Today, the journal Science published an article by Ted Goebel, Michael Waters, and Dennis H. O'Rourke, arguing that the Clovis first argument is dead in the water.
Excavation of the Schaefer mammoth in Wisconsin, which is thought by archaeologists to date to about 14,500 years ago.
Photo Credit: Courtesy D. Joyce and Science
I'm not going to argue too strenuously against this--I've thought that was true since the Monte Verde discovery, but the summary in Science is well worth noting, and it will be really interesting to see what the fallout is. Basically, Goebel, Waters and O'Rourke summarize the archaeological and genetic (mtDNA) evidence and conclude that somebody else got here first.
Here's the evidence they summarize:
- Clovis has been recently redated to 12.0-12.8 kya (kya is archaeo-tech speak for 'thousand years ago'), making it centuries younger than the late-glacial complexes of Alaska.
- Fairly secure sites predating Clovis have been found in Chile (Monte Verde, 14.6), Wisconsin (Schaefer and Hebior, 14.8-14.2), Pennsyvlania (Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 15.2-13.4 ka), Florida (Page-Ladson, 14.4 ka), and Oregon (Paisley Cave, 14.1 ka). (The most commonly accepted dates are listed for Monte Verde and Meadowcroft, both of which have older dates associated with them).
- Skeletal analysis indicates uncontroversially that fully modern humans populated the Americas, and fully modern humans arrived in Asia no earlier than 40,000 years ago.
- Molecular evidence implies a single population left Siberia and headed into the Americas between 30 and 13 ka.
Clovis bifaces in place in the excavation of the Gault Clovis site in Texas, dating to about 13,000 years ago.
Photo Credit: Image courtesy of M. Waters and Science
Based on these standing assumptions in the record, Goebel and colleagues argue that colonization of the Americas occurred first about 15,000 years ago, immediately after the Pacific coast became deglaciated. The first Americans were diversified hunter-fishers and used boats, dispersing along the coasts for at least 1,000 years. Clovis, the big-game hunters of mammoths and mastodons, and may be descended from these original Americans, or may represent a second disperal from Beringia.
- Goebel, Ted, Michael R. Waters, and Dennis H. O’Rourke 2008 The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in the Americas. Science 319 1497-1502.
- Gault Site information (lots of good photos here
- Monte Verde
I'll keep my eyes open for comments around the blog-o-sphere, science news and in the academic press.
Comments
Very nicely summarized.
I’ve been tracking these developments for some time. Genetic and linguistic evidence also raise serious questions about the Clovis-first hypothesis.
For a summary of recent news, see my web site at http://anasaziadventure.com/anasazi_news.html
What was interesting to me about these reports was not that they announced an end to “clovis-first,” but that the tone (of at least the reports, haven’t read the original article yet) was instead to “announce” that the Americas were populated much later than was previously thought.
For example: “A new study has sparked debate over the colonization of the Americas, suggesting that the bulk of the region wasn’t settled until as late as 15,000 years ago.”
http://www.andhranews.net/Intl/2008/March/14/America-37307.asp
So which is it, surprise that the Americas were populated so early, or so late?
And still, it is a wonder – if people first came here around 15 kya (especially with such a small founding population) – how they populated and developed such geographically diverse sites so quickly… must have been a mad dash from Beringia to Monte Verde. Is that even demographically possible?
They’re using the migration-by-canoe argument that we’ve seen before. Jody Hey wrote a paper describing the tiny founder population (70) it would actually take to populate the continents:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/clovispreclovis/a/hey.htm
I’m not sure any of this is a great surprise (although I missed the paper that was published earlier this year), but it’s a nice summary of the evidence to date, anyway.
most preclovis sites to date seem to be lacking in unambiguous tools. a recent find in southern indiana may help. an amatuer collector has put together what appears to be a full blown lithic industry comprised of what appears to be acheulean and mousterian tools. the workshop had been revealed due to erosian and consists of hand axes, points, scrapers, burins,bone tools, backed knives, lavellois cores and flake tools. using Bordes typology as a referrence guide, an unbelievable display is being assembled that may indicate that neanderthals were also here prior to the clovis culture. being a man with few resources and little financial means he has hopes that after the collection is announced and shown, that professionals in the field of lithic analysis may offer assistance in substantiating the artifacts. the tools are in pristine condition and are very definable in regard to style and typology. although no controlled dig has been possible yet, the possibility of a site that had been occupied long term by middle paleolithic culture certainly should not be ignored. this collection could put to rest the preclovis debate and serve as a referrence collection for future discoveries. time will tell, but in regard to a clearly identifiable lithic industry and a specific technology exhibited….this is it….you heard it first!
Thanks for the update on this heated debate
I have had an interest in the Clovis/Monte Verde debate since my intro to archaeology class
thanks to the olmecs it is now my concentration in an anthropology major
The piece of evidence I find most interesting is a unique DNA marker found exclusively only in a particular region of China and shows up in both places
A nova video-mystery of the first americans starts with kennewick man and highlites this fascinating scenario
iceman
Thanks for an excellent summary of a very complex issue. I just finished reading the original, along with the article in PLoS ONE, “A Three-stage Colonization Model for the Peopling of the Americas” by Andrew Kitchen, Michael Miyamoto and Connie Mulligan. Taking the two articles together shows how fast developments in the filed are moving. Quite an exciting time in this subject. Please keep us up to date.
Dear Kris,
I’m tabula rosa as far as degrees in the field, I only have an abiding love of the field, & a plethora of questions.
I told Shirley Powell, a neighbor of mine who’s written several Archeology books, about a huge Dine’ rug that I’ve seen which cleary shows a group of Anasazi (Navajo = ancient enemy) hunters who are locked in mortal combat, w/ what appears to be Ceratopsian (horn face). There are also what appears 2-B cyads growing, or palms woven into this very old tapestry, that is owned by one of the early artifact trading families 2 the 4-Corners region.
Shirley told me about the idea held by a few in the community, that the Clovis hypothesis may be wrong.
That was probably 10 yrs. ago, & it really opened my eyes as to the possibilities~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanx for the article Kris, it only reinforces my belief.
Peace out.
Chuck, I’m sorry but—people on the American continents 15,000 years ago is all you can get out of the new findings, not anywhere near the Cretaceous period of 145 million years ago.
Read up on the Stone Age and you’ll see that the earliest humans (what paleontologists talk about humans) evolved about 2.5 million years ago, and we’re talking about Australopithecus here, not what you would call Anasazi. And long long after the dinosaurs were gone.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/pathroughpd/g/paleolithic.htm
Sorry!
Kris