Archeology

[R. Richard]

This will bore some of the Literotica people, but the growing acceptance that the Clovis people were NOT the first Americans is a major step in understanding our heritage. Comments?

Experts doubt Clovis people were first in Americas

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clovis people, known for their distinctive spear points, likely were not the first humans in the Americas, according to research placing their presence as more recent than previously believed.

Using advanced radiocarbon dating techniques, researchers writing in the journal Science on Thursday said the Clovis people, hunters of large Ice Age animals like mammoths and mastodons, dated from about 13,100 to 12,900 years ago.

That would make the Clovis culture, known from artifacts discovered at various sites including the town of Clovis, New Mexico, both younger and shorter-lived than previously thought. Previous estimates had dated the culture to about 13,600 years ago.

These people long had been seen as the first humans in the New World, but the new dates suggest their culture thrived at about the same time or after others also in the Americas.

Michael Waters, director of Texas A&M University's Center for the Study of the First Americans, called the research the final nail in the coffin of the so-called "Clovis first" theory of human origins in the New World.

Waters said he thinks the first people probably arrived in the Americas between 15,000 and 25,000 years ago.

"We've got to stop thinking about the peopling of the Americas as a singular event," Waters said in an interview.

"And we have to start now thinking about the peopling of the Americas as a process, with people coming over here, probably arriving at different times, maybe taking different routes and coming from different places in northeast Asia."

Waters and co-author Thomas Stafford, a radiocarbon dating expert, tested samples from various Clovis archeological sites to try to get a more accurate accounting of their age. Technological advances enabled them to more precisely pinpoint dates for some Clovis sites excavated in North America.

The theory has been that the Clovis people first migrated out of northeast Asia across the Bering land bridge from Siberia into Alaska and traveled through a ice-free corridor into North America, populating that continent while their descendants journeyed into South America.

Asked who were the first people in the Americas if not the Clovis, Waters answered, "That's a good question."

"I think that's what we've got to work toward -- a new model for the peopling of the Americas, and I think we need to create a coherent model that's based on genetic data, geological evidence as well as archeological data."

 

[Guest]

Let's see, the Clovis points were found in New Mexico. That is a long, long way from the Bering Strait. I read once that migrations of people only average a 1000 feet per generation. At 20 years a generation, it took quite a few generations and a lot of time before those who crossed the land bridge's descendants arrived in New Mexico. It would only reason that one of the many offshoots from that lineage that would have occurred, would have ended up elsewhere in the Americas and have adapted to life differently.

 

[R. Richard]

Let's see, the Clovis points were found in New Mexico. That is a long, long way from the Bering Strait. I read once that migrations of people only average a 1000 feet per generation. At 20 years a generation, it took quite a few generations and a lot of time before those who crossed the land bridge's descendants arrived in New Mexico. It would only reason that one of the many offshoots from that lineage that would have occurred, would have ended up elsewhere in the Americas and have adapted to life differently.

I checked it out and the distance is perhaps 4,500 miles from the Bering Strait to Clovis, NM. The Clovis first theory seems to rest on the idea that the people who crossed the land bridge had an early copy of an ARCO road map and stuck to the main roads, proceding at a trot from the land bridge to Clovis, NM.

IMHO the people supporting the Clovis first theory need to locate that ancient ARCO road map. It will be worth a FORTUNE!

 

[gauchecritic]

I seem to recall that the first time I read about the Clovis people (some years ago) it has always (since discovery) been only a postulate and that the evidence rather suggests that they were wanderers rather than settlers.
A similar claim was made for "The Beaker Folk" in Europe, in that it was postulated that they were the original 'settlers' in England, specifically Yorkshire and their trail led across europe from the Africas. Later it was more positively suggested that these too were wanderers rather than settlers.
Ultra-nomadic I think is probably the phrase that should be associated with these kind of discoverer/settlers. (remember where you read it first).

Without any kind of 'seasonal reasoning' they would move always towards the sun (equator) as their immediate vicinities became wintered with the concommitant disappearance of game etc. They were simply emigrating instead of migrating.

 

[minsue]

And we have to start now thinking about the peopling of the Americas as a process, with people coming over here, probably arriving at different times, maybe taking different routes and coming from different places...

Logic really should have kicked in and had them thinking that way a long time ago, don't you think? The entire concept of two continents being completely populated by one group of people wandering over (and no one else ever doing the same) has always struck me as absurd.

 

[Misty_Morning]

There are some things to keep in mind here.

The earliest clovis sites are actually located in the Southeastern US. Clovis NM was just the first place where artifacts were discovered.

South America has older sites confirmed by Carbon Dating. I believe the oldest confirmed site is 32,000 years old.

Cactus Hill in VA is drawing alot of interest. Some folks believe the area was inhabited as much as 40,000 years ago. Although there is debate on this number, the site DOES predate clovis. And there are some interesting theories.

Here's a pretty cool link about Cactus Hill and another

And mitochondrial DNA studies are also blasting the clovis first theory. Here's just one of many articles about it

 

[Guest]

Logic really should have kicked in and had them thinking that way a long time ago, don't you think? The entire concept of two continents being completely populated by one group of people wandering over (and no one else ever doing the same) has always struck me as absurd.

Indeed. And I always wondered, if the only route was via Bering, then why was the most developed Nations (Aztec, Maya, Inca) in the south rather then the north where people would have been longer?

I suppose environment could account for some of that.

 

[Misty_Morning]

Indeed. And I always wondered, if the only route was via Bering, then why was the most developed Nations (Aztec, Maya, Inca) in the south rather then the north where people would have been longer?

I suppose environment could account for some of that.

Why do you assume that Central America was the most developed? Because they used stone to build whereas The Mound builders of the the Mississippi and Ohio valleys utilized earth? The mound builders also had an extensive trading network and there had been many artifacts found that originated from central America. Not too shabby.

 

[cloudy]

Why do you assume that Central America was the most developed? Because they used stone to build whereas The Mound builders of the the Mississippi and Ohio valleys utilized earth? The mound builders also had an extensive trading network and there had been many artifacts found that originated from central America. Not too shabby.

Exactly. I was going to mention Cahokia, which remained the largest populated city in North America ever until sometime in the mid 1800's, when Philadelphia finally surpassed it.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

First of all, the most recent theory is there was no such thing as the "Clovis People". These people were both european and asian groups. "Clovis" only refers to the type of tools that were made. At some point 10,000+ years ago, someone discovered that if he took a certain kind of flint or obcidian rock and struck it with a granite stone it left a sharp edge that was useful.

Over a thousand years the materials and techincs were refined to produce the fine clovis spear points, arrow heads, knives and scrapers we see in museums today. But this was not ONE people. Both the tools and the technology was traded all across the eastern seaboard and through the midwest.

Were the clovis people first? The question is meaningless. Clovis was the first technology in North America, but is not associated with any single race, tribe or people.

 

[Guest]

Misty & Cloudy, granted, I opened a kettle of worms I'm not ready to defend with regard to defining developed. Maybe I should have said, most enduring remnants of a complex civilization.

As an offshoot, most people forget the land bridge worked both ways. Horses appeared in the Americas first, and migrated to Asia, and died off here.

 

[Misty_Morning]

First of all, the most recent theory is there was no such thing as the "Clovis People". These people were both european and asian groups. "Clovis" only refers to the type of tools that were made. At some point 10,000+ years ago, someone discovered that if he took a certain kind of flint or obcidian rock and struck it with a granite stone it left a sharp edge that was useful.

Over a thousand years the materials and techincs were refined to produce the fine clovis spear points, arrow heads, knives and scrapers we see in museums today. But this was not ONE people. Both the tools and the technology was traded all across the eastern seaboard and through the midwest.

Were the clovis people first? The question is meaningless. Clovis was the first technology in North America, but is not associated with any single race, tribe or people.

This is correct Jenny. But what WAS important was being able to trace the technique of creating the Clovis point, being able to see how this information spread across the inhabitants of the continent and AT WHAT TIME. Up until the last twenty years os so...that's all we had to go on.

Personally...I'll go with the mitchondrial DNA studies. These studies show that there are as many as five distinct lines present in many American Indians. And that some of these lines have to be at least 30,000 years old. And yes, some of these lines are European.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

This is correct Jenny. But what WAS important was being able to trace the technique of creating the Clovis point, being able to see how this information spread across the inhabitants of the continent and AT WHAT TIME. Up until the last twenty years os so...that's all we had to go on.

Personally...I'll go with the mitchondrial DNA studies. These studies show that there are as many as five distinct lines present in many American Indians. And that some of these lines have to be at least 30,000 years old. And yes, some of these lines are European.

That right, Misty. The enterance and dissemination of the earliest humans on the North American continent has nothing to do with clovis. Clovis is a technology, not a social or tribal order.

The linguistic studies of the 70's show the varied european and asian peoples who first came to this continent. That's thirty years ago. It's nothing new.

The problem with DNA studies is that unless the body containing the DNA is pretty well preserved, the DNA will be deteriorated to a state that gives no valuable evidence. This means DNA collected in the desert states of New Mexico, Arizona, West Texas, Utah etc may be useful, but anything collected in "wet" states along the eastern seaboard or the northern states would be suspect.

 

[Misty_Morning]

That right, Misty. The enterance and dissemination of the earliest humans on the North American continent has nothing to do with clovis. Clovis is a technology, not a social or tribal order.

The linguistic studies of the 70's show the varied european and asian peoples who first came to this continent. That's thirty years ago. It's nothing new.

The problem with DNA studies is that unless the body containing the DNA is pretty well preserved, the DNA will be deteriorated to a state that gives not valuable evidence. This means DNA collected in the desert states of New Mexico, Arizona, West Texas, Utah etc may be useful, but anything collected in "wet" states along the eastern seaboard or the northern states would be suspect.

Sweetie, I'm not talking about DNA...I'm talking about mitochondrial DNA studies. mDNA is only passed through maternal lines. We can look at mDNA of you and me and see where we came from. We can determine when different genetic lines combined to create us.

A couple of years ago National Geographic Society had an extensive study going on. Anyone could particiapate. I did. They were working on gathering the largest database of mDNA up until this point. They really focused on isolated groups but encouraged as paople worldwide to submit samples. It will be years before the data is availabe. But I'm waiting cuz it's gonna be far fucking out.

 

[R. Richard]

There are some things to keep in mind here.

The earliest clovis sites are actually located in the Southeastern US. Clovis NM was just the first place where artifacts were discovered.

South America has older sites confirmed by Carbon Dating. I believe the oldest confirmed site is 32,000 years old.

Cactus Hill in VA is drawing alot of interest. Some folks believe the area was inhabited as much as 40,000 years ago. Although there is debate on this number, the site DOES predate clovis. And there are some interesting theories.

You have to understand that there is a group of archeologists called the "Clovis police." If you suggest that there was another group of people in the Americas predating the Clovis people, you have just committed professional suicide. Fortunately, that is breaking down.

The Clovis police fight tooth and nail to discredit anything that suggests that any other group predates Clovis. There are sites in Brazil that go back as much as 50,000 years. However, the Clovis police deny the evidence and destroy anyone who tries to defend the evidence. Similarly, the finds in VA and SC are discredited by the Clovis police.

There is a site in Chile where an Amerind village was swallowed by a bog. For wahtever reason, the chemistry of a bog preserves things. The site has been carbon dated to 13,500 years ago. Of course, the people who built the village could not have come via the land bridge.

 

[Misty_Morning]

For folks who wish to participate in the global mDNA study, here's a link

It cost $100 and you do not have to submit your results to the database.

I think everyone (especially one rather loud at times american indian but I'm gonna mention any names tom tom girl ) should at least check it out.

 

[Weird Harold]

Let's see, the Clovis points were found in New Mexico. That is a long, long way from the Bering Strait.

They're called "Clovis Points" because the first example was found near Clovis New Mexico. The first find was NOT the oldest find of Clovis technology.

"Clovis First" is a theory that should have died a long time ago, but academic dinosaurs suppressed and denigrated any find that contradicted it because they had too much reputation and prestige invested in the "Clovis First"/Bering Landbridge migration model.

IMHO, one reason it has lasted so long is that the real evidence of the migration patterns is under about 300 feet of sea water and 20,000+ years of sediment.

One interesting point about Clovis Technology is that the closest match for Clovis flint-knapping techinque and design is almost totally unrelated to any of the five maternal lines of mitochondrial DNA found in Native Americans -- specifically, it's most closely related to the Salutrian(?) flint-knapping techinques form central France, which predate the Clovis technology by about 1,000 years.

All it would really take to account for the "Clovis People" is for one Salutrian flint-knapper being washed out to sea and survive to be washed up on the shore of Florida or the Carolinas. Once the technique was learned and the superiority of the technique accepted, the points and the technique would spread through the trade networks that new techniques in isotope analysis are revealing -- Some clovis points found in the southwest are made from stone only found east of the mississippi river.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Sweetie, I'm not talking about DNA...I'm talking about mitochondrial DNA studies. mDNA is only passed through maternal lines. We can look at mDNA of you and me and see where we came from. We can determine when different genetic lines combined to create us.

A couple of years ago National Geographic Society had an extensive study going on. Anyone could particiapate. I did. They were working on gathering the largest database of mDNA up until this point. They really focused on isolated groups but encouraged as paople worldwide to submit samples. It will be years before the data is availabe. But I'm waiting cuz it's gonna be far fucking out.

Mitrocondrial DNA is found within the Mritrocondrial matrix rather than in the cell neucleus. It does not seem to change over generations of inheritance. I understand all that. However, water is the great foe of DNA of all types.

If you find a skull buried in New Mexico and grind up a tooth from that skull you will find both types of DNA. If you find a skull in Oregon (See the Kennewick Man controversy), grind up one of his teeth you will find DNA fragments of both types, but not enough to identify his origin. Why? Water causes both corruption and replacement (ie. minerals carried in water replace structures and protins).

The study you brought up will tell you (living) which populations groups (living now) are related too, but will not tell you where you came from.

Mitocondrial "Eve" was a guess based on the similarity of living individuals around the world to a single population of individuals living in north central Africa. The question still remains: Did those Africans always live there? Or did they move there sometime during the past 100,000 years?

Mitocontrial DNA studies show relative movement of populations over a period of time (say, 10,000 to 30,000 years). But the active term is relative. Maybe the home of the original group became uninhabitable so the entire population moved 2000 or even 10,000 miles to a new home. Then smaller groups moved into Europe, then the Americans over the millinia. You still don't know where the original "home" was. All you really know is you are related to a group that NOW lives in, say, Podunk Junction, Etheopia.

Have you really learned much more than was uncovered with the linguistic studies of the 70's? Yes. But you still don't have a difinitve answer.

 

[cloudy]

For folks who wish to participate in the global mDNA study, here's a link

It cost $100 and you do not have to submit your results to the database.

I think everyone (especially one rather loud at times american indian but I'm gonna mention any names tom tom girl ) should at least check it out.

Already there, but I didn't have to pay.

(there are some benefits to being indigenous)

 

[Guest]

I rather like Tom-Tom Girl. Future Alt for you?

 

[Weird Harold]

Mitocondrial "Eve" was a guess based on the similarity of living individuals around the world to a single population of individuals living in north central Africa. The question still remains: Did those Africans always live there? Or did they move there sometime during the past 100,000 years?

Mitocontrial DNA studies show relative movement of populations over a period of time (say, 10,000 to 30,000 years). ...

Have you really learned much more than was uncovered with the linguistic studies of the 70's? Yes. But you still don't have a definitve answer.

I'd say yes, the mDNA studies relevant to Clovis First and the colonization of the Americas do provide much more information than the linguistic studies you mention.

Those studies are only peripherally related to the "Project Eve" database and actually support Clovis First as much as they disprove it -- the vast majority of first Americans came by way of Siberia and Mongolia; four of five mDNA lines lead to Asia and only the fifth mDNA line, first found in the Ojibwa, leads to Europe.

The mDNA studies don't reveal the ultimate sources of the mDNA lines, but they do reveal the route taken between that ultimate source and the current location.

I'm not sure I agree with some of the assumptions about the rate of "genetic drift" that the studies are based on, but if those assumptions are valid, the migration patterns the studies reveal are pretty clear about how many major migrations came to the Americas, roughly when they happened, and, in broad terms, where they came from.

The studies of Native American mDNA don't claim to pinpoint origins to anything like a specific location like a city or province. All they claim to show is that the current population of northeast Asia came from the same place as most of the current native American population and the populations separated in four distinct groups prior to the time frame claimed by the Clovis First holdouts.

 

[cloudy]

I rather like Tom-Tom Girl. Future Alt for you?

Misty's called me that since she's been here, I think. I like it, too.

 

[gauchecritic]

OK, somebody enlighten me. I realise that mDNA is the viral DNA present in cells and as such is less prone to genetic drift, where cellular DNA can (comparitively) readily react to change in climate. (melanin, seratonin etc) but why is matrilineal descent more 'trustworthy'(?) than patrilineal? xy versus xx. I don't understand.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

OK, somebody enlighten me. I realise that mDNA is the viral DNA present in cells and as such is less prone to genetic drift, where cellular DNA can (comparitively) readily react to change in climate. (melanin, seratonin etc) but why is matrilineal descent more 'trustworthy'(?) than patrilineal? xy versus xx. I don't understand.

All DNA is found within the nucleus of the cells. One of the things inside the nucleus is a structure called the mitocondria. mDNA is found there. It only comes from the female parent and is not recombinded in the zygot as is the other DNA. MDNA passes from mother to child intact, while 1/2 of the other DNA comes from each parent.

Over millenia mDNA remains fairly intact, although there are some minor changes due to effects of radiation, cosmic rays etc that cause mutation. But these tend to be minor changes that do not affect the outcome of the zygot.

 

[gauchecritic]

Only from the female parent. Right. got it. No recombination. Thankyou.