Coarse grained Clovis

[BenjaminEble]

NC Cultural Resources Newsroom New Archaeological Discoveries at Town Creek Indian Mound Prove Humans Lived There 3,000 Years Earlier Than Historians Thought

[Indianasmith]

It's a bit rough, but any Clovis is a good Clovis!

[Aboman]

A very significant Clovis for that site! Town Creek has been excavated for over 70 years, and that is the first and only Paleo artifact found there.
My favorite artifact from Town Creek mound is a fine stone maskette found in the plaza area in front of the mound.

[MikeE]

Having worked a few sites with professional crews and mixed groups...I have some concerns. Its way too big to be missed, if proper excavation practices are being applied, and though it appears to be valid because of the under-lying structural evidence, screen found objects are not complete evidence thats a paleo structure. sorry I need more proof. mike

[Cluton]

Atifacts are missed all the time! That's when sites are reopened for study, they still find stuff missed! I believe it could be missed, in the sand where we are, artifacts move all time in the shifting soil! I've honestly seen arrowpoints and paleo stuff come out very close!

[Cap]

I really doubt that Paleo-Indians were really at Town Creek Mound.


Paleo- Indians at Town Creek Mounds?
- It is only one point, likely some later Indian FOUND the Clovis and took it home and it got left like all the other points.
- Paleo-Indians were NOMADIC, it even states that in the article. So why would they be settled right there?
-If they just found it at a random part of the site (not in a mound or structure) you could say it was simply lost hunting by a Paleo-Indian and Town Creek Mounds just happened to be there.

[mbrown1833]

cap, i respect the insight; however i think you should review your points.

if one native group inhabited the area, why wouldnt another?
just because they were nomadic didn't mean they didn't settle for small portions of time. besides, the point looks a type of stone native in that area. meaning they could have been utilizing local stone types while being kept over.
the article isnt saying clovis peoples were there when the mounds were.

articles like these are more fun than interesting.

[Cap]

Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What we each would say probably wouldn't change the other's views, but I'm weird and simply like arguing.

"New Archaeological Discoveries at Town Creek Indian Mound Prove Humans Lived There 3,000 Years Earlier Than Historians Thought"

But it just seems to me with only the title that...

- They imply that Humans were at the Town Creek Mounds "3,000 Years Earlier Than Historians Thought". But "lived there" may not refer to the mounds but I think it does.


- Yes, the Paleo-Indians may have settled there for a little while after a hunt or may have passed through and stayed there awhile. But considering how long that place has been excavated, and with only one Clovis coming out then how long would they have stayed there?
- I don't think a single point can prove that much. Because if there was a full scale village wouldn't more Clovis' be found?
-I'm not entirely sure how the "local material" thing fits into this. Please explain?

[mootsman]

Maybe I'm missing something. Just because the site was occupied 13K years ago by the Clovis culture doesn't imply that any of the known structures were anywhere near that old. At the Ocmulgee Mounds in Macon GA, a Mississippian culture, there is a nice clovis in the museum that was found during excavations. I think the simplest explanation is that it was simply discarded or lost their during Clovis times. That being a more likely explanation than it being rediscovered by a later culture -- although that is certainly plausible.

[Cap]

"Recent archaeological excavations at Town Creek Indian Mound State Historic Site have uncovered evidence that man lived at the site as far back as 13,000 years ago, some 3,000 years earlier than previously thought."

I pretty much agree with that mootsman, but the article states "lived at the site" which would mean the site was around during Paleolithic times. Correct or am I reading that wrong? May be just a mis-wording. But that is not really the problem I have with the article. My problem is, how can the archaeologists get all of this from a single point? Did they even consider other possibilities?