Cabdriver Confession: I am an "Unvarnished Clovis was probably First" sort…
That said, I'll do my best to give an objective summary of the issues; I have no doubt my "prejudices" against the "earlier people present before Clovis" position will be apparent, particularly the hypothetical coastal route, but I have a couple of platforms I'll be standing on; at this point, I believe them to be unassailable. The first is, "Show me the DNA." If you've watched Simon Southerton's presentation at last month's Exmormon Conference, he offered up a summary of what the latest evidence from the field of molecular biology offers on this question. Simon and I have had only a few friendly disagreements over the years, and obviously, he's an expert in molecular genetics while I'm strictly a "reporter sort" who does understand what the scientists are saying. What is clear from the DNA work done on both continents is that every N/A tested so far is related to the ancestral populations that gave rise to the "Anzick Clovis Child" and "Kennewick Man," two ancient sets of remains whose DNA was sequenced by Eske Willerslev.
Anyway, several years ago two solid "stawarts of RFM" and I were having lunch at Lamb's in downtown SLC (a moment of silence, please, for the demise of that venerable venue). Will Bagley asked "Jesus Smith"--a PhD physicist and another particularly sharp individual--why he wasn't working in academics. Dave replied, "Too much politics."
Will said, somewhat explosively, "It's all politics!"
Well said, my friend. Or to borrow from LDS apologist Nibley's attack on Brodie, "Oh man, that ain't science, that's politics." The human colonization of the New World has been an issue of serious debate here on RFM for as long as I've been here, and probably the only area of near-universal agreement is that Joseph Smith--and whomever helped him author the BOM--was full of $#!%. His mythical yarn about ancient Hebrews or other Middle Easterners coming to this hemisphere thousands of years ago isn't born out by any evidence whatsoever. My own exposure dates back to Brodie (I read her about 1971), and it has always been pretty clear Native Americans had central or east Asian origins, and they were far more closely related to Siberians and Mongol people than Semitic/Middle Easterners.
A bit of possibly redundant background, for those wanting to see what actual scholars and scientists have to say on the subject: the following names come to mind (there are obviously many others, and this by no means identifies all on either side of the debate): For the "no conclusive evidence of pre-Clovis" crowd, prominent names are Anna C. Roosevelt, C. Vance Haynes, Gary Haynes, Stuart Fiedel, and Dina Dincauze.
At the other end of the spectrum, we find the two "Solutrean Sillies," Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley, whose views are clearly on the fringe but are nevertheless regularly included in popular literature, probably because of the need for "alternative facts" and the "drama" they afford (JMO). Others include Michael Waters, Michael Collins, Tom Dillehay, Dennis Jenkins, James M. Adovasio, Joseph McAvoy, and Quentin Mackie. As I said, this is by no means complete, and the statement "most scientists" support the coastal migration hypothesis is probably accurate, with a few caveats.
The most obvious is the necessity of recognizing what an archaeologist who visits here once said: "Archaeology is not a science; it's a discipline that uses science." Thus to characterize archaeologists as "scientists" is a bit of a misnomer. I haven't examined many people's credentials in depth (and it's considered "rude" to question them if one doesn't have a PhD one's self), but two people I have corresponded with, Jennifer Raff and Gary Haynes, a molecular biologist and an anthropologist respectively, are legitimate scientists. Ms. Raff, after listening to my discussions defending the "Clovis Paradigm" and my rejection of the "coastal migration route" simply noted, "We'll have to agree to disagree" on that one. We are in general agreement on the Asian origins of Native Americans; the devil is in the details as to the route and timetable.
I was in Reno a year ago and sought to meet up with Gary Haynes, but he'd recently retired, and said he didn't feel he had much more to say at that point. I recall on the question of "Were there pre-Clovis people here?" he once answered, "Probably is the safest answer." That folks, is an individual worth listening to, as I see it.
In regards to the larger picture of "proposed pre-Clovis sites," my take is it's "slightly dishonest" to suggest the "Clovis First" paradigm was an "ironclad rule" in paleoanthropology discusions involving this hemisphere; there were "always candidates." The problem was they were unconvincing and generally discarded until Monte Verde was "blessed" in 1997. Some of them have been resurrected after Monte Verde's "acceptance."
Tom Dillehay, formerly of the University of Kentucky and now Vanderbilt, was the lead individual who supervised the team that worked at Monte Verde. This video features Anna C. Roosevelt, who speaks to the subject--at the 1:17:38 mark--and says bluntly, "Monte Verde is not a pre-Clovis site."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl-uoAWywOE&t=4609sI leave it to the reader to examine this one; I mentioned Stuart Fiedel above--whom I've also corresponded with--who created a huge stir when he called into account the site maps, artifacts, etc. that Dillehay et al presented involving Monte Verde.
Much has been made lately of the "pre-Clovis coprolites" that Dennis Jenkins has unearthed at a cave in Oregon; they are routinely offered as evidence, but in one of Quentin Mackie's columns, a scientist demonstrated point blank that the "Paisley Cave poop" wasn't from humans.
Things got a little heated at that point (as they did when Fiedel put in an appearance elsewhere). Mackie is a huge defender of a "bone spearpoint" found in a mastodon rib over half a century ago; I've looked at that one, and the diameter of the point (which was buried in the bone and looks to me like a splinter from the same animal) was less than .25 inches.
Pre-Clovis hunters were slaying mastodons with a spearpoint 1/4 inch in diameter? Okay...
The following sites are "considered pre-Clovis" and the lead researcher/excavator associated with them is offered as well: Meadowcroft: James M. Adovasio; Cactus Hill: Joseph McAvoy; Buttermilk Creek: Michael Waters; there are others, of course.
This is just an overview of the debate, but I would be remiss if I didn't make a note of the incredible linguistic work of Edward Vadja who linked the language of the Ket people in northern Siberia with a number of Native American languages in the Athabascan familly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETm2e4M7T4c&t=69sAlas, nary a phoneme of "Reformed Egyptian."
To summarize, it's pretty clear to me--and Simon as well--that the most likely ancestors of Native Americans were from Siberia/Mongolia, near the Lake Baikal region. My view is they migrated north, joining with another population--related to the the Mal'ta Boy--and then crossing into North America via the Berengia land bridge.
The debate thus involves the timetable and the route(s) taken, but as I see it, the reality identified strongly argues against the "coastal migration hypothesis"; I shook my head at a claim that insisted since grizzly bears could inhabit northern Pacific regions--following the supposed "Kelp Highway"--humans could as well. That individual seems unaware of the biological reality that bears hibernate, and humans don't. Honest, it's dadburned cold up in those areas most of the year...
Finally, referring back to the Roosevelt video, Jon C. Erlandson is another of the "boat people," and he's fond of stone "crescents" (which are also found in the Great Basin in association with waterfowl hunting and fishing). He's suggests a "remarkable 3,000 year history" for their use, and claims they were hafted to arrow points for a "Paleolithic WMD." Having made a few arrows in my day, and also having a legitimate rocket scientist for an old man, I question the aerodynamics of that proposal. It seems obvious to me they were small cutting knives useful in skinning waterfowl and cleaning fish.
'Nuff said...
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2017 09:07PM by SL Cabbie.