Posted on 01/15/2007 7:49:20 AM PST by FLOutdoorsman
University of Texas at Austin researcher says the first Americans arrived earlier than previo
Schoolchildren can recite the story of the first Americans.
About 12,000 years ago, prehistoric humans walked out of Siberia, trekked across the Bering land bridge and down an ice-free corridor into inner North America, where they hunted Ice Age elephants and peopled the new world.
But mounting evidence is slowly turning that story to fiction, said Michael Collins, an archaeologist with the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin.
For more than 20 years, Collins and other scientists have been digging up artifacts from Chile to Texas that convince them the first Americans didn't walk here at all, but came by boat, and arrived much earlier than previously thought.
"This has been hotly debated," Collins said. "That theory has held sway for 70 years or so. But a few of us for the last 25 years have come to seriously doubt that theory."
Collins is in San Antonio today to talk about the shifting debate over the first Americans. Collins and archaeologist Robert Ricklis, who excavated a 7,000-year-old cemetery near Victoria, will speak at a Southern Texas Archaeological Association meeting at the University of the Incarnate Word. The meeting is open to the public.
For decades, the first Americans were thought to be the Clovis people, named after a site in Clovis, N.M., where 11,000-year-old fluted points were found in the 1930s. Since then, Collins said, other sites in Pennsylvania, Chile and Virginia have yielded older finds.
Collins first became convinced of "pre-Clovis" ancestors in 1967, after discovering burned mammal bones with butcher marks at a site called Cueva Quebrada in Val Verde County. Carbon dating of charcoal put the bones at 14,000 years old. To this day, most other scientists have ignored those findings, Collins said.
In the 1970s, Collins worked on a site in southern Chile called Monte Verde, which contained artifacts at least 1,000 years older than those at the Clovis sites. At first, many scientists attacked the validity of the evidence and clung to the theory that the Clovis people arrived first, Collins said. Over time, they began to accept the site and the tide of opinion turned, he said.
"I spent 20 years of my life being beat up over that project, as did everyone else," Collins said. "It has finally, begrudgingly, earned the support of a significant majority of archaeologists."
But if the Clovis people were not here first, who were the first Americans?
"It's really a case of stay tuned," Collins said. Theories have been proffered, but none universally accepted, he said.
Collins himself believes America was likely peopled on two fronts. Coastal communities in both Asia and Europe likely made their way to the New World on boats, sticking close to ice shelves to fish and hunt sea mammals. Though no ancient boats have been found, Collins points to evidence that Asians traveled to Australia 50,000 years ago, presumably in boats, since the island continent has never been connected to a land mass.
Collins also points to evidence from Japan that suggests prehistoric humans 30,000 years ago ate deep-sea fish and possessed obsidian found only on distant Japanese islands, which also suggests the use of boats.
Though this far-flung evidence interests Collins, his efforts to debunk the Clovis-first theory are closer to home.
For the past several years, he has led work at the Gault site, a large Clovis campsite midway between Georgetown and Fort Hood. A rich bounty of evidence at Gault suggests the Clovis people were not highly mobile hunters, as previously thought. It's more likely they were somewhat settled hunter-gatherers who occasionally felled a mammoth, but lived mostly on plants and smaller game such as frogs, turtles and birds.
"(Gault) is the poster child for Clovis not fitting the theoretical model," Collins said.
GGG Ping
Pre Clovis story for file
I grew up on a farm in lower Ohio. We had several creeks on the property, most with layers of smooth rock for the beds. In those beds, in the different layers, were vast amounts of footprints. Everything from tractor-looking dinosaur tracks to every imaginable animal to human footprints, clearly delineated. I spent many a day walking in those footprints, wondering where those long gone peoples were traveling to or from. Not only that, there were dog and horse tracks right along side the human prints. I didn't find out til much later that there weren't any horses in the new world when people were there. Being a farm kid, I knew and could identify most tracks. Guess the scientists were much smarter than a dumb farm kid! :) I figured out-all by myself-that rock either formed much faster than I'd been told, or the scientist-who-knew-everything didn't know as much as they thought!
the Indians killed off the original horses(yum)....the spanish reintroduced them.
Interesting info on the Gault site - http://www.utexas.edu/research/tarl/research/gault_links.php
Being a bright, inquisitive and sometimes sarcastic kid- I once asked a teacher why there were footprints in rock, clearly human, if there weren't any people here until 15000 years ago.
"There can't be."
OK. Well how long does it take rock to form?
"Milions of years."
Well, what about the footprints?
"There aren't any."
OK. How did the footprints get there?
"THERE ARE NO FOOTPRINTS!!!"
OK. I went back to the creek after school and happily played in my non existent footprints in rock. I decided real early that teachers didn't know half as much as they thoguht they did, and scientists knew less than that. If something didn't fit their theory, why then, it simply didn't exist! I still laugh about that and I've taught my kids to never take anything at face value. Question, question, question! And keep your eyes open!
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
"I figured out-all by myself-that rock either formed much faster than I'd been told, or the scientist-who-knew-everything didn't know as much as they thought!"
How dare you question the all knowing all powerful Wizard of .. err Scientists!! ;)
There ar actually finds in the 50k years old area in N AMerica, and there are several threads on FR re: that issue.
More "Good News" for the Mormons!..........
We also had a huge sandstone boulder in a pasture at the top of a hill. Nothing remarkable about a big rock- except that this one was composed entirely of small marine animal shells. We called it the cheerio rock because that's what they looked like. I might have been a dumb farm kid, but I was smart enough to know there weren't any oceans close by and nobody was dumb enough to cart that boulder from the nearest salt water to it's current position!
Any idea of the age of the human footprints?
Hopis say they came by boat but others came from the Bering Land bridge.
Anthropology has, since the 1970s, been taken-over by the Left, which has basically screwed the science all up. Ten years after I received my BA in Anthropology, my school's Anthro Dept. was captured by radical feminists who officially renamed it The Department of Feminist Anthroplogy, hired mentally disturbed, man-hating idealogues, and ruined the department for the next 20 years. In the past ten years there have been attempts to salvage the department and the discipline with mixed results. Anthropology, like its sister Sociology, has lost almost 40 years in the lunatic left wilderness.
YEC INTREP
Impossible. Everyone knows that the Indians were the perfect noble savages and selfless stewards of all wildlife and the environment. Overhunting and gluttony would never occur to them. /sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.