All of the evidence from early South America and the Anzick site supports the population Y connection. Nice work, very interesting. I am an archaeologist working in the desert SW, and have made 16 Clovis points this month, with only traditional tools. Your small point IS a Clovis. My friend Nate, also an archaeologist has recorded many similar small Clovis points in the Great Basin. Split a stick in half and sandwich your Clovis preform between the haves as you flute it. Use small buttons of wood to make room for the the channel flake removal, and wrap it with a piece of string as you do so. Works Great.
I helped excavate the Cerutti Mastodon Site in 1992 1993. The argument against human agency from the archaeologists then was the same argument against human agency as yours now. Deja Vu! One other possibility for the fish scales at your site could be bird predation bringing fish up from the river to feed on.
Really no other explanation makes sense for both Cerutti and Hartley other then human harvesting. Critics and pic apart a few parts but given the totality of evidence, cannot give a better explanation. There were seemingly many parallels between both sites. The controversy seems to arise that both sites predate Clovis, which seems to upend the establishment theories. Both sites are similar to the ancient sites found in Europe. Both sites were relatively undisturbed. The Cerutti site only one bone was impacted by the grading crew but otherwise both sites were pristine, well preserved, and not impacted by geological events. You would not find impact fragments with the broken bones if water or geology was a factor. At both sites the fragile ribs were not broken, nor was there was evidence of predatory activity, The strongest bones the femurs were broken via percussion with the impact butterfly fragments present. Hartley even had fish artifacts,. Cerutti both femurs were broken, an animal might break one femur but never both. Both Cerutti and Hartley Site were not kill sites, but in my humble opinion, just human scavenger sites. Given the age of both sites, the humans may not have had the technology to kill a Mastodon. Only the ability using natures tools to scavenge. It seems to me that Clovis technology enabled that culture to support larger population, therefore we see a much bigger footprint of their existence. But it does not mean that they had to be the first occupants, just maybe the most successful ancestors. That were easy to identify with their tool making skills that survived time.
![CAMPปลิ้น | รวม Highlight 2024! PART [1/2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6hnvNnvYloU/mqdefault.jpg)
Good presentation. Thank you!
Great work , great science !
Thank you to everyone involved for this incredible, solid, science lecture. Especially Dr. Rowe
All of the evidence from early South America and the Anzick site supports the population Y connection. Nice work, very interesting. I am an archaeologist working in the desert SW, and have made 16 Clovis points this month, with only traditional tools. Your small point IS a Clovis. My friend Nate, also an archaeologist has recorded many similar small Clovis points in the Great Basin. Split a stick in half and sandwich your Clovis preform between the haves as you flute it. Use small buttons of wood to make room for the the channel flake removal, and wrap it with a piece of string as you do so. Works Great.
Kudos to Dr. Rowe. Brilliant.
I helped excavate the Cerutti Mastodon Site in 1992 1993. The argument against human agency from the archaeologists then was the same argument against human agency as yours now. Deja Vu! One other possibility for the fish scales at your site could be bird predation bringing fish up from the river to feed on.
Really no other explanation makes sense for both Cerutti and Hartley other then human harvesting. Critics and pic apart a few parts but given the totality of evidence, cannot give a better explanation. There were seemingly many parallels between both sites. The controversy seems to arise that both sites predate Clovis, which seems to upend the establishment theories. Both sites are similar to the ancient sites found in Europe. Both sites were relatively undisturbed. The Cerutti site only one bone was impacted by the grading crew but otherwise both sites were pristine, well preserved, and not impacted by geological events. You would not find impact fragments with the broken bones if water or geology was a factor. At both sites the fragile ribs were not broken, nor was there was evidence of predatory activity, The strongest bones the femurs were broken via percussion with the impact butterfly fragments present. Hartley even had fish artifacts,. Cerutti both femurs were broken, an animal might break one femur but never both. Both Cerutti and Hartley Site were not kill sites, but in my humble opinion, just human scavenger sites. Given the age of both sites, the humans may not have had the technology to kill a Mastodon. Only the ability using natures tools to scavenge. It seems to me that Clovis technology enabled that culture to support larger population, therefore we see a much bigger footprint of their existence. But it does not mean that they had to be the first occupants, just maybe the most successful ancestors. That were easy to identify with their tool making skills that survived time.
This video's title reminded me of my first date freshman year. 🐽🐽😎
Gotta find that Population Y fossil/DNA ...
Click bait.
No, not this time. Just a good title for a good video.