Clovis or Pre-Clovis?

Do you think that the Clovis culture represents the first people in the "New World"? Or, do you think that the peopling of the Americas happened before Clovis, hence Pre-Clovis? Personally, the only evidence I have seen has been sketchy in support of Pre-Clovis.

Here's some background in case you don't know what I'm talking about:

archaeology.about.com...
www.fsc.edu...

A few years back I had heard of pre-clovis cultures somewhere in either North or South Caroline. Sorry no reference. Here is one site for you, as well as a Google check that ought to help you out. From stories I have heard, when archeologists got to the Clovis layer they just quit going further as everyone knew that was as old as it goes, so don't confuse them with facts or evidence. Don't want to upset the apple cart!

Even mentioning "pre-clovis" where I'm from is cause for debate and ridicule.

It cuased ridicule in poonchang palace? Well, that is your 'location' ain't it?

Originally posted by Nygdan
It cuased ridicule in poonchang palace? Well, that is your 'location' ain't it?

Yeah West Coast U.S. as opposed to East coast, where I've met plenty of people open to the idea of preclovis

Huh. Not only do people accept the idea of Pre-Clovis where I'm at, my anthropology proffessors at my college teach about it.

I haven't had a chance to check for any sites that had information, but since Pre-Clovis was from 30,000-15,000 years ago I know of several sites that you could look for information on:
Tlapacoya-Zohapilco (Basin of Mexico, deposits from 24,000-21,000 years ago w/possible tools)
Valsequillo region, Puebla (21,000 years ago with possible cultural evidence)
Monte Verde, Chile

Personally, I think that there was a pre-clovis, or how else would people have just shown up several thousand miles from the baring strait 15,000 years ago?

Summary of the Gault site:
www.utexas.edu...

list of some preClovis sites (have yet to do my homework on them all, though)

Tlapacoya-Zohapilco (Basin of Mexico, deposits from 24,000-21,000 years ago w/possible tools)
Valsequillo region, Puebla (21,000 years ago with possible cultural evidence)

Boqueirao da Pedra Furada (Brazil)
Caverna da Pedra Pintada (Brazil)
Toca da Esperanca (200 mi. S of Pedra Furada)
Los Toldos Cave (Argentina)
Tagua-Tagua (Chile)
Hebior (WI?)
Schaeffer (WI?)
Monte Verde (Chile)
Topper (Allendale, SC)
Cactus Hill (VA)
Blue Fish Cave (?)
Sandia Cave (NM)
Hueyatlaco (Mexico)
Calico Hills (Mojave Desert, CA) (discredited)
Timlin (NY)
Sheguiandah
Day’s Knob (OH)
Taima-Taima ((Venezuela)
Old Crow Basin (Yukon Territory) (discredited)
Del Mar (CA) (discredited)
Sunnyvale (CA) (discredited)
Meadowcroft Rock Shelter (PA)
Guitarrero Cave (Peru)
Pendejo Cave (NM)


[edit on 2/18/05 by poonchang]

I'm definately of the "pre-Clovis" mindset, here.

By the time the Europeans got here, the Americas had been settled by the Native American tribes... and well settled. The route from the coast of Alaska to Tierra Del Fuego is well over 10,000 miles and the width of the continents are up to 3,000 miles.

Now, I'm not one for doing population modeling, but it seems as if to match that 12,000 year cutoff date, the AmerInds have to come into the Americas, RUN down to Tierra del Fuego and spread rapidly across the continents, breeding like rabbits and having a high infant survival rate. We know that they didn't have an unusually high infant survival rate.

They'd have to drop off small groups and start small villages along the way (moving southward at a rate of about a mile a year. I have no problem with that migration pattern if they're following a resource, but as you go further south, the resources get thinner.) Along the way, they have to stop and reinvent culture or reacquire it as others are driven into the area.

And you have to get through some pretty challenging territories (like the Sierra Nevadas and the Rockies.)

I think it makes sense for a much older group to have come in and spread to the warmer areas where they are eventually forced southward by the Clovis peoples. The Dikus of the Costa Rican area never developed much in the way of permanent technology (living in a rainforest)... I don't know how much support there would be for them being remnants of a still oder group than the Clovis peoples.

But I'm just a grad student. The model makes more sense to me if we presume an earlier entry into the Americas.

A book called Uriels Machine talks about ancient civilisations and clovis; pre clovis colonies in americas.

Is written by two british freemasons, so depends on how you view the masons as too your take on the book

Originally posted by Byrd
I'm definately of the "pre-Clovis" mindset, here.

By the time the Europeans got here, the Americas had been settled by the Native American tribes... and well settled. The route from the coast of Alaska to Tierra Del Fuego is well over 10,000 miles and the width of the continents are up to 3,000 miles.

Now, I'm not one for doing population modeling, but it seems as if to match that 12,000 year cutoff date, the AmerInds have to come into the Americas, RUN down to Tierra del Fuego and spread rapidly across the continents, breeding like rabbits and having a high infant survival rate. We know that they didn't have an unusually high infant survival rate.

They'd have to drop off small groups and start small villages along the way (moving southward at a rate of about a mile a year. I have no problem with that migration pattern if they're following a resource, but as you go further south, the resources get thinner.) Along the way, they have to stop and reinvent culture or reacquire it as others are driven into the area.

And you have to get through some pretty challenging territories (like the Sierra Nevadas and the Rockies.)

I think it makes sense for a much older group to have come in and spread to the warmer areas where they are eventually forced southward by the Clovis peoples. The Dikus of the Costa Rican area never developed much in the way of permanent technology (living in a rainforest)... I don't know how much support there would be for them being remnants of a still oder group than the Clovis peoples.

But I'm just a grad student. The model makes more sense to me if we presume an earlier entry into the Americas.

I originally was schooled in the Clovis First perspective, but had never researched the topic in depth. Currently...I just don't know. There is not enough evidence to break the Clovis First Model. To invoke Lepper, "It is axiomatic that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." However, I keep finding more and more evidence supporting pre-Clovis perspectives; just not the proverbial "smoking gun."

I recently attended at brown bag lunch lecture in which Stuart Fiedel discussed "Peopling of the Americas." Note that Fiedel is a strong proponent of the Clovis First prespective and the lecture was presented to a predominantly Clovis First audience. Fiedel proposed that Clovis could have used domesticated dogs (Canis familiaris...I think) to help hunt and carry things (infants being one of them). He was leading up to a very shocking hypothesis: migration from Beringia to Tierra del Fuego could have happened in as little as 7 years. The crowd went silent. I don't believe he has published this yet, but it will definately add a whole lot of fuel to the controversy. Linguists hold that it would have taken hundreds, if not thousands, of years for people to populate the New World. The archaeological data I have seen suggests otherwise. PaleoIndians were moving...hauling arse, in fact. Some PaleoIndian sites I have seen have had obsidian from literally hundreds of miles away. These sites are not villages, either (I'm not sure there is even such a thing as a village to people constantly on the move); they are temporary camp grounds. In other words, I'm tying to say that it did not take as long as linguists would have you believe, but I think 7 years is too short of a period to explore two continents. So, somewhere between 7 and 1000+ years

Also at this lecture, Fiedel fielded questions from the audience, "what about Monte Verde and all the other preClovis sites?" He went through a list of some of the more well known sites and dismissed...no, destroyed them one after the other. I'm no expert, but most of the preClovis sites have something "wrong" with them: bad methods, disturbed stratigraphy, or questionable artifacts. One of the things Fiedel is known for is trashing Dillehay's Monte Verde site, just google "Stuart Fiedel"

Anyway, there are a lot of preClovis sites and I am beginning to wonder why the idea of preClovis is not considered more seriously. Then again, careers and reputations are on the line. I just don't know anymore, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence," though.

Thanks for the great posts guys.

Actually, around here in Texas, the pre-Clovis idea is meeting with acceptance. Perhaps it's because we have the Gault site... or perhaps not. I haven't been involved with the argument and don't know how it's played out in academe.

Originally posted by poonchang
I recently attended at brown bag lunch lecture in which Stuart Fiedel discussed "Peopling of the Americas." Note that Fiedel is a strong proponent of the Clovis First prespective and the lecture was presented to a predominantly Clovis First audience. Fiedel proposed that Clovis could have used domesticated dogs (Canis familiaris...I think) to help hunt and carry things (infants being one of them). He was leading up to a very shocking hypothesis: migration from Beringia to Tierra del Fuego could have happened in as little as 7 years. The crowd went silent. I don't believe he has published this yet, but it will definately add a whole lot of fuel to the controversy.

Gotta chortle out of this one; my profs are very very very hide-bound in the mindset that "if you don't have the evidence, don't go waving that theory around." While I agree that it's possible to walk all that distance, it wouldn't be possible to walk all that distance and leave population centers behind unless you've got a whopping bunch of people on the move.

And there's got to be some sort of driving force (a spiritual mandate; something) to push you all the way down the American continent. There were many good stopping points along the way and there's no reason for hunter-gatherers to move to a less favorable area when there's plenty of good hunting in the area where they are.

To my (marginally educated) eyes, that's the main weakness right there.

Linguists hold that it would have taken hundreds, if not thousands, of years for people to populate the New World.

Erm... yes and no. What they think from the linguistic analysis is that there are at least three distinct large groups moving into America and that the oldest (Chumash of Southern California is one such group) moved in early, moved to locations separated by mountains or difficult terrains, and stayed there long enough that their language diverged into local dialects (think British and American) and then changed enough to where the languages are now mutually incomprehenisble.

The archaeological data I have seen suggests otherwise. PaleoIndians were moving...hauling arse, in fact. Some PaleoIndian sites I have seen have had obsidian from literally hundreds of miles away. These sites are not villages, either (I'm not sure there is even such a thing as a village to people constantly on the move); they are temporary camp grounds. In other words, I'm tying to say that it did not take as long as linguists would have you believe, but I think 7 years is too short of a period to explore two continents. So, somewhere between 7 and 1000+ years

Yeah... we turned up a piece of fossilized wood at the Fitch-Dahlen site; not sure where it came from, but it could have come from as far away as Austin (200 miles)

Remember that these nomadic bands did follow migratory animals, and they also met with other groups and traded for goods. We think that the Ouichata flint found here in North Texas was the result of trades rather than someone marching off to Arkansas and hauling rocks back. There'd have to be some sort of huge economic payoff for a risky journey like that into other tribal territories. And that's an awful lotta rock for a few people and dogs to haul back.

(I don't know if they prepared cores in the Ouichatas or not. It makes sense that they would do cores and preforms but I'm just not that familiar with the material, y'know? But it doesn't make much sense in terms of energy and outcome to haul intact rocks around when you're only going to use portions of it.)

Also at this lecture, Fiedel fielded questions from the audience, "what about Monte Verde and all the other preClovis sites?" He went through a list of some of the more well known sites and dismissed...no, destroyed them one after the other. I'm no expert, but most of the preClovis sites have something "wrong" with them: bad methods, disturbed stratigraphy, or questionable artifacts. One of the things Fiedel is known for is trashing Dillehay's Monte Verde site, just google "Stuart Fiedel"

Man, he sure goes after Dillehay, doesn't he? Almost makes you think he's got a personal vendetta going!

I did like David Hurst Thomas' response -- acknowledging the problems but accusing Feidel of blowing them out of proportion:
www.archaeology.org...

Anyway, there are a lot of preClovis sites and I am beginning to wonder why the idea of preClovis is not considered more seriously. Then again, careers and reputations are on the line. I just don't know anymore, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence," though.

Ehh... you know archaeolgists... anal retentive bunch. You can remake the old saying into "anthropologists waltz in where archaeologists fear to tread." However, science does need to err on the side of caution. Too many times what seems to be "undeniable proof" has turned out to be "absolute hogwash" and in this day and time, science is treading very carefully.

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but Im very interested in this subject. Has any new evidence come forth?

Don't be sorry for "digging up" this thread when it concerns archeology; seems appropriate actually.

I haven't kept up on new ideas in Early Man/PaleoIndian archeology.

But even back in my digging days at Blackwater Draw in New Mexico; my mentor Dr.George Agagino thought there might be pre Clovis.

I think there must be pre Clovis like Byrd mentioned. On thing, the fluted Clovis Points certainly are napping art.

I have the pleasure of watching Charles Eaton work his majic with stone quite often as he is one of my friends and neighbors. Popping out a nice long flute is probably not very exciting to anyone other than anthro geeks.
His fauxClovis work is beautiful as is his Folsum and Eden.

welcome lurch

[edit on 14-2-2008 by whaaa]

reply to post by poonchang


Well, given the recent archaeological discoveries in south America, there's plenty of reason to suspect Clovis was not the first culture in the Americas.

As further proof, there's the issue of the Tierra del Fuego natives who do not resemble Native Americans, but rather the indigenous people of Australia and some of the Indian Ocean Islands.

It would appear there were numerous land and north pacific sea migrations into the western hemisphere, a possible peppering of Polynesian explorers, and even the possibility of sea migration from Iberia way back during hte Ice Age.

What a interesting conversation. I'm admittedly under-informed in this area, but does anyone know of any research perspectives that involve a possible seaward migration to the Pacific Coast of the Americas from Japan/Pacific Islands? Of course the "Bering Strait Hiking Club" possibly walked here from Asia, but I believe there is strong evidence of "island hopping" on seaworthy crafts throughout the Pacific Islands; is there a sea current or something that would've prevented them from coming all the way to, say, South America? I guess a time frame outlining when the Pacific Islands were known to have been first peopled would have some bearing on the strength of this idea. I will do some studying on this, if anyone can point me to some resources or known theories that might help me support or refute this idea, it would be wonderful.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
What a interesting conversation. I'm admittedly under-informed in this area, but does anyone know of any research perspectives that involve a possible seaward migration to the Pacific Coast of the Americas from Japan/Pacific Islands?

Very interesting question, Anon. The best source for this would actually be genetic, and the one film I saw about the subject didn't indicate a Japanese/Pacific island origin for the Native Americans.

Of course the "Bering Strait Hiking Club" possibly walked here from Asia, but I believe there is strong evidence of "island hopping" on seaworthy crafts throughout the Pacific Islands; is there a sea current or something that would've prevented them from coming all the way to, say, South America?

In relatively recent times, no. But 10,000 years ago the technology wasn't that good. Easter Island was settled by the Pacific Islanders and as far as I know, this is the closest they came. Current estimates are that Easter Island was settled around 1,000 AD to 1200 AD... during the Medieval Dark Ages: news.nationalgeographic.com...

I guess a time frame outlining when the Pacific Islands were known to have been first peopled would have some bearing on the strength of this idea. I will do some studying on this, if anyone can point me to some resources or known theories that might help me support or refute this idea, it would be wonderful.

What you want to look at is genetic markers... and this sort of reading is really difficult (long words, concepts that are hard to grasp at first. I got tired trying to read it when I first started.)

Here's a nice intro page with links to HapMap and other resources:
www.ornl.gov...

Beautiful, thank you for your detailed reply. Upon further research I realized that physical evidence for population of the Pacific Islands is far later than even Clovis, so unless there is some magical sea vessel from Japan built pre-10,000 BC laying in an island somewhere waiting to be discovered, I guess my theory is right out.

Upon looking into this, I found it interesting that skulls found in Baja and Brazil that challenge the "Clovis first" theory have the morphological characteristics of Australian Aborigines.

"Stone tools and charcoal from the site [Serra Da Capivara] in Brazil show evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years."

"The skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the native people of Australia and Melanesia. These people date back to about 60,000 years, and were themselves descended from the first humans, who left Africa about 100,000 years ago.

But how could the early Australians have travelled more than 13,500 kilometres (8,450 miles) at that time? The answer comes from more cave paintings, this time from the Kimberley, a region at the northern tip of Western Australia.

Here, Grahame Walsh, an expert on Australian rock art, found the oldest painting of a boat anywhere in the world. The style of the art means it is at least 17,000 years old, but it could be up to 50,000 years old.

And the crucial detail is the high prow of the boat. This would have been unnecessary for boats used in calm, inland waters. The design suggests it was used on the open ocean."
full article at news.bbc.co.uk...

I guess I was wrong about origin, but might be right about the Pacific Island seafarer idea. What a neat idea, those awesome aborigines.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Upon looking into this, I found it interesting that skulls found in Baja and Brazil that challenge the "Clovis first" theory have the morphological characteristics of Australian Aborigines.

"Stone tools and charcoal from the site [Serra Da Capivara] in Brazil show evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years."

"The skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the native people of Australia and Melanesia. These people date back to about 60,000 years, and were themselves descended from the first humans, who left Africa about 100,000 years ago.

Fascinating details in that news report you linked! I'd have dismissed it, but it's BBC and they tend to be pretty stringent fact checkers. I'll have to go looking and see what else I can find out about the site. It's not one of those that's discussed by the pre-Clovis group, which makes me wonder if all the material is in Portugese (can't imagine that... someone would have surely translated it) or what.

Anyway, you've piqued my curiosity. I'll go look.