?

Log in

Any comments/feelings on Goodyear's dates from the Topper Site? - stone age [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Journal of Lithic Prehistory

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Dec. 17th, 2004|02:00 pm]
Journal of Lithic Prehistory
stone_age
[palmerjamie8]
Any comments/feelings on Goodyear's dates from the Topper Site?
LinkReply

Comments:
From: tearduct
2004-12-18 08:15 am (UTC)
I've only read a few article about it but here goes: I think that the dates are correct, but until they find some no kidding diagnostic artifacts, we need to be cautious about saying that that layer is an occupation layer. I am not a die hard land bridge fanatic. I'm sure that people did come to the New World across the landbridge and the Ice Free Corridor, but I'm also sure that they could have come over by boat. (Or maybe a combination of the two). We can't find direct evidence of occupation along the shores at this time, since the water level has changed so much. But indirectly, the older sites in South America (with more evidence than Topper) can support travel by water ( a much faster method). Now these notions withstanding, I'm wondering how the Topper site fits into all this. If memory serves me, the Ice Free Corridor was not there 50,000 years ago. So did the inhabitants of Topper travels east across the Arctic, then down the east coast? We need more evidence for that, but I would assume some water travel.

Furthermore, I'm just hoping that they weren't jumping the gun with this one? Having radiocarbon dates doesn't necessaryily mean that people had any contact with the charcoal, bones, seeds etc. I wrote my thesis on a site with Paleoindian radiocarbon dates but no diagnostic artifacts before the Late Archaic so we can't say for sure that those dates are associated with people. We would like that very much, but we can say for sure until some decent evidence is found.
(Reply) (Thread)