The year 1997 saw another break through, albeit indirect, for acceptance of pre-Clovis man in the Americas. Published in the prestigious journal "Science," Michael Waters and colleagues dated the so-called "Diring" site, a lower Paleolithic assemblage of stone artifacts in central Siberia (Waters and others, 1997). Based on deep trench exposures, the stone tools are reportedly of undoubted human manufacture. They occur in eolian sands, sediments amenable to thermoluminescence (TL) dating techniques. The cultural horizons prove to be about 260 ka old, almost 250 ka older than artifacts recovered from unconformably overlying sediments, a stratigraphic relationship similar to several, heretofore generally rejected Early Man sites in the Americas.
Uncertainties always accompany various dating techniques, and hence Diring will likely be questioned. However, the dates were obtained by a well-known geologist, a specialist in the field of TL analysis and one of the co-authors. Waters, himself, is a distinguished archaeologist. He also teaches at a prestigious American university, and thus gives substantial credibility to the 260 ka age for the Diring site.
The Diring dates have profound implications for dating the possible entry of pre-Clovis man into the Americas, for they imply that ancient stone tool makers lived and perhaps even prospered in the harsh Siberian environment; and that crossing into the New World via Beringia may have indeed taken place long before the blossoming of Clovis cultures.
So contentious have been the arguments about possible pre-Clovis man in the Americas that it appeared inevitable that acceptance would only occur if such a site contained skeletons or artifacts of unambiguous human origin, was well dated both by stratigraphic context and by unequivocal numeric dating techniques, and was excavated by highly regarded traditional archaeologists. Such a site has finally been found, not in North America geographically close to a presumed Beringia migration route, but at Monte Verde in Chile (Dillehay, 1966; Meltzer, 1997).
By 1997, some 80 earth-science specialists visited Monte Verde, many participated in the excavations, and still others collected samples and conducted laboratory analyses. The results are remarkable: now documented are 70 species of plants collected by Early Man, the remnants of mastodon meat, the remains of wooden canoes, mortars, and hundreds of stone artifacts including projectile points and cutting and scraping tools. Additionally, some 30 radiocarbon dates were obtained from abundant charcoal, wood and ivory found within the artifact-bearing strata. These dates indicate that Monte Verde was occupied about 12.5 ka ago, a full thousand years before Clovis (Meltzer, 1997). Now, perhaps, even the most skeptic, pre-Clovis non-believers may well have been converted.
But questions still remain: How long did it take for man to migrate from Beringia to Monte Verde? Did this occur thousands of years before 12.5 ka ago? If so, could such migration(s) have taken place during times of maximum ice extent, even though the environment would have been extremely inhospitable. Or did such migrations really take place before the last major glaciation, perhaps before about 20 ka, or even 35 ka ago? Prior to Monte Verde, the conventional answer would be "where is the evidence for such Early Man?" In reality, such evidence may well have been seen previously, but largely dismissed owing to the traditional dogma of "no pre-Clovis sites in the Americas." Accordingly, with Monte Verde now reasonably accepted, it seems likely that traditional archaeologists will soon "find" other pre-Clovis sites in the New World.
(There is another site near Monte Verde that is believed to date to 35-50,000 years old)
Thanks for the heads up. It's always interesting when _really_ strange stuff gets good press.
However, I have very unorthodox views on pre-history... Specifically, I wonder about two things.
1) There is slim but accumulating evidence that universal "constants" are not constants at all. If constants are changing which affect radioactive decay, then many "accepted" chronologies will have to be re-evaluated.
2) On an even more extreme issue, I've always been intrigued by Genesis 10:25 -- "Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided;" This is typically interpretted to refer to the incident at the Tower of Babal, when the people were dispersed, but later, in Genesis 10:32 we read -- "These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood." Here the text speaks of the nations being divided, not the earth. What if Scripture here is being accurate? What if the Tower of Babal story _actually_ recounts the breakup of the supercontient Pangaea taking place in historic/pre-historic times, rather than hundreds of millions years in the past?
I think it makes for a more entertaining view of the past to think that the "super continent" -- call it Pangaea, whatever -- existed into almost historic times. If this is so, then it explains how a _single_ flood could have inundated the "entire earth." Because if the continents were merged during prehistory, then a single catastrophe could have affected everyone.
There are other implications to Pangaea existing into pre-historic times, and they're all fun to speculate about.
Mark W.