Pre-Clovis article...

[Mud Hawk]

Might have already been posted here, but here is a good article for Pre-Clovis in North America. The article discusses two hot sites, Meadowcroft Rockshelter (PA) and Buttermilk Creek (TX). Dr. Adavasio is in charge of the Archeology Department at my alma mater:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/sc...pagewanted=all

I find it interesting that they mention smaller unfluted points that predate the Clovis by a few thousand years as well as the technique of optically stimulated luminescence.

AND... let's repect eachothers views... this post isn't a boxing ring.

[cgode]

Looked like a good article mud.......until I touched something on this iPhone contraption and "poof"!

[dogteam]

There is a site just west of me that has been apparently yielding pre-Clovis material for years...but as it's being unearthed by an "amateur", it's been dismissed by archaeologists who insist "Clovis First". Anyone interested can google "Chobot site pre clovis" and that should bring up some stuff. One of these days I'll have to go see his collection...

[River Man]

Very informative, thanks for the link. The early dates from Chile tell me these people moved south during the glacial periods then migrated back north later.

[mootsman]

Good summary. Thanks. Will the last Clovis-was-first believer please bring the flag on the way out?

[joshuaream]

Originally Posted by River Man

Very informative, thanks for the link. The early dates from Chile tell me these people moved south during the glacial periods then migrated back north later.

I used to think that, but when you see how far south they went they would have bumped into the ice-age at that end of the world. And gone through glaciers in the mountains in Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru. (Heck, there are still some huge Glaciers near these sites.) They would have had to come in and move fast in a straight line down to Chile (almost passing by perfectly nice habitation areas with lots of game.) And then turn around a come back again.

The more I look at it, I think their was a Pre-pre-Clovis group that was here significantly earlier than our Pre-Clovis dates. Or thousands of people came streaming through and scattered.

A single, healthy group could have walked/rafted strait down from Alaska to Chile relatively quickly. But to come to the number of sites, spread east to west and north to south you need more than the couple thousand years that currently split solid Pre-clovis from Clovis.

[eddies]

very cool. thanks for the link

[rokdok]

"Earliest credible site?" Hardly.Dr Barbara Purdy, professor emeritus U. of Fla. described a stratified site in Florida (C.C.A.)Twice which contained tools made with levallois reduction strategy dated with similar technique to over 25000 years old. North American professionals are , in my opinion, for the most part like our national congress, they neither support or believe each other, so how can they expect us to have any confidence in their claims?

[Mud Hawk]

Lithics "roll downhill" Rok. I don't think anyone would readily disregard the current pre-clovis "scholarly debate" but that reply is pretty "hardline". It goes both ways and is why any of these pre-clovis posts get dropped and go absolutely nowhere. Same scenario/reference you just described above but on an "avocational" level... ie. here.

[uniface]

Well, either data are data, or they're not.