California Islands Paleo Points

[CMD]

I posted a different link to this story in GBM's "Lunate Crescent" thread. I know nothing regarding Western typology, but thought collectors in that region would be interested in seeing these unusual points, found in a dated context as old as Clovis, but much different in style. Researchers involved with these Channel Island sites have suggested these may be true arrowheads.

BBC News - Island tool finds show early settlers' diversity

[Gibby]

Very interesting to say the least.

[Flyjunkie]

Oh Yeah baby!! right in my backyard you will find the Channel islands!! I fish at them often and always want to go ashore and hunt points, but they are off limits.
Those Points are just variations on Vandenberg contracting stems and were most likely used to hunt Sea mammals around the islands.. There are still plenty of them around the Islands today, back then there were probably 10 times as many.

I have no problems with the Points being as Old as Clovis and being soo different. You Hunted Mammoths with Clovis points. you are hunting Seals, sealoins, porpoises and Whales with those Barbed points. Both are hunting for food, but the targeted game and the hunting techniques are very different from one another.. so thus the Points used would be expected to be very different in appearance from one another...

I have a small collection of Vandebergs and it is satisfying to think they can be as old as Clovis...

Thanks for posting that Photo from the article, I have all the articles in a file, but it's always nice to see them on this Board!

[DesertWalker]

Have seen this before, and there was some disagreement over lumping these artifacts together as all being paleo or Clovis culture. This was published in Archaeology magazine last month also.

[CMD]

Certainly not difficult understanding different tool kits for different game resources. However, in this instance the researchers concerned are suggesting that the early Channel Islanders were distinct from Clovis culture as well.
These researchers fall into the general camp of those who believe there were different peoples and migration routes involved in the earliest arrival of man in the Americas. Obviously, the last chapter isn't written. I'm just very happy I lived to see the day American archaeology freed itself from "only by the Bering land bridge" and "never, ever before clovis."

I did not see Archaeology Magazine's hardcopy for last month, but their online article lacked much detail. This is the most detailed description of the sites, points, etc. that I've found online to this point, and as they state here they believe there was no connection to clovis culture. They do suggest connections to pre-clovis sites in the Great Basin:

California islands give up evidence of early seafaring: Numerous artifacts found at late Pleistocene sites on the Channel Islands

[highsierra]

Been there, hunted that! I don't for a minute believe those Channel Islands Barbs are even close to paleo. More like late archaic.

[arrow719]

Originally Posted by highsierra

Been there, hunted that! I don't for a minute believe those Channel Islands Barbs are even close to paleo. More like late archaic.

I agree.........

[Mojave]

IMO - I agree that most of them are later points. There are at least two in that picture that are different however. You are looking at two different technologies from different time periods. Similarities in outline are largely coincidence influenced by the style being driven by the same use need.
I've seen nearly identical points right alongside Clovis points, ...further inland. Unfortunately I have no pictures.
Again, just my opinion...

[Cluton]

Big perdiz!!! Man those Texan Indians got around!

[CMD]

Very interesting to hear the opinions of western collectors. Having no knowledge of Western typology, if experience western hunters tell me these points look later then paleo, that is something I cannot just dismiss.

But I can't just dismiss this study outright just yet. The study was published in "Science" a peer-reviewed and one of the most respected of scientific journals. The photo shows artifacts that were excavated at levels that were dated paleo at 3 different island sites. The 2 lead researchers were Jon Erlandson of the University of Oregon and Torben Rick of the Smithsonian.
They and the 13 other authors of the study put their reputations on the line publishing in a peer reviewed journal. Erlandson has been working on the Channel Islands for 30 years. Mistakes happen, but I would be surprised if, their research having gotten to the point of publication in "Science", the 15 authors would have gotten the single most fundamental piece of data to back their claim wrong, namely the dates they obtained excavating these 3 island sites.
If there are serious challenges to those dates from other scientists, and that may very well be the case as science operates by challenging data, I haven't seen them as yet, but that may be the case and I'm just not aware of it.
Here's a link to the study's abstract, with the names of the scientists and institutions involved:

Paleoindian Seafaring, Maritime Technologies, and Coastal Foraging on California?s Channel Islands

Not being familiar with Western typology, the points shown don't produce a "double take" reaction in me that might be the case for collectors in that region.
If the study were of an eastern site, and they were showing Woodland period points, I'd question what I was seeing and question the claims no doubt. On the other hand, I've had an interest in pre-clovis theories and sites for 30 plus years. Now that mainstream American archaeology is at last able to look both beneath and beyond clovis, I expect surprises, and a lot more surprises to come. Maybe this is one such surprise. Or maybe all 15 of these scientists have made a huge fundamental mistake that escaped the peer reviwed process of "Science". A mistake that would no doubt damage their professional reputations significantly. But I need to see peer-reviwed counter arguments since the artifacts shown in the photo were excavated at a depth where paleo period dates were obtained.