Sorry, don't know that answer.

You might try the

Oakland Museum of California.

https://museumca.org/

the California Academy of science, SF CA

https://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/kimball-natural-history-museum

or the Museum of US in San Diego Ca

https://museumofus.org/

National Museum of the American Indian

https://americanindian.si.edu/

or The CSUEastbay Archaeology department

https://www.csueastbay.edu/ages/faculty/index.html

Good luck

William Roan

agree with William P Roan

Manis mastodon (13,800 cal BP) (assuming intrusive bone point is an artifact), Arlington Springs Man (13,100 cal BP). Clovis points lightly scattered around Puget Sound.

All artifacts from Haida Gwaii date later than 12,700 cal BP. Ostensible footprints from Calvert Island also of that age.

I am not convinced the Manis mastodon has a bone point in it. Seems like a healed wound or other injury. Not from people.

I'm told more convincing evidence of its artifactual character is forthcoming.

Hiscock, New York State, Clovis, largest mastodon kill site in North America. Richard Michael Gramly and I have been re-examining collection from this site over past several years. It has atlatls, and sled-runners. Eastern Clovis peoples arrived likely over IFC 14,000 years ago or earlier by sled and most likely dog sled. Gramly has now found sled runners and cross pieces at site in Kentucky. So now 2 sites in Eastern North America. Hiscock was a ceremonial mastodon kill site. Has a probable shaman sled burial with paraphernalia. Has dozen or so portable art sculptures in ivory, antler, bone and stone with zoomorphic figurations, allowing first time ever a reconstruction of the Eastern Clovis spiritual worldview. This is the new paradigm in the making.

Stuart Fiedel isn't that always the case? "More convincing evidence forthcoming". I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Brian T. Wygal, Check out Waters’ abstract for the upcoming SAA meeting.

The Western Stemmed tradition in the PNW is several thousand years older than Clovis, and archaeological sites in the Great Basin where it's found contain marine artifacts, suggesting a connection between the high desert and the coast. Also, given the dramatically extended coastline of Oregon at the tail end of the Late Pleistocene, most of the coastal sites that we would expect to see here are deep underwater, but the sites that we do have do support the coast migration theory.

That's a bold claim based on precisely two sites (Paisley Caves and Cooper's Ferry). At neither site do the excavators themselves claim WST-diagnostic artifacts older than 13,200 cal BP. What "marine artifacts" are you talking about? The oldest reported marine shell beads in the northern Great Basin, from LSP-1 Rockshelter in Oregon, date to 9700 cal BP (Smith et al. 2017). Do you know of any others?

Based on genetics and archaeology, the peopling wave at 14 cal ka was the 7th migration wave into the Americas, which involved Early Denali, Nenana and Mesa sites dated around that time, and back migrations into NE Asia. Only thing then that looks like a Clovis progenitor are the Nenana sites. If they are progenitors, that suggests the moved south over the IFC.

To focus only on 14 cal ka is to ignore all the evidence, some questioned, rest not refuted, for discussing the earlier context for Wave 7. Wave 1: Sangamon Interglacial at Cerutti, Hueyatlaco I and II (diatoms Sangamonian, though 14C 39-25 cal ka). More difficult to rule out Wave II dozens of sites, Pre-LGM ~45-30 ka, unless you are biased against Mexico, Brazil, Bow River Alberta. Also Wave III, dozens of sites Pre-LGM ~33-23 cal ka, beginning with human biomarkers and burning features at Lake E5 and Burial Lake, NW Alaska, ~34 to 16 cal ka. And Bluefish; Miles Point; Cinmar; Parson's Island; Chiquihuite Cave Mexico; Atepitzing and & Tecacaxco Tetala, Mexico with figural and geometric engravings ~30 cal ka and 30-18 cal ka; and descendents lilke Cactus Hill and Meadowcroft. Then of course there are those who arrived during the LGM ~26-18 cal ka: footprints at Pluvial Lake Otero, NM; Wenas Creek; Rimrock Draw; several sites in Brazil and Argentina. Then Wave 5, Post-LGM (~18-16 cal ka), which did arrive via a Pacific route. Gault Assemblage, Cooper's Ferry, Friedkin TX, Paisley, Channel Islands, eventually Bonneville Estates, Buhl ID, etc. Currents wrong direction for boat migration later between 15 and 14 ka (Royer & Finney, 2020). Wave 6 Post-LGM ~16-15 ka was a Double Pulse, by Pacific Coast and Ice=Free Corridor, Manis and Clovis sites across North America.

You might discuss this with your colleagues and not get trapped into the tedious debates between two 'straw-persons', Pacific versus ICF. Much more to life than that.

Genetic evidence, particularly Y-chromosome phylogenies, rules out the scenario of multiple pre-14 kya migrations that you are positing (unless you think #s 1-6 left no descendants, which is possible if improbable). You are looking at those archeological sites uncritically.

Common sense.

Lou

Hi Stuart: I don't have access to Waters’ abstract for the upcoming SAA meeting. Perhaps you can send it and change things, but I told one of Water's students that the Olympic Peninsula, where the Manis mastodon was found, was a cul-de sac for mastodon. It is surrounded west by the Pacific, north by Juan de Fuca Strait (Salish Sea) and east by Puget Sound. The mastodon likely ran out of coniferous browse like the more than a hundred natural mastodon deaths on the north shore of Lake Erie, Ontario, that were caught when deciduous forest past them by under postglacial warmth. There are other natural burials near Port Angeles and even one found a few minutes from where I was eating lunch near Sequim and being dug by school children. Others were at deep bridge abutments, road construction and the creation of ponds like the Manis family, plus others in eastern states.

Stuart, I did say some of the early wave sites are questioned, some not refuted. As for genetics, Y is one thing, mtDNA another, and autosomal another.

Just consider what I have termed Wave 4. As for mtDNA the Americas D1 branch, which split off Asian D has at least 6 DNA studies over last decade or so.

D1 split date from these 6 studies have a mean of ~16.8 ka. This date is too low, due to a clock violation in Achilli et al 2008. Until geneticists correct that violation, I suggest using Achilli maximum date, ~21,000 ka.

The most recent study is Duggan et al 2017, which has date of 15,591 ka. Latter low date conflicts with 3 DNA studies on D1 subclade dates: D1g (St. Pierre, et al 2017) ~22.8 ka; ~18.3 ka (Bodner et al 2012); D1k and D1t (Brandini et al 2017) ~20.6 ka and~18.8 ka. These D1d subclades are apparently mostly in South America. This accords with the many 20,000 year old or more sites in Central and South America.

It also accords with latest conclusion: "We hypothesize that SNA ancestors were the 1st to move to Beringia towards the end of the isolation period; NNA ancestors were the 2nd, and ancestors of Ancient Beringians (AB, an NNA sub-group) were the last to migrate into North America, and thus interacted more with the Amur River Basin (ARB) group ancestors spreading from other refugia at the same time" (Ning, et al., 2021).

Jim,

I was a co-author of the Duggan et al. article and was involved in editing the QI volume in which de St. Pierre's piece appeared. I don't know what you mean by a "clock violation," because the rate of mtDNA change depends on varying assumptions. See, for example, Kumar et al. 2011 (Large scale mitochondrial sequencing in Mexican Americans suggests a reappraisal of Native American origins):

"Since we lack control region information for previously published sequences of Herrnstadt et al. [75] and Kivisild et al. [76], we used slow evolving coding region information for coalescent age estimates. The coalescent age estimates were calculated by Rho (ρ) statistics [90] and three different mutation rates: (i) one base substitution (i.e. one mutation other than indel) in the coding region (577 - 16023) per 5, 140 years [58]; (ii) one synonymous transition per 6, 764 year [76]; and (iii) calibrated mutation rate of [59] based on all synonymous substitutions. All of these mutation rates are calibrated on the basis of an assumed human-chimp split. Standard errors for coalescence estimates were calculated as per Saillard et al. [90]. The coalescent age estimates using the three aforesaid mutation rates are presented in table 1. It has been observed in our analysis and previously [23] that coalescent estimates based on the effectively faster rate of Kivisild et al. [76], yields younger age for most Native American haplogroups than the well documented archaeological date of modern human occupation at Monte Verde site in southern South America [30] [!!!!]. The mutation rates of Mishmar et al. [58] and Soares et al. [59] yielded higher and similar coalescent ages which fit well with the archaeological estimates of modern human occupation at Monte Verde site in southern South America [30]. Therefore, we largely based our inferences on the coalescent age estimates of these two mutation rates."

The different outcomes of each rate can be seen in their table here:

https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-293/tables/1

With the advantage of a large set of ancient DNA samples, Llamas et al. (2016) concluded that the A, B, C, and D haplogroups had begun expanding in the Americas ca. 16,000 cal BP. They inferred a rapid 60-fold increase between 16,000 and 13,000 cal BP. However, anyone familiar with the archaeological records of both North and South America must agree that the only evident material record of such a demographic explosion is Clovis in the North and Fishtail in the South at 13,000 cal BP.

SF

Yes, Duggan is excellent article. I am only self-read on archaeogenetics. Given that prima facia there is in genetics of D1 a clock violation. I don't now know if "clock violation" is my term or from some genetics article. It designates a case in which the subclades date earlier than the the parent. For all the main mtDNA haplogroups into Americas D-mtDNA is the one with a troublesome, at least to my eye, clock violation.

I realize there are a half dozen different molecular clock mutation rates, some preferred by someone over another.

You can correct me if I a novice have missed something. Mean of date for D1 (Achilli et al 08; Behar van Oven; Kumar et al 2011; Llamas et al 2016 and Perego et al 2009; Duggan 2017) is around 16.8 ka. But mean date for studies on D1 subclades (St. Pierre et al, 2017; Bodner et al 2012; Brandini et al 207) is around 20.0 ka.

That is why I asked in my post: "Until geneticists correct that violation, I suggest using Achilli maximum date, ~21,000 ka."

I'm looking more into the Channel Islands sites dated around 13,100 cal BP. Wondering if questions about marine reservoir effect was ever sorted out? This may inflate the ages of these sites by as much ~600 years. Realizing these questions were long ago hashed out, still, I'm trying to track down the references. Let me know if anyone knows any off hand.

Bryan Gordon regarding the Manis mastodon: If they ran out of browsing forage in this area, any chance they turned to kelp to supplement their diet? Wouldn't this also throw a wrench into their radiocarbon dating because of marine reservoir effect? Stuart Fiedel

Jim, check out two publications on Southern Cone mtDNA from 2021k, which focus on phylogeny and chronology of local D1g and D1j clades: Garcia et al. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350897520

and Roca-Rada et al. Article Ancient mitochondrial genomes from the Argentinian Pampas in...

Brian,

You should ask John Johnson (Santa Barbara Natural History Museum) about this. The early date of Arlington Springs Man is based both on a direct 10,960+-80 rcbp date on the femur and a date of 11,490+-70 for a mouse found nearby. However, the human bone also produced several younger dates. https://planning.lacity.org/eir/8150Sunset/References/4.C.1.%20Archaeological%20and%20Palentological%20Resources/ARCH.12_Johnson%20et%20al.%202002_arlington%20springs%20revisited.pdf

The cultural remains (stemmed points, crescents, etc.) date to ca. 12,200 cal BP or later.

Bryan,

I pointed this out to Mike Waters years ago when he first published the dates for Manis. Elephants need salt and visit licks to get it, but I haven't found a reference yet for coast-dwelling elephants consuming algae. Dale Guthrie suggested to me once that the seaweed etc. at Monte Verde could have come out of gomphothere guts. See Schulting et al. 2017 on seaweed-eating Orkney sheep:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X16304552

Also, the NW coast is a tectonically active area, and there is a possibility of old carbon outgassing into the environment.

There are more fish in the sea than there are jackrabbits in an glaciel opening.

Lou

Stuart, thanks. I read both articles. Roca-Rada does resolve and eliminate what I called the clock violation of subclades older than the parent. It solidly establishes D1 as first of the ABCDX waves into Americas, and gives its divergence date at around 20,202. I find it curious that the oldest archaeological sites with D1 are in Quintana Roo MX, Spirit Cave NV, and Lagoa Santa, Brazil and then Argentina. Has anyone explained this either as an odd (non-Pacific or non-IFC) migration route or just sparse data?

Roca-Rada gives the D4h3a divergence as ~15.7 ka, thus a significantly later wave? D4h3a zooms down the Pacific Route.

Anzick-1 is accepted as SNA accordingly. So I am arguing that Anzick-1 is result of a long-distance marriage exchange between Pacific Coast mother and a Plains Clovis father.

My prime interest as you know is portable art, especially figurative art, which as such enables a reconstruction of the spiritual-ecological worldview of a people.

Having now completed my examination and reconstruction of the Eastern Clovis Hiscock site portable art motifs, when I compare them to Western Clovis Anzick portable art motifs, there is a distinct cultural difference.

Hiscock art motifs are ancestral to Algonquian motifs, and Asian ethnographic context suggests a Sakhalin Island (Uilta, Nivkh) homeland. Anzick motifs have overlaps, e.g., proboscids, but has its own distinctive motifs, which are found in North American Pacific Coast tribes' myth and ritual. Several of the Western Clovis Anzick motifs have parallels in Manchu myth and ritual and post-Paleolithic sculpture at a site in Magadan, which is along the D4h3a migration route. Mao et al (2021) found D4h3a on Songhua River, tributary to Amur River, dating ~14.4 ka. It could be argued that D4h3a homeland is more Siberian, e.g., the Magadan sculpture, and migration headed south to Manchu tribal area. I think this cannot explain Manchu motif in Anzick portable art (decorated bifaces), and suggest that Manchu area (Southern Amur-Primorye region) is the D4h3a homeland. This is a flake-based industry area.

For the WST stemmed point tradition in North America, it is associated with B2-mtDNA, as at Paisley, Channel Islands, Hourglass Cave, and so on. It has a divergence date of ~17.5 ka (Llamas et al 2016). There is extensive discussion of this traditions possible homeland in Hokkaido. My literature review (sparse as it is) of such sites in North America and Hokkaido has turned up no evidence for portable art. I find only one site with artifacts that have possible figurations, but they are very vague; at Moil'tyn-am, Orkhon River (flows into Selenge, and then Lake Baikal), Northern Mongolia, with flake and blade, non-microblade industry, ~20 ka, and 1 item termed 'stemmed blade' (Khatsenovich, et al., 2019). There are several artifacts called 'bifacial scrapers', which have vague possible figurations of Proboscids and Bisons. But I would not place a bet on it.

Archaeological domestic dog in Haida Gwaii at 13,100 Cal BP is pretty good, but no stone artifacts at that date, however firm artifacts at 12,600 Cal BP. See Fedje et al 2021, Karst caves in Haida Gwaii: Archaeology and paleontology at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. Article Karst caves in Haida Gwaii: Archaeology and paleontology at ...