Potentially stupid question about pre-Clovis

[War Arrow]

This is where my idiocy is revealed in all its Homer(Simpson)esque glory. I'm new here. I'm from England. More excuses available on request.

Dipping into the various threads hereabouts I'm finding a lot of material that suggests pre-Clovis colonisation of the Americas. My problem is that you all know what you're talking about and I'm trying to keep up with what sounds interesting, confusing and potentially explosive. So I just want to see if I've got this straight.

Ash deposits, smelting, footprints etc. The arguments I've read here seem fairly convincing, or at least like they're about to be fairly convincing quite soon - although keeping in mind that unless you're debating the most amusing Huastec jokes cracked by Ahuizotl (Tenochtitlan 1487-1502 y'all), I accept I might not be the best judge of what is or isn't likely in this particular field. So we have a number of sites spread over a vast geographical area which seem to support pre-Clovis habitation. Plus there's the Monte Verde thing...

Is it, as I suspect, the case that we are at a point where, if some of this evidence is substantiated, we'll soon be looking at a whole lot of much bigger questions?
If so, do we yet have any idea of what said questions will be?

What I'm faffing around with is:
What ethnic group or groups might a pre-Clovis people have belonged to?
How does this affect the traditional Bering Straits model, which certainly seems to be supported by the distribution of indigenous language groups in the Americas? Or does it affect the model beyond the claim of who was first?
How might a pre-Clovis people have influenced the development of those who came later, if at all?
Are we looking at dates wherein evidence is going to be pretty thin on the ground irrespective of how heavily populated pre-Clovis America may have been?

I suspect it might be too early to provide useful answers to any of those questions, but I thought I'd give it a shot, and I'd certainly appreciate any comment. I'm just trying to work out what the bigger picture might be, or even if there is one.

I feel like I've just strolled up to Stephen Hawking and asked "so, dude - like atoms must be real small huh?"

Be gentle with me.

[Minimalist]

I feel like I've just strolled up to Stephen Hawking and asked "so, dude - like atoms must be real small huh?"

What ethnic group or groups might a pre-Clovis people have belonged to?
How does this affect the traditional Bering Straits model, which certainly seems to be supported by the distribution of indigenous language groups in the Americas? Or does it affect the model beyond the claim of who was first?
How might a pre-Clovis people have influenced the development of those who came later, if at all?
Are we looking at dates wherein evidence is going to be pretty thin on the ground irrespective of how heavily populated pre-Clovis America may have been?

The first one is a very complex question. There has been speculation about HNS and even Homo Erectus having reached the Americas. Both were around a hell of a lot longer than HSS. If you go back 20,000 years you knock out the Bering Straits model (as the sole method...certainly some groups could have reached here by the land bridge) but the people should still have been HSS. If you go back to the 80,000-200,000 year period, the question gets a little tougher. Neanderthals were in their heyday and HSS was the new kid on the block.

The insistence that migration was via Beringia (only) has taken a lot of hits lately. I suspect the reason that it still shows up in the text books is that until there is a definitive theory to supplant it, it will remain on the books although one would hope that later editions will begin to have notes that call into question some of the Bering Strait assumptions.

#3 is a real good question especially since we can't even seem to decide if Neanderthal influenced HSS.

"Evidence" in archaeology is always thin....that's the problem with it. However, with that in mind you cannot disregard a piece of evidence because it is unique. Archaeology does not lend itself to 'repeatable experimentation': Every find is unique and needs to be evaluated in that manner.

[stan]

War Arow, you and your "faffing" questions...

but they are all good and mostly not yet answerable.
All the "PreClovis" evidence seems to me to point to various
groups landing on American shores (or hiking in) at various times.

Right now there is not a "unified theory" of all this. The evidence is
scattered all up and down the continent(s). There are too many blanks
to be filled in. One of the blanks has to with the method of travel of these prehistoric folk.

Even though the preclovis artifacts may be acknowledged by many scientists, there don't seem to be any plausible means for their makers to have gotten here (or here and there). Walking all the way from Alaska to Chile seems dubious (to me). And no one has really demonstrated conclusively how anyone could have sailed over from
Europe or Asia before the invention of boats! (I'm simplifying here.)

One of the things missing from the evidence is the ancient coastlines, which lie under up to 300 feet of water. Early inhabitants may have travelled along the coasts, eating seafood, and perhaps had canoes
for speeding along the strand...So underwater archeology is sort of cutting edge right now...not much has been done along the american coasts.

Hope this helps!
Welcome aboard
Stan

[marduk]

Early inhabitants may have travelled along the coasts, eating seafood, and perhaps had canoes

personally i find that idea impossible
i hate seafood

[War Arrow]

Wow! Thanks you lot. I fell considerably better informed.

A couple of rambling points have struck me. The evidence thing, and its general scarsity within the geological record really should have ocurred to me before. A good (although possibly contentious) example from palaeontolgy is Robert Bakker's case for warm-blooded dinosaurs based on (amongst many other things) the predator to prey ratio in the fossil record. To cut a long story short, the notion of warm-blooded Tyrannosaurs seems to be supported by how rare their remains are (X proportion of prey animals can support a far larger number of cold-blooded predators than warm-blooded predators) to which detractors reply that absence of evidence does not, in itself constitute evidence. True enough, but with all the other points made by Bakker, his argument does appear to be on pretty solid ground. In other words, absence of evidence does not necessarily constitute evidence of absence. If you see what I mean. What I'm saying is, yes, I see your point - just in case mine got lost in all them there long words 'n' stuff.

Oh. My poor head!

The boat-canoe-shore thing. I don't know. I just don't know. I've always found myself somewhat sceptical on the subject of ancient sea-travel. Firstly, are people in ancient civilisations that likely to look at the horizon and wonder what's out there beyond what might as well be the edge of the universe? Okay, so I'm sure they would wonder, but going out there for a quick shufty seems brave to the point of idiocy. That said, I may be predjudiced given the reasons usually cited for ancient sea travel (the Maya got it all from King Tut blah blah blah blah Mars probe blah blah blah neolithic sandwich maker etc etc).

However... Thor Heyerdahl showed it could be done if need be (and being as the man was obviously as hard as nails I'll forgive his loopy theories) although not necessarily that it was done. Furthermore, there's a case for Peruvian cultures influencing both the Mixtecs and Tarascans in southern Mexico, the most likely means of contact being by sea, up along the coast. The big problem is that (so far as I know) there isn't a single scrap of evidence for an ancient Peru-Mexico ferry link - except metalworking and architectural traits in these parts of Mexico show a degree of apparent Peruvian influence way above what seems permissable by coincidence, and furthermore, Purepecha (as spoken by the Tarascans) has more in common with South American languages than with any others in their immediate geographical vicinity. So in conclusion - who knows?

Anyway, what's wrong with sea-food? Marian recently introduced me to sushi and I have to say I was completely sold on it.

[Essan]

Modern humans were in Australia perhaps as much as 60,000 years ago. Definitely by 40,000 years ago. They had to use boats to get there.

This is therefore no reason at all why some humans couldn't have continued around the Pacific rim and reached N America via Beringia and either an inland or coastal route by 40,000 years ago. And if they were following the coastline then most evidence of their presence would now be under water.

Doesn't mean they did. But they certainly could have.

[marduk]

And if they were following the coastline then most evidence of their presence would now be under water.

you've been on that Hancock forum again haven't you

[Starflower]

Oh be nice, Marduk, and go eat some Sushi.

War Arrow, I posted a link to a PDF file on the Time Magazine thread a while ago. It contains an article(36 pages) by Professor Jon Erlandson about the peopling of the Americas. It is a very good read, in my opinion. If the link doesn't work anymore please pm me and I will repost it. Yahoo has a habit of moving things around for no apparent reason.

[Minimalist]

Sushi = bait.

[Starflower]

Sushi = bait.

I agree with that analogy but would take it one step further, whatever you catch with your sushi bait is just bigger bait.

[marduk]

well it is generally only the pseudoscientific sites that claim that a migrating people would leave any evidence they were there which is then covered up by sea water
fact of the matter is most of the worlds inhabitants were living inland at the end of the ice age
so the chances of you finding what
a 10,000 year old campfire left on the beach at low tide must be pretty astronomical
Essan knows this
I know him quite well and this kind of statement

And if they were following the coastline then most evidence of their presence would now be under water.

isn't even in his belief system
this is more like Essan
http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/rea ... 1&t=215259

you've been on that Hancock forum again haven't you

seems like i was right

[Cognito]

Sushi = bait. I agree with that analogy but would take it one step further, whatever you catch with your sushi bait is just bigger bait.

If sushi=bait and you could catch something bigger with bigger bait, then what could we catch by trolling Marduk on our canoe's aft? I'm thinking sperm whale here and lots of food for the winter.

[marduk]

then what could we catch by trolling Marduk on our canoe's aft?

head trauma most likely

[stan]

War Arrow wrote:

The boat-canoe-shore thing. I don't know. I just don't know.

BTW, WA, what's a faffing shufty?

[Charlie Hatchett]

I feel like I've just strolled up to Stephen Hawking and asked "so, dude - like atoms must be real small huh?

LMAO...I second Min's laughter. Nice, War...very nice!!