Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome! Arrowheadology.com is the #1 arrowhead and Indian artifact community on the web. Join us now!

Likes Likes:  14
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Mexican mammoth

  1. #1
    Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Lexington SC
    Posts
    190
    Post Thanks / Like

  2. # ADS


     

  3. #2
    Kopfjäger
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    'twixt the James and the Pedernales Rivers
    Posts
    2,580
    Post Thanks / Like
    Great find but I'm not sure of their interpretation. Skeletons deposited in a lake environment can have partial disarticulation and sorting caused by waves. If they found tools or butcher marks then they have something conclusive. Neat either way.

    Happy hunting,
    Briman

  4. Likes MidlandMan liked this post
  5. #3
    PhD in Arrowheadology
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Austin Tx/Puerto Ayacucho Amazonas Ven.
    Posts
    2,542
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree with Briman. If all they have is a disarticulated skeleton and no tools or cut marks than they have nothing but a disarticulated Mammoth and there is absolutely no mention of tools or butcher marks in this article. Remember the Gompho they found a couple years ago in Mexico with all the beautiful Clovis projectiles and tools? No ambiguity there!

  6. Likes Scotto, Carolina Knapper liked this post
  7. #4
    Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Austin Texas
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like
    At least someone at the time, would have accidentally dropped a scraper or two. Something that has always puzzled me regarding dating Clovis man. Why do they (archies) not consider the time it must have taken for these folks to meander down from where-ever they came from, into dating sites ? They appear to only date the age of the mammoth's death in years, but not migration time? They obviously didn't rush down the ice corridor to Mexico (or South America) in a few months. More then likely, a few thousand years of gradual movement.
    Last edited by Bonneville1; 03-20-2017 at 08:14 AM.

  8. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong & Florida
    Posts
    7,777
    Post Thanks / Like
    If anyone wants to see really neat pictures of the dig or understands Spanish and wants to know more, google Mamut de Tultepec.

    I watched a couple of interviews on YouTube with the main archaeologist at the site and a couple of points were lost in translation.

    1. He is an Archaeologist and Investigator with the national museum group, investigator means he's trained in excavations so he'd be called in to handle fieldwork for any digging, mapping, & removal a paleontologist might do here. They do this because a paleontologist might not recognize the tools associated with an archaeological site.

    2. He has excavated 8 mammoths in that valley, and locals in that small city have reported up to 10 more potential sites where they have found chunks of large bones while digging wells and septic systems. It's basically a muddy, less concentrated Labrea Tarpit. The lakes were shallow swamps that probably weren't more than a couple of feet of seasonal water on a layer of mud and volcanic ash that supported reeds and plants that attracted the mammoths.

    3. He thinks that maybe the remains were scavenged after the mammoth became stuck in the mud. At another site nearby they found butchered remains and scrapers. He was clear on the maybe.

  9. #6
    Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Lexington SC
    Posts
    190
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks for the clarification!

  10. #7
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong & Florida
    Posts
    7,777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bonneville1,

    In this case they have really good and easy dating systems based around layers of volcanic ash, so they are able to estimate the minimum age something was buried pretty reliably if it is found under specific undisturbed layers of ash.

    At other sites they take c-14 dating and other methods to get the age of the fossils or carbon near the remains. If those methods are calibrated, accurate and taken from uncontaminated samples, you get a date with a statistical standard deviation. (14,700 +- 100 years before present.) That is the date.

    Your bigger question about migration time is one that has stumped Archaeologists for years. All of the Clovis dates, and even much of the Pre-Clovis stuff are pretty tightly packed around a narrow window of time. Clovis from Canada into Mexico and from California to Florida popped up and then disappeared as little as 300 years by some estimates, 500 years at most by almost any estimate. It would take a large group of people basically running to get to 48 states, across mountains, around glaciers, to essentially visit every county on foot with no knowledge of resources. (It takes 5 months to hike the Pacific Crest Trail from Canada to Mexico down a groomed path, imagine trail blazing and wondering, while having babies, tending to children, sick people, etc.) The idea I like is that Clovis is a technology spread over groups of people who were already there and knew resources in a very sparsely populated area.

  11. Likes Bonneville1, Buckeye liked this post
  12. #8
    Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Austin Texas
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like
    ? Next time.
    Last edited by Bonneville1; 03-20-2017 at 07:12 PM.

  13. #9
    PhD in Arrowheadology
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Nacogdoches Tx
    Posts
    2,851
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree with Clovis being a technology vs being a culture. Technology spreads like wildfire, exponentially as more and more people pick up on it and pass it along. I get irritated at the scrutiny that some face when the say they say they have found older than Clovis sits. That has been a huge hill to climb based on some pretty close minded beliefs. Any time someone claimed they found sites older than the precieved Clovis dates they were treated like they saw Bigfoot chasing the Easter Bunny. I think now we are slowly moving past that with legitimate finds that can't be ignored. I don't have a clue when people first got here, but extinct species of homo made it a heck of a long way across the globe, and people paddled out to Australia like 50,000 years ago. It's pretty hard to believe they wouldn't eventually find two continents like North and South America. I bet eventually we will see multiple points of entry. If some of the lesser species of homo were island hopping in Indonesia I can't see why a species of homo with a more advanced brain wouldn't have done it on a larger scale. Aren't the greatest concentration of Clovis artifacts on the east coast vs the pathway from Siberia, and are not the east coast sites typically older? There are a ton of unknowns but I think the one thing we most often forget is that these paleo people had the same brains and capacity for though as the people that put a man on the moon.
    I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was.

  14. Likes Carolina Knapper, Bonneville1 liked this post
  15. #10
    Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Austin Texas
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you look at a spread of clovis sites, you could make the case that they sprang from Texas. or a bit south of the Rio Grande

    Top left images
    clovis arrowhead/points... | strange | Pinterest | Ranges
    Last edited by Bonneville1; 03-21-2017 at 04:59 PM.

 

 

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •