Speaker
Well, you'd have to crush them sometimes with other rocks. yeah so Yeah, maybe. So they probably wouldn't show up on there. Right. Anyway, the site is positioned over a river channel. I have some comments about that with good views where people likely watched herbivores crossing the spring where they would kill and eat them. So they would just have good good visibility. Yeah. now That's what the article said, positioned over a river channel. We don't really have a picture of that necessarily. No, not exactly. But I'm wondering, is the site currently positioned over a river channel? And was it positioned over a river channel? Because this area of Michigan has a lot of soil. I don't know how deep the bedrock is, but typically in these in these glacial areas, there's a lot of glacial till, there's a lot of soil, there's a lot of area like that. So rivers would be moving around a lot. They just they just move around a lot. Rivers do. So I'm wondering where the river was 13,000 years ago. I mean, they must have evidence that it was here because that is something that archaeologists are well aware of. so Whoever's doing this work knows where they were in proximity just to the river. It just is positioned and not was positioned. If it is positioned now, what are the chances it was positioned there 13,000 years ago? I mean, I hear you. That might just be bad wording by the journalists, though. unless it's moved and moved and moved, and now it's moved back. You know what I mean? And it currently is positioned and was positioned, which is obviously possible, because a lot of times rivers will contain themselves within an area. Maybe because of the bedrock, the river is contained within an area that has always been suited to this area, you know which is totally possible. So anyway, a smaller game would have been hunted more opportunistically, of course. A larger a game would have been would have been followed. so yeah Yeah. I mean, that makes sense, right obviously.