On 5 Nov 2001, at 8:04 JQMagie@aol.com <WIMILWAU-L@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Ashley <grubisic@netwurx.net> just forwarded the following > Wisconsin > State Historical Society article, which is dated 1999 but may possibly > have been revised in early 2001. > 13,500 years ago seems like a surprisingly early date for proven > human > settlement in Wisconsin, and I wonder whether anybody knows whether this > date has now been nationally accepted by archaeologists. John and all, I'm not an archaeologist but from the local newspaper reports, the date of the earliest human settlements in North America are about 12,310 years ago. Apparently there are three sites proven to be of that age by carbon dating and two of them are in Kenosha county. They find it based on the existence of butchering marks on the bones of mammoths. Here is a newspaper article describing it. http://www.shsw.wisc.edu/kids/mammoth/news.htm Kenosha, long time host to an incredibly small museum constructed from in an abandoned stone Post Office building (moved by hand on rollers to its present site in the early 1900's), has recently opened a new museum which features those mammoth discoveries and several displays about early human habitation on the edge of the last retreating glacier. They must not have an official webpage yet but I found this: http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug01/goulcol27082601a.asp Its located on the former site of the "Lakefront Plant" owned by Chrysler, aka Renault, aka American Motors, aka Nash Motors, aka Simmons Mattress. Its kind of an uncomfortable combination of art museum and natural history museum. Theres an interesting traveling display from the Great Lakes Maritime Museum on the second all about 19th century maritime industry around Lake Michigan in particular. One tires quickly though of the hype that surrounds every announcement from that museum though as everything is preceded with the word "Mammoth" ala "Mammoth Grand Opening" etc etc. > My guess, based mostly on my amateur reading of USGS maps > <http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com>, is that in 13,500 BP, thick > glaciation may have still have covered the NE section of Milwaukee. > Also tiny "Lake Michigan" (then blocked to the north and east by > retreating ice sheets) was about 60 feet higher than today and probably > extended westward to about South 22nd St., north of Lincoln Ave. I don't remember the details but wasn't there a Lake Chicago at some point in the local prehistory as well? Also, > the southwestern shore of Milwaukee Bay then probably ran along the > eastern edges of present Forest Home and St. Adalberts cemeteries-- both > located on top of glacial moraine that has apparently remained mostly > unaffected by lake and river erosion (also human intrusions) over the > past 14,000 years or so. > At the same time, almost all of the present site of Chicago would > have > been under proglacial "Lake Michigan" Perhaps I'm wrong but doesn't the absence of morraines in Chicago indicate that the last glacier never reached that far south? There are morraines north and north west of Chicago so they must have gotten pretty close to the future city. -- which explains why Chicago and > much of Illinois is so flat (a sad fact that webmaster Bob Fay has > "cruelly" sneered at recently). Heck John. There was a Lake Chicago. Sadly, no Lake Illinois though. On a related subject (getting my plug in here) following some conversations about Wisconsin State Archaeologist Robert Birmingham's lecture on prehistoric mound and effigy building cultures in Wisconsin (also the premound peoples), Rootsweb has agreed to host a mail list devoted entirely to these peoples across North America. Mammoth hunting and the earliest human habitation would seem to be fair topics for that list. For anyone that is interested in this topic the subscription info is at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~sewis/Mound_List.htm And we have an index page listing known mound related websites at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~sewis/Mound_Index.htm both of which are yours truly's first attempts at webpages. Anyone that is interested is invited to join the list (and please pass this note to others that may be interested) Bob Fay

John, How did I happen to miss your long article posted to the WI-Milwaukee list? I must have deleted it in my sleep early this morning. The glacial lake is always called Lake Chicago by archaeologists. Lake Michigan is merely the present lake. I cannot see why anyone who has read at all about prehistory would think humans were only just arriving in North America at 12 or 13 thousand years ago. Reliably dated sites exist down the coast of South America including Chile at that time and earlier. Dates individually not given credence exist in the thousands for sites in South and North America that go back 35,000 and 40,000 years. The sum of these dates suggests to anyone logical that people from Asia moved into the Americas in waves and that this began at least 20,000 years ago. What, you think they all marched south at a pace of 20 miles a day so that they could get to Chile in 14,736 BP? Nonsense, they had too much fun petting the saber-toothed cats and collecting the hairs of the hairy mammoths to make blankets to want to make a forced march of the journey south. Hmm, I wonder how long felted mammoth blankets survive in burials? Or is weaving the older process? Ashley Robert W Fay wrote: > On 5 Nov 2001, at 8:04 JQMagie@aol.com <WIMILWAU-L@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Ashley <grubisic@netwurx.net> just forwarded the following > > Wisconsin > > State Historical Society article, which is dated 1999 but may possibly > > have been revised in early 2001. > > 13,500 years ago seems like a surprisingly early date for proven > > human > > settlement in Wisconsin, and I wonder whether anybody knows whether this > > date has now been nationally accepted by archaeologists. > > John and all, > > I'm not an archaeologist but from the local newspaper reports, the date of > the earliest human settlements in North America are about 12,310 years > ago. Apparently there are three sites proven to be of that age by carbon > dating and two of them are in Kenosha county. They find it based on the > existence of butchering marks on the bones of mammoths. Here is a > newspaper article describing it. > http://www.shsw.wisc.edu/kids/mammoth/news.htm > > Kenosha, long time host to an incredibly small museum constructed from > in an abandoned stone Post Office building (moved by hand on rollers to > its present site in the early 1900's), has recently opened a new museum > which features those mammoth discoveries and several displays about > early human habitation on the edge of the last retreating glacier. They > must not have an official webpage yet but I found this: > http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug01/goulcol27082601a.asp > > Its located on the former site of the "Lakefront Plant" owned by > Chrysler, aka Renault, aka American Motors, aka Nash Motors, aka > Simmons Mattress. Its kind of an uncomfortable combination of art > museum and natural history museum. Theres an interesting traveling > display from the Great Lakes Maritime Museum on the second > all about 19th century maritime industry around Lake Michigan in > particular. > > One tires quickly though of the hype that surrounds every announcement > from that museum though as everything is preceded with the word > "Mammoth" ala "Mammoth Grand Opening" etc etc. > > > My guess, based mostly on my amateur reading of USGS maps > > <http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com>, is that in 13,500 BP, thick > > glaciation may have still have covered the NE section of Milwaukee. > > Also tiny "Lake Michigan" (then blocked to the north and east by > > retreating ice sheets) was about 60 feet higher than today and probably > > extended westward to about South 22nd St., north of Lincoln Ave. > > I don't remember the details but wasn't there a Lake Chicago at some > point in the local prehistory as well? > > Also, > > the southwestern shore of Milwaukee Bay then probably ran along the > > eastern edges of present Forest Home and St. Adalberts cemeteries-- both > > located on top of glacial moraine that has apparently remained mostly > > unaffected by lake and river erosion (also human intrusions) over the > > past 14,000 years or so. > > At the same time, almost all of the present site of Chicago would > > have > > been under proglacial "Lake Michigan" > > Perhaps I'm wrong but doesn't the absence of morraines in Chicago > indicate that the last glacier never reached that far south? There are > morraines north and north west of Chicago so they must have gotten > pretty close to the future city. > > -- which explains why Chicago and > > much of Illinois is so flat (a sad fact that webmaster Bob Fay has > > "cruelly" sneered at recently). > > Heck John. There was a Lake Chicago. Sadly, no Lake Illinois though. > > On a related subject (getting my plug in here) following some > conversations about Wisconsin State Archaeologist Robert Birmingham's > lecture on prehistoric mound and effigy building cultures in Wisconsin > (also the premound peoples), Rootsweb has agreed to host a mail list > devoted entirely to these peoples across North America. Mammoth > hunting and the earliest human habitation would seem to be fair topics for > that list. > > For anyone that is interested in this topic the subscription info is at: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~sewis/Mound_List.htm > > And we have an index page listing known mound related websites at > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~sewis/Mound_Index.htm > both of which are yours truly's first attempts at webpages. > > Anyone that is interested is invited to join the list (and please pass this > note to others that may be interested) > > Bob Fay > > ============================== > Ancestry.com--Your #1 Source for Family History Online--FREE for 14 Days > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=702&sourceid=1238

Wondering if anyone going to the library (or LDS?) would mind doing a lookup of either or both 1905 or 1915 census for the address at 967 - 12th St. Could be a Leffmann, Hellberg name or anyone else!! Any help is GREATLY appreciated!! Sincerely, Pam ______________________________________________________

I don't have a specific date of death, wondering if anyone would mind checking at the library(or is there another place), index would be fine, and I will order a cert. . . . for a surname of Striese(or Streese), surname could be wither Wilhelm OR Johann or John; he seemed to go by Wilhelm on his child's baptismal cert and John on marriage cert. Thanks so much for any help!! Sincerely, Pam ______________________________________________________