Upcoming Book Alert

[uniface]

Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley

Our long-awaited book for the University of California Press is in final edit [scheduled for release in autumn 2011]. We have made numerous presentations in public and academic venues throughout North America, South America, Western Europe and even polar Siberia. Dennis and I published a summary of the theory in World Archaeology in December 2004. This was followed 1n 2005 in World Archaeology by a rebuttal by Straus, Meltzer and Goebel. Then in 2006 in World Archaeology Dennis and I published our response. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to make these available on this web page as they are in copyright.

The "Clovis First" and "Beringia Only" theories have been crumbling for years, but for many of us are now totally collapsed. There is now overwhelming direct evidence for pre-Clovis occupation of the American continents, and virtually no direct evidence that the progenitors of Clovis came from Siberia. We contend that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates southwestern Europe, specifically the Ice Age Solutrean Culture of France and Spain, as the source of the people that developed into Clovis.

[uniface]

Interesting (long) interview :

Immigrants From The Other Side (Clovis Is Solutrean?)

[silver lake]

Yep, long but very interesting thanks.

[Mojave]

OK, I’ll bite again because I’m bored. All the respect in world to Stanford and Bradley, but here are a few thoughts that have me perplexed.
Some quotes:
“The "Clovis First" and "Beringia Only" theories have been crumbling for years” – welcome to last week
“There is now overwhelming direct evidence for pre-Clovis occupation of the American continents” – Germans bomb moon…
“and virtually no direct evidence that the progenitors of Clovis came from Siberia” – hmmmm, that is a loaded statement. We are now talking about Clovis-PROGENITORS, not the first Americans.
“We contend that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates southwestern Europe, specifically the Ice Age Solutrean Culture of France and Spain, as the source of the people that developed into Clovis” – They contend? Overwhelming evidence doesn’t require one to “contend.”

More quotes from the Freerepublic.com reference (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1013315/posts):

“Even before 1997, when a panel of authorities inspected the Monte Verde site in Chile and conceded that radiocarbon-dated evidence of human occupation predates the earliest Clovis sites in North America by 1,000 years (which makes it difficult to defend the theory of a north-to-south population movement), Smithsonian archaeologist Dennis Stanford was looking in a different direction for the origin of the first people that entered America. He was looking not west to Asia, but east to Europe.”

“The Asian upper-Paleolithic weapons that Stanford and Bradley found, however, were made using a microblade technology, where tiny blades struck from wedge-shaped cores of stone were inset into long, narrow rods of bone, antler, or ivory. When Far East craftsmen tried to make bifacial tools, the result was relatively crude implements (quite thick in cross section, compared with exquisitely thin Clovis points) and frequently bi-pointed.”

“Everything I found in Alaska that was fluted was post-Clovis in age. There was no technology he considered pre-Clovis.”

“Nowhere in Asia did Stanford and Bradley find the ancestor of the Clovis point.”

“They reasoned that if the first immigrants were Asian, they must have brought with them their inset-microblade manufacturing process, in which case there must exist evidence of a transition to Clovis technology. So far, however, nothing resembling an intermediate form between inset microblades and a knapped biface has been found in North America.”

So,…
1. Far Eastern UP folks made “thick bi-pointed” points…
2. El Jobo points are “thick bi-pointed” points…
3. Monte Verde is pre-Clovis…
4. Monte Verde is El Jobo…
But there is no technology in the Far East that is pre-Clovis??? No contradictions here I suppose.

Oh, and on microblades, they existed in North America right alongside blades:
http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/p34microblademoosecreek.htm
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/arctic_anthropology/v047/47.1.younie.pdf
http://www.uaf.edu/anthro/potter-files/radiocarbon.pdf
http://www.ele.net/arctic_artifacts/ThumbNails.htm
I could go on. Google it.
The basis of the argument is that anything pre-Clovis MUST look like Clovis. WHY? If El Jobo is widely accepted to be pre-Clovis, why is it so hard to accept it is pre-Clovis??? That really sounds like a dumb question.
Why look for pre-Clovis as something that EVOLVED into Clovis, when pre-Clovis technologies have already been identified and widely accepted???
This is the same old argument about some Clovis-first conspiracy that refuses to consider a “Clovis progenitor”.
Are they looking for this Clovis progenitor or are they looking for pre-Clovis??
Those have become two distinctly different questions.
It is a self-fulfilling prophesy that our fascination with the “Clovis Point” has taken us off the deep end. What possible relevance is there to pre-Clovis technologies if one only focuses on the progenitors of Clovis. They (Stanford/Bradley) are precluding exactly what they seek to prove,…it seems.
Sorry for the ramble. Maybe it’ll make sense to me after a couple brews…

[cgode]

Hmmmm.....all valid points mojave and it's good to question one's motives......there has always been people out to prove something they believe in and find a way to prove it through their interpretation of the available evidence.....but also remember.....the earth was flat once.

[Rick doninger]

Why look for pre-Clovis as something that EVOLVED into Clovis, when pre-Clovis technologies have already been identified and widely accepted???


I do agree with you on this point Mo. Lithic technologies older than Clovis have been identified all over the world. The upper paleolithic, wherever it is found, is pretty much the same and very recognizable and identifiable up to and including Solutrian. I wonder if Stanford and Bradley expect to find something pre-clovis that has never been seen before ANYWHERE.
The early upper paleo was preceeded by the middle paleo which was preceeded by the lower paleo. All of which are technologies well documented and identifiable wherever they are found and generally the same. The Middle paleolithic industries of say Israel are the same as the Middle paleolithic in France or Africa. So one could reasonably assume that if older pre-clovis technologies do exist here they would look like the pre-clovis aged technologies that are already well known. If Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill are pre-clovis( and I am not doubting it) then the technology should be an identifiable early upper or middle paleolithic technology that is already known.
Unless we have a unique preclovis tech that has never been seen before anywhere in the world (which I seriously doubt)
JMO, but if we have a pre-clovis technology present here then I believe that it will be unambiguous,clearly identifiable in every respect..Core prep, reduction method and system, and tools that result from such a system present. The only referrences we have to go by in the way of pre-clovis technologies are the ones that have already been found , dated, and documented in other parts of the world.If those industries are here too then chances are they are pre-clovis just as elsewhere. Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill are not producing an "identifiable" pre-clovis "industry" yet, unless I have missed that......JMHO

[Mojave]

Well I'm starting to think these guys are not looking for the first Americans, they are looking for anything they can publish on Clovis. We have an incredible appetite for anything with the word "Clovis" in the title. We are obsessed with it. It is marketable.
Think about it.
They all agree Jobo (thick bi-point) is pre-Clovis
They look for anything pre-Clovis in Asia and all they find are these thick bi-points, and declare there is no pre-Clovis technology there...

This is how they are now looking for Clovis-progenitors. They are really just looking for more Clovis. They are promoting the "Clovis-First" paradigm (while simultaneously criticizing the same conspiracy) by default in ignoring what is really ...pre-Clovis.

We have pre-Clovis, it is called JOBO.
Why look for pre-Clovis?
Why not look for pre-Jobo, where (using their own logic) has its "progenitor" all over Asia,...and Europe too for that matter?

[Cannonman17]

Here we go again...

[joshuaream]

I think it will be interesting to see what they've put together; they've already spelled out their hypothesis and a theory now we should hopefully see some detailed research and data.

I don't really buy what i've seen so far, but both authors are worth a read.

[knife river]

Originally Posted by joshuaream

I think it will be interesting to see what they've put together; they've already spelled out their hypothesis and a theory now we should hopefully see some detailed research and data.

There's some stuff coming that will be hard for anyone but the most Hrdlicka-inspired doubter to deny. These are exciting times!