate--very good so that helps cultivate interest in it all. The "travel back in time" comment is pure sarcasm no doubt as everyone can see FRED. You're not gonna put it to bed right here and now. Right?

 

[Relicgrubber]

I’m not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens...

 

[Fred250]

Charl is probably the smartest guy in here, doesn’t mean he is infallible. I just try for laughs, no hard feelings on my part.

 

[Tdog]

Charl is probably the smartest guy in here, doesn’t mean he is infallible. I just try for laughs, no hard feelings on my part.

My man Fred... I like you--your persona. You 'belly-up to the bar' when you think you need to and play the Underdog on occasion. Maybe a bad choice of words but complimentary all the same.

 

[Charl]

Charl, even you have a sense of humor buried in there somewhere. And even you would have to admit that with titles like first Americans came by boat because of 16000 year old tools they are implying to the less informed the mystery is solved. We were wrong , but only by a little.

Well, as far as "by boat", it's the most likely scenario at the moment. But, if you really want to understand how change occurs in science, this is the book to read:

https://projektintegracija.pravo.hr.../Kuhn_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions.pdf

And Kuhn's thesis has sometimes been summerized as: Science advances one funeral at a time. If you can ferret out what that is implying, you can better understand how much human nature is a part of the scientific endeavor, and it applies in every single science. I believe. Science is never settled. They are not implying "the mystery is solved" at all. If you read the actual paper, you would not get that impression at all. Science is self correcting, or it ceases to be science at all. But it's a human endeavor, and egos come into play. But, bottom line: science is self correcting, and there really is no such thing as settled science. So, you are mistaken in your assumptions. You're entitled to that opinion, I would never suggest you're not, but it strikes me as an opinion of someone who's not that familiar with how science works.

A mere 100 years ago, no time at all at the scales of time we artifact hunters are used to working with, the consensus was that man arrived in the Americas about the time of Christ. It was the initial discovery of the Folsom point that overturned everything where our understanding was concerned. And it would be foolish to think there will be no more revolutionary insights. I happen to know a few of the researchers working at the Cerutti mastodon site. With a date of 130,000 years, what kind of reception do you think their paper in Nature received? Not exactly an enthusiastic reception at all. And who would expect there would be? But you are reading way too much into the Cooper's Ferry studies if you think they are saying "mystery solved". That would be a very foolish conclusion.

 

[Huzzah!]

Awesome info! What a view those folks had back then! Of course they had animals that wanted to eat them, and they sure didn’t have Tnet.

“The only rival to Cooper’s Ferry as the oldest site in North America is the Gault site in Texas. Researchers dated that site to about 16,000...”

However, I am confused—I thought Topper, Cactus Hill, and Gault we’re proven to be at least 16,000 years old if not 20,000...or more...

 

[Fred250]

No one will read the paper, just the headline is what will be read and remembered by the majority, which is why it was worded as it was. I get how science works, and I don’t like it. I am proabaly mistaken in most everything I do.

 

[jamus peek]

Thanks Charl for providing some really cool links i cant wait to go through them.

I have read from different sources one being wikipedia that occupation in California goes back 19000 years. I have a few fossil finds that i wish i took pics of. One is a metacarpal from a Bison. When i took it in to the museum to donate we compared it to some Ancient Bison Metacarpals and it was very large in comparison. It was very well mineralized. It was suggested by a Paleantologist that runs the show there that it could be the Bison before the Ancient Bison. The Bison Latifrons which she mentioned went extinct 20,000 years ago. Size is not indicitive of species we just know the Lafrontis was bigger then The Ancient Bison (Antiques) which was prior to the Bison we have now the Bison bison. So it could be a very large Ancient Bison metacarpal. Either way i pointed out some very straight incisions to her and she seemed to not acknowledge them purposely for some odd reason and we moved on.

I have been fortunate to find several fossils from Bison in the same creek and the most recent find is a Metacarpal that is heavily mineralized with root markings all over but also has some fairly straight incisions.

I will post a pic when i get a chance the Ancient Bison went extinct here roughly. 10,000 years ago and the bay area has very little evidence of the Bison bison aside from some regions in California. So when you find a very well minerilized Bison bone theres a good chance it is a fossil.

I think it's relative to the thread and i also believe i should look into the one i donated and get some other opinions and some pics of that one as well.

Thanks again Charl!

 

[Charl]

No one will read the paper, just the headline is what will be read and remembered by the majority, which is why it was worded as it was. I get how science works, and I don’t like it. I am proabaly mistaken in most everything I do.

"Why it was worded as it was". There is no consortium of North American archaeologists holding meetings to discuss new discoveries and deciding how they can create headlines in such a way that will make it seem that they were "only a little mistaken", etc. This scenario exists only in the imagination. Does anyone honestly believe that the specific archaeologists working at Cooper's Ferry are spending their down hours discussing mistakes in interpretation made in the past, like Clovis First, or arrival by ice free corridor, and how they can present conclusions derived from their study of this specific site in a way that will steer a particular new agenda, or new dominant paradigm? In peer reviewed journals, debates and disagreements will always play out. Science is often a blood sport in that respect, as it involves competitive human beings. Already, there are dissenting opinions being expressed regarding alleged similarities between tools from Cooper's Ferry and tools from northern Japan. But this notion that there is some kind of conspiracy afoot, and a convocation of archaeologists carefully trying to pull a fast one on the less informed public just ain't happening.

But, we are living at a time when there is great distrust in ALL authority, be it scientific, religious, political, etc., and we are also living in a virtual Age of Conspiracy theories.

All pre-Clovis sites are important at this point. There are not that many of them as yet, and the Clovis First paradigm has only very recently finally lost its grip on what thinking is acceptable.

The notion that the headline was worded to fool people is ridiculous. Given what branch of the Columbia River the site is located on, it's only natural to interpret the site as lending support to arrival by sea. And, indeed, humans and migration by boat is very much a thing in understanding early human movements at this time, not an idea restricted to the peopling of just the Americas. As well, replacing arrival via an ice free corridor with arrival by boat is a huge revolution in thinking. I would not consider it an example of "we were just a little mistaken".

Bottom line: scientists in the field are working on the problems associated with the specific site they are working on. There is no secret committee deciding how things can be worded in a newspaper that will somehow push one agenda over another. I doubt the scientists have anything to do with headlines at all.

 

[Charl]

There is nothing in what I said introducing the subject, or anything in the articles, that is even all that extraordinary by now. First of all, the "never-ever-before-Clovis" paradigm has been pretty much shattered by now. The reason I cited Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is because the battle to protect that paradigm, the acrimonious nature of the entire debate ever since claims of pre-Clovis sites were first offered, is a great recent example of how change occurs in science. It is a blood sport. Egos and reputations are involved. Clovis First was the kind of theory that requires one have tenure before challenging it. By that I mean rocking the boat can be injurious to careers. This was unfortunate, but science is a human sport, not just a method of inquiry, and it's a blood sport. Protecting the received wisdom granted the paradigm is a blood sport.


But it is still early in the post-Clovis First era. In one respect, everything is freed up. But there is still strong resistance to sites that are TOO old. There's a few well known examples, like Calico Hills. It is true that there are limits on how much one can speculate before the rules of a paradigm come into play, and you risk isolation.


What we don't know about the peopling of the Americas dwarfs what we do know. There are bound to be more surprises. Right now, every pre-Clovis site is precious. The sense that people are trying to put something over on you, the "we were only a little wrong" is asking for the whole enchilada all at once, when we're nowhere near that stage in reality. You can't toss a hundred pieces of a jigsaw puzzle on the table, and insist the entire picture be described immediately. The belief that human entry was from Asia still dominates. It's still the starting point for most. And for good reason. The periods when the ice barrier was in effect is not irrelevant.


And the emergence of the simple understanding that entry was by boat is huge. Hardly "a little wrong". One can't expect that realization to just be passé as yet. (But it's true that it also reveals how erroneous assumptions can make us blind to other possibilities). Boats and the spread of humans is a thing right now. This is a process. A place like the Cerruti Mastadon site, if it led to discovery of more certain sites of that age, would explode everything again. That's likely a very outlier possibility, but I love it as a possibility. I just have a hunch there are much bigger surprises ahead in that respect, but I'm not an American archaeologist, that's easy for me to say.


Meanwhile, all this against the larger picture represented by the increasing number of human species that inhabited this planet with us. And we are the last of those human types. I carry Neanderthal. Maybe some of you carry Denisovan. It's a hellava project putting prehistory together, no written record by definition.

 

[sandchip]

Thanks for those links, Charl. With shows like Alone and Naked and Afraid, it is absolutely amazing to consider how exceptionally tough and resourceful early man was. They weren't allowed to pick a tool to take with them. They weren't given a firestarter or first aid kit. But most importantly, they weren't given a radio in case they had to tap out. I can't think of anybody or any group of people who could compare with these folks, not even the most elite of our military, who are my heroes. Even they are equipped with the best that today's technology can offer. Everything that early man had, he had to make out of stuff he first had to find, all the while dealing with hunger and predators. Unimaginable. Of course, this only brings to mind the ungrateful half of our great nation that can only complain, whine, insult and gripe.

 

[Quartzite Keith]

I don't like wading into discussions like this on forums like this, because they never do well. Better to do over coffee and donuts or burgers and beer.

I look at all the pre-Clovis stuff like this: It's like finding an apple in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Everyone can agree that it is an apple, and the only known source of apples is apple trees, but what it means is hard to say. Even if 100 apples are found scattered over all of the desert over a hundred year period, it still doesn't explain much. If someone says we need to redefine the ecology of the Sahara over it, I would disagree.

I take the wildlife biologist's approach to it and say if you want to move back the colonization thousands of years, the math just doesn't work. Let's use the current discovery as an example, using very conservative numbers that tilt the argument in favor of pre-Clovis. The Columbia River valley is about 258,000 square miles of land. Very dense hunter-gather populations are known to go as high as 1 person per square mile. We know that Clovis people were much more spread out than this, and certainly a chunk of the valley is poor human habit, but let's be super conservative and shoot for a human population of 258,000, certainly a population density that would be leaving a lot of artifacts! If the site is 16,000 years old, and we put Clovis starting at 13,500, we have a 2,500 year gap to fill. Let's start with 1 band of 50 people (even though that may be too small to be viable). To put 1 person every square mile in 2,500 years would give them an average reproductive rate of 0.35%. Current world population growth is 1%. Human populations under very good conditions are known to be able to grow at 3-4%. Again, looking at it just from a biologist's viewpoint, I think a strong argument can be made that the colonizing population would have had ideal, "garden of Eden" type conditions (or, with no people to stop them, would have gone to some place else with such conditions), so I think at least a 2% growth rate is more realistic. At that rate, people are spilling out of the valley and there are distinctive stone tools everywhere in only 250 years.

Don't get too hung up on the exact numbers, the "mammoth in the room" problem is the scale of the numbers. A viable population of humans placed anywhere in North or South America, with abundant resources and no other people to stop them from exploiting them, could easily occupy all of the New World at Clovis band population densities in 500 -1000 years. If any one wants to play with numbers themselves:

Human Population Calculator

Meanwhile, the archaeologists are doing great work. At some point all those "apples" are going to add up to something. I've read extensively about the work done on the pre-Clovis component of the Cactus Hill site here in Virginia, and the work is impeccable. The archaeologists there have done everything humanly possible to get good data. The only way I can make sense of it is to conclude that either the dating is wrong, due to some yet undiscovered reason, or the people that left the artifacts were not part of the population that successfully colonized the Americas.

If any one wants to stop by tomorrow morning with a small black coffee and two glazed donuts...

 

[Fred250]

People can spread really quickly as Keith pointed out, weren’t limited to a land bridge as this site shows us, so why is only 16,000 years what is currently acceptable when there are already much earlier dates out there. Doesn’t this mean any dates are possible now.