Page 3

To Page 1

Beringia and the Clovis People-- Two Dependent Paradigms

    The Clovis theory proposes that they were the first humans to arrive in The New World.  Human life did not exist in the New World before.  Clovis sites dating range between 10,000 and 11,500 years before present.  (Archaeology uses the word paradigm to mean a theory that is held until disproven.)

    "Pre-clovis" is a term that Archaeology circles are using widely now. Its meaning is diametrically opposed  to the theory that the Americas were populated by Asian bands of hunters that crossed the Beringia land bridge. That is, if there were pre-clovis people, then their ancestors could not have crossed Beringia from Asia.

    At least three Archaeology sites within the Americas have produced evidence of human life that date before the time when the Beringia Land Bridge was exposed for transit into North America. Evidence at Meadowcroft places humans there 19,600 BP. The Old Crow sites suggest 20,000 BP, and the Monte Verde site suggests 14,500 BP. One sample of charcoal at the Old Crow sites dated 25,000 BP, but was said later not to be charcoal. There are two sites near Old Crow. One is named Old Crow and the other Bluefish Caves. Old Crow is a Gwich'in village on the Porcupine River above the Arctic Circle in the Yukon Territory. This remote area is replete with ancient artifacts. Preliminary artifacts dating there range between 12,000 and 27,000 years BP. If the latter date, 27,000 BP, is confirmed, it will become the oldest archaeology of the New World. Although much older claims of New World human existence have been made by many archaeologists in the past, their findings were discounted by others.

    Suffice it to say that site datings at Meadowcroft, Manix Basin, and Monte Verde have already shattered the Clovis and Beringia theories, and these dates confirm the presence of humans in place in the Americas before Beringia was exposed for transit.

    Bye bye Beringia! Clovis now becomes just one group of New World people, probably the predominant group of that time period, but not the first or only.

Have Biases Deterred New World Archaeology?

    Of course, and there is no doubt about! We could blame some early Archaeologists for being wrong, but they are all dead. The science of Archaeology did not begin until the early 18th Century. That is not very far back in history. Until the 17th Century, the Papacy was the World's authority about the genesis of the World and its inhabitants. By decrees of the Papacy, the beginning of the Earth was set at 3500 BC. God created the world about that time (in 7 days). Then God created man. So the first bias about Archaeology was religion based. Anyone who might come up with a different theory would face the crime of heresy, and could suffer various forms of punishment, including execution, depending upon which of the old world countries he lived in. All countries of Europe were kingdoms and each had a strong attachment to the Papacy. Kings depended upon Papacy support, and they could not hold their crowns without it. Religions of the World still cling to Creationism, and they might be right, at least partially. If so, the time of the World's beginning was too far in the past for our comprehension.

    Today, archaeology is so broad based that little if any bias can exist. There are many archaeology associations and institutes comprised of individual members, mostly professors, who come together in conferences. At times these independent associations produce written papers that are released to public domain. These archaeology associations form a loose and self policing body politic of the science.

    Archaeology is purified by these professional associations. They work both independently and together to scrutinize each other's scientific analysis of site works and methods of dating. Some individual archaeologists take it upon themselves to argue against the veracity of other's works, which creates rifts within the profession. It all comes down to meticulous testing and documentation to back up the findings at each site.

    Important archaeology sites, such as Windover, Meadowcroft, Bluefish Caves, and Monte Verde, might produce an abundance of new science, but the findings may not be fully digested by the archaeology community as a whole. This seems to be the case of the Windover and Meadowcroft site works. A rich and important group of new findings seems to have escaped major notice and the important science developed there may not ever be fully integrated into the mosaic of new world archaeology. Monte Verde for example, is far away in Chile, and the expense of full and continued participation by a college in that exploration would be prohibitive. The Arctic slopes of Alaska and Canada are a wide and rich source of ancient artifacts of human life, but the expense of conducting detailed research there is also prohibitive. Submerged wet sites are the most expensive of all to explore. Wet sites are also the most promising for finding preserved human DNA. There are many known wet sites that are awaiting funding to explore. These short comings are just the nature of an un-regulated and largely un-funded science. And few would believe that science should be regulated.

    Europeans have their Neanderthals and Cro Magnon ancestors to study. The New World has a much wider variety of ancient people to study. So far though, no archaeology organization has ventured to propose that ancient New World people may have been a separate specie of humans than any in the Old World, or that a specie of humans might have originated, in place, in the Americas. While evidence has not been produced to support such provocative ideas both are possibilities to explore.

    Future generations deserve to know the ancient history of their lands.

---

To the Indigenous Peoples of the North Index

To Features & Maps by Bill Jones

The opinions expressed are those of the author, Bill Jones. This article is copyright ©2000 by Bill Jones.

    Home