Dismantling the Clovis Curtain
Where did the early inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere come from?
The traditional theory, taught in many a school book, is that they migrated
from Asia across an area where is now the Bering Strait and down into the
American continents no earlier than 12,000 years ago. This theory was called
the Clovis-first theory from archaeological finds in Clovis, New Mexico.
Unfortunately the Clovis-first view became so rigid that other claims
for an earlier and different origin for the older inhabitants of the Western
Hemisphere have been blocked. The result has been the erection of what one
scholar calls the "Clovis curtain".
Theosophy holds to the existence of an inhabited "Atlantis"
land mass extending from the North Atlantic down to the South Atlantic Ocean.
Gradually that land mass sunk leaving a principal island and finally that
sunk as well. The Azores and Canary Islands are other remnants of that continent.
Modern plate tectonic theory shows that continent to have as its backbone,
the mid-Atlantic ridge - so called by geologists today. Migration from that
land mass leaves an easy alternative explanation for the peopling of the
Western Hemisphere. Therefore, Theosophy would expect much earlier dates.
And it does ascribe some contact, at least in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico.
Now the Clovis curtain is showing rents. New archaeological finds are
producing hard-to-dispute evidence. Resistant views are changing. Older
dates are getting accepted. DNA analysis of American Indians shows similarities
to some DNA in Europe requiring a more open view that is also compatible
with an Atlantic land mass. Also Linguistic analysis requires a much older
date to account for the degree of difference in some dialects of the Americas.
One linguist says "Clovis-first is not remotely possible".
I can recall talking with a longtime student of Theosophy years ago,
before so much evidence had come forward and these ideas had made so much
progress. Simply from a knowledge of the teachings of Theosophy he ridiculed
the Clovis-first theory and was positive the Clovis curtain would be falling.
And so it is.
The article below is from U.S.News & World Report October 12, 1998
America Before the Indians
New Discoveries Are Rewriting Our History
Late in the afternoon last May 17, a tired archaeological team neared
the end of a 14-hour day winching muck to the deck of a Canadian Coast Guard
vessel. It was in water 170 feet deep in Juan Perez Sound, half a mile offshore
among British Columbia's Queen Charlotte Islands. For four days, team members
had fruitlessly sieved undersea mud and gravel. Then, in the slanting light
of sunset, a deckhand drew from the goop a triangular blade of dark basalt.
Its sharp edge and flaked surface said this was no ordinary rock. Someone
long ago sculpted it into a knife or other cutting tool.
When Daryl Fedje, and archaeologist for Canada's national parks system,
saw the 4-inch artifact, his jaw dropped in amazement: "I immediately
recognized it as made by humans." For years Fedje has led efforts to
find prehistoric evidence of human occupation in the misty, fiord-laced
archipelago. This stone meant that people lived at a spot directly under
the ship well before the end of the Ice Age, at a time when the sea level
was far lower than today.
The bit of basalt is just one stone. But from Alaska to near the tip
of South America, bits of just such intriguing evidence are emerging that
suggest the standard textbook story - that humans first settled the Americas
by pouring down from Alaska about 12,000 years ago - is wrong, perhaps very
wrong. People may have gotten here thousands to tens of thousands of years
sooner, over a longer period of time, by a wider variety of routes, and
with a more diverse ancestry. If this proves true, it will force a rethinking
of the whole concept of America: a land whose human history may be three
times longer than imagined, and one where Columbus would have been just
one of the last of many waves of "discoverers."
"The bottom line is that people could have reached here a long,
long time ago," says Dennis Stanford, chairman of the anthropology
department at the Smithsonian Institution. Stanford is among a growing number
of scientists advancing the still heretical belief that the first North
Americans did not walk over in one main migration but came much earlier,
and by boat. Under fire is the time-honored "Clovis-first" theory,
named after a site in new Mexico where big, stone spear points were found
in the 1930's (story, Page 60). The artifacts were left by a mammoth-hunting
culture that appeared in north America a little more than 11,000 years ago.
The Clovis people were real, but the standard textbook lessons about them
may well be wrong. It now appears that they were not the first in the New
World. "I think we're in a whole new ballgame of discovery about who
the first Americans were and when they got here," Stanford says.
That would spell the end of the heroic saga generations of schoolchildren
have learned - of a great invasion of big-game hunters showing up on a virgin
landscape. The peopling of the Americas is beginning to look more like a
continuation of another, even grander, saga: the human occupation of the
Old World that started perhaps 100,000 years ago. The peopling of Europe
and Asia was an expansion featuring multiple migrations and an ebb and flow
of cultures that, it now appears, may have washed into the Americas in a
series of waves starting well before Clovis times, perhaps as early as 30,000
Scholarly rejection. Despite the primacy of the Clovis-first tale,
some scientists never could quite embrace it. Over the years, hundreds of
sites have been touted as older than the 11,200-year-old early Clovis sites,
including Calico in San Bernardino County, Calif., endorsed in the 1960's
by famed African anthropologist Louis Leakey as possibly more than 200,000
years old. But each time, at Calico and elsewhere, parades of outside experts
said the "tools" were natural stones, or the dates were wrong,
or supposedly human bones weren't human, or the charcoal was from a naturally
caused wildfire, not a man-made hearth, or all that and more. The sites
"have gotten their 15 minutes of fame, then disappeared into obscurity,"
said James Adovasio, professor of archaeology at Mercyhurst College in Erie,
Adovasio has his own tale of scholarly rejection. Since 1973 he has led
excavation of the Meadowcroft Rockshelter, a 43-foot-high jutting cliff
that provides protection from rain along its base. It looks out on Cross
creek, in rugged country 30 miles southwest of Pittsburgh. The landowner,
Albert Miller, whose family has had the property since 1795 and operates
a colonial-era museum there, called archaeologists in the early 1970's to
investigate his hunch about Indian traces under the overhang. Miller's instincts
were right. "Everybody and his brother stopped here," marvels
Adovasio. Using razor blades to peel layers away, his crews have uncovered
a rich trove of relics - 20,000 stone tools, woven goods, nearly a million
animal bones, and 300 fireplaces loaded with charcoal, making it easy for
scientists to calculate dates. (Scientists estimate the age of charcoal
and other organic material by measuring how much radioactive carbon-14 it
contains. Living things absorb this isotope from the atmosphere; when they
die, the radiocarbon begins to decay away. Although new studies suggest
that solar variations throw the scale off slightly - 11,000 radio-carbon
years, for instance - radiocarbon dating is still the gold standard for
archaeological dating.) The cave was on a highway for traders, hunters,
and migrants moving to and from the Ohio River Valley to the West. "If
you were out camping and saw this place, this is where you'd stop, too,"
Adovasio says. Every accepted cultural period in Indian history and pre-history
is represented: the contemporary Iroquoian Seneca; earlier and closely related
"woodland" societies that reach back 1,000 years; the so-called
archaic groups to around 8,500 years ago; and Paleo-Indians, including the
Clovis big game hunters, to about 11,000 years ago.
Trouble came when Adovasio began saying in the late 1970's that charcoal
from human-made fire pits deep in the excavated floor of the shelter carried
dates going back more than 14,000 years, with some indications approaching
17,000 years. He ran into what he calls the "Clovis curtain" of
resistance. Critics told him the charcoal that he presumed came from wood
may actually have been contaminated by ancient coal or carbon in the local
sediments, which would carbon-date much earlier. Adovasio retorts that what
he calls the "Clovis mafia" peculiarly rejects only dates at his
site that are older than Clovis but not younger material. Contamination
would skew ages for everything, he points out, not just for the finds that
run counter to standard theory.
Accumulating evidence. But after years of being almost alone as
a challenger of Clovis, Adovasio suddenly has company. Similar deposits
are being reported by archaeologists at sites throughout the Americas, including
one called Cactus Hill, in coastal Virginia. That project's leader, Joseph
McAvoy of the privately supported Nottaway River survey in Sandston, Va.,
can't discuss his newest findings because he's under a gag order from the
National Geographic Society, which is helping pay for the excavation. But
in a 1996 report, McAvoy described his discovery of possible pre-Clovis
tools that Adovasio says look a lot like his at Meadowcroft.
Evidence also has shown up in Wisconsin. For 10 years, David Overstreet,
director of the Great Lakes Archaeological Research center in Milwaukee,
has excavated two mammoth butchery sites that he says are at least 12,500
years old, and where stone tools lie among giant bones and long, curved
ivory tusks. Nearby are bones of two more of the extinct elephants, 1,000
years older, bearing what appear to be the distinctive cut marks made by
people chopping out meat for food. The roughly shaped tools look nothing
like the precisely grooved Clovis points. Overstreet figures that by the
time any corridor through the glaciers opened, somebody had already been
living for a few millenniums along the ice front, hunting the megafauna
of the plains south of it.
But the big break that persuaded many to rethink the conventional theory
has come thousands of miles from Clovis in Monte Verde, Chile. There, archaeologist
Tom Dillehay of the University of Kentucky has, for 20 years, been excavating
wood, bone, and stone tools from rolling pasture land. Last year he was
joined by a blue-ribbon group of archaeologists, including many who were
skeptical of Dillehay's long-controversial assertions that the artifacts
probably are at least 12,500 years old. The expert panel viewed the site
and wound up agreeing with Dillehay: The tools bore no resemblance to those
of the vanished Clovis culture. Dillehay and his Chilean colleagues now
are planning more excavation to explore hints that people were at the site
as many as 30,000 years ago.
Some scientists say one needs only to study modern Indians to conclude
that their ancestors got here before Clovis time. One hint is in genetic
material passed down only from mothers to offspring, called mitochondrial
DNA. Such genes carry a molecular clock - if a single population splits
into isolated groups, the buildup of random, but distinct, mutations allows
geneticists to estimate how long the original groupings have been separated.
"For the last five years, the genetic evidence has been saying early,
early entry" into the Americas, says Theodore Schurr, a geneticist
at Emory University in Atlanta. When Schurr counts the mutations accumulated
among American Indians, the molecular data are consistent with departures
from Asia between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago. The analysis revealed three
distinct families of mutations common among American Indians and found elsewhere
only in Siberia or Mongolia. Strangely, about 3 percent of Native Americans
also have a genetic trait that occurs elsewhere only in a few places in
Europe. This could mean either that some Asian populations migrated both
west, into Europe, and east to the Americas, or that Ice Age Europeans may
have trickled into the New World many thousands of years ago, perhaps by
skirting the Arctic ice pack over the North Atlantic. Linguists offer a
remarkably parallel analysis. Johanna Nichols, a professor in the Slavic
languages department of the University of California-Berkeley, counts 143
Native American language stocks from Alaska to the tip of South America
that are completely unintelligible to one another, as different as Gaelic,
Chinese, or Persian are from one another. The richest diversity of languages
is along North America's Pacific coast, not along the Clovis group's supposed
inland immigration route. California alone has dozens of dissimilar languages.
It takes about 6,000 years for two languages to split from a common ancestral
tongue and lose all resemblance to each other, Nichols says. Allowing for
how fast peoples tend to subdivide and migrate, she calculates that 60,000
years are needed for 140 languages to emerge from a single founding group.
Even assuming multiple migrations of people using different languages, she
figures that people first showed up in the Americas at least 35,000 years
ago. If archaeologists haven't found proof of such ancient events, well,
"as a linguist, that's not my problem," Nichols shrugs. Clovis-first,
she says, is "not remotely possible."
The glacier highway. Even some geologists are taking a punch at
Clovis primacy. "Recent work shows that the corridor [through the glaciers]
was not open until 11,500 years ago," says Carole Mandryk, a geologist
at Harvard University. "That is a pretty major problem for ideas that
it was a highway for colonization within a few centuries." Mandryk's
studies indicate the corridor would have been nearly impassable for a century
or more, with little game or edible vegetation, and vast, boggy wetlands.
"The corridor is 2,000 miles long," Mandryk says. "Let's
say you are two young guys, and you carry as much food as you can, and you
walk as fast as you can. It still takes you six months to get through. And
then you run around and kill a lot of animals. They you have to go back
and tell everybody else to get their families and come on down." She
blames the persistence of the Clovis-first theory on these "macho gringo
guys" who "just want to believe the first Americans were these
big, tough, fur-covered, mammoth-hunting people,not some fishermen over
on the coast."
Just this summer, one longtime Clovis-firster abandoned the idea. For
years, Albert Goodyear, associate director for research at the South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology, has calmly supported Clovis. Monte Verde shook
him just a bit. So in July, along the Savannah River at a site called Topper,
he decided, just to be responsible, to keep digging below sediments dated
to the Clovis era. All of a sudden, "we found a tool, and then another."
For a solid yard down, scores of blades, flakes, and other human-crafted
artifacts turned up. Goodyear told students and volunteers, yes, those sure
look older than Clovis. "I had a paradigm crash right there in the
woods. I felt like Woody Allen, like I had to turn and say to the audience,
'Why am I saying these things I'm not supposed to believe?' Just five years
ago, nothing new was possible in American prehistory, because of dogma.
now everything is possible; the veil has been lifted."
Finds such as Goodyear's are cause for celebration among long-suffering
Clovis doubters. "The Clovis-first model is dead," proclaims,
with some overstatement, Robson Bonnichsen, director of the Center for the
Study of the First Americans at Oregon State University. He has made the
center a clearinghouse for information about alternatives to Clovis-first.
"I've felt there were people here more than 12,000 years ago from the
start," he says. "We're finally getting the evidence to back that
But not all Clovis-firsters are throwing in the towel. "I find Monte
Verde quite unconvincing," says Frederick Hadleigh West, director of
archaeology at the Peobody Essex Museum in Salem, Mass., and editor of a
recent 576-page compendium on the archaeology of Alaska and eastern Siberia.
"There is really no credible, undisputable evidence of anything prior
to Clovis. But with Clovis you have an undeniable outburst of people, appearing
on an empty continent, spreading like mad. There is absolutely no [incontrovertible]
evidence of people coming into the New World before 12,000 [years ago],
or 15,000 if you keep them in Alaska." For Monte Verde to unseat Clovis-first,
he said, "would be like Sudan conquering the United States."
Not enough stuff. Another longtime Clovis-first adherent, geoarchaeologist
Vance Haynes of the University of Arizona, was among the experts who last
year endorsed the 12,500-year-old Monte Verde finds as legitimate. But he
argues there isn't enough evidence to support the Meadowcroft and Cactus
Hill material. And even if he can't rule out Monte Verde, Haynes says it
should take more than one site - scientific fallibility being what it is
- to refute the primacy of Clovis. "It has just six artifacts [stone
tools]. If it is as old as it looks, and the dates do look solid, then there
should be others like it. Until we find those, there are still questions."
Those questions are profound. The Clovis people were real, but where
did they come from? No tools in Alaska or Asia seem to foreshadow their
distinctive fluted spear points. And how and when did people get to South
America? Many authorities believe it would have taken people 7,000 years
to have reached southern Chile from Alaska. Others say it could have been
faster by boat. But the fact remains that while Clovis traces are abundant,
evidence of older cultures is terribly hard to find. "Where are they?"
asks David Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University in
Dallas, who thinks the Monte Verde dates are accurate but remains puzzled.
"I don't know. That is the exciting part about all this."
No single, simple theory has yet emerged to replace Clovis-first. But
some of the stories that are emerging in attempts to answer those questions
are as arresting as the original Bering land bridge and inland invasion
saga. For one, there's the mystery of the people who chipped that basalt
point Darly Fedje's team found this spring off Canada's Pacific shore.
The recovery of the tool was no random plunk with a bucket into the sea
floor. Fedje and marine geologist Heiner Josenhans of the Geological Survey
of Canada spent four years mapping the sea floor around the Queen Charlotte
Islands. And array of sonar receivers revealed it as though it were viewed
from a low-flying plane without any distortion from water; computer software
let the researchers soar and loop low at will, as in a video game, among
now-submerged valleys and hills. Fedje knew that if people were here more
than about 10,000 years ago, they lived on that farther shore, near salmon,
seals, shellfish, and other key food sources. Tribal lore of the present-day
Haida nation includes tales of times when the islands were far larger and
surrounded by grassy plains, and of subsequent, fast-rising oceans when
a supernatural "flood tide woman" forced the Haida to move their
villages to higher ground. Geologists agree with the traditional Haida view
of their past: The islands were twice as large 11,000 years ago, and the
Pacific rose more than an inch per year for a millennium after that, as
the glaciers melted. The Haida have been on the islands, which they call
Haida Gwaii, a very long time. Whether it was their ancestors who left the
stone point is unknown. Fedje and Josenhans are now poring over the maps
of the vanished landscape, hoping to return in the next year or so, if they
get the funding, with remotely controlled submarines to prowl the places
some of the earliest Americans may have called home.
But the origins of these coastal people remain a mystery. It seems unlikely
that Clovis hunters could have scampered west along the ice sheet's southern
edge, transformed themselves into a seagoing, salmon-catching, seal-spearing
culture, and occupied Haida Gwaii within a few centuries of arrival. Hence
the favorite hypothesis, first proposed more than 20 years ago but now supported
by the Smithsonian's Stanford, Harvard's Mandryk, Fedje, and many others,
is that many people migrated to the New World along the coast instead of
overland. Travel may have been in small boats, perhaps covered in skin like
traditional Eskimo and Aleut kayaks. If, as seems likely, peolple migrated
during the height of the last Ice Age, between about 25,000 and 12,000 years
ago, they would have avoided glaciers calving into the sea. "There
was boat use in Japan 20,000 years ago," says Jon Erlandson, a University
of Oregon anthropologist. "The Kurile Islands [north of Japan] are
like steppingstones to Beringia," the then continuous land bridging
the Bering Strait. Migrants, he said could have then skirted the tidewater
glaciers in Canada right on down the coast.
Evidence of other maritime cultures along the West Coast is coming in
fast. Erlandson has uncovered remains of seagoing peoples who lived more
than 10,000 years ago in the Channel Islands off Southern California. And
last month, other scientists reported that two sites in Peru reveal people
were living along its coast, subsisting almost entirely on seafood, nearly
11,000 years ago, too long ago for the Clovis migration to have gotten there
and spawned a maritime way of life.
The Americas are big continents. Perhaps the earliest people just weren't
very numerous and left little mark of their passing. Or, maybe most of them
lived out on the then exposed continental shelf, retreating inland only
when the end of the Ice Age raised the sea. Perhaps these people, driven
inland, gave rise to the Clovis hunters. Well below the waves and under
millenniums' worth of cold sediment, may lie the footprints, remains of
meals, and discarded tools and campfire pits of a lost world. It is, indeed,
a whole new ballgame in the search for the first Americans.
Blavatsky Net home
| up | top