Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T20:50:26.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to Aschmann's Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

George I. Quimby
George I. Quimby*
Affiliation:
Chicago Natural History MuseumChicago, IllinoisNovember, 1954
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I read Aschmann's comments with great interest, welcome the opportunity to reply to them, and wish also to add some comments I have received by letter from others.

I used the terminology of Antevs, but not his chronological framework, which is quite different from that presented tentatively by me. In fact, I feel certain that Antevs would be much rougher in his assessment than Aschmann.

My grievous remark on climate stems from ignorance and my impression that the cool periods followed the glacial advances. Among the implications of such an idea are that somehow additional precipitation in high latitudes caused the glacier to grow and this in turn somehow produces in varying degrees a cool climate locally, probably somewhat dependent upon the magnitude of the icecap. I suppose that such factors as prevailing wind direction, tracks of high and low pressure areas and positions of large bodies of water are among the variables that would have to be considered.

Type
Facts and Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 20 , Issue 4Part1 , April 1955 , pp. 378 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANTEVS, ERNST 1954 Geochronology of the Deglacial and Neothermal Ages: A Reply. Journal of Geology, Vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 516–21. Chicago.Google Scholar
DOUGLAS, MARY C. V. AND DRUMMOND, R. N. 1953 Glacial Features of Ungava from Air Photographs. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Vol. 47, Series 3, Section 4, pp. 11–16. Ottawa.Google Scholar
KULP, J. L., FEELY, H. W., AND TRYON, L. E. 1951 Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements, I. Science, Vol. 114, pp. 565–8. Washington.Google Scholar
KULP, J. L., TRYON, L. E., ECKELMAN, W. R., AND SNELL, W. A. 1952 Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements, II. Science, Vol. 116, pp. 409–14. Washington.Google Scholar
LAWRENCE, DONALD B. AND A. ELSON, JOHN 1953 Periodicity of Deglaciation in North America Since the Late Wisconsin Maximum. Geografiska Annaler, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 83–104. Stockholm.Google Scholar
LOUGEE, RICHARD J. 1953 A Chronology of Post-glacial Time in Eastern North America. The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 76, No. 5, pp. 259–76. Lancaster.Google Scholar
MACNEISH, RICHARD S. 1952 A Possible Early Site in the Thunder Bay District, Ontario. Annual Report of the National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 126, pp. 23–47. Ottawa.Google Scholar
ROBERTS, FRANK H. H. Jr. 1951. Radiocarbon Dates and Early Man. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 8, pp. 20–2. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
ROUSE, IRVING 1952 The Age of the Melbourne Interval. Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society Bulletin, Vol. 23, pp. 293–9. Lubbock.Google Scholar
SEARS, PAUL B. 1932 The Archaeology of Environment in Eastern North America. American Anthropologist, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 610–22. Menasha.Google Scholar

Reference Cited

FISK, HAROLD N. 1944 Geological Investigation of the Alluvial Valley of the Lower Mississippi River. War Department, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Mississippi River Commission, Publication No. 52. Vicksburg.Google Scholar
FLINT, R. F. AND OTHERS, 1945 Glacial Map of North America. Geological Society of America, Special Paper, No. 60, Pt. 1. New York.Google Scholar