Prehistory Decoded

Section 5.7 of Holliday et al. deals with the evidence for the end of Clovis. Specifically, its timing. Was it synchronous with an ET impact, a megafaunal extinction and the onset of the YD cooling? In fact, the YDIH doesn't claim the YD impact ended Clovis culture instantly. It merely proposes it affected the Clovis culture significantly, i.e. it was the beginning of the end for Clovis. Throughout their paper, Holliday et al. continually state that radiocarbon dating evidence for Clovis sites is inconsistent with the YDIH. Let's see what they have to say in Section 5.7 where we find the key evidence. My comments are in italics as always. 5.7. Improved Dating of Clovis Sites and Clovis Archaeology Clovis is a term given to the oldest well-dated, widespread, and recognizable archaeological technocomplex in North America (Haynes, 2002; Smallwood and Jennings, 2015; Meltzer, 2021). Proponents of the YDIH use their perceived connection between the disappearance of the Clovis lithic

  Season 7, Episode 4 "The Mysteries of the World's Oldest Temple" explores my ideas (among others) about Gobekli Tepe. Available free to view for Now TV and Sky TV subscribers in the UK. Watch Forbidden History Season 7 Episode 1 Online - Stream Full Episodes (nowtv.com)

  The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) featured on the New York Times Magazine this week. The Comet Strike Theory That Just Won’t Die - The New York Times (nytimes.com) The article is well balanced, giving both sides of the story. The most interesting thing I learned was that Mark Boslough, long-time antagonist of the YDIH, has tried to end research into the YDIH. Apparently, and this is confirmed by those who should know, he wrote to all the editors of journals that ever have published pro-YDIH papers, lobbying them to retract those papers. I don't know of any scientist that would even think of doing this, yet alone actually carry it out. While it is quite normal to seek a retraction if there is good evidence of some kind of scientific malpractice, such as plagiarism or tampered results, it is not ethical to seek a retraction because you disagree with the science or if requests for samples have been denied. This is because writing to all the editors could bias the scientifi