tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post4790578530285343465..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: OSL dating: Brazilian site is 22,000 years agoMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-56842454463201311502013-04-24T03:03:08.528+02:002013-04-24T03:03:08.528+02:00Fascinating. Recently I attended a presentation on...Fascinating. Recently I attended a presentation on the re-discovery of a Sauk village near present day Quad Cities. The research into when the Americas were populated is extremely exciting to me. I appreciate this article and others on the subject. Keep up the great work. 42Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14655107378533032598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-30964339274530797402013-04-22T22:32:41.789+02:002013-04-22T22:32:41.789+02:00As I told him, the evidence in East Asia is also v...As I told him, the evidence in East Asia is also very sketchy especially for the early period and much of it is also under question marks (Liujiang, Zhirendong, Callao, etc.) as is the possible settlement of Australia prior to 50 Ka BP. By comparison this dating seems very methodical, assuming that the artifacts are real and not naturally occurring rocks. <br /><br />The example of New Zealand is very different because the evidence is much more recent, i.e. better preserved, easily dated with radiocarbon and other methods and shallower in the geology (easier to locate). Also Neolithic peoples are always more numerous, settling the countries in a much denser way. I think that the proper comparison areas are Paleolithic Asia and Sahul, or even Africa, where new evidence, often with associated question marks, is being found almost every year. I have no reason to think that America is as well combed as Europe nor that Neolithic contexts like the one you mention are comparable in any way. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-53683272508875532402013-04-22T22:09:17.050+02:002013-04-22T22:09:17.050+02:00I'm with Andrew, the strongest argument being:...I'm with Andrew, the strongest argument being:<br /><br />"There is no historical precedent for modern humans moving into virgin territory on a sustained basis for thousands of year without expanding exponentially and leaving an obvious sign of their presence."<br /><br />New Zealand was settled by a few canoe loads of neolithic people. Yet within a century it was fully inhabited with the moas extinct. After that, settlements were fortified and left strong archeological footprints.Joyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07024219782322596271noreply@blogger.com