The Cerutti Mastodon Site: Archaeological or Paleontological

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

The Cerutti Mastodon Site: Archaeological or Paleontological

Postby hardaker » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:06 pm

excellent discussion.

The Cerutti Mastodon Site: Archaeological or Paleontological?
http://linearpopulationmodel.blogspot.c ... -site.html
Chris Hardaker
The First American: The Suppressed Story of the People Who Discovered the New World [ https://www.amazon.com/First-American-S ... 1564149420 ]
hardaker
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: The Cerutti Mastodon Site: Archaeological or Paleontolog

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:33 am

Hi Chris -

Nice paper.

"We experienced this ourselves in Piauí in South America, where our successive and repeated discoveries in the same geographical area testified not to the presence of a “Robinson Crusoe” but to a large perennial population that existed for at least 5000 years between 35 and 40 ka (Boëda et al. 2016)."

This is no surprise. See my video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbM4vHc ... Ofte_O_Rhp

One key question at this California site is the transport of the stone involved.
Impact mega-tsunami has not been examined yet,
but I am sure that it will be, along with other aspects of the site's geology.
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: The Cerutti Mastodon Site: Archaeological or Paleontolog

Postby hardaker » Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:27 pm

howdy EP. had a tsunami hit, the sediments would have been filled with all sorts of other sized gravels, pebbles, cobbles, boulders. the anomaly of their presence is that all sediments were sand, silt and smaller. it was like mudstone. no other rocks of any kind were pulled out of adjacent critter excavations. if nature provided the forces required to deliver the boulders to the elephant site, then there should have been other boulders, cobbles, and/or pebbles transported to the site as well. also, the site's geology -- which was extensively examined -- bore no signs of catastrophic phenom, but rather the gentle flow of water flowing through a delta, or due to raising sea levels.
Chris Hardaker
The First American: The Suppressed Story of the People Who Discovered the New World [ https://www.amazon.com/First-American-S ... 1564149420 ]
hardaker
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: The Cerutti Mastodon Site: Archaeological or Paleontolog

Postby Springhead » Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:46 am

Mr. Hardaker,

Thanks for posting this informative piece. Although the Cerutti Mastodon site will be reviewed and studied with much further discussion, perhaps potentially related sites such as Valsequillo, Calico, and Diring Uriakh in eastern Siberia could shed light on at least circumstantial evidence that could form the basis for hypothetical thought on the movements and chronology of ancient hominids in the Americas.

I noticed "The Archaeology of Portable Rock Art" on a sidebar of the site you posted. This rock art site is regularly debased and discounted in this forum, and I am curious to understand the credence it may have with the authors of the site you posted.

Virginia has yielded 40K ybp carbon dating with an artifact, and there are a good number of suspected Pleistocene sites being studied. Though a far cry from 130,000 ybp, one wonders about continent wide cultural successions of hominids and/or hybrids.
Springhead
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: The Cerutti Mastodon Site: Archaeological or Paleontolog

Postby shawomet » Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:16 am

Springhead wrote:Mr. Hardaker,

Thanks for posting this informative piece. Although the Cerutti Mastodon site will be reviewed and studied with much further discussion, perhaps potentially related sites such as Valsequillo, Calico, and Diring Uriakh in eastern Siberia could shed light on at least circumstantial evidence that could form the basis for hypothetical thought on the movements and chronology of ancient hominids in the Americas.

I noticed "The Archaeology of Portable Rock Art" on a sidebar of the site you posted. This rock art site is regularly debased and discounted in this forum, and I am curious to understand the credence it may have with the authors of the site you posted.

Virginia has yielded 40K ybp carbon dating with an artifact, and there are a good number of suspected Pleistocene sites being studied. Though a far cry from 130,000 ybp, one wonders about continent wide cultural successions of hominids and/or hybrids.


The three authors of the paper, which was published in the online journal PaleoAmerica, apparently are not connected to the blog link posted above, and which copied a part of their short paper. The link above did provide a link to the full paper, and available at Researchgate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ntological

Once there, one can also view a PDF version of the paper.

I have no idea if the three authors of the PaleoAmerica paper have any relationship to the author of the blog entry link that started this thread. I do know that no credence whatsoever can be given to the author of the Portable Rock Art blog. The author of that blog uses his imagination to interpret rocks that are 100% natural as if they had been fashioned or altered by humans. The author of the Portable Rock Art blog is delusional, in that he is not only unable to distinguish natural from artificial, but he is also someone who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge how completely mistaken he truly is. I would be very surprised if the authors of the Cerutti article at the heart of this thread are even aware of the nonsense posted at the Portable Rock Art site. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, the mere presence of a link to that Portable Rock Art blog makes suspect the blog hardaker links to above. Although I am grateful he posted that link since it permits access to an article that requires purchase at its original publication at PaleoAmerica. There is certainly good reason to dismiss the Portable Rock Art blog. It is nonsense, and simply cannot be taken seriously. Anyone with sufficient experience dealing with actual artifacts fashioned by humans, or used and thereby altered by humans, can easily recognized the natural, non-man altered nature of the rocks featured by the author of the Portable Rock Art blog. It simply is not opened to debate. That blog author is using pareidolia to discern images in stone. It is so fundamental a mistake on his part, that the true wonder of his blog is his complete inability to recognize how easy it is to explain his mistake, yet how adamant he is in rejecting that oh so easy explanation. But, that is to be expected from people who are delusional I suppose.
shawomet
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: The Cerutti Mastodon Site: Archaeological or Paleontolog

Postby shawomet » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:04 am

Springhead wrote:Mr. Hardaker,

Thanks for posting this informative piece. Although the Cerutti Mastodon site will be reviewed and studied with much further discussion, perhaps potentially related sites such as Valsequillo, Calico, and Diring Uriakh in eastern Siberia could shed light on at least circumstantial evidence that could form the basis for hypothetical thought on the movements and chronology of ancient hominids in the Americas.

I noticed "The Archaeology of Portable Rock Art" on a sidebar of the site you posted. This rock art site is regularly debased and discounted in this forum, and I am curious to understand the credence it may have with the authors of the site you posted.

Virginia has yielded 40K ybp carbon dating with an artifact, and there are a good number of suspected Pleistocene sites being studied. Though a far cry from 130,000 ybp, one wonders about continent wide cultural successions of hominids and/or hybrids.


I examined the professional credentials of the three authors of this paper. And you can direct your question to them directly even, I imagine. But, you can rest assured were they to acquaint themselves with the portable rock art site, they would dismiss the nonsense posted there. I am absolutely confident they have enough experience to recognize nonsense when they see it, and they would extend absolutely no credence whatsoever to that site and the ideas expressed by that particular individual.

Boeda in particular will recognize the non lithic nature of the natural objects seen at the Portable Rock Art site....
shawomet
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: The Cerutti Mastodon Site: Archaeological or Paleontolog

Postby hardaker » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:57 am

40ky dates from Virginia?
Some more info please.....
Chris Hardaker
The First American: The Suppressed Story of the People Who Discovered the New World [ https://www.amazon.com/First-American-S ... 1564149420 ]
hardaker
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: The Cerutti Mastodon Site: Archaeological or Paleontolog

Postby E.P. Grondine » Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:47 am

hardaker wrote:howdy EP. had a tsunami hit, the sediments would have been filled with all sorts of other sized gravels, pebbles, cobbles, boulders. the anomaly of their presence is that all sediments were sand, silt and smaller.
It was like mudstone. no other rocks of any kind were pulled out of adjacent critter excavations.
If nature provided the forces required to deliver the boulders to the elephant site,
then there should have been other boulders, cobbles, and/or pebbles transported to the site as well.
Also, the site's geology -- which was extensively examined -- bore no signs of catastrophic phenomenon, but rather the gentle flow of water flowing through a delta, or due to raising sea levels.


Hi Chris -
I suppose those studies eliminated the possibility of the stone being transported by volcanic explosion as well.
There are MAJOR paleo sites here in Ohio (I'm talking about way better than Meadowcroft)
which are both unknown and unworked by he local incompetents with the Ohio Historical Society (aka Ohio History Connection, name changed to protect the guilty),
but private message me about them for details, as they are also entirely unprotected.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: The Cerutti Mastodon Site: Archaeological or Paleontolog

Postby Springhead » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:53 am

Hello,

Apologies for the late response. The carbon dates I mentioned are minimums and are from the Arkfeld Site in Clear Brook, Virginia in the northern Shenandoah Valley. The site designation with the state is #44FK731. I am looking for the site report to detail the tested artifact, but as I remember it the tested material was imbedded in the piece.

As soon as I can find the information I will shoot it your way. Jack Hranicky, RPA, has a fairly recent book about this site. The web address for Jack is archeology.org (no "a"). Upcoming is Jack's book "PaleoAmerican Archaeology in Virginia." Part of his subject matter concerns the "transverse recloir", an artifact found in Virginia, Europe, and North Africa which probably dates to the Mousterian/Soltrean age.
Springhead
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am


Return to New World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron