Clovis First:

The dominant hypothesis in the late 20th century for the peopling of the Americas posited that proto-Native Americans from Northeastern Asia inhabited Beringia from about 25,000 years ago. Their movement westward and southward into the Americas was blocked by ice sheets that opened towards the end of the last ice age about 13-15,000 years ago. That enabled them to move down into the central plains of North America by somewhere around 12-13,000 years ago, whence their Clovis civilization spread through much of the continent and perhaps as far south as the northern edge of South America. These, the hypothesis stated, was how the Americas were first settled.


Pre-Clovis:

Over the last several decades archaeologists have found a number of sites that antedate the opening of the ice-free corridor down into the heart of the continent. The hypothesis that these finds implies is that there were groups of proto-Native Americans who found their way south by skirting the Pacific coast to below the ice belt, where they moved into the continent. So when the corridor opened and people migrated south into the heart of the Americas, they were not entering uninhabited terrain but rather joining their cousins who had earlier taken the coastal route.

The previous inhabitants and the newcomers were closely related genetically because they all stemmed from the original Beringian population; they may well have spoken related languages. Most traces of the maritime migration were subsequently lost either because the coastal settlements were minimal or because the melting of the ice sheets resulted in rising sea levels, which swamped those camps. So the bulk of the evidence for pre-Clovis migrations is found inland, where various dating techniques put the artifacts before the ice-free corridor came into existence.


The Study:

The following study adds supporting evidence to the pre-Clovis hypothesis. It reports the results of a dig near Cooper's Ferry on the Salmon River in Idaho that relatively reliable methods date to roughly 16,000 years ago--or a couple thousand years before the earliest Clovis sites. The location of the site is also significant. The Salmon is a tributary to the Columbia River, which feeds into the Pacific just south of the southern edge of the ice sheets. It thus appears likely that groups of proto-Native Americans journeyed south from Beringia along the coast to below the ice sheets, then followed the Columbia River inland to and along the Salmon.

Definitive? No. But this is a significant addition to the evidence bolstering the pre-Clovis hypothesis.



-------------
The study:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/891


Popular reports:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/first-people-americas-came-sea-ancient-tools-unearthed-idaho-river-suggest?rss=1

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/humans-colonised-americas-study-coopers-ferry-site-a9083881.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/deadthings/2019/08/29/stone-tools-in-idaho-evidence-of-first-americans/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2019 02:44AM by Lot's Wife.

:-)

But where are the steel bows and tapir bones ?

Thanks Lot's, I just saw this article. Coopers Ferry has been an interesting early site for quite a while. The new dates are intriguing. Hopefully, I can get my hands on the technical report in the near future, as I'm sure this is going to a tad controversial.

Yes, I have read about the previous work at the site. I look forward to your comments when you review the technical data!

Let's see, now . . . The Scientific community is discovering information and relics that enlighten what was happening to mankind 25,000 years ago and hundreds and millions of years ago, while the Religious community is still promoting faith.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So since faith is the cornerstone of religion and you can only have faith if you "don't know", then ignorance is the eternal goal. No?

God, religion, is just the biggest MLM of the Universe. Just look what man accomplishes when he isn't sitting in the pews!

so ~


¿ atheist scientists don't know what they are talking about ? ~


thanks OPie ~

Thank you LW!
A book about this topic that I really enjoyed is "Atlas of a Lost World (travels in ice age America)" by Craig Childs. The author talks with many of the scientists who have researched the subject and walks the ground that these early people walked. No Jaredites, Lamanites or Nephites were found.
Naturally the book is on Amazon.

And just forget about any Solutrean hypothesis.


http://i.imgur.com/R5Jpq9i.jpg

to go thousands of miles over the ice? How? When? Why?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

The more you read about the proponents of this theory the more they sound like true believers grasping at straws to make "The Book Of Mormon" true.

"It's got to be true -- it has to be -- it just has to be true..."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2019 07:23PM by anybody.

and that there were many paths to the Americas.

We need to find some ticket stubs or at the least, some diaries!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2019 12:12PM by elderolddog.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and that there were many paths to the Americas.


Clovis First doesn't allow for other paths to the Americas--at least not earlier paths. So the (apparent) fact that there were earlier groups invalidates Clovis First.

Clovis may have been a very important early civilization, maybe even the MOST important early civilization, but it probably was not FIRST.

Well "civilization" is a bit of a stretch. As is "clovis culture". It is really just a lithic technology. I know of no other Western Hemisphere lithic tradition that has so much, unwarranted, cultural implications attached to it.

I can surrender those terms. Remember, though, that a culture can be some bacteria in a Petri dish.

I have trouble with the definitions of culture and civilizations because they inevitably become ethnicity-based. For my purposes I treat a people as a culture when we recognize that they have social relationships, some sort of economy, an ethos or religion or set of ethical principles, and speech and art that is meaningful to them. So using my preferred term, Clovis and pre-Clovis peoples had their own cultures even if we know very little about them. So too Neanderthals, who lived in groups, hunted and ate together, had some forms of art and burial procedures that hint strongly at a belief in the afterlife.

Civilization, I'm okay if we can use a conventional definition for that and conclude that the very early Native Americans did not have it. But I worry here too that, in close calls, the definition hinges on parochial preferences.

Perhaps the question is whether we are describing the objects themselves, which as you indicate is a narrow lithic technology, or the people who employed the technology. I think we can infer from the tools and weapons the existence of a culture--if we want.

And neither existed in the Americas during the Ice Age.

I know I'm nit picking, and for that I apologize. But the only commonality between the peoples who used Clovis technology is that they used this technology for hunting Mega-fauna. Other than that, it is unknown whether or not they spoke the same language, performed the same rituals, or shared any of the other traits that generally define a "culture".

Given the large territory in which Clovis is found, it is most likely that it was a borrowed technology that was used by diverse peoples. That is why I have issues with describing those who use a certain tool as a culture.

I know it is commonly used that way, but I think it gives the wrong impression.

All good. It does make sense that the technology would span various cultures.

https://www.academia.edu/3664891/Clovis_First..._Mexico_City_2004_?email_work_card=view-paper

>>“CLOVIS FIRST”: STILL THE BEST THEORY OF NATIVE AMERICAN ORIGINS Stuart J. Fiedel

>>ABSTRACT: Recent theories of Native American origins postulate multiple pre-Clovis migrations including Transpacific or coastal voyages by Australians, Melanesians, or Ainu, and even a Transatlantic migration by Caucasoid Solutreans from Iberia. However, close examination of these theories reveals their factual and logical weaknesses. The Clovis First model remains the only coherent explanation for data derived from geology, climatology, paleontology, archaeology, linguistics, and molecular genetics. Indeed, the most recent findings from each of these disciplines, far from challenging this model, actually provide additional support for it.

>>The current fixation of many researchers on early coastal migration (e.g., Dixon 1999,Erlandson 2002) is driven primarily by the need to get people into the Americas in time to arrive at Monte Verde by 14000 cal BP. Without Monte Verde, this pressure disappears.

The DNA science from the Anzick Clovis Child shows all Native Americans, on both continents, are descended from an ancestral population of which it was a representative. That individual was carbon-dated to ~12,700 years ago.

Simon Southerton will be stopping in Utah in the next few months, and we'll be discussing the subject. Respectfully, no less, unlike certain individuals here for whom the phrase "agree to disagree" is at odds with their cognitive processes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl-uoAWywOE&t=10s



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2019 11:52PM by SL Cabbie.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://www.academia.edu/3664891/Clovis_First..._M
> exico_City_2004_?email_work_card=view-paper
>
> >>“CLOVIS FIRST”: STILL THE BEST THEORY OF
> NATIVE AMERICAN ORIGINS Stuart J. Fiedel

That paper is from 2004 and hence cannot address everything that has been discovered or analyzed since then. Do you have anything from the last fifteen years?


-----------------
> The DNA science from the Anzick Clovis Child shows
> all Native Americans, on both continents, are
> descended from an ancestral population of which it
> was a representative. That individual was
> carbon-dated to ~12,700 years ago.

Meaningless. If both the Clovis and the pre-Clovis people came from the same original population in Beringia or elsewhere, their
descendants will have the same general genetic characteristics. You cannot claim such remains as evidence for or against either migration hypothesis.


--------------
> Simon Southerton will be stopping in Utah in the
> next few months, and we'll be discussing the
> subject. Respectfully, no less, unlike certain
> individuals here for whom the phrase "agree to
> disagree" is at odds with their cognitive
> processes.

Ironic, is it not, that you used to call everyone who disagreed with you, including me and Richard the Bad and even Nightingale, a "narcissist." A cynic might note that that is not "respectful" academic discourse. Neither is denigrating the"cognitive processes" of those who disagree with you.


---------------
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl-uoAWywOE&t=10s

Anna Roosevelt, again. What's important to note is that she disagrees with you on Clovis First and hence cannot reasonably be cited as evidence supporting your views. The same is true of Simon Southerton, who you have admitted no longer thinks Clovis First a plausible theory.

Or while you're tossing your bile, would you care to speak to the time where, in utter violation of board rules, you used my real name in a post; distorted my academic record, and otherwise engaged in superficial arguments in areas where you have zero--repeat zero--expertise? You're also being dishonest in your reporting of Anna C. Roosevelt's views. The 2012 video reflects those views, your denial not withstanding.

Now would you care to address the specifics of Fiedel's claims rather than lamely insist they are dated.

God forbid that someone should have the temerity to disagree with you.

Edit: And while I was doing a bit of Google searching, I also found the following where LW engaged in a bit of "sock puppetry" by "supporting" her own thread under another moniker.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2145784,2156975#msg-2156975

There was another predictable bit of language "legerdemain" when she accused me of "proofreading" an article of Simon Southerton's; I did more than that since he sought my input on what he was saying and whether it was clear to a layman or not. Without understanding the underlying science, that wouldn't have been possible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2019 12:55PM by SL Cabbie.

Admins, why do you keep deleting my responses to SL Cabbie's false credentials? He has cited his training in "graduate" psychology many times as an explanation for why he is entitled to call posters with whom he disagrees "narcissists." It is entirely appropriate for me to respond by indicating exactly what his qualifications are.

Cabbie, you described your academic record, many times, as having completed the first part of the process for a CAC certification. That "graduate program" is for high school graduates. Your completing the course work--the first part of the program--took 270 hours, none of which included a class on psychology, and the clinical parts of the program that you failed to complete required 4-6,000 hours of training. So you did about 10% of a program designed for people who have graduated from high school and included no courses specifically on psychology. By your own account, you have no psychological expertise beyond that.

https://www.addictionacademy.com/certified-addiction-counselor.php



----------------
> You're also
> being dishonest in your reporting of Anna C.
> Roosevelt's views. The 2012 video reflects those
> views, your denial not withstanding.

Dissimulation. You cited that video in favor of your position that there are no pre-Clovis sites. She said nothing of the kind. In that video she argued against a single site's dating. Her attitude towards pre-Clovis is evident in her other statements: she embraces it. You can spin things any way you want. Roosevelt thinks you are wrong.


---------------
> Now would you care to address the specifics of
> Fiedel's claims rather than lamely insist they are
> dated.

Why would I answer a case brought 15 years ago--before the vast majority of the pre-Clovis evidence was available. Do you think I should comment on anything from the 19th century on American archaeology and anthropology or would you grant that there's no need to refute Joseph Smith's claims?



--------------
> God forbid that someone should have the temerity
> to disagree with you.

Disagree at will. Just bring some substance to the table.



------------------
>
> Edit: And while I was doing a bit of Google
> searching, I also found the following where LW
> engaged in a bit of "sock puppetry" by
> "supporting" her own thread under another
> moniker.
>
> https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2145784
> ,2156975#msg-2156975

You should check that link. It takes you to a previous instance in which I showed that your archaeological stars think you are wrong.

As for my sock puppetry, here is the thread in which I created the moniker "Ineffable B*tch." Anyone who wants to can see that I did it openly and ironically. I will probably post with it occasionally going forward with the understanding that, like last time, everyone knows that there is only one ineffable bitch on RfM.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2246987,2247547#msg-2247547


-------------
> There was another predictable bit of language
> "legerdemain" when she accused me of
> "proofreading" an article of Simon Southerton's; I
> did more than that since he sought my input on
> what he was saying and whether it was clear to a
> layman or not.

That is the definition of "proof reading."


-------------
> Without understanding the
> underlying science, that wouldn't have been
> possible.

And yet he asked you to do the proofreading as a layman. He was not asking for, or expecting, any scientific expertise.

Cabbie, I'm just curious. The Clovis First hypothesis is that the first people to enter the Americas utilized Clovis technology. Where do you think this technology originated?

Any reply from me to that question would be conjecture, and on the subject of lithic technology I'm strictly a "laymanese speaker." I think it's entirely reasonable to hypothesize that "Clovis point technology" originated in this hemisphere; I've looked at the literature claiming various "origins" in parts of North America, and the ones suggesting the Southeast as a credible offering (Buttermilk Creek?) rely on "Optical Thermoluminesence dating" which is grounded in some unproven assumptions (specifically the last time the soil was exposed to the light). Moreover, the "Clovis era" was particularly short-lived.

I do note the DNA from the Anzick Clovis Child was shown to belong to a population that was ancestral to today's Native Americans (at least 80% according to my sources), and that puts the "burden of proof" on the other side to offer up credible hypotheses for the origins of any others they believe were present in this hemisphere. From a Nat Geo article on that subject: "Dozens of ochre-covered stone tools found at the site were consistent with Clovis technology, and radiocarbon dating revealed that the skeleton was approximately 12,600 years old."

I did just watch Anna Roosevelt's video for at least the third time, and she does, IMO, "destroy" Monte Verde as a pre-Clovis site. Obviously Fiedel viewed MV claims similarly, and those two possess more expertise in that area than I would ever claim. On the subject of DNA science, however, I promise I know a nucleotide from a nitwit. Fiedel notes much of the "impetus for pre-Clovis is the result of trying to accommodate the MV dates...

About ten years ago, we actually had a convention of archaeologists here in SLC. I queried them about Monte Verde, and after hearing my background, one of them said, "Oh, you're one of us." That was flattering, but I stuck to my story and didn't claim any special expertise. They gave me the background, saying Dillehay was "deeply troubled" by his findings, and their view was "the dates were legitimate." Obviously Roosevelt--and Fiedel--think otherwise.

Finally, as I noted, I corresponded with Gary Haynes in Reno before his retirement. When asked whether there were pre-Clovis populations, he said, "Probably is the safest answer." He did add he was unsatisfied with the evidence for pre-Clovis (my interpretation).

<<I think it's entirely reasonable to hypothesize that "Clovis point technology" originated in this hemisphere>>

On that, we are in total agreement.

From that group I had in the taxi (I'll plead a senior moment): One of them also noted, assuming a migration from, say B.C. or the Aleutians, that "They must've made a beeline to Monte Verde."

So the question reduces to "Why?" I can't see any reason for migrating from more temperate areas to such a problematic environment.

#What Anna Roosevelt said about MV

And a note to my friend Brother of Jerry (formerly Winter) below who noted: "I see no particular reason why it would have been impossible. Australia and SE Asia got populated by people traveling by boat well before 20,000 years ago."

The date on people originally settling in Oz is listed as 65,000 years ago, and I remember Simon saying more on that subject. Please note, the water temperatures were much warmer, and the settlements were from west to east rather than north to south and much further than from Alaska to Puget Sound. Read your Jared Diamond, and I'll double check this with Simon next month.

> I do note the DNA from the Anzick Clovis Child was
> shown to belong to a population that was ancestral
> to today's Native Americans (at least 80%
> according to my sources), and that puts the
> "burden of proof" on the other side to offer up
> credible hypotheses for the origins of any others
> they believe were present in this hemisphere.

Slippery. Above you wrote that "the DNA science from the Anzick Clovis Child shows all Native Americans, on both continents, are descended from an ancestral population of which it was a representative." "All Native Americans." The sources I cited the 80% figure. So now you reverse yourself, adopting the 80% figure as if that was always your argument--and go on to put "the burden of proof" on me to prove that figure wrong.

No, Cabbie, you don't get to assume my position and then say I have to prove my own sources wrong.


------------------------
> From
> a Nat Geo article on that subject: "Dozens of
> ochre-covered stone tools found at the site [where Anzick Child > was found] were
> consistent with Clovis technology, and radiocarbon
> dating revealed that the skeleton was
> approximately 12,600 years old."

Can you direct us to one place, a single instance, in which anyone on this site has claimed otherwise? You keep protesting that I and others misunderstand Anzick but in fact none of us do. You are that person on the street corner screaming into the air as everyone else walks by and wonders what the hell you are on about.



--------------
> I did just watch Anna Roosevelt's video for at
> least the third time, and she does, IMO, "destroy"
> Monte Verde as a pre-Clovis site. Obviously Fiedel
> viewed MV claims similarly, and those two possess
> more expertise in that area than I would ever
> claim.

Same thing. You cited that video as evidence against the pre-Clovis hypothesis. I noted that Roosevelt in fact is a supporter of that hypothesis. Now you more accurately state that the video argues against a single site. Great, guy on street corner, but none of us have disputed her argument which, in any case, still doesn't challenge pre-Clovis.

Why do you always go back to Anzick and Monte Verde even though they are irrelevant? Is it perhaps because those are two of the very few specific cases that you once studied reasonably seriously?


-----------------
> On the subject of DNA science, however, I
> promise I know a nucleotide from a nitwit.

Congratulations.


------------------
> Fiedel
> notes much of the "impetus for pre-Clovis is the
> result of trying to accommodate the MV dates...

Is this from the 2004 book?

In any case, it doesn't matter. The statement you quote does not support your contention that pre-Clovis is wrong. Fiedel merely explained what motivated the research that ultimately proved pre-Clovis the more probable hypothesis.


---------------
> About ten years ago, we actually had a convention
> of archaeologists here in SLC. I queried them
> about Monte Verde, and after hearing my
> background, one of them said, "Oh, you're one of
> us." That was flattering,

Yes, you have told this story many times. You said you drove the van and, while driving, had this discussion with them. They were very kind.


-------------------
> but I stuck to my story
> and didn't claim any special expertise. They gave
> me the background, saying Dillehay was "deeply
> troubled" by his findings, and their view was "the
> dates were legitimate." Obviously Roosevelt--and
> Fiedel--think otherwise.

Yeah, you must be mixing up conversations with different people. No one here has expressed an opinion about Monte Verde, so Roosevelt's and Fiedel's opinions are irrelevant.


------------------
> Finally, as I noted, I corresponded with Gary
> Haynes in Reno before his retirement. When asked
> whether there were pre-Clovis populations, he
> said, "Probably is the safest answer." He did add
> he was unsatisfied with the evidence for
> pre-Clovis (my interpretation).

I don't know when you wrote to Haynes, but it is nice that you acknowledge that at that time he leaned away from your position and towards the pre-Clovis camp. You may be interested to learn, having apparently failed to notice before, that in recent years Haynes has published papers that assume the veracity of the pre-Clovis hypothesis. So he doesn't support your position.

Over the years you have cited a number of prominent archaeologists in support of your Clovis-First views. Most of them--Roosevelt, Raff, Haynes, Willerslev--in fact adhere to the pre-Clovis hypothesis. All you can do is say, as you keep doing, that one or two of them "agreed to disagree" with you; or "there are no authorities. You must be your own authority.

That's all you've got.

I haven't been paying close attention to research on initial human migration to the Americas. There may or may not have been pre-Clovis migrations, but I see nothing in the geologic record that would preclude a coastal migration.

Glaciers are strange beasts. I know in both the Turtle Mountains in North Dakota, and Wisconsin Dells, the glaciers went around rather than over what are relatively small hills (a few hundred feet above the surrounding terrain). Oceans are clearly big and warm enough to stop glaciers. That is precisely how Long Island and Cape Cod got formed.

There were no doubt glaciers right down to the ocean along the coast of Beringia and the NW coast of North America. There are still a few remaining glaciers like that. However, the islands off the coast were probably forested like they are now. There should have been plenty of berries, roots and fish to live on.

I don't know when kayak culture started, but if it doesn't go back to pre-Clovis times, migrating bands could well have made it down the coast on rafts. The ocean currents from Japan hug the coast clear down to Baja California. It would be possible to just drift.

All it would take is migrating bands moving 20 miles south every decade to make the trip along the coast in 1,000 years from the Aleutian Islands to the Seattle area. If they had kayaks, 20 miles is a day trip. Those islands along the inland passage region are so close together, I think you can island hop all the way down without being out of sight of the next island. No great navigation skills required, Just tear along dotted line, so to speak.

So, I have no opinion on whether a coastal migration happened in a pre-Clovis time period, but I see no particular reason why it would have been impossible. Australia and SE Asia got populated by people traveling by boat well before 20,000 years ago.

Besides, Sitka spruce makes really nice Jaredite submarines.

Dennis Jenkin's research at Paisley Caves is used by the "pre-Clovis crowd" as evidence of human presence in North America before 13,000 years ago.

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/145-1409/features/2370-peopling-the-americas-paisely-caves

>>Stone tools and fire features are always great indicators of human activity at an archaeological site. And human bones are the best evidence excavators can hope to find. But humans also leave behind coprolites, or fossilized feces. Thanks to the extremely dry environment inside Oregon’s Paisley Caves, University of Oregon archaeologist Dennis Jenkins and his team came across five human droppings that dated to older than 14,000 years over the course of nine years of digging there.

However:

http://westerndigs.org/ancient-feces-from-oregon-cave-arent-human-study-finds-adding-to-debate-on-first-americans/

>>Now, reporting in the Journal of Archaeological Science, another team of researchers says that its analysis of the oldest coprolite from the cave suggests it’s from an herbivore, not a human.

>>“The specimen under study … was not excreted by a human,” said Ainara Sistiaga, an archaeologist and visiting researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview.

>>“Our results show a predominance of the product of … plant intake. This value is too high to represent a human origin.”

Honest, the jokes on this one write themselves: Two groups arguing with each other with both saying the other side doesn't know...

Seriously, I may not know $#!%, but I do know DNA science.

You can keep finding isolated errors and linking to papers and people that debunk them. That's all to the good. But refuting some individual mistakes doesn't add up to a refutation of a much larger hypothesis based on myriad digs and analyses.

For the overall picture, the best sources are the experts in the field, many of whom you have thoughtfully identified. The problem you consequently face, however, is that virtually all of your favorites are on the pre-Clovis side of the debate and not your Clovis First side. Moreover the most conspicuous exception, the man who comes closest to your position, has now begun hedging his bets; for Fiedel recently wrote that if there were pre-Clovis peoples, they were not very important.

If even he is having second thoughts about Clovis First, you probably should be as well. There's nothing wrong with changing your opinion when confronted with better evidence. That's the measure of a mature intellect.

Lot's Wife, from the Cabbie,

<<I think it's entirely reasonable to hypothesize that "Clovis point technology" originated in this hemisphere>>

That entirely reasonable hypothesis is the very definition of pre-clovis.

Yes. I don't know why he can't just change his mind like so many people in the field have already done.

That's the point of research: to learn and get closer to the truth.