 |
Anarchaeology.com
Anarchaeology.com
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Charlie Hatchett
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 898
Location: Austin, Texas
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject: Minn. Archaeologists discover possible PreClovis Tools |
 |
|
http://wcco.com/local/local_story_012071945.html
| Quote: | | Walker, Minn. Archaeologists have discovered stone tools atop a hill in this northern Minnesota town that may be 13,000 to 14,000 years old, according to a published report. |
| Quote: | Mather said the site appears to be "much older" than the Clovis era of finely made spear points that defines the paleo-Indian period.
The find is "startling enough that appropriate response from every archaeologist and glacial geologist is skepticism." But, he added, a half-dozen archaeologists, soil scientists and others who have examined the site all say the artifacts are genuine. |
Here's a few of images of the artifacts:
Published January 11, 2007
Star Tribune
This is a blade with a two-sided edge, likely used for general cutting or scraping.
This axe-like tool was suitable for such uses as chopping wood and processing game.
Published January 11, 2007
Star Tribune
The last one reminds me somewhat of this one from central Texas:
http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20515.jpg
And a video link:
http://wm.kare.gannett.edgestreams.net/news/news/11206_146573_dig_kare.wmv?213436524624
_________________
Charlie Hatchett
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com/
"Pregunte la Autoridad" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DavidCampbell
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Jun 2003
Posts: 436
Location: Occupied Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder how the date determination was made;between 13,000 and 14,000 BP isn't very PreClovis. About two weeks, maybe.  They'll need a lot better evidence than the ones shown just to get past the geofact barrier much less the Clovis Barrier. Hopefully they've got more than shown up their sleeves.
_________________
David Campbell
"The going's getting weird, so I'm turning pro." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie Hatchett
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 898
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | About two weeks, maybe. |
 ...right? Like the announcement is a bold move!!
Here's some correspondence from the About.com forum:
| Quote: |
Charlie,
Thanks for tracking those down. They are real artifacts. One important question concerns the dating of the remains since it appears to be based solely on and estimate based on geology.
Mark A. McConaughy
|
| Quote: |
Afternoon, Mark.
Yeah, the details are pretty sketchy, from the articles alone. One of the articles mentions a published report. I'm trying to track it down. If the dates reported are calibrated, then the dating isn't much of a leap: Clovis era to ca. 500 years prior. If the dates are uncalibrated, then ca. 1500-2500 B.P. prior to Clovis. Matt Mattson's statement: "...the site appears to be 'much older' than the Clovis era of finely made spear points that defines the paleo-Indian period..." leads me to believe the reported dates are uncalibrated.
If the strata above the artifacts have been dated; the strata appears to be undisturbed; there are no insets; and the artifacts are convincingly deposited autochthonously, a convincing case might be made.
Again, the published report might answer some of these questions.
Charlie
|
_________________
Charlie Hatchett
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com/
"Pregunte la Autoridad" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
