Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evidence Aquits Clovis People Of Ancient Killings, Archaeologists Say
University Of Washington ^ | 2-25-2003 | Joel Schwartz

Posted on 02/25/2003 4:46:54 PM PST by blam

Contact: Joel Schwarz
joels@u.washington.edu
206-543-2580
University of Washington

Evidence acquits Clovis people of ancient killings, archaeologists say

Archaeologists have uncovered another piece of evidence that seems to exonerate some of the earliest humans in North America of charges of exterminating 35 genera of Pleistocene epoch mammals. The Clovis people, who roamed large portions of North America 10,800 to 11,500 years ago and left behind highly distinctive and deadly fluted spear points, have been implicated in the exterminations by some scientists.

Now researchers from the University of Washington and Southern Methodist University who examined evidence from all suggested Clovis-age killing sites conclude that there is no proof that people played a significant role in causing the extinction of Pleistocene mammals in the New World. Climate change, not humans, was the culprit.

"Of the 76 localities with asserted associations between people and now-extinct Pleistocene mammals, we found only 14 (12 for mammoth, two for mastodon) with secure evidence linking the two in a way suggestive of predation," write Donald Grayson of the UW and David Meltzer of SMU in the current issue of the Journal of World Prehistory. "This result provides little support for the assertion that big-game hunting was a significant element in Clovis-age subsistence strategies. This is not to say that such hunting never occurred: we have clear evidence that proboscideans (mammoths and mastodons) were taken by Clovis groups. It just did not occur very often."

To locate Clovis-age sites that suggested hunting of now-extinct mammals Grayson and Meltzer used FAUNMAP, an electronic database that documents the distribution of mammals in North America during the last 40,000 years. The search excluded areas above the North American ice sheet and sites that were pre- and post-Clovis because it is the Clovis people who have been targeted by proponents of the so-called "overkill" hypothesis.

This search turned up 75 locations in the United States and one in Canada that Grayson and Meltzer evaluated. Forty-seven of the sites did not exhibit minimally acceptable evidence showing an association between artifacts and extinct mammals. Most of these sites were rejected because they were not sufficiently described or documented.

"In many cases there is no published material, and when something is not published we are not able to weigh evidence of a human connection," said Grayson. "In other cases there was just an anecdotal suggestion of artifacts or remains, or there were very sketchy drawings."

Of the remaining 29 sites only 14 survived closer study. To determine this, the researchers looked for settings in which artifacts and animal remains were so closely associated that there was little doubt that their relationship was not accidental. In addition, Grayson and Meltzer searched published evidence for signs of human hunting and butchering and processing. This included cases where projectile points were found among bones or where there was solid evidence of human-caused bone breakage or cut marks.

Mammoth and mastodon bones were the most commonly found remains at the 14 confirmed predation sites, but horse, camel and bison bones also were identified. However, Grayson said there was no evidence that the two horse bones and one camel bone, all from extinct genera, came from animals that had been hunted by humans. There was quite a bit of evidence of human predation of bison, but this genus did not become extinct.

The survey produced no evidence that humans hunted the 33 other genera of extinct animals, which also include sloths, tapirs, bears and sabertooth cats. In fact, only 15 genera can be shown to have survived beyond 12,000 years ago and into Clovis times, said Grayson.

"There is absolutely no evidence that Clovis people were involved with 33 of the extinct genera. Where's the spear point sticking out of a camel or a ground sloth? If you can kill a mammoth you can kill a lumbering ground sloth. Clovis people absolutely did not chase these now-extinct animals relentlessly across the North American landscape," he said.

"The bottom line is that we need to stop wasting our time looking at people as the cause of these extinctions. We suspect the extinctions were driven by climate change. We need to know what aspects of climate change were involved. We have to tackle this species by species, one at a time, and look at the interaction of each species with the climate and vegetation on the ground."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: archaeologists; archaeology; bison; catastrophism; clovis; clovisimpact; cloviskillings; davidmeltzer; evidence; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; haidagwaii; history; maunderminimum; nagpra; pleistocene; preclovis; precolumbian; solarflares; youngerdryas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last
To: blam
I don't think people did it either. On the other hand, I have never been able to get a clear picture in my mind how a meteor or something could be so selective in its kill. Consequently, your theory of a cross-species virus targeting specific animal groups makes sense.
61 posted on 02/26/2003 1:46:39 AM PST by JudyB1938 (It's a wild world. There's a lot of bad and beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
That human existence all over the world coincideds with the extinctin of megas fauna should end the debate.

Not really. Correlation and causation are not the same thing. For instance, a sudden influx of money has caused simultaneous booms in construction of both churches and whorehouses in some areas. Believing one to be the cause of the other is an obvious logical fallacy; an unrelated phenomenon is causing both.

62 posted on 02/26/2003 3:03:55 AM PST by merak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
Thank you for so cogently and succintly stating the case. I think anyone who studies the issue will come to the same conclusion. A freind of mine who is a research biologist with the Smithsonian said that amoung his peers there was general agreement of the human intervention causing the extinctions. The only question was that it was not politically correct.

He added an interesting twist: That the man - dog hunting team was unbeatable, especially for mega-fauna.

63 posted on 02/26/2003 4:06:13 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Why can't both arguments be true? Populations of the creatures were dwindling due to climate change, and were heading for extinction. Throw some hungry humans into the mix, and the process is sped up by a few hundred years. Basically, all the early humans did was kill off the last of a dwindling species.
64 posted on 02/26/2003 4:41:04 AM PST by vollmond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
That human existence all over the world coincideds with the extinctin of megas fauna should end the debate.

Well, it's nice to have that one settled once and for all.

65 posted on 02/26/2003 7:45:38 AM PST by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: JudyB1938; vollmond
"I don't think people did it either. On the other hand, I have never been able to get a clear picture in my mind how a meteor or something could be so selective in its kill."

When Toba blew it's top 75,000 years ago, I've seen it quoted a number of times that only 2,000-5,000 humans worldwide survived. The only difference in the statements is how many humans survived. Not once do they mention how many squirrels, grizzlies, buffalo, elephants, etc. survived.

I can believe Vollmond's idea that all humans may have done is polish off already declining populations.

I recently read that for 99% of the time that there have been humans, the average life span was about 18 years, that does not support large populations of humans. But, contrary to that, we do know that some of the oldest human skeletons ever found in the Americas (Spirit Cave Man, Kennewick Man) died in their mid-40's. The women skeletons found (Buhl Woman, Luzia) died before the age of 25.

66 posted on 02/26/2003 9:44:11 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
I wonder if something like the below article was a contributor to extinctions?

Fossil Records Show Methane In Seafloor Sediments.

67 posted on 02/26/2003 11:27:11 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: blam
> I can believe Vollmond's idea that all humans may have done is polish off already declining populations. <

I believe that's exactly what happened in the case of dinosaurs. I believe that's where the myths and legends of such creatures as the dragon of St George, the creatures in Beowolf, etc., come from - a remnant population that was still terrifying the countryside and was eventually wiped out.

As to WHY there was only a remnant population, I've never been able to figure out. So we're back full-circle as to what wiped out large critters, but not the smaller ones.

As far as the longevity of early man is concerned, I tend to believe the reason females come into menses so early is to ensure continuation of the human species. Unfortunately, that is in conflict with today's society.
68 posted on 02/26/2003 11:52:49 AM PST by JudyB1938 (It's a wild world. There's a lot of bad and beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: blam
Good for you. I was always interested in Dinosaurs and pre-history man. In college I did a paper on the stone tools Neanderthals made and learned a good deal. Although I got a C on it. Anth/Arch wasn't my major.
69 posted on 02/26/2003 6:53:29 PM PST by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JudyB1938
"I believe that's exactly what happened in the case of dinosaurs. I believe that's where the myths and legends of such creatures as the dragon of St George, the creatures in Beowolf, etc., come from - a remnant population that was still terrifying the countryside and was eventually wiped out. "

Nah. I think all the legends of dragons originate from comets. Here is what Geoffrey Of Monmouth (1100ad) said about MERLIN:

"...the star is of great magnitude and brilliance,with a single beam shining from it. At the end of this beam was a ball of fire, spread out in the shape of a dragon. From the dragon's mouth stretched forth two rays of light...the second...split up into seven smaller shafts of light. The star appeared there times, and all who saw it were struck with fear and wonder."

Ever wonder why all dragons are depicted with fire coming out their mouths? This may be the answer

This is probably the comet that split up and showered earth around 540ad and plunged the earth into the Dark Ages. The whole earth experienced a dark age at that time, not just Europe.

70 posted on 02/26/2003 7:19:43 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
Well- early humans wouldn't hunt a grizzly bear unless real hungary - there being more docile and less agressive game far more abundant. And they would be far more calory efficient in hunting- meaning they would hunt the biggest game that would produce the biggest meat yield. Taking on a mamoth or bison with a spear would be impossible. taking it on with ten spears and torches is another matter.
71 posted on 02/26/2003 8:32:33 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Taking on a mamoth or bison with a spear would be impossible. taking it on with ten spears and torches is another matter.

Best possible case, it's still a much harder way to earn a living than simply killing deer and normal game. Aside from everything else, a speared (ten or twenty spears) mammoth would be likely to die 20 miles from where you first speared it. How ya gonna carry it home?

72 posted on 02/26/2003 8:46:09 PM PST by merak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: merak
They wouldn't spear it. Mammoth hunts were organized and they followed herds. They killed them by digging trapps- and hearding them off cliffs. They had camps nearby to process the meat and store the excess in storage pits. Hunting smaller and faster game that don't heard in great numbers (like deer) would not have been done and most likely wasn't done until the mega fauna had been hunted out. East Coast modern American Indians didn't rely on deer hunting but had agriculture and practiced slash and burn farming when the first Europeons arrived. Deer hunting was supplimental- not a primary food source.
73 posted on 02/26/2003 9:00:59 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: blam
Plunged the Earth into the dark ages? China in 540 was vibrant. India was likewsie a vibrant culture. Rome and the West had been on a sharp decline for at least a two hundred years prior to 540. Only two hundred years later Islam emerged and created a robust culture that was far more advanced than Europe even whose nobility was mostly illiterate.
74 posted on 02/26/2003 9:09:08 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Read this:

The Dark Ages: Were They Darker Than We Imagined?

75 posted on 02/26/2003 9:23:23 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Catastrophic Event Preceded Dark Ages
76 posted on 02/26/2003 9:32:20 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
They wouldn't spear it. Mammoth hunts were organized and they followed herds. They killed them by digging trapps- and hearding them off cliffs. They had camps nearby to process the meat and store the excess in storage pits. Hunting smaller and faster game that don't heard in great numbers (like deer) would not have been done and most likely wasn't done until the mega fauna had been hunted out.

Sorry, that simply isn't believable. Even bison are significantly easier to kill than a mammoth would be, and there was never a shortage of them. You'd have to come up with some motive for hunting mammoths other than food.

77 posted on 02/26/2003 9:45:22 PM PST by merak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: merak
More calories per kill and less expended per kill. Mammoth hunting was a way of life well documented from the Ukraine to central Russian to Siberia and then to the Americas and the extinction from each area follows the human path. Mammoths were dead in Siberia before they died out in the "new world". Bison are faster and offer less meat than a Mammoth. And in an age when you are lucky to live to 30- I think humans were far more attuned to what was easier to kill and what would offer them the most chance for survival. In fact- Mammoth mass hunt sites are older than bison mass hunt sites.
78 posted on 02/26/2003 9:52:37 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: blam
Blam- Mayan civilization was just peaking at 540 and flourished for another 200 to 300 years at least.
79 posted on 02/26/2003 10:07:18 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
"Blam- Mayan civilization was just peaking at 540 and flourished for another 200 to 300 years at least."

You didn't read the links I provided.

80 posted on 02/26/2003 10:27:29 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson