Slashdot Mirror


When Were the Americas Populated?

evil agent passes along an article in Scientific American reporting that new radiocarbon dating techniques have cast doubt on the accepted story of how the Americas were populated. In the traditional view, "[M]igrants out of northeast Asia slipped into the Americas bearing finely shaped stone projectiles, so-called 'Clovis points,' after the town in New Mexico where they were first uncovered. This Clovis culture rapidly spread throughout the empty continents and by 1,000 years after their arrival had reached the southernmost tip of what is now South America, making them the original ancestors of indigenous Americans." The new dating of Clovis sites suggests that "Clovis" was not a people, but rather a technology. That is, a new and more efficient method of making arrowheads for hunting spread rapidly through a pre-existing population in both North and South America, over at most 350 years.

30 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Everybody knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Americas were populated by English pilgrims. That's why we have thanksgiving. Never mind about those damn injins.

    1. Re:Everybody knows by BakaHoushi · · Score: 4, Funny

      To paraphrase America: The Book:
      "Some people say that Columbus was not the first to discover America. They say that the vikings and Chinese had been to the Americas for at least a thousand years before Columbus. Others say you can't discover a continent that's already inhabited by an entire race of people. These people are communists. Columbus discovered America."

      So, since the continent was not officially "discovered" until about 500 years ago, we can say anyone there before that "doesn't count."

    2. Re:Everybody knows by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that "all cultures except my own are irrelevant" is a disgustingly ignorant outlook.

      "Only cultures that made significant contributions to, or have a current significant impact on, the one I live in count when I'm considering how we got here" is a different matter.

      It doesn't mean the American Indians weren't interesting, or that Europeans didn't invade and take their land... it just means that the American Indians don't count as discoverers of the Americas from the viewpoint of the current culture.

      We didn't develop from them, we barely integrated them. We REPLACED them.

    3. Re:Everybody knows by gobbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Face it, European culture is currently the most advanced. As a result, for people raised in European-descended cultures, only cultures directly linked to their current position actually matter. Measured by what metric? Sustainability, balance, restraint? Fail. Compassion? Near-fail. Peacefulness? Serious failure. Equality? Fail. Pattern and systems literacy? Fail. Leisure time? Fail. Indigenous low-tech cultures of N.A. had the Euros beat on those metrics of advancement, including the political system that eventually heavily influenced the American Revolution--the Haudenosaunee, a democratic system with better checks and balances than the French system.

      The agriculture of the Americas, in particular, was in places fairly advanced. Many of your staple foodstuff were developed in the Americas. The Inca, for instance, were cultivating over 3000 distinct varieties of potato at the time of invasion, now reduced to 5 machine-friendly less-nutritious varieties in the supermarket.

      The metric that equates technical advancement with cultural virtue, that confuses complexity with development, that lauds aggression over diplomacy, that values power over honour, and rewards personal greed over multigenerational-foresight... well, it seems like a primitive metric to me.

      The parent post demonstrates that in a settler State (e.g. Canada, USA, ANZA, formerly South Africa, Israel) there is a huge blind spot that is used ideologically to obscure the nature of the genocide that underpins the new state. A big part of that blind spot is used to zero out the original cultures, to deprecate and suppress their achievements, to suppress claims of sovereignty and continuity, to disrupt the propagation of the original cultures, and to prop up notions of superiority in a 'might-makes-right without actually saying so' framework.

      Your explanation of racism and ethnocentrism is bizarre and tautological. It's obvious that your education, particularly in History, was oriented towards this settler state ideology. You are confusing power and ambition with advancement--but that confusion is part of your cultural heritage.

    4. Re:Everybody knows by gobbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look. Just call it genocide, OK? Be honest.

    5. Re:Everybody knows by djo165 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Europeans may have replaced most of the indigenous people in present day USA and Canada, but not so much south of the Rio Grande. And judging from current immigration patterns, it looks as though those folks south of the Rio Grande now intend to take back what they think they lost. And they'll do it too, if the US doesn't do something about enforcing their immigration laws.

    6. Re:Everybody knows by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I never said "might makes right". I don't personally identify with the Europeans who invaded the Americas.

      "Might wins", well, yeah. And even today, the group with the right combination of the biggest stick and the most will to use it will win.

      I've yet to see any culture master sustainability, except by failure to develop the technology to destroy their environment. Humans are short sighted.

      Reducing our potato varieties to five is a short term advance - it makes mass production of the tubers in question easier. In the long run, yes, we're damaging the soil and getting slightly less nutrition than we might have.

      Diplomacy IS a joke. Look at it... diplomacy is used by weak countries to feel as if they're important by browbeating militarily stronger countries. Diplomacy is otherwise used by most nations as a delay tactic.

      Just because the West recognizes its own (major) flaws doesn't mean it isn't a pretty good civilization overall. The failure of individuals to take advantage of all our opportunities doesn't take away from the fact that this culture has produced more opportunities than any other.

    7. Re:Everybody knows by bigpat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps you are correct in a few areas of technology and civilization, but it was a relatively few technologies that allowed the Europeans to be more productive and more potent in battle than the native peoples of the Americas at that time. But remember, the 16th century was a very different time than either the 17th or 18th centuries. European technology was not really that advanced, compared to what it would become through the enlightenment. Yes, firearms were available, but were not very efficient in battle for more than one or two shots at close range. Certainly effective as a weapon of terror, but it was probably the European horse which was a better weapon of war. And if we are going to talk about the horse as a type of technology, which given the centuries of selective breeding it is, then I would add that much of what Europeans came to eat and what allowed European population to grow in the coming centuries where actually the literal fruit of technology from the Americas: the fruits, vegetables and grain products that had been selectively bred for generations. Potatoes, tomatoes, corn, etc all allowed Europeans to diversify their food supply in ways that changed the world. Yes, it went the other way too, but to say that the Americas had nothing to offer is to ignore the importance of this contribution to the whole of humanity.

    8. Re:Everybody knows by bouis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the parent post is proof-positive of Western culture's superiority. How many other peoples truly lament what their ancestors did 500 years ago, to the point of inventing mythologies where they are the bad guys?

      Anybody whose "education in History" also included critical thinking should realize that almost every people in the entire world got where they are by way "genocide." When one group of people moves to land occupied by another people, they invariably throughout history have either displaced them [ethnic clensing], killed them entirely [genocide], assimilated them ["cultural" genocide often achieved by killing the men & boys, and taking the women and young children], or disappeared themselves. Make no mistake about it, every single Indian tribe present when the first English set foot on North America got where they were by "genociding" the previous inhabitants of their lands. From that point to the present, the vast majority of Indians were killed by... other Indians.

      In the early days, the "noble savages" tried to exterminate the European settlers, over and over. They tried to genocide us; we did genocide them. We're the bad guys because we won. They can be idealized because they don't exist anymore. It's not like this is a unique situation-- how many damned romance novels are there about the Highlanders of Scotland? They were universally reviled while they posed a threat, then idealized after they were broken and forgotten for a while. A vaguely-understood, heavily-idealized, or entirely-imagined "little guy" struggling against the oppressive modern society whose faults everyone knows-- well, it makes for a good story.

      If I sound unsympathetic, well, it's probably because I reserve for another stone-age people my ancestors genocided, the pre-pre-Celtic inhabitants of Southern France. Damn them and their iron working [a skill the American Indians never picked up]. My stone-age ancestors didn't stand a chance. And damn those Gauls, and Romans, and Franks, and Bretons, and Normans, and English, and...

    9. Re:Everybody knows by benzapp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When people start referring to the Roman conquest of Gaul, the Muslim conquest of the Balkans and Hispania, and the Slavic invasions of Central Europe as "genocide", perhaps you'll have a point.

      The reality is this: The population density of the New World was incredibly low compared to Europe.

      What drives all world politics is love and sex. Too much fucking produces too many people, said people do what they can to survive and continue the trend.

      Europeans were many and the aboriginal peoples of the Americas were few. It is only natural that they would be displaced. They would have done the same had the situations been reversed. That is what people do.

      Borders are never static, they expand and contract and perhaps even disappear, depending upon population density and technological advancements that minimize population pressures (ie, fertilizer).

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
  2. old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't this just the last gasp of the clovis-first proponents finally dying out? I have seen quite a number of documentaries about some archaeologist or other digging up evidence of 'pre-clovis' people for a number of years now. In each of the documentaries we hear about how the archaeologist is derided by the old guard who keep saying 'no, there couldn't have possibly been anyone here earlier'.

    1. Re:old news by mrvan · · Score: 5, Informative

      I can recommend http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Socie ties/dp/0393317552 :

      His main answer has to do with food production: North America had hardly any good domesticable crops, so the most populous and advanced North American civilization (in the Mississipi valley) could only emerge after the slow spread of Mexican corn and beans across the deserts north of the Aztec homeland, which gave them very little time to 'prepare' for the European invasion.

    2. Re:old news by nicklott · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Proving that you don't need to be right to have a populist theory, just better at getting yourself on the History Channel...

      IIRC the pre-Clovis sites are a few ripples spotted here and there and most have controversial dating evidence available, where as the Clovis evidence is like a tsunami of archaeology. While there may well have been pre-Clovis people this dating evidence (and from the article that's all it appears to be) simply confirms the date of the sites and does little to add anything of merit to the debate. The argument that it took a maximum 350 years to spread and this is "too fast" for a settlement is spurious. Why is it inconcievable that it "only" took 350 years to get from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego? As it's about 8000 miles at most you would need to drift south at a leisurely 20-30 miles per year. Now this isn't feasible for an agricultural, settled people, but these were hunter-gatherers (as evidenced by the Clovis points) and could conceivably have done their year's quota in a single hunting trip. I doubt getting that far would have been much of a struggle, especially when most of the fat, stupid and tasty animals were in South America.

      While it seems very likely that there were people in South America before the Clovis people, they were probably only there in very small numbers, whereas the Clovis people were clearly very numerous indeed and seem to be the first meaningful inhabitants.

      BTW, it occcurs to me that if Clovis points were a technology that spread amongst an existing people (rather than the spread of the people with the technology) then neighbouring tribes/families/whatever would have to have been on good terms for it to spread. Anecdotally at least it would seem from what is known of tribes who were recently in this sort of situation that they tend not to be particularly friendly with their neighbours.

    3. Re:old news by mothlos · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the archaeological world Clovis population theories have been dead or dying for at least 5 years. Isotopic dating of human dwellings in the Americas throughout the 90s as well as single parent DNA research have been available for years that show human populations were present and separated from Asian populations thousands of years before the glacial corridor was a possibility. This doesn't even mention that Clovis technology likely didn't even come from Asia.

      The only thing that Clovis had going for it is that the theory neatly solved several issues. Since archaeology at that time was not as sophisticated with its techniques and the lack of a good selection of sites, the people digging stuff up just noticed that after about 13,000 years ago they stopped finding these spear points when they found a large mammal skeleton. Also, within a short period after this tool showed up, the large mammal population of the Americas seemed to have died out. In addition, climatologists at the time came out with a breakthrough theory that massive glaciation had lowered sea levels significantly allowing for the Bering Straight land bridge. This convergence of new information seemed like the perfect way to integrate the known information at the time. Unfortunately, except for the coincidence, they didn't have a shred of evidence it actually happened that way.

      So, like so much "news", this is just an old hat. Carry on.

    4. Re:old news by nicklott · · Score: 3, Informative

      The thing I find odd is that most of the advanced civilizations were in Mexico and S. America, rather than from the North.

      That's just because the ones in the North aren't so famous...
    5. Re:old news by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They brought with them European technology and domestic animals. When you have draft horses or oxen, suddenly farming in North America is a whole lot more practical than it is when you just have your own to hands and some light tools. One guy and an ox can put a few acres into production, which would probably take a whole village otherwise.

      c.f. Guns, Germs, and Steel.

      The North American natives just got a cruddy piece of real estate to bootstrap a civilization on. They managed to do pretty well in some places, but in the end they just couldn't compete with the Eurasians.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    6. Re:old news by gobbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From what I have read, the North was less suitable for large, settled-down civilizations, in terms of food sources and climate. This led to the nomadic lifestyle of the population in the North. Since in general nomadic cultures produce less in the way of technological advances (less free time, basically), this would account for much of the difference.

      Assumption: nomadic lifestyle = less time. Not necessarily true, moving around frees people from the drudgery that is agriculture, and nomads tend to work on elaborate ceremony and narrative. How would you like to work only 26 hours per week? It does mean they're less materialistic, since stuff is a liability. That outlook means that advanced camping gear is good enough technologically, and pretty comfortable. Development occurs in other ways.

      Assumption: unified population and cultures. Not true, considerable linguistic and cultural variety in N.A., including sedentary cultures in the Pacific Northwest and some desert regions (one tied to abundant food outside the front door, the other tied to marginal agriculture). Blame the difference in development on the horse, flux of empires, and specialization derived from large city societies.

  3. Modern humans... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...have been around for 100's of thousands of years and they are not stupid. Who is to say that 60000 years ago somebody from Indonesia could not possibly have seen most of the world in a lifetime, if they had so desired? There wouldn't have been any evidence of small scale migration which modern archeologists could find, yet the written history is based only on mass movements of population.

    TFA ends with I think there's enough evidence now to say that there were pre-Clovis people in the Americas."

    Who is to say that it hadn't been happening for several times the 25000 year time scale they are talking about?

    1. Re:Modern humans... by marcello_dl · · Score: 4, Funny

      > [modern humans] have been around for 100's of thousands of years and they are not stupid.

      How do you explain "windows being the dominant OS (yet)", then? Just curious.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  4. With all the dishonesty in science... by gd23ka · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you follow the work of Michael Cremo you will learn that modern human skeletons
    have been found in strata deposited millions of years old and all over the world.

    http://www.mcremo.com/cremo.htm

    His book "Forbidden Archaeology" is a huge tome discussing hundreds of sites where
    anomalous findings challenge (rip apart) todays dogmas in the field and it is also
    an interesting read to see how the religion of western science preserves the purity
    of its creed :-)

    1. Re:With all the dishonesty in science... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Besides, once you've already decided how life originated, you are pretty much limited in how things play out in your own particular "theory". And if this guy were correct, there's a massive multinational conspiracy to cover up the "truth", a wall of silence perpetuated for centuries and only finally penetrated by Mr. Cremo's dedication and intellect.

      If there were ever a reason to repair the education system in this country, this is it. Unless ignorance really is bliss, and we've all been missing something all these years.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:With all the dishonesty in science... by muecksteiner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, what you say might all be fine and dandy, but at the heart of this issue there is no binary "yes-no" dichotomy.

      Meaning that it is perfectly possible for Mr. Cremo to be a nutjob, *and* for a not-so-small percentage of established science being junk.

      Being a professional scientist myself, I can unfortunately testify to the latter being far more probable than most people outside academia would hope.

      An uncomfortably large number of "researchers" and "professors" in academia are basically subpar scientists, without much of a vision where the field they are allegedly proficient in is heading.

      For people like that, one easy way to deflect questions about their own performance is to hamper the work of others. This is not made any better by the prevalent systems of academic self-assessment, which penalise anyone who openly admits that he or she was wrong, and that it is someone else's idea which is, in fact, brilliant.

      Interestingly, this is even true for the engineering sciences where I happen to work - although the ratio of meaningful scientific output vs. effort invested is even lower in many other areas (such as the social sciences), which have less recourse to objective analysis of the results which are generated.

      Chip Morningstar once wrote a brilliant essay about the mechanisms behind the decay of literary criticism as a science - read that for some really nice observations on the inner workings of academia in general.

      That having been said, the theories of Mr. Cremo still do not sound particularly credible, even if one takes this "inherent bias against anything new" within academia into account. And this has nothing to do with him being a follower of a non-Western, non-standard religion.

      Logic and common sense (as well as the requirement to base any conclusions on independently verifiable facts) should also apply to someone follwing ancient Vedic teachings, one would hope...

      A.

    3. Re:With all the dishonesty in science... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Have you read Von Daniken ? I definitely recommend "The Chariots Of The Gods" since he also pretty much single handedly destroys the modern archaelogical conspiracy of silence surrounding the facts about how the Gods used their advanced space-faring technology to live amongst us across the globe until a series of unfortunate yet totally ( locally ) cataclsymic events removed most traces of their presence except for the few totally conclusive tell tale hints left strewn from Machu Pichu to the Egypt for dedicated super-archaelogists like Erik to uncover.

      Also Lyall Watson fights the good fight on a number of fronts against an array entrenched and protectionist theories espoused by not only archaeologists but also geologists, physicists and scienctific dogma in general.

      Hancock, is the new guy on the block but he is able to link all the good work undertaken by the likes of Von Daniken and Watson and prove that these space-faring super civilizations came from Orion and he can also prove not just the exact date but the exact second, minute, hour and day that they were all wiped out by the various utterly catastrophic yet strangely localised disasters which managed to wipe them out utterly so quickly they didn't even have time to jump back in their spaceships.

      Obviously they did have enough time to build a series of enigmatic and utterly conclusive monuments throughout the world to speak to future super-archaelogists such as Mr Hancock, Bauval, Daniken and Watson and tell of the terrible catastrophe they could see coming and how it would wipe them out utterly and how this caused them to gather every member of their super civilisation, complete with houses, buildings and strange alien flying machines directly over the catastrophe, disable their spaceships and entrust the vast learning and knowledge of their super-society to a few, scattered enigmatic encoded monuments.

      I can't wait for the next valiant defender of the true science to take up the torch and carry on where Hancock left off.

  5. Re:It doesn't matter Who was here first. by Ingolfke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dumb people have more children than smart people, especially when there is a natural abundance of food and shelter and intelligence offers no real reproductive benefit.

    That is a relatively modern trend. One, many previous cultures valued children and gained both productive and prestige benefit for large families. Two, effective contraceptives are relatively modern inventions. Three, the social and economic mobility of those who are "not dumb" is also a relatively modern trend. In dictatorial and feudal societies in which education and wealth is controlled by a few intelligence is less likely to be rewarded.

    If we look back at our cities in 5000 years...
    I agree with you here and think you're making a great point. We place a high level of certainty on conclusion drawn from a limited set of data, and as you pointed out the conclusions are really rather useless anyway.

  6. Time to get over the 'land bridge' by joshv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the idea that humans can only travel long distances over land should have been disproved by the population of Australia and the Pacific islands. There is no need for a land bridge to explain the population of the Americas.

    There is now more than enough evidence to support the idea of a pre-clovis population in America. Due to the timing of glaciation, this requires these populations to have traveled via the ocean, either along the glaciated Alaskan coast, or along the edge of the arctic ice cap from Europe. Possibly both.

    Though modern humans find this environment so impossibly inhospitable they cannot imagine how anyone could possibly survive there long enough to allow a population to migrate several thousand miles, they are thinking only of the glacial desert of ice. The sea however was rich with food. Humans have always followed the food. There are Inuit populations that until recently, fed themselves quite nicely hunting in seas full of pack ice, in boats made of whale bone and seal skin. I see no reason there why self-sustaining populations of humans couldn't have lived on the ice, feeding on the ocean, and slowly spreading along the coast until they found land (America).

    1. Re:Time to get over the 'land bridge' by mrvan · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is now more than enough evidence to support the idea of a pre-clovis population in America. Due to the timing of glaciation, this requires these populations to have traveled via the ocean, either along the glaciated Alaskan coast, or along the edge of the arctic ice cap from Europe. Possibly both.

      That is true, but if you look at the date of 'colonization' by Austronesian people of these pacific islands, you will notice

      1. Sailing large distances is difficult. It took them until 3000/2000 BC to get their island-hopping act together and start colonizing these islands. By this date America was well populated
      2. Sailing large distances takes time. While it took a couple centuries up to one millenium to fill America, it took about 4000 years to colonize all islands from Indonesia to Easter Island / Hawaii
      Combined: this proves that sailing between continents is quite possible but also very difficult, and cannot explain the people living in America around 10,000 BC.
  7. What really happened with Clovis Point. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    There were people in America using different kinds of arrowheads fashioned from flint. Then, some 11000 years ago, near where Albuquerque, New Mexio would be, an arrowhead maker named Beak Doors created a kind of arrowheads for his company Microhard and aggressively promoted it. Many of his detractors claimed he was using illegal methods and that his arrowheads were not superior to other competitors. But Corporate tribals never learned to distinguish between true interoperability and Microhard compatibility. Microhard arrowheads eventually achieved vendor-lock in the tribal societies. That is how what we now call clovis points became ubiquitous in the Americas.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. multiple sources of migration by xjmrufinix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I went to a conference years at which the head archaeologist of the Mashantucket Pequots in Connecticut spoke. He claimed that recent, casino-funded digs in the area had uncovered skulls which seemed to be much older than the 'land bridge' theory would allow for (about 30,000 years ago). The formation of the skull was also much closer to skulls found in France than anything being found locally. He didn't discount the possibility of people cross the Bering Strait, but suggested that more than one waves of migration had probably populated the Americas.

  9. Nova Program on this Topic by tealwarrior · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a PBS Nova show on this topic which discusses several alternative theories to the Clovis first one. America's Stone Age Explorers http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stoneage/ It was recently airing (again) so you may be able to catch it again.

    --
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.
  10. Nexessity is the mother of invention. by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing I find odd is that most of the advanced civilizations were in Mexico and S. America, rather than from the North. If the first humans came from the north through asia, then the first people were nomads, with a lifestyle that is still surviving in remote parts of asia (mongols still ride and herd semi-tamed horses, people in siberia still stalk deer herds). These people found massive herds in north america, and they came from people who had been hunting from massive heards for thousands of years, so they kept doing what worked. The beasts looked a little different, but they gave Perfectly Normal Meat.
    Being nomads, these people spread down south, where there were deserts and mountains and jungles, but no great herds, so they had a choice: improvise, or walk all the way back to where it was cold and women covered themselves non-stop in great leather coats with the fur on the inside.
    In the south, it was warm, and boobies were flying freely... so the paleogeeks did their thing. To advance civilization, of course.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...