Clovis Killer Discovery

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by wodin

I’ve always had doubts about the “landbridge” hypothesis. It seems to me that the landbridge was created by lowering of sea level due to glaciations. If that be the case, wouldn’t said landbridge be covered by miles deep ice?

The way glaciers start is in the higher altitudes, pushing downward. They start on top of mountains. Exposed seafloor is by definition low altitude, and the last areas a glacier would reach.

See this article for an image of the extent of the Laurentide ice sheet:

http://www.humanjourney.us/america.html

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by wodin

Dry land perhaps, but dry land covered by miles deep ice?

My problem is not that there wasn’t a landbridge, but that given the conditions that caused it; it would have been less amenable to migration than open ocean. And in fact even today there is an ice bridge during part of the year and you don’t see anyone migrating across that!

This too was my issue I brought up earlier about why would they be moving that direction given the conditions (I guess that is the real question - what were the conditions during the migration and even when time-wise did it happen)

[GeoffC]

It's not impossible for the 'land bridge' to be open during summer months sufficient for game to travel over it, followed by hunters. Especially if, perhaps, their normal feeding grounds become barren from drought(?) or over-feeding; the animals just follow the growth of grass wherever it leads them. Whether they all reached the safety of the other-side before winter arrived is questionable, in which case they may have run quickly during autumn.

As to why no one does it nowadays could have something they didn't have then - political barriers.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

It's not impossible for the 'land bridge' to be open during summer months sufficient for game to travel over it, followed by hunters. Especially if, perhaps, their normal feeding grounds become barren from drought(?) or over-feeding; the animals just follow the growth of grass wherever it leads them. Whether they all reached the safety of the other-side before winter arrived is questionable, in which case they may have run quickly during autumn.

As to why no one does it nowadays could have something they didn't have then - political barriers.

Geoff, I don't think you understand. During the ice age, anywhere north of the current Canadian US border, THERE WAS NO SUMMER! No grass or trees and no bare soil; just ice! And in most places that was literally miles deep.

It would be like migrating across the Greenland ice cap or Antartica today. Doable? Maybe with modern equipment, but much easier to go around ... in a boat.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by wodin

It would be like migrating across the Greenland ice cap or Antartica today. Doable? Maybe with modern equipment, but much easier to go around ... in a boat.

I'll repeat myself:

See this article for an image of the extent of the Laurentide ice sheet:

http://www.humanjourney.us/america.html

THE ICE SHEET DID NOT COVER BERINGIA.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

I'll repeat myself:

See this article for an image of the extent of the Laurentide ice sheet:

http://www.humanjourney.us/america.html

THE ICE SHEET DID NOT COVER BERINGIA.

I don't think that is proof. As I said this is all very contraversial. One theory does not constitute proof.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I don't think that is proof. As I said this is all very contraversial. One theory does not constitute proof.

And I think you are confused about what I am talking about. I am not talking about the "Clovis ancestors traveling over Beringia" hypothesis-- I'm talking about the extent of glaciation at the time-- and that isn't a "controversial theory", that is a matter of the geological record.

THE ICE SHEET DID NOT COVER BERINGIA.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q...w=1440&bih=725

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

And I think you are confused about what I am talking about. I am not talking about the "Clovis ancestors traveling over Beringia" hypothesis-- I'm talking about the extent of glaciation at the time-- and that isn't a "controversial theory", that is a matter of the geological record.

THE ICE SHEET DID NOT COVER BERINGIA.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q...w=1440&bih=725

We'll yeah you seem to have gotter off track way back there. This thread is about clovis and how they arrived. You seem very obsessed with claims about this land bridge whichis even more contraversial and in particular whether and when people may have crossed it. You seem to have some very strong opinions that don't necesarily jive with other beliefs in the clovis contraversy.

Oh and saying it again does not make it true...

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

We'll yeah you seem to have gotter off track way back there.

No, I haven't. I'm responding to the poster who thinks that Beringia was covered with miles deep ice.

Oh and saying it again does not make it true...

Given the choice between believing the maps produced by professional geologists and your skepticism-- I think I'll go with the professionals.


THE ICE SHEET DID NOT COVER BERINGIA.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q...w=1440&bih=725

[kennyc]

And given your attitude, I'm going to go with the scientists and teach the controversy.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...17-bering.html

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

No, I haven't. I'm responding to the poster who thinks that Beringia was covered with miles deep ice.



Given the choice between believing the maps produced by professional geologists and your skepticism-- I think I'll go with the professionals.


THE ICE SHEET DID NOT COVER BERINGIA.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q...w=1440&bih=725

That doesn't make it any less off topic.

Maps are not an indicator of what happened thousands of years ago. And there is certainly controversy. You don't know. Now I've started another thread for you silly land bridge discussion. Yeah the ideas are somewhat connected but I do get tired of you shooting off into other directions and dragging threads off. You do it all the time.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

I'll repeat myself:

See this article for an image of the extent of the Laurentide ice sheet:

http://www.humanjourney.us/america.html

THE ICE SHEET DID NOT COVER BERINGIA.

Yes and the same article says:

A number of discoveries combined together to raise doubts about the Clovis First theory. New research at archaeological sites throughout the Americas strongly suggests a human presence much earlier. Geologists realized that the Canadian ice-free corridor almost certainly did not exist at the critical period, making it likely that people first traveled south from Beringia by water, probably following the shore of the Pacific.

The more I read, the more it becomes evident that the whole "Clovis first" hypothesis becomes conjecture built upon conjecture.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...17-bering.html

Note that to become flooded, THE ICE SHEET DID NOT COVER BERINGIA.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yeah the ideas are somewhat connected but I do get tired of you shooting off into other directions and dragging threads off. You do it all the time.

Feel free to use your ignore list, Kenny.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Note that to become flooded, THE ICE SHEET DID NOT COVER BERINGIA.

GO AWAY. SHOUTING DOESN'T MAKE SOMETHING TRUE. YOU ARE CONFUSED. UNWILLING TO ADMIT THAT YOU MIGHT BE WRONG.