Who are the most unrelated people on Earth?

[DrDeth]

@Colibri

Your statement of “almost certainly 20000” is a claim by you that such a figure is generally accepted. As I said, there is no scientific consensus that dates that old are valid. If you are going to make such claims, you should be clearer that they are at best very uncertain.

Who is to say they are 'uncertain", who decides “scientific consensus”?

Those are claims made by degreed professionals in peer reviewed scientific journals. Since I am not their peer, me making statements such as 'these claims are not generally accepted" would be presumptuous.

I didn’t pull those figures out of my head, I pulled them from those articles.

[DrDeth]

@Colibri

So? When sea level was lowest, glaciation was at its maximum, potentially blocking routes into the Americas beyond Beringia. The time of lowest sea levels does not necessarily correspond to when migration was most feasible.

Never said it did. However, you asked why no sites, and one of those “degreed professionals” claims is that many of those sites are underwater. You have talked with Adovasio, is that not one of his talking points? Do you disagree with him? I think he makes some good points, what do you think?

[Colibri]

@DrDeth

Who is to say they are 'uncertain", who decides “scientific consensus”?

The scientific community decides what the consensus is, and that can be determined by reviewing the scientific literature on the subject. Over the past 10 years I have done a great deal of reading in the primary literature on the colonization of the Americas, and consulted with many of the leading experts in the field, in particular because I have been developing a major museum exhibition that includes a section on the colonization of the Americas. I have a very good idea of what the generally accepted figures are, as well as what the more uncertain ones are, and why they have not been accepted as yet.

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Since I am not their peer, me making statements such as 'these claims are not generally accepted" would be presumptuous.
[/QUOTE]

Since you are clearly not familiar with the scientific literature, making the claim that a figure of 20000 years is “almost certain” on the basis of a few Googled articles is even more presumptuous. I’m just saying that you should be more careful about what you state about your cites. Don’t present something as an established fact just because you have found one scientific article on it.

[Colibri]

@DrDeth

Never said it did. However, you asked why no sites, and one of those “degreed professionals” claims is that many of those sites are underwater. You have talked with Adovasio, is that not one of his talking points? Do you disagree with him? I think he makes some good points, what do you think?

Adovasio’s claim for his site is around 16,000 years ago (which was controversial enough when it was made, being pre-Clovis). I agree with him, and in fact have included Meadowcroft in my exhibition. But he’s not claiming any site more than 20,000 years old.

[septimus]

@DrDeth

Stanford and Bradley say evidence for the Solutreans’ presence in America includes stone artifacts gathered by archaeologists at several sites on the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay, all producing dates more than 20,000 years old.

From a good message board for such matters one finds

… I have read this French flint [at Cactus Hill, near Chesapeake Bay] is a classic example of an unsafe context. It was apparently found by the archaeologists directly at the base of a clay chimney of a 17th century colonial homestead they were excavating. It was made from Grand Pressigny flint from north-west France. The most likely explanation is that it actually is a French Solutrean blade (or something similar like the upper Palaeolithic leaf points which are very hard to distinguish from Solutrean points - these existed in Britain too) which was brought from western Europe and was a curio brought from western Europe by colonial settlers in the 17th century AD.

I have no useful opinion on such debates. My objection (even ignoring the loose use of “almost certainly”) was to the use of “almost certainly 20,000” as shorthand for “almost certainly 18,000.” One doesn’t “round” numbers in such a context, unless in the direction which increases certainty.

[Colibri]

@DrDeth

And from the Smithsonian article, :
“Stanford and Bradley say evidence for the Solutreans’ presence in America includes stone artifacts gathered by archaeologists at several sites on the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay, all producing dates more than 20,000 years old. Most of the dates were derived from organic material found with the artifacts. The exception was a mastodon tusk with attached bone and teeth netted by a fisherman in 1974, along with a laurel leaf-shaped stone knife. Stanford found the tusk to be 22,760 years old. Among other things, the Solutrean hypothesis provides context not only for the Clovis people, but also for North America’s pre-Clovis sites.”

The Solutrean Hypothesis has been pretty well debunked by this point. The genetic evidence thought to support it hasn’t held up. Among the difficulties are the gap of thousands of years between the Solutrean and Clovis technologies, and the unlikelihood of a stone tool making tradition being transmitted across thousands of miles across the edge of the sea ice without any access to a supply of stone.

[John_Mace]

@septimus

I have no useful opinion on such debates. My objection (even ignoring the loose use of “almost certainly”) was to the use of “almost certainly 20,000” as shorthand for “almost certainly 18,000.” One doesn’t “round” numbers in such a context, unless in the direction which increases certainty.

Yes, that’s a very importing issue to note for this simple reason: If there was confirmed evidence of human presence in the Americas pushing the arrival date back 2,000 years that would be headline making news. One should not casually throw around 1,000s of years in this context for the sake of “rounding”.

[DrDeth]

@Colibri

Since you are clearly not familiar with the scientific literature, making the claim that a figure of 20000 years is “almost certain” on the basis of a few Googled articles is even more presumptuous. I’m just saying that you should be more careful about what you state about your cites. Don’t present something as an established fact just because you have found one scientific article on it.

So, rather than discuss the fact that Humans have been in America much further than 10000 years, and the possibility they have been here much longer- we’re just going to focus on my wording of “almost certain”. :rolleyes: Not interesting facts, not exciting new discoveries, not groundbreaking articles- but “almost certain”. *That’s *the most important thing. :dubious:

And, no doubt you have many, many published articles under your belt, but I do have two (neither of which was ground breaking or very exciting, I’ll admit), so I am much more familiar with scientific literature than almost every other poster here on the boards.

[DrDeth]

@Colibri

Adovasio’s claim for his site is around 16,000 years ago (which was controversial enough when it was made, being pre-Clovis). I agree with him, and in fact have included Meadowcroft in my exhibition. But he’s not claiming any site more than 20,000 years old.

Then why did you ask “One question is how people could have been present in two continents teeming with game for 10,000+ years while leaving so little evidence behind.” when you agree with Adovasio’s position that many pre-Clovis sites are likely underwater? You obviously are familiar with his work, thus you should have already known the answer. Getting off the whole “almost certain” issue which has nothing to do with science, and back to actual science- do you or do you not agree with Adovasio’s point that many sites are likely underwater due to sea-level rise?

[DrDeth]

@John_Mace

Yes, that’s a very importing issue to note for this simple reason: If there was confirmed evidence of human presence in the Americas pushing the arrival date back 2,000 years that would be headline making news. One should not casually throw around 1,000s of years in this context for the sake of “rounding”.

Yes, because rather than discuss interesting facts, exciting new discoveries, not groundbreaking articles- you’d rather focus on a minor "gotcha’ on the way I worded one post. So very helpful in the quest for knowledge. :rolleyes:

[Colibri]

@DrDeth

Yes, because rather than discuss interesting facts, exciting new discoveries, not groundbreaking articles- you’d rather focus on a minor "gotcha’ on the way I worded one post. So very helpful in the quest for knowledge. :rolleyes:

You might also consider admitting you were were wrong about the “almost certainly” bit, and just move on. Continuing to complain about the fact that people corrected you on it just focuses more attention on your mistake.

@DrDeth

Then why did you ask “One question is how people could have been present in two continents teeming with game for 10,000+ years while leaving so little evidence behind.” when you agree with Adovasio’s position that many pre-Clovis sites are likely underwater? You obviously are familiar with his work, thus you should have already known the answer. Getting off the whole “almost certain” issue which has nothing to do with science, and back to actual science- do you or do you not agree with Adovasio’s point that many sites are likely underwater due to sea-level rise?

Some sites from the very earliest migration are no doubt underwater, but not all of them are. If the migration began more 30,000 years ago one would expect people to have colonized inland habitats eventually without waiting another 14,000 years to do so.

The work of Dillehay, Adovasio, and others pushed the estimated time of colonization back by 2,000-4,000 years, or about 25-30%. Moving it back to 30,000 years would push it almost 100%. Believing populations remained so low they left sparse evidence for c. 3,000 years is a lot easier than that they were around for an extra 14,000 years while leaving even less evidence.

[DrDeth]

@Colibri

You might also consider admitting you were were wrong about the “almost certainly” bit, and just move on. Continuing to complain about the fact that people corrected you on it just focuses more attention on your mistake.

Some sites from the very earliest migration are no doubt underwater, but not all of them are. If the migration began more 30,000 years ago one would expect people to have colonized inland habitats eventually without waiting another 14,000 years to do so.

The work of Dillehay, Adovasio, and others pushed the estimated time of colonization back by 2,000-4,000 years, or about 25-30%. Moving it back to 30,000 years would push it almost 100%. Believing populations remained so low they left sparse evidence for c. 3,000 years is a lot easier than that they were around for an extra 14,000 years while leaving even less evidence.

From the first time it was mentioned "Gosh, since we were using round numbers, I rounded."* Right there, I agreed I rounded off. :smack:

I so admit again.:smack:

I rounded, I rounded in response to a post using rounding.:smack:

I freely and completely agree that rounding does not give the most accurate picture here. :smack:

Bad, bad, DrDeth. No cookies for you!:smack:

Now, instead of discussion my HUGE GIANT ERROR which is obviously far more important than any other point made in this three page thread, can we get back to oh, I don’t know…science?

Still there are some exciting discoveries and hypothesis. And, now that the Clovis barrier has been breached and you seem to agree there are clearly and unambiguously pre-clovis human settlements in the Americas- isn’t that important? And once we have broken the barrier, it can only get older, right? I mean, if 16000 is accepted, 18 or even 20K is not unthinkable by any means is it?

[Melchior]

There cannot be degrees of ‘unrelated’. People can be closely or distantly related. The two most distantly related people are Claudine Longet and Michael Jackson.

[John_Mace]

@DrDeth

From the first time it was mentioned "Gosh, since we were using round numbers, I rounded."* Right there, I agreed I rounded off. :smack:

I so admit again.:smack:

I rounded, I rounded in response to a post using rounding.:smack:

I freely and completely agree that rounding does not give the most accurate picture here. :smack:

Bad, bad, DrDeth. No cookies for you!:smack:

Now, instead of discussion my HUGE GIANT ERROR which is obviously far more important than any other point made in this three page thread, can we get back to oh, I don’t know…science?

You need to do more penance than that.

Still there are some exciting discoveries and hypothesis. And, now that the Clovis barrier has been breached and you seem to agree there are clearly and unambiguously pre-clovis human settlements in the Americas- isn’t that important? And once we have broken the barrier, it can only get older, right?

Just to be clear, it has been quite a while now that the clovis barrier was breached. That isn’t news.

I mean, if 16000 is accepted, 18 or even 20K is not unthinkable by any means is it?

I don’t think anyone denies that. I explicitly stated so earlier in this thread.

[Colibri]

@DrDeth

From the first time it was mentioned "Gosh, since we were using round numbers, I rounded."* Right there, I agreed I rounded off. :smack:

I so admit again.:smack:

I rounded, I rounded in response to a post using rounding.:smack:

I freely and completely agree that rounding does not give the most accurate picture here. :smack:

Bad, bad, DrDeth. No cookies for you!:smack:

Now, instead of discussion my HUGE GIANT ERROR which is obviously far more important than any other point made in this three page thread, can we get back to oh, I don’t know…science?

You know, the histrionics don’t exactly help your credibility. And you’ve contributed as much as anyone else in blowing this molehill into a mountain.

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
And, now that the Clovis barrier has been breached and you seem to agree there are clearly and unambiguously pre-clovis human settlements in the Americas- isn’t that important?
[/QUOTE]

Of course it is. No one has said it isn’t.

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
And once we have broken the barrier, it can only get older, right?
[/quote]

Wrong. It could be that 16,000-18,000 years ago represents the actual time of colonization, and that there are no authentic older sites to be found.

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
I mean, if 16000 is accepted, 18 or even 20K is not unthinkable by any means is it?
[/QUOTE]

I’ve already said that 18,000 is within the range of the current consensus. No, 20,000 is not unthinkable, but it isn’t supported by any strong evidence as of yet.

As has been said, dates in the 30,000-50,000 year range have been proposed and published in the scientific literature. They are not impossible, but they are still considered highly anomalous and questionable. There are any number of things that can result in bad dating. Bones or tools may have been redeposited. Strata can be contaminated with carbon from older or younger layers. Scratches that appear due to tool use could be the result of natural abrasion.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Monte Verde provided the extraordinary proof that caused the Clovis-first paradigm to be discarded, and made it easier to accept other pre-Clovis sites. But until we have extraordinary evidence for sites earlier 16,000-18,000 years, that will remain the consensus. Saying that 20,000 is possible doesn’t make it probable. And I, and most experts in the field, will take a lot more convincing on those kinds of dates.

[John_Mace]

@Colibri

There are any number of things that can result in bad dating.

And that’s not just true in archeology, either!