Skip to comments.Experts doubt Clovis people were first in Americas
Posted on 02/23/2007 9:34:17 AM PST by george76
The Clovis people, known for their distinctive spear points, likely were not the first humans in the Americas, according to research placing their presence as more recent than previously believed.
Using advanced radiocarbon dating techniques, researchers writing in the journal Science on Thursday said the Clovis people, hunters of large Ice Age animals like mammoths and mastodons, dated from about 13,100 to 12,900 years ago.
That would make the Clovis culture, known from artifacts discovered at various sites including the town of Clovis, New Mexico, both younger and shorter-lived than previously thought. Previous estimates had dated the culture to about 13,600 years ago.
These people long had been seen as the first humans in the New World, but the new dates suggest their culture thrived at about the same time or after others also in the Americas.
Michael Waters, director of Texas A&M University's Center for the Study of the First Americans, called the research the final nail in the coffin of the so-called "Clovis first" theory of human origins in the New World.
Waters said he thinks the first people probably arrived in the Americas between 15,000 and 25,000 years ago.
"We've got to stop thinking about the peopling of the Americas as a singular event," Waters said in an interview.
"And we have to start now thinking about the peopling of the Americas as a process, with people coming over here, probably arriving at different times, maybe taking different routes and coming from different places in northeast Asia."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I was thinking more of Clovis, California.
evidence for pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas has been mounting for years at archaeological sites from Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to Chile.
Now Colorado's Thomas Stafford Jr. and Michael Waters of Texas A&M University report findings that Waters says "puts the final nail in the coffin of the Clovis First model."
New radiocarbon dates from Clovis-site bone, ivory and seeds show that the hunters arrived nearly 500 years later than researchers had thought, at a time when unrelated peoples already lived in North and South America, the researchers conclude.
'advanced radiocarbon dating techniques'- forget that they're only good up to about 7000 years, but by golly- they've radiocarbon dated the material to be 1500 years old- so there you have it- it must be true.
It looks like some people still have "issues" with the Frankish victory.
Stafford, who works in Golden, is an authority on the extraction of collagen, the protein used in radiocarbon dating, from fossil remains. Stafford's extraction techniques and modern atomic accelerators allowed the team to date the ancient collagen with much greater precision than past tests.
Combining the new radiocarbon dates with previous ages they considered reliable, Waters and Stafford assembled a new Clovis time range: 13,125 to 12,925 calendar years ago.
Must have been liberals.
Don't pollute the thread with ignorance.
" Previously, archaeologists thought Clovis arrived in North America about 13,600 years ago and vanished about 12,900 years ago. If Clovis hunters weren't the first Americans, then where did pre-Clovis peoples come from, and when did they arrive? That's one of the most hotly debated topics in archaeology.
Some researchers suggest the earliest American explorers sailed boats from northeastern Asia, then navigated down the West Coast, beginning 20,000 or more years ago."
They have traced a similar type point and made the argument that it is related. That is one of the argument points of the two different scientific camps...depending on which argument you believe.
The GEICO gentlemen????
The "Clovis" people were almost certainly NOT the first humans to occupy the Americas. There is genealogical evidence that some of the first migrants came to SOUTH America, perhaps of the same racial stock as the Polynesians that had previously spread from New Zealand, and points like Tahiti, over most of the islands of the South Pacific, and may have been the mysterious occupants of Easter Island.
After all, they were excellent navigators, using nothing but the stars and dead reckoning. Sail east, Central and South America are awfully hard to miss.
does scott's ex -girl friend have a massage parlor there ?
Always the focus on Asia as the origin of Clovis. Why couldn't this "technology" have come from across the Atlantic instead of the Pacific?
New Mexico, obviously......
Getting harder and harder to tell who are true "Native Americans". IE: We got here first so we're special.
Just about every empire we know of from 2000 BC on traded extensively with America.
may have been the mysterious occupants of Easter Island...
lol- yep- pointing out obvious errors is 'poluting' lol- gotcha- don't question the dogma- understood-
He's still limiting his thinking. Who says that they all came from Asia? If you allow for the use of watercraft, as happened in Australia 20,000 years earlier, then they could have come from many different places.
One interesting theory involves the Solutrean culture from what is now France. Solutrean stone tools look more like Clovis tools than do anything in Asia. If we assume that Clovis technology was developed from something earlier, then nothing in Asia seems to fit as a predecessor. This particular European technology, however, does look like a "pre-Clovis" design.
Our ancestors were far more mobile than we give them credit for.
Hey Sid, Manny & Diego ("Ice Age"), these are the people that hunted you.
France. Solutrean stone tools look more like Clovis tools than do anything in Asia..
Traveling across the Atlantic by boat seems very possible.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Calico: A 200,000-year Old Site In The Americas?
ASA On Line | unknown
Posted on 12/17/2001 5:22:22 PM EST by blam
Immigrants From The Other Side (Clovis Is Solutrean?)
CSFA | 11-3-2003 | Dennis Sanford
Posted on 11/02/2003 7:11:21 PM EST by blam
Iberia, Not Siberia
Team Atlantis | 12-6-2000 | Michael A Arbuthnot
Posted on 12/21/2003 12:48:22 PM EST by blam
The Solutrean Solution--Did Some Ancient Americans Come from Europe?
Clovis and Beyond | 1999 | Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley
Posted on 09/24/2004 10:31:55 PM EDT by SunkenCiv
Stone Age Columbus
BBC | Dec 15, 2005 | BBC programme summary
Posted on 12/15/2005 10:19:43 AM EST by ASA Vet
First Americans May Have Been European
LiveScience.com | 2/19/06 | Bjorn Carey
Posted on 02/20/2006 12:08:52 AM EST by anymouse
New, stronger koolaid being passed around somewhere?
Points? Heck, we have their heads. See below:
"The oldest human remains found in the Americas were recently "discovered" in the storeroom of Mexico's National Museum of Anthropology. Found in central Mexico in 1959, the five skulls were radiocarbon dated by a team of researchers from the United Kingdom and Mexico and found to be 13,000 years old. They pre-date the Clovis culture by a couple thousand years, adding to the growing evidence against the Clovis-first model for the first peopling of the Americas."
Of additional significance is the shape of the skulls, which are described as long and narrow, very unlike those of modern Native Americans.
The recently aired documentary on NOVA (PBS), "America's Stone Age", examined just this possibility, among others.
What was demonstrated conclusively is that many other groups of humans on the American continent could have been here as long as 30,000 years ago.
That part doesn't bother me at all. They can think themselves as special as the want, no problem.
I do have a problem with the ignorant savages who couldn't even invent the wheel or written language, deciding that they are entitled to dictate the direction and means of science forever, based on their quaint superstitions and exaggerated sense of worth.
I prefer the Splenda version of Crystal Light.
Probably not for very long.
How did you reach that conclusion? Radiocarbon dating has been reliable to 50,000 years and beyond for sometime now.
I do have some very old relatives there! LOL!
Facts? Naw, that's too radical and requires too much thinking... Besides, it might affect some professors' income stream from self-authored textbook sales.
"Always the focus on Asia as the origin of Clovis. Why couldn't this "technology" have come from across the Atlantic instead of the Pacific?"
Well, it probably could have, but there are problems with crossing the Atlantic versus the Pacific.
For starters, Alaska and Siberia practically touch, so even though it would still take boats, there is no point in a crossing from Asia to the Americas that anybody ever had to get out of sight of land.
Now, granted, the Polynesians, in particular, threw caution to the wind and voyaged in tiny little boats and colonized far from the sight of land - Hawaii for instance and, apparently, the West Coast of the Americas at some point.
But there isn't a record of there being OTHER seafaring peoples that brave! The Mediterraneans hugged the coast. It is not possible to cross the Atlantic staying within sight of land, and the only place where land is even relatively close is the UK/Iceland/Greeland gaps (the GIUK Gap). And THAT is far north, and cold and icy as hell. The Vikings managed this, but certainly in the thousands of years of Western history since Rome and Greece, there isn't much reason to believe anybody else did it.
Stone Age Polynesians crossing the Central Pacific is brave, but not impossible, because the central Pacific is, well, largely PACIFIC. More importantly, it's WARM. Those Polynesians could dip their paddles and indeed their whole bodies right in that water. Stone age hunters of mammoths and seals walking through the cold and bridging with skin boats a small water gap they could see across is eminently plausible.
But the waters between Iceland and Scotland, or Greenland and Iceland? You can't see across them. Not even close. It's a long, long, long way. The water is ROUGH. This ain't the Pacific tropics but the North Atlantic, which isn't warm even in the summer. Granted there's the Gulf Stream. Could they follow that? Without sails, paddling AGAINST the current? Maybe. It'd be very hard though, and though warm, it's not THAT warm.
Crossing the North Atlantic isn't crossing the Pacific. It's a lot harder and nastier and colder. Doing it on the broad North Atlantic where it isn't cold would have been simply impossible. I suppose the crossing from Saharan Africa to Brazil was possible, though far, but there isn't evidence that Blacks did it.
The only place it could have really been done would have been across the GIUK Gap, and that's frigid, and violent weather, and there are no way-stations on the way. The Vikings were a lot higher tech than the stone agers, and the passage was not trivial for them, with their sails.
Possible, still? Sure.
But not as likely as the Asian crossing.
Ieatfrijoles was born in Clovis NM. Stay down. I know you were all dying to know that.
Made famous Feb. 11, 2001 by the Post Inaugural Victory Brunch filmed by CSPAN
Similar to the treatment, but on a smaller scale, the global warming skeptics are receiving today.
It is possible to walk across, even now.
Is it possible to walk across because they freeze over?
So, Russia and America literally TOUCH, at least some times during the year?
well no- that is radio-carbon age- not 'real age' real age breaks down to a mere 4,000 to 7,000 year accuracy for carbon dating regardless of the methods used for carbon 14 detection- for older dates, science has to go to other controversial and innacurate dating methods that have problems all their own. A well known researcher said that "If creationists got their hands on the 14 points of assumptions that dating relies on, they'd have quite a case." Unfortunately for him though- Folks did get their hands on this info
Yes. A few years ago a couple of crazies attempted to walk to Siberia and were arrested as soon as they entered Russian territory because of lack of visas.
I doubt that it could have been polynesians. They reached Easter Island, the most eastern island they settled, less than 2000 years ago.
Not saying that it wasn't done by boat people, but it definitely wasn'e the Polynesians that island hopped across the Pacific.
Sorry, I was a history major before the Air Force.
Oh, I would agree that crossings from Asia Eastward make the most plausible sense but in modern times it has been shown that African fisherman can end up on the shores of South America by accident. I've even read an account of Inuit people ending up in Labrador as fantastic as that sounds.
It may be that we will never know the true extent of migrations and it could be that people came here from all directions in the past.