[meteorite-list] RCYBP

From: Thaddeus Besedin <endophasy_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <220768.88325.qm_at_web62511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

List,
I was abrupt in sending an unsolicited monologic
argument to perpetual public access between classes.
this is corrected for typographical (and other)
errors.


Well-dated fluted point sites (Clovis) seem to,
according to recent work in Clovis site chronology
bracketing (Waters and Stafford 1997
http://dmc-news.tamu.edu/templates/?a=4202&z=0 ) date
from a ~200-400 year period terminating abruptly by
the end of the last interglacial period, the Younger
Dryas Stadial, which is dated to ~12,900 - 11,500
years ago. Popular press does not usually catch their
naive conflation of radiocarbon and calibrated years,
even when
Scientists are explicit about the distinction.
Archaeologists seem to make the same mistake on
occasion,
but often RCYBP is not indicated in source documents
that
may contain quoted/excerpted material. There
are no true, well-dated Clovis sites (with full
classic Clovis prismatic blade toolkit) dating from
after ~12,700 cal BP, but Fluted point technology
persists. Clovis points were probably curated by later
people, since their size made them visible to late
Pleistocene people, which then allowed them continued
utility as functional biface knives.
Fluted point sites are numerous in the Eastern United
States because of
environmental factors, not necessarily because of
a greater frequency of occupied sites, although
resource
abundance may have also permitted
population growth, or Clovis technology was more
frequently adopted by an original founding human
populations
in the East. Sedimentary
preservation of sites is more common on depositional
surfaces that have relatively
little relief. In Alaska, Younger Dryas Erosional
unconformity would be expected,
since this was a period of general valley floor
incision, followed by
rapid sedimentation beginning ~ 11,600 - 11,500 calBP,
or at the initial Preboreal Holocene. Thus, the
differential preservation
 between expansive depositional Eastern landscapes and
proportionally less common
occupiable flat space in Western Valleys, subject to
greater
 surface material loss due to greater mean slope angle
(gravitational effect on unconsolidated sediments)and
fire frequency (i.e. ground cover destruction) with
erosive flooding. Valley downcutting has obliterated
Bolling interstadial period
 depositional surfaces on broad floodplains. The
record is skewed.

Recently, Radiocarbon dates at the non-fluted-point,
non-microlithic Mesa site in Alaska
(http://www.blm.gov/heritage/adventures/research/StatePages/PDFs/lo_res_%20kunz%2014ap03.sep.pdf)
have returned dates both earlier and contemporaneous
with Clovis (e.g. Beta-55236 [intact hearth]: 11,660
+/- 80 14C YBP
returns the calibrated date of 13,431 +/- 141, or
[68% range 13?C290 - 13572], and GX-26461: 12,240 +/-
610
14C YBP calibrates to 14718 +/- 1084
for [68% calibrated range of 13634 - 15802 BP]
[CalPal2004_SFCP
QuickCal Ver. 1.3.1])


Evidence of fluting has only been identified in the
Old World at the Uptar site in NE Siberia
(http://www.archaeology.org/9611/newsbriefs/uptar.html),
which may represent a late migration of North American
toolmakers into Siberia, but may be also be evidence
of in situ convergent
development. The Uptar point has a contracting
stem-like base, and thus possibly shares a hafting
configuration with
Windust/Lake Mojave style late Pleistocene-early
Holocene forms, although Ushki (Eastern siberia)
points from Layer 7 (Ushki 1 initial occupational 14C
date constraint: 11,820 ?} 100 BP,
 13736 ?} 159 calBP [68% calBP range: 13,577 - 13,895]
CalPal_2007_HULU) include side-notched,
expanding base forms which are found in post-Windust
(after 9,000 BP)
assemblages in the Northwestern United states. A late
influx of North American people
into Siberia may have curated representative
technologies of
both stemmed and fluted traditions, contemporaneous in
North America, where terminal Pleistocene stemmed
point technology survived into the Holocene.
Basal thinning modification of hafted objects is
common in East Asia and the Old World at large during
the Upper Paleolithic, appearing in Mousterian
Levallois assemblages as well as later blade/core
industries (e.g. Gravettian, etc.). The preference by
fluted point
makers for a geographically widespread and ordinary
bifacial thinning style that produces outrepasse flake
terminations to define
biface edges opposing the striking platforms of
removed surface material does not link Clovis
technology
to any Western European technological tradition, such
as the
Solutrean tradition. Clovis is late, brief, and often
invisible, since projectile point forms can hardly
define a "culture." Clovis fluted Projectile forms
disappeared concomitantly with the extinction of
megafauna at the onset of the Younger Dryas stadial.
At this time, until more evidence of rapid extinction
characteristic of cataclysmic events becomes
available, any answer to the question of whether a
bolide was significant enough to be responsible for
either cultural or biological extinction is at best
based on a post hoc fallacy.
-Thaddeus

--- Thaddeus Besedin <endophasy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well-dated fluted point sites (Clovis) seem to,
> according to recent work in clovis site chronology
> bracketing (Waters and Stafford 1997
> http://dmc-news.tamu.edu/templates/?a=4202&z=0 )
> date
> from an ~200-400 year period terminting abruptly by
> the end of the last interglacial period, the Younger
> Dryas Stadial, which is dated to ~12,900 - 11,500
> years ago. Popular press does not usually catch
> their
> naive confuaion of radiocarbon and calibrated years.
> Archaeologists seem to make the same mistake. There
> are no true, well-dated Clovis sites (with full
> classis Clovis prismatic blade toolkit) dating from
> after ~12,900 cal BP, but Fluted point technology
> persists. Clovis points were probably curated by
> later
> people, since their size made them visible to late
> Pleistocene people, which then allowed the continued
> use of functional bifaces (ofetn of great size).
> Fluted point sites proliferate in the east because
> of
> environmental factors, not necessarily because a
> greater frequency of sites occurs. Sedimentary
> preservation of sites is more common in places of
> lower relief, like Florida. The record is skewed.
>
> Recently, Radiocarbon dates at the non-fluted-point,
> non-microlithic Mesa site in Alska
>
(http://www.blm.gov/heritage/adventures/research/StatePages/PDFs/lo_res_%20kunz%2014ap03.sep.pdf)
> have returned dates both earlier and
> contemporaneous
> with Clovis (e.g. Beta-55236 (intact hearth): 11,660
> +/- 80 14C YBP
> returns the calibrated date of 13,431 +/- 141, or
> 2-sigma 13290 - 13572, and GX-26461: 12,240 +/- 610
> 14C YBP calibrates to 14718 +/- 1084
> for a 2-sigma calibrated range of 13634 - 15802 BP
> [CalCurve: CalPal2004_SFCP
> QuickCal Ver. 1.3.1])
>
>
> the removal of fluting flakes has only occured in
> the
> Old World at the Uptar site in NE Siberia
>
(http://www.archaeology.org/9611/newsbriefs/uptar.html),
> which may represent a late migration of North
> American
> toolmakers into Siberia, but may be an in situ
> development. The Uptar point has a contracting
> stem-like base, similar to well-represented Ushki
> and
> Windust/Lake Mojave style late Pleistocene-early
> Holocene forms. A late influx of North American
> people
> into Siberia may have iincluded representatives of
> both stemmed and fluted traditions, contemporaneous
> in
> North America, where terminal Pleistocene stemmed
> point technology survived into the Holocene. Basal
> thinning of hafted objects is common in East Asia
> from
> the Upper Paleolithic. The preference by fluted
> point
> makers for a common bifacial thinning style which
> produces outrepasse flake terminations to define
> biface edges opposing the striking platforms of
> removed surface does not make Clovis technology
> similar to any Western European tradition, such as
> the
> Solutrean tradition. Clovis is late, brief, and
> often
> invisible, since projectile point forms can hardly
> define a "culture."
> -Thaddeus
> --- Paul <bristolia at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Alaskan Muck, Tsunamis, and Hibben Revisited Part
> 3
> > (Long)
> >
> > Note: my previous post in this series can be found
> > at:
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-June/035570.html
> > ,
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-July/036230.html
> > ,
> > and
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2007-August/037069.html
> >
> > In the thread "[meteorite-list] Intro the muck
> once
> > again",
> > Mr. Grondine wrote:
> >
> > "I wrote:
> >
> > "That point may be placed between say about 45,000
>
> > BCE and 8,249 BCE.?"
> >
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> > "Contrary to what Mr. Grondine claims above, none
> of
> > the projectile points reported by Hibben (1943)
> has
> > been dated as being older 11,000 BP."
> >
> > What I claimed was "between". Last time I checked
> > 11,000 BP came between 45,000 BCE and 8,249 BCE.
> > But then perhaps its new math, or new archaeology,
> > or
> > something else. I go with something else."
> >
> > Again, the fact of the matter is that there is a
> > complete lack of any
> > evidence for Pale-Indian points older than 11,000
> to
> > 13,000 BP,
> > if you include recent discoveries in Maryland
> that
> > were announced
> > after my last post. Although there artifacts older
> > than 13,000 BP
> > have been found in the New World, none of them
> are
> > the type of
> > Pale-Indian artifacts, which Hibben (1943)
> discussed
> > having found
> > in Alaska. Thus, your age range from 45,000 BCE
> and
> > 8,249 BCE
> > is completely wrong. This is well documented in
> > innumerable papers
> > and textbooks, which Mr. Grondine either has not
> > bothered to read
> > or simply ignores because they completely refute
> his
> > pet theories.
> > For the details, a person can go look at:
> >
> > Haynes, C. V., Fluted Projectile Points: Their Age
> > and Dispersion.
> > Science. vol. 145, no. 3639, pp. 1408-1413.
> >
> > Holliday, V. T., 2000, The evolution of
> Paleoindian
> > geochronology
> > and typology on the Great Plains. Geoarchaeology.
> > vol. 15, no. 3,
> > pp. 227-290.
> >
> > Holliday, V. T., C. V. Haynes, J. L. Hofman and D.
> > J. Meltzer,
> > 1994, Geoarchaeology and Geochronology of the
> Miami
> > (Clovis)
> > Site, Southern High Plains of Texas. Quaternary
> > Research. vol. 41,
> > no. 4, pp. 234-244.
> >
> > Hibben (1943) is:
> >
> > Hibben, F. C., 1943, Evidences of Early Man in
> > Alaska.
> > American Antiquity. vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 254-259.
> >
> > More recently, Clovis points dating to about
> 13,000
> > BP have been
> > found in Maryland as discussed in "UD grad
> student's
> > discovery
> > could help rewrite prehistory, Univ. of Delaware
> > Daily at;
> >
> >
>
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/aug/lowery080807.html
> >
> > Even these Clovis Points are 35,000 years too
> young
> > to support
> > Mr. Grondine's claims of PaleoIndian points being
> as
> > old as "45,000
> > BCE".
> >
> > Mr. Grondine continued,
> >
> > "Given this level of discussion, one has to wonder
>
> > why I carry on - oh yes, its because there was an
> > impact that killed large numbers of people, and
> > that and only that makes it worth the time and
> > aggravation."
> >
>
=== message truncated ===





       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
Received on Wed 22 Aug 2007 03:27:59 AM PDT