From the article: The (Pre) History of Clovis
There are a lot of questions about Clovis: Was Clovis first or were there others on the continent first? Does the "black mat" theory hold water? Where did Clovis come from? What do you think? Share Your Reason
Agree with the Black Mat theory
- ScienceDaily (June 11, 2012) — An 18-member international team of researchers that includes James Kennett, professor of earth science at UC Santa Barbara, has discovered melt-glass material in a thin layer of sedimentary rock in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Syria. According to the researchers, the material -- which dates back nearly 13,000 years -- was formed at temperatures of 1,700 to 2,200 degrees Celsius (3,100 to 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit), and is the result of a cosmic body impacting Earth.
- —Guest Henri Roquas
K.Kris daily newsletter khmer empire
- As an armchair digger, I have the chance to cross sort information presented by others, and your site is a great place for daily news and stimulation. I wish to present a idea. The technique that the Cambodians are using to restore their temples could be the same as the inca stone wall builders. The Cambodians put iron rods in to the stone, lift it up and swing it until it grinds to shape, The Inca had no iron so they strapped logs to the stone and did the same. the support knobs are still on many stones. On more important structures the knobs would be pounded off. Thank you for such a stimulating site.
- —dullspade
to Mike
- The presence of elephants and camels in North America is backed up by fossil finds. They are no longer native to this continent, but were once present. The ancient 'elephants' are more traditionally known as Mammoths and the 'camels' are called Camelops. I suspect the names were changed in this article to make identification easier for the uninformed. Today, there are no evolutionary ancestors of the North American Mammoths, but the Camelops are likely related to the Llamas that populate South America.
- —Guest Dan
Elephants and camels in North America?
- This article states that Clovis people hunted camels and elephants, which certainly are not native to North America.
- —Guest Brian
I do not know if I agree or not
- I do not know if I agree with this article or not, But I think I know where some of the impact sites are that killed most of the people living in North America 10 or 12 thousand years ago. I think this area was pelted by meteorites sometime in the past. I would like to know how to get my theory validated. I can send pics or physically take you to the location of what I believe are impact sites.
- —Guest Mike H
Don't state what you don't know
- What I've always found discouraging about archeology is that when new knowledge is discovered, the archeologists that didn't make the find act like little kids..."well, nobody else has ever discovered something like this, so it must not be true" 15 years ago all the archeologists in the world claimed that the earliest humans stepped foot in the Americas was 11 bce...until they found 14k bce fossilized rysomes on the oregon coast...advice...don't be a nay sayer unless you have proof...you will probably end up looking the fool...."the earth is flat"
- —Guest skeptic
WHAT -???
- "The Leakeys chose the rift valley region for their findings mainly because it includes overlapping populations of pygmy and other small statured peoples with the seven to eight foot cultures in the same regions." WHAT???
- —Chipolaman
I agree with the evidence
- Why are folks so quick to make a pronouncement of an opinion? It seems to me that we don't have all the facts yet, and saying that you believe in a Clovis or Pre-Clovis theory is like saying you believe in God or not. We all have an opinion, many of them are quite strong, but the bottom line is that the answer is what it is, and our opinions are powerless to effect the actual truth. If there is evidence that there are sites of a certain age, my opinion is that we should do our best to find out two things before jumping to what we think is an answer... is the artifact in fact of human origin, and then if so what is the basis for dating the artifact. If it is them discovered that it is in fact pre-Clovis, then we can discuss how they could have gotten here in the first place. But to form a theory about how humans could have gotten here and then using it as a basis to validate evidence seems very to be a backwards way of thinking to me.
- —OceanReef
archaeology
- I agree with articel becouse has taken intersting subject
- —Guest ahmed nassr
archaeology
- I agree becouse we have alot of culture distribution from place to anther further I think even the Landscape and enviroment change every in the past has carried out to change
- —Guest ahmed nassr
I disagree
- I disagree because trying to lump all individuals of a given time into a single size (hieght) range is terribly inaccurate. The Leakeys chose the rift valley region for their findings mainly because it includes overlapping populations of pygmy and other small statured peoples with the seven to eight foot cultures in the same regions. They understood that with the common faulting and volcanic uphevalas there the buried remains of these peoples would be scattered amidst disturbed ground sites that they could manipulate to develop a chain of descent that has no historical basis and create their own desired timeline. All of the found skeletal remains can be duplicated in current populations because of the tremendous range of body diversity.
- —Guest Weldon
