|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I ran this article past Mark A. McConaughy (see links to his page in article), and included his edits. This is what he provided specifically about the dates:
"Radiocarbon dates from the site indicated occupancy as early as 14,000 B.C. and possibly as old as 17,000 B.C. (Note: these are rough uncorrected radiocarbon B.C. dates, or 16,000 years ago and 19,000 years ago for the two listed dates - you can choose which set of dates to use, but I would prefer the 16,000 and 19,000 year ago since it is more correct in terms of how the dates are cited.)" Tomcool
In the 2nd paragraph under this heading, there is the sentence, "Paleoindians were primarily hunters of big game animals which would later become extinct." This could be better worded. I originally read this to mean that the Paleoindians became extinct, but even if the 'which' refers to the big game animals, not all of them became extinct.SaturnCat (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I missed this page, searching for Meadowcroft Rockshelter, so I wrote a new article for Meadowcroft Rockshelter. We probably should merge these two articles. There's good material in both. The main discrepancy are the dates, which are the controversial part. The name should probably be "Meadowcroft Rockshelter". A Google on that term results in 10,900 hits. A Google on the more sensical, "Meadowcroft Rock Shelter" results in only 571 hits. The closest to an official site is Meadowcroft Museum, which uses the "Rockshelter" version. Tomcool 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No one disputed the merge, so I merged the two pages, and put a redirect at the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter. Tomcool 17:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Association with Solutrean hypothesis?
The so-called physical evidence of stone tools found at Meadowcroft look NOTHING like the Solutrean tools utilized during the same period (16,000 - 14,000 B.C.E). Is there a reason that Meadowcroft shelter is associated as possible proof of a Solutrean campsite? Did the Altantic version of the Solutrean travelers forget their stone making ways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hayne's [sic] Criteria
I've removed this, as I cannot find a citation that nails it down. It's not clear that this refers to Clovis archaeologist C. Vance Haynes: "Seeing as the site fails Hayne's criteria for dating Paleoindian sites in the Americas as the site could potentially have been contaminated by natural carbon at the site the age of 19,000 years could be significantly older than the real age." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougluce (talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
"Clovis First" "camp" is part of the process of science.
"The "Clovis First" camp has tried to dispute the age of the findings, but generally their efforts have been dismissed."
This is biased writing. If the 'Clovis First' 'camp' of scientists dispute findings, then their side should also be given in this article, also with clear citations. This sounds like a tourist attraction ad, rather than an explanation of the natural process that good science requires - evidence, testing and retesting of evidence, etc. I'm removing this line, as citation is not given and it sounds one sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihola (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
C. Vance Haynes Jr. has been critical of James M. Adovasio's theories regarding Meadowcroft, and would be a place to start, when bringing greater balence and depth to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihola (talk • contribs) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite clear why this article has the "unbalanced" tag. Perhaps someone knows? Otherwise it should be removed. The article needs quite a bit of development and improvement, and perhaps during the natural process of growth whichever unbalanced issues might exist presumably will be weeded out. Faintly curious. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)